Search

Background: Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is common in patients with advanced gynecologic and gastrointestinal cancers. Frequently, patients with PC undergo palliative surgery or procedures to manage disease-related complications and side effects. However, there are limited data regarding patients' and family caregivers' decision-making processes about these procedures. Thus, we sought to describe the decision-making experiences of patients with PC who elect to pursue palliative surgical procedures and their family caregivers., Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of qualitative data collected during a pilot randomized controlled trial of BOLSTER, a nurse-led telehealth intervention for patients with PC and their caregivers after an acute hospitalization and palliative procedure. Participants in both study arms described their experiences in semi-structured interviews. We re-analyzed coded qualitative data with a focus on understanding decision-making experiences surrounding palliative surgery and procedures using conventional content analysis., Results: Interviews from 32 participants, 23 patients and 9 caregivers, were analyzed. Participants reported their decision-making was complicated by illness uncertainty and a desire for clear, effective communication with surgical and medical oncology teams. Participants requested more information about the impact of palliative procedures on their daily life. Several also noted that, without improved understanding, a misalignment between patient and family caregiver goals and palliative procedures may inadvertently increase suffering., Conclusion: Discussions related to patients' goals and preferences can improve the quality of treatment decision-making in patients with PC and their caregivers. Future research should test interventions to improve advanced cancer patients' illness understanding and decision-making surrounding palliative surgery and procedures., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Patients with advanced gynecologic (GYN) and gastrointestinal (GI) cancers frequently develop peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC), which limits prognosis and diminishes health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Palliative procedures may improve PC symptoms, yet patients and caregivers report feeling unprepared to manage ostomies, catheters, and other complex needs. Our objectives were to (1) assess the feasibility of an efficacy trial of a nurse-led telehealth intervention (BOLSTER) for patients with PC and their caregivers; and (2) assess BOLSTER's acceptability, potential to improve patients' HRQoL and self-efficacy, and potential impact on advance care planning (ACP)., Methods: Pilot feasibility RCT. Recently hospitalized adults with advanced GYN and GI cancers, PC, and a new complex care need and their caregivers were randomized 1:1 to BOLSTER or enhanced discharge planning (EDP). We defined feasibility as a ≥ 50% approach-to-consent ratio and acceptability as ≥70% satisfaction with BOLSTER. We assessed patients' HRQoL and self-efficacy at baseline and six weeks, then compared the proportion experiencing meaningful improvements by arm. ACP documentation was identified using natural language processing., Results: We consented 77% of approached patients. In the BOLSTER arm, 91.0% of patients and 100.0% of caregivers were satisfied. Compared to EDP, more patients receiving BOLSTER experienced improvements in HRQoL (68.4% vs. 40.0%) and self-efficacy for managing symptoms (78.9% vs. 35.0%) and treatment (52.9% vs. 42.9%). The BOLSTER arm had more ACP documentation., Conclusions: BOLSTER is a feasible and acceptable intervention with the potential to improve patients' HRQoL and promote ACP. An efficacy trial comparing BOLSTER to usual care is underway., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03367247; PI: Wright., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Combination cediranib/olaparib has reported activity in relapsed ovarian cancer. This phase 2 trial investigated the activity of cediranib/olaparib in relapsed ovarian cancer and its association with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)., Methods: Seventy patients were enrolled to cohorts of either platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer and received olaparib tablets 200 mg twice daily and cediranib tablets 30 mg once daily under a continuous dosing schedule. HRD testing was performed on pre-treatment, on-treatment and archival biopsies by sequencing key homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes and by genomic LOH analysis. The primary objective for the platinum-sensitive cohort was the association of HRD, defined as presence of HRR gene mutation, with progression-free survival (PFS). The primary objective for the platinum-resistant cohort was objective response rate (ORR), with a key secondary endpoint evaluating the association of HRD status with activity., Results: In platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (N = 35), ORR was 77.1% (95% CI 59.9-89.6%) and median PFS was 16.4 months (95% CI 13.2-18.6). Median PFS in platinum-sensitive HRR-HRD cancers (N = 22) was 16.8 months (95% CI 11.3-18.6), and 16.4 months (95% CI 9.4-NA) in HRR-HR proficient cancers (N = 13; p = 0.57). In platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (N = 35), ORR was 22.9% (95% CI 10.4-40.1%) with median PFS 6.8 months (95% CI 4.2-9.1). Median PFS in platinum-resistant HRR-HRD cancers (N = 7) was 10.5 months (95% CI 3.6-NA) and 5.6 months (95% CI 3.6-7.6) in HRR-HR proficient cancers (N = 18; p = 0.23)., Conclusions: Cediranib/olaparib had clinical activity in both platinum-sensitive and -resistant ovarian cancer. Presence of HRR gene mutations was not associated with cediranib/olaparib activity in either setting., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remains one of the most lethal gynecological cancers. Cytokine-induced memory-like (CIML) natural killer (NK) cells have shown promising results in preclinical and early-phase clinical trials. In the current study, CIML NK cells demonstrated superior antitumor responses against a panel of EOC cell lines, increased expression of activation receptors, and up-regulation of genes involved in cell cycle/proliferation and down-regulation of inhibitory/suppressive genes. CIML NK cells transduced with a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) targeting the membrane-proximal domain of mesothelin (MSLN) further improved the antitumor responses against MSLN-expressing EOC cells and patient-derived xenograft tumor cells. CAR arming of the CIML NK cells subtanstially reduced their dysfunction in patient-derived ascites fluid with transcriptomic changes related to altered metabolism and tonic signaling as potential mechanisms. Lastly, the adoptive transfer of MSLN-CAR CIML NK cells demonstrated remarkable inhibition of tumor growth and prevented metastatic spread in xenograft mice, supporting their potential as an effective therapeutic strategy in EOC.

Objective: Evaluate the antitumor activity and safety profile of the triplet combination of mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV), carboplatin, and bevacizumab in recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer., Methods: Participants with recurrent, platinum-sensitive epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (1-2 prior lines of therapy) received MIRV (6 mg/kg adjusted ideal body weight), carboplatin (AUC5), and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) once every 3 weeks. Carboplatin could be discontinued after 6 cycles per investigator discretion; continuation of MIRV+bevacizumab as maintenance therapy was permitted. Eligibility included folate receptor alpha (FRα) expression by immunohistochemistry (≥50% of cells with ≥2+ intensity; PS2+ scoring); prior bevacizumab was allowed. Tumor response, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were assessed., Results: Forty-one participants received triplet therapy, with a median of 6, 12, and 13 cycles of carboplatin, MIRV, and bevacizumab, respectively. The confirmed objective response rate was 83% (9 complete and 25 partial responses). The median DOR was 10.9 months; median PFS was 13.5 months. AEs (any grade) occurred as expected, based on each agent's safety profile; most common were diarrhea (83%), nausea (76%), fatigue (73%), thrombocytopenia (71%), and blurred vision (68%). Most cases were mild to moderate (grade ≤2), except for thrombocytopenia, for which most drug-related discontinuations occurred, and neutropenia., Conclusions: This triplet regimen (MIRV+carboplatin+bevacizumab) was highly active, with a tolerable AE profile in participants with recurrent, platinum-sensitive, FRα-expressing ovarian cancer. Thrombocytopenia was the primary cause of dose modifications. These outcomes compare favorably to historical data reported for platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab regimens in similar patient populations., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest DMO reports institutional research funding from AbbVie, Inc., Advaxis Inc., Agenus Inc., Alkermes plc, Aravive, Inc., Arcus Biosciences, Inc., AstraZeneca plc, BeiGene USA, Inc., Boston Biomedical, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Clovis Oncology, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eisai Co. Ltd., EMD Serono, Inc., Exelixis, Inc., Genentech Inc., Genmab A/S, GlaxoSmithKline plc., GOG Foundation, Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Incyte Corporation, IOVANCE Biotherapeutics, Inc., Karyopharm Therapeutics, Leap Therapeutics, Inc., Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Mersana Therapeutics, Inc., National Cancer Institute, Novartis AG, NovoCure GmbH, NRG Oncology, OncoC4, Inc., OncoQuest Inc., Pfizer Inc., Precision Therapeutics, Inc., Prelude Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, Rubius Therapeutics, SeaGen, Inc., Sutro Biopharma, Inc., SWOG, TESARO Inc., Verastem, Inc.; personal consulting and/or advisory board fees from AbbVie, Inc., AdaptImmune Therapeutics PLC, Agenus, Inc., Arquer Diagnostics Ltd., Arcus Biosciences, Inc., AstraZeneca plc, Atossa Therapeutics, Inc., Boston Biomedical, Inc., Cardiff Oncology, Inc., Celcuity, Inc., Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., Duality Biologics Co. Ltd., Eisai Co. Ltd., Elevar Therapeutics, Genentech Inc., Genelux Corporation, GlaxoSmithKline plc, GOG Foundation, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., ImmunoGen, Inc., Imvax, Inc., InterVenn Biosciences, INXMED, IOVANCE Biotherapeutics Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Laekna Therapeutics, Leap Therapeutics, Inc., Luzsana Biotechnology, Merck & Co, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Mersana Therapeutics, Inc., Myriad, Novartis, NovoCure GmbH, OncoC4, Inc., Onconova Therapeutics, Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Replimmune Group, Inc., R Pharm, SeaGen Inc., Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., Tarveda Therapeutics, Inc., Toray Medical Co. Ltd., Trillium Therapeutics, Umoja Biopharma, VBL Therapeutics, Ltd., Verastem Oncology, VBL Therapeutics, Vincerx Pharma, Inc., Xencor Inc., Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; data safety monitoring board participation for Watermark; and a leadership role on the GOG Foundation Board. DLR reports institutional research funding for multiple trials from ImmunoGen, Inc.; institutional funding for research from Roche/Genentech, Inc., Mersana Therapeutics, Inc., Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Aravive, Inc., CanariaBio, Celsion Corporation, Eli Lilly and Company, Fujifilm, Shattuck Labs, Inc., Plexxikon, ProfoundBio, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Arch Oncology, Inc., Harpoon Therapeutics, Clovis Oncology, Hookipa Pharma Inc., Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., and grants received from TESARO Inc./GlaxoSmithKline plc; individual consulting fees from Mersana, AstraZeneca plc, ProfoundBio, Eisai Co., Ltd., GlaxoSmithKline PLC., ImmunoGen, Inc.; personal fees from Great Debates and Updates PeerView; participation on a steering committee from Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., and leadership role as VP Board of Directors for National Ovarian Cancer Committee, and Board of Directors for Society of Gynecologic Oncology. KNM reports institution research funding from PTC Therapeutics, Eli Lilly and Company, Clovis Oncology, Genentech, Inc./Roche, GlaxoSmithKline plc/TESARO Inc., and Verastem Oncology; consulting fees for advisory board participation from AstraZeneca plc, Aravive, Inc., Aadi Global, Inc., Blueprint Medicines Corporation, Clovis Oncology, Caris Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline plc/TESARO Inc., Genentech Inc./Roche, Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd., ImmunoGen, Inc., Inxmed, I-Mab, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Eli Lilly and Company, Mereo, Mersana, Merck & Co., Inc., Myriad Genetics, Inc., Novartis, Novocure GmbH, Ltd., Panavance Therapeutics, OncXerna Therapeutics, Inc., Onconova Therapeutics, Inc., Tarveda Therapeutics, Inc., VBL Therapeutics, Verastem Oncology; individual payment from AstraZeneca plc, GlaxoSmithKline plc, ImmunoGen, Inc., PRIME, RTP, Medscape, Inc., Great Debates and Updates; support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca; and a leadership role as Associate Director for GOG-P. IV reports contracted research via KU Leuven from Oncoinvent AS, corporate-sponsored research from Amgen Inc. and Genentech Inc./Roche; personal fees from Agenus Inc., Akeso Inc., AstraZeneca plc, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eisai Co., Ltd., Elevar Therapeutics, Inc., Exelixis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Genmab A/S, GlaxoSmithKline plc, ImmunoGen, Inc., Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc., Mersana Therapeutics, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novocure GmbH, Novartis, OncXerna Therapeutics, Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi S.A., Seagen Inc., Sotio Biotech BV, Verastem Oncology, and Zentalis Pharmaceuticals; and travel expenses from Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc., Genmab A/S, and Novocure GmbH. LG reports institutional funding from AstraZeneca plc, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc., TESARO Inc., IMV Inc., Alkermes plc, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, ImmunoGen, Inc., Esperas Pharma Inc., Novocure GmbH, K-Group Beta, Inc., OncoQuest Pharmaceuticals; consulting fees from Merck & Co. Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc; payment from Merck & Co. Inc.; and advisory board participation from AstraZeneca plc, Alkermes plc, Merck & Co. Inc., Eisai Co., Ltd., GS, and Novocure GmbH. LPM reports institutional funding for clinical trial activities from Agenusbio, Inc., AstraZeneca plc, Sutro Biopharma, Inc., ImmunoGen, Inc., Mersana Therapeutics, and Xencor, Inc., and advisory board participation for Elucida Oncology, Inc., Sutro Biopharma, Inc., and ImmunoGen, Inc. GMMS reports advisory board participation for MIRASOL study from ImmunoGen, Inc. CMC reports consulting fees from Qiagen, Inc., Teladoc Health, Inc., and InfiniteMD. DP reports institutional research funding from Exactis Innovation and consulting fees and advisory board participation from AstraZeneca plc, Merck & Co. Inc., and GlaxoSmithKline plc. UAM reports consulting fees from Merck & Co. Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, AstraZeneca plc, and Pfizer Inc.; personal fees from Med Learning Group; travel fees from ImmunoGen, Inc.; advisory board participation with Allarity Therapeutics, Inc., NextCure, Inc., Trillium, Inc., Agenus, Inc., ProfoundBio, Novartis, C.H. Boehringer Sohn AG & Co. KG, Rivkin Center, Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance, Clearity Foundation, MorphoSys AG, CureLab Oncology Inc., and Eisai Co., Ltd.; and data safety monitoring board participation with Alkermes plc and Symphogen A/S. JS reports employment by ImmunoGen, Inc. YW reports employment by ImmunoGen, Inc. MM reports employment by ImmunoGen, Inc., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: MEK inhibitors (MEKi) lack monotherapy efficacy in most RAS-mutant cancers. BCL-xL is an anti-apoptotic protein identified by a synthetic lethal shRNA screen as a key suppressor of apoptotic response to MEKi., Patients and Methods: We conducted a dose escalation study (NCT02079740) of the BCL-xL inhibitor navitoclax and MEKi trametinib in patients with RAS-mutant tumors with expansion cohorts for: pancreatic, gynecologic (GYN), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and other cancers harboring KRAS/NRAS mutations. Paired pretreatment and day 15 tumor biopsies and serial cell-free (cf)DNA were analyzed., Results: A total of 91 patients initiated treatment, with 38 in dose escalation. Fifty-eight percent had ≥3 prior therapies. A total of 15 patients (17%) had colorectal cancer, 19 (11%) pancreatic, 15 (17%) NSCLC, and 32 (35%) GYN cancers. The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was established as trametinib 2 mg daily days 1 to 14 and navitoclax 250 mg daily days 1 to 28 of each cycle. Most common adverse events included diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, increased AST/ALT, and acneiform rash. At RP2D, 8 of 49 (16%) evaluable patients achieved partial response (PR). Disease-specific differences in efficacy were noted. In patients with GYN at the RP2D, 7 of 21 (33%) achieved a PR and median duration of response 8.2 months. No PRs occurred in patients with colorectal cancer, NSCLC, or pancreatic cancer. MAPK pathway inhibition was observed in on-treatment tumor biopsies. Reductions in KRAS/NRAS mutation levels in cfDNA correlated with clinical benefit., Conclusions: Navitoclax in combination with trametinib was tolerable. Durable clinical responses were observed in patients with RAS-mutant GYN cancers, warranting further evaluation in this population., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) is recommended by treatment guidelines and widely used to diagnose ovarian cancer recurrence. The value of CA-125 as a surrogate for disease progression (PD) and its concordance with radiologic progression are unclear, particularly for women with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) who have responded to chemotherapy and treated with maintenance poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi)., Methods: In this pooled analysis of four randomized trials of maintenance PARPi or placebo (Study 19, SOLO2, ARIEL3, and NOVA), we extracted data on CA-125 PD as defined by Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup criteria and RECIST v1.1. We evaluated the concordance between CA-125 and RECIST PD and reported on the negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV)., Results: Of 1,262 participants (n = 818 PARPi, n = 444 placebo), 403 (32%) had CA-125 PD, and of these, 366 had concordant RECIST PD (PPV, 91% [95% CI, 88 to 93]). However, of 859 (68%) without CA-125 PD, 382 also did not have RECIST PD (NPV, 44% [95% CI, 41 to 48]). Within the treatment arms, PPV remained high (PARPi, 91% [95% CI, 86 to 94]; placebo, 91% [95% CI, 86 to 95]) but NPV was lower on placebo (PARPi, 53% [95% CI, 49 to 57]; placebo, 25% [95% CI, 20 to 31]). Of 477 with RECIST-only PD, most (95%) had a normal CA-125 at the start of maintenance therapy and the majority (n = 304, 64%) had CA-125 that remained within normal range. Solid organ recurrence without peritoneal disease was more common in those with RECIST-only PD than in those with CA-125 and RECIST PD (36% v 24%; P < .001)., Conclusion: In patients with PSROC treated with maintenance PARPi, almost half with RECIST PD did not have CA-125 PD, challenging current guidelines. Periodic computed tomography imaging should be considered as part of surveillance, particularly in those with a normal CA-125 at the start of maintenance therapy and on treatment.

Purpose: The multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 NCI-9944 study (NCT02595892) demonstrated that addition of ATR inhibitor (ATRi) berzosertib to gemcitabine increased progression-free survival (PFS) compared to gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio [HR]=0.57, one-sided log-rank P = .044, which met the one-sided significance level of 0.1 used for sample size calculation)., Methods: We report here the final overall survival (OS) analysis and biomarker correlations (ATM expression by immunohistochemistry, mutational signature 3 and a genomic biomarker of replication stress) along with post-hoc exploratory analyses to adjust for crossover from gemcitabine to gemcitabine/berzosertib., Results: At the data cutoff of January 27, 2023 (>30 months of additional follow-up from the primary analysis), median OS was 59.4 weeks with gemcitabine/berzosertib versus 43.0 weeks with gemcitabine alone (HR 0.79, 90% CI 0.52 to 1.2, one-sided log-rank P = .18). An OS benefit with addition of berzosertib to gemcitabine was suggested in patients stratified into the platinum-free interval ≤3 months (N = 26) subgroup (HR, 0.48, 90% CI 0.22 to 1.01, one-sided log-rank P =.04) and in patients with ATM-negative/low (N = 24) tumors (HR, 0.50, 90% CI 0.23 to 1.08, one-sided log-rank P = .06)., Conclusion: The results of this follow-up analysis continue to support the promise of combined gemcitabine/ATRi therapy in platinum resistant ovarian cancer, an active area of investigation with several ongoing clinical trials.

Background: Patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) frequently undergo palliative procedures, yet these patients and their caregivers report being unprepared to manage ostomies, drains, and other complex care needs at home. The purpose of this study was to characterize the unique needs of these patients and their caregivers during care transitions., Methods: Patients completed measures of health status and advance care planning, caregivers completed measures of preparedness and burden, and all participants completed measures of depression and anxiety. Participants detailed their experiences in individual, semi-structured interviews. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis., Results: Sixty-one patients and 39 caregivers completed baseline measures. Twenty-four (39.3%) patients acknowledged their terminal illness and seven (11.5%) had discussed end-of-life care preferences with clinicians. Most (26/39, 66.7%) caregivers provided daily care. Among caregivers who managed symptoms, few were taught how to do so (6/20, 30%). Seven patients (11.5%) and seven caregivers (17.9%) met case criteria for anxiety, while 15 patients (24.6%) and two caregivers (5.1%) met case criteria for depression. Interview participants described a diagnosis of PC as a turning point for which there is no road map and identified the need for health systems change to minimize suffering., Conclusion: Patients with PC and their caregivers are highly burdened by symptoms and care needs. Patients' prognostic understanding and advance care planning are suboptimal. Interventions that train patients with PC and their caregivers to perform clinical care tasks, facilitate serious illness conversations, and provide psychosocial support are needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evidence is limited on inflammation-related dietary patterns and mortality in ovarian cancer survivors., Methods: We examined the associations between pre- and post-diagnosis dietary patterns, including change in diet from before to after diagnosis, and mortality among 1003 ovarian cancer survivors in two prospective cohort studies. Dietary pattern scores for empirical dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) and Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI) were calculated based on food frequency questionnaires. We used Cox proportional hazard models to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for ovarian cancer-specific and all-cause mortality., Results: Pre-diagnosis EDIP score and AHEI were not associated with mortality. Among non-high grade serous cases, a higher post-diagnosis EDIP score was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR 5th vs 1st quintile  = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.04-3.67, p-trend = 0.06). Compared to survivors consuming a low EDIP score diet before and after diagnosis, high post-diagnosis EDIP was associated with increased risk of ovarian cancer specific mortality (pre-to-post diagnosis low/high, HR = 1.38, 95% CI = 0.99-1.92; high/high HR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.09-2.30) and all-cause mortality (low/high HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.06-1.95; high/high HR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.10-2.19)., Conclusion: Consuming a more inflammatory dietary pattern post-diagnosis was associated with increased mortality in ovarian cancer survivors, suggesting limiting the inflammatory potential of diet post-diagnosis could lead to enhanced survivorship., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Improved biomarkers are needed for early cancer detection, risk stratification, treatment selection, and monitoring treatment response. Although proteins can be useful blood-based biomarkers, many have limited sensitivity or specificity for these applications. Long INterspersed Element-1 (LINE-1) open reading frame 1 protein (ORF1p) is a transposable element protein overexpressed in carcinomas and high-risk precursors during carcinogenesis with negligible expression in normal tissues, suggesting ORF1p could be a highly specific cancer biomarker. To explore ORF1p as a blood-based biomarker, we engineered ultrasensitive digital immunoassays that detect mid-attomolar (10-17 mol/L) ORF1p concentrations in plasma across multiple cancers with high specificity. Plasma ORF1p shows promise for early detection of ovarian cancer, improves diagnostic performance in a multianalyte panel, provides early therapeutic response monitoring in gastroesophageal cancers, and is prognostic for overall survival in gastroesophageal and colorectal cancers. Together, these observations nominate ORF1p as a multicancer biomarker with potential utility for disease detection and monitoring., Significance: The LINE-1 ORF1p transposon protein is pervasively expressed in many cancers and is a highly specific biomarker of multiple common, lethal carcinomas and their high-risk precursors in tissue and blood. Ultrasensitive ORF1p assays from as little as 25 μL plasma are novel, rapid, cost-effective tools in cancer detection and monitoring. See related commentary by Doucet and Cristofari, p. 2502. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 2489., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Topotecan, an approved treatment for refractory or recurrent ovarian cancer, has clinical limitations such as rapid clearance and hematologic toxicity. To overcome these limitations and maximize clinical benefit, we designed FF-10850, a dihydrosphingomyelin-based liposomal topotecan. FF-10850 demonstrated superior antitumor activity to topotecan in ovarian cancer cell line-based xenograft models, as well as in a clinically relevant DF181 platinum-refractory ovarian cancer patient-derived xenograft model. The safety profile was also improved with mitigation of hematologic toxicity. The improved antitumor activity and safety profile are achieved via its preferential accumulation and payload release triggered in the tumor microenvironment. Our data indicate that tumor-associated macrophages internalize FF-10850, resulting in complete payload release. The release mechanism also appears to be mediated by high ammonia concentration resulting from glutaminolysis, which is activated by tumor metabolic reprogramming. In ammonia-rich conditions, FF-10850 released payload more rapidly and to a greater extent than liposomal doxorubicin, a currently approved treatment for ovarian cancer. FF-10850 significantly enhanced antitumor activity in combination with carboplatin or PARP inhibitor without detrimental effects on body weight in murine xenograft models, and demonstrated synergistic antitumor activity combined with anti-PD-1 antibody with the development of tumor antigen-specific immunity. These results support phase I investigation of FF-10850 for the treatment of solid tumors including ovarian cancer (NCT04047251), and further evaluation in combination settings., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Step counts are increasingly used in public health and clinical research to assess well-being, lifestyle, and health status. However, estimating step counts using commercial activity trackers has several limitations, including a lack of reproducibility, generalizability, and scalability. Smartphones are a potentially promising alternative, but their step-counting algorithms require robust validation that accounts for temporal sensor body location, individual gait characteristics, and heterogeneous health states., Objective: Our goal was to evaluate an open-source, step-counting method for smartphones under various measurement conditions against step counts estimated from data collected simultaneously from different body locations ("cross-body" validation), manually ascertained ground truth ("visually assessed" validation), and step counts from a commercial activity tracker (Fitbit Charge 2) in patients with advanced cancer ("commercial wearable" validation)., Methods: We used 8 independent data sets collected in controlled, semicontrolled, and free-living environments with different devices (primarily Android smartphones and wearable accelerometers) carried at typical body locations. A total of 5 data sets (n=103) were used for cross-body validation, 2 data sets (n=107) for visually assessed validation, and 1 data set (n=45) was used for commercial wearable validation. In each scenario, step counts were estimated using a previously published step-counting method for smartphones that uses raw subsecond-level accelerometer data. We calculated the mean bias and limits of agreement (LoA) between step count estimates and validation criteria using Bland-Altman analysis., Results: In the cross-body validation data sets, participants performed 751.7 (SD 581.2) steps, and the mean bias was -7.2 (LoA -47.6, 33.3) steps, or -0.5%. In the visually assessed validation data sets, the ground truth step count was 367.4 (SD 359.4) steps, while the mean bias was -0.4 (LoA -75.2, 74.3) steps, or 0.1%. In the commercial wearable validation data set, Fitbit devices indicated mean step counts of 1931.2 (SD 2338.4), while the calculated bias was equal to -67.1 (LoA -603.8, 469.7) steps, or a difference of 3.4%., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that our open-source, step-counting method for smartphone data provides reliable step counts across sensor locations, measurement scenarios, and populations, including healthy adults and patients with cancer., (©Marcin Straczkiewicz, Nancy L Keating, Embree Thompson, Ursula A Matulonis, Susana M Campos, Alexi A Wright, Jukka-Pekka Onnela. Originally published in JMIR Cancer (https://cancer.jmir.org), 15.11.2023.)

Objective: This prespecified exploratory analysis evaluated the association of gene expression signatures, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and multiplex immunohistochemistry (mIHC) tumor microenvironment-associated cell phenotypes with clinical outcomes of pembrolizumab in advanced recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) from the phase II KEYNOTE-100 study., Methods: Pembrolizumab-treated patients with evaluable RNA-sequencing (n = 317), whole exome sequencing (n = 293), or select mIHC (n = 125) data were evaluated. The association between outcomes (objective response rate [ORR], progression-free survival [PFS], and overall survival [OS]) and gene expression signatures (T-cell-inflamed gene expression profile [Tcell inf GEP] and 10 non-Tcell inf GEP signatures), TMB, and prespecified mIHC cell phenotype densities as continuous variables was evaluated using logistic (ORR) and Cox proportional hazards regression (PFS; OS). One-sided p-values were calculated at prespecified α = 0.05 for Tcell inf GEP, TMB, and mIHC cell phenotypes and at α = 0.10 for non-Tcell inf GEP signatures; all but Tcell inf GEP and TMB were adjusted for multiplicity., Results: No evidence of associations between ORR and key axes of gene expression was observed. Negative associations were observed between outcomes and Tcell inf GEP-adjusted glycolysis (PFS, adjusted-p = 0.019; OS, adjusted-p = 0.085) and hypoxia (PFS, adjusted-p = 0.064) signatures. TMB as a continuous variable was not associated with outcomes (p > 0.05). Positive associations were observed between densities of myeloid cell phenotypes CD11c + and CD11c + /MHCII - /CD163 - /CD68 - in the tumor compartment and ORR (adjusted-p = 0.025 and 0.013, respectively)., Conclusions: This exploratory analysis in advanced ROC did not find evidence for associations between gene expression signatures and outcomes of pembrolizumab. mIHC analysis suggests CD11c + and CD11c + /MHCII - /CD163 - /CD68 - phenotypes representing myeloid cell populations may be associated with improved outcomes with pembrolizumab in advanced ROC., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02674061., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest J.A. Ledermann reports receiving research grants from AstraZeneca and Merck/MSD; lecture fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Neopharm, GSK and MSD/Merck; and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Artios Pharma, Clovis Oncology, ImmunoGen, Mersana, Bristol Myers Squibb, Nuvation, Ellipses Pharma, VBL Therapeutics, Eisai, Regeneron, and Immagene, outside of the submitted work. R. Shapira-Frommer reports receiving support with medical writing for the submitted work from MSD; a research grant from MSD; consulting fees paid to her from MSD and Clovis Oncology; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events paid to her from MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Medison Pharma, Neopharm, and Novartis; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MSD (received personal fee), Novartis (received personal fee), and AstraZeneca (unpaid); and a role in the ENGOT early phase study group (unpaid), outside of the submitted work. A.D. Santin reports grants or contracts paid to his institution from Genentech, Immunomedics, Gilead, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Tesaro; consulting fees paid to him from Merck, Eisai, and R-Pharm US; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Merck, Eisai, and R-PHARM US, outside of the submitted work. A.S. Lisyanskaya reports no disclosures. S. Pignata reports receiving payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, GSK, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Clovis Oncology, outside of the submitted work. I. Vergote reports contracted research via KU Leuven to his institution from Oncoinvent AS; corporate-sponsored research to his institution from Amgen and Roche; consulting fees paid to him from Agenus, Akesobio, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, Exelixis, Roche, Genmab, GSK, ImmunoGen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Mersana, MSD, Novocure, Novartis, Oncoinvent, OncXerna, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seagen, Sotio, Verastem Oncology, and Zentalis; and travel support to himself from Karyopharm Therapeutics, Genmab, and Novocure, outside of the submitted work. F. Raspagliesi reports receiving grants or contracts from GSK, MSD, and AstraZeneca; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from GSK, MSD, and AstraZeneca; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from GSK, outside of the submitted work. G.S. Sonke reports payments to his institution for inclusion of trial subjects and medical writing support, all from MSD, for the submitted work; institutional research support from Agendia, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Seagen; and consulting fees paid to his institution from Biovica, Novartis, and Seagen, outside of the submitted work. M. Birrer reports no disclosures. D.M. Provencher reports receiving payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca and GSK and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for GSK, outside of the submitted work. J. Sehouli reports receiving consulting fees from Roche, GSK, Tesaro, Novocure, Clovis Oncology, MSD, Merck, Pfizer, and Astra Zeneca; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, GSK, Tesaro, Novocure, Clovis, MSD, Merck, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, and Eisai; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Roche, GSK, Tesaro, and AstraZeneca; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Roche, GSK, Tesaro, Novocure, Clovis Oncology, MSD, Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Eisai, and PharmaMar; and roles on/as the council of ESGO), president of NOGGO, president of PARSGO, speaker of the Ovarian Cancer Commission (AGO), and delegate to GCIG, outside of the submitted work. N. Colombo reports receiving medical writing support from MSD for the submitted work; grants or contracts paid to her from MSD, Roche, and GSK; consulting fees paid to her from MSD, Roche, GSK, and AstraZeneca; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events to her from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Clovis Oncology, and MSD; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, MSD, and GSK; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, ImmunoGen, Mersana, MSD/Merck, Nuvation Bio, OncXerna Therapeutics, Pfizer, Pieris, and Roche; and unpaid roles for ACTO Onlus and ESMO Guidelines Committee, outside of the submitted work. A. González-Martín reports receiving grants or contracts from Roche, GSK, and CCUN; consulting fees paid to him from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, HederaDx, ImmunoGen, Illumina, Mersana, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Roche, SOTIO, Sutro Biopharma, Seagen, and Takeda; consulting fees paid to him from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, HederaDx, ImmunoGen, Illumina, Mersana, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Roche, SOTIO, Sutro Biopharma, Seagen, and Takeda; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events paid to him from GSK, Clovis, AstraZeneca, MSD, Mersana, and Roche; support for attending meetings and/or travel paid to him from AstraZeneca/MSD and GSK; and unpaid roles as president of GEICO and ENGOT, outside of the submitted work. A. Oaknin reports grants or contracts paid to her institution from AbbVie Deutschland, Advaxis Inc., Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen, Aprea Therapeutics AB, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology Inc., Eisai, Roche, ImmunoGen, MSD de España S.A., Millennium Pharmaceuticals, PharmaMar SA, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Tesaro; consulting fees paid to her from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Roche, Genmab, GSK, ImmunoGen, Itheos, MSD de España, S.A., Mersana Therapeutics, Novocure, PharmaMar, prIME Oncology, Roche, Sattucklabs, Seagen, Sutro Biopharma, and Tesaro; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from ESMO, Edizioni Minerva Medica SpA, and Doctaforum Servicios S.L; support for attending meetings and/or travel paid to her from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; and payment to her for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Roche, Genmab, GSK, ImmunoGen, Itheos, MSD de España S.A., Mersana Therapeutics, Novocure, PharmaMar, prIME Oncology, Roche, Sattucklabs, Seagen, Sutro Biopharma, and Tesaro, outside of the submitted work. P. B. Ottevanger reports receiving support for manuscript writing and provision of study patients from MSD for the submitted work. V. Rudaitis reports no disclosures. J. Kobie is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, and has stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. M. Nebozhyn is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, and has stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, and reports a pending patent (WO 2020/167619) related to the application of angiogenesis and mMDSC gene expression-based biomarker of tumor response to PD-1 antagonists. M. Edmondson is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. Y. Sun is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and has stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. R. Cristescu is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and has stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; and reports a pending patent (WO 2020/167619) related to the application of Angiogenesis and mMDSC gene expression-based biomarker of tumor response to PD-1 antagonists. P. Jelinic is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. S.M. Keefe is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, and has stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. U.A. Matulonis reports consulting fees paid to her from Merck, GSK, and AstraZeneca; payment made to her from Med Learning Group for her role on the committee on endometrial cancer, which involved creation of the entire lecture and slides; payment made to her for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Research to Practice; payments made to her for participation on the advisory board for Allarity, NextCure, Trillium, Agenus, ImmunoGen, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Rivkin Foundation, Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance, Clearity Foundation, MorphoSys, and CureLab; and payments for participation on a data safety monitoring board for Alkermes and Symphogen, outside of the submitted work., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Despite therapeutic advances, outcomes for patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer remain poor. Selective glucocorticoid receptor modulation with relacorilant may restore chemosensitivity and enhance chemotherapy efficacy., Methods: This three-arm, randomized, controlled, open-label phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03776812) enrolled women with recurrent, platinum-resistant/refractory, high-grade serous or endometrioid epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer, or ovarian carcinosarcoma treated with ≤4 prior chemotherapeutic regimens. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to (1) nab-paclitaxel (80 mg/m 2 ) + intermittent relacorilant (150 mg the day before, of, and after nab-paclitaxel); (2) nab-paclitaxel (80 mg/m 2 ) + continuous relacorilant (100 mg once daily); or (3) nab-paclitaxel monotherapy (100 mg/m 2 ). Nab-paclitaxel was administered on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator assessment; objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and safety were secondary end points., Results: A total of 178 women were randomly assigned. Intermittent relacorilant + nab-paclitaxel improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; log-rank test P = .038; median follow-up, 11.1 months) and DOR (HR, 0.36; P = .006) versus nab-paclitaxel monotherapy, while ORR was similar across arms. At the preplanned OS analysis (median follow-up, 22.5 months), the OS HR was 0.67 ( P = .066) for the intermittent arm versus nab-paclitaxel monotherapy. Continuous relacorilant + nab-paclitaxel showed numerically improved median PFS but did not result in significant improvement over nab-paclitaxel monotherapy. Adverse events were comparable across study arms, with neutropenia, anemia, peripheral neuropathy, and fatigue/asthenia being the most common grade ≥3 adverse events., Conclusion: Intermittent relacorilant + nab-paclitaxel improved PFS, DOR, and OS compared with nab-paclitaxel monotherapy. On the basis of protocol-prespecified Hochberg step-up multiplicity adjustment, the primary end point did not reach statistical significance ( P < .025). A phase III evaluation of this regimen is underway (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05257408).

Objective: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) have dramatically changed treatment for advanced ovarian cancer, but nearly half of patients experience significant fatigue. We conducted a two-site pilot randomized trial to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a brief, acceptance-based telehealth intervention (REVITALIZE) designed to reduce fatigue interference in patients on PARPi., Methods: From June 2021 to April 2022, 44 participants were randomized 1:1 to REVITALIZE (6 weekly one-on-one sessions+booster) or enhanced usual care. Feasibility was defined as: ≥50% approach-to-consent among potentially eligible patients and ≥70% completion of 12-week follow-up assessment; acceptance was <20% participants reporting burden and <20% study withdrawal. Fatigue, anxiety, depression, and quality of life were assessed at baseline, 4-, 8- and 12-weeks., Results: Among 44 participants (mean age = 62.5 years, 81.8% stage III/IV disease), the study was feasible (56.4% approach-to-consent ratio, 86.3% completion of 12-week assessment) and acceptable (0% reporting burden, 11.3% study withdrawal). At 12-week follow-up, REVITALIZE significantly reduced fatigue interference (Cohen's d = 0.94, p = .008) and fatigue severity (d = 0.54, p = .049), and improved fatigue levels (d = 0.62, p = .04) relative to enhanced usual care. REVITALIZE also showed promise for improved fatigue self-efficacy, fatigue catastrophizing, anxiety, depression, and quality of life (ds = 0.60-0.86, p ≥ .05). Compared with enhanced usual care, REVITALIZE participants had fewer PARPi dose reductions (6.7% vs. 19.0%), and dose delays (6.7% vs. 23.8%)., Conclusions: Among fatigued adults with ovarian cancer on PARPi, a brief, acceptance-based telehealth intervention was feasible, acceptable, and demonstrated preliminary efficacy in improving fatigue interference, severity, and levels. REVITALIZE is a novel, scalable telehealth intervention worthy of further investigation., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Ovarian cancer is an aggressive disease that is frequently detected at advanced stages and is initially very responsive to platinum-based chemotherapy. However, the majority of patients relapse following initial surgery and chemotherapy, highlighting the urgent need to develop new therapeutic strategies. In this Review, we outline the main therapeutic principles behind the management of newly diagnosed and recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer and discuss the current landscape of targeted and immune-based approaches., (© 2023. Springer Nature America, Inc.)

Introduction: Mirvetuximab soravtansine (mirvetuximab) is an antibody drug conjugate (ADC) comprised of a humanized folate receptor alpha (FRα)-binding monoclonal antibody attached via a cleavable linker to the cytotoxic maytansinoid molecule, DM4. FRα is expressed in several epithelial cancers, including high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). Mirvetuximab received accelerated approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in November 2022 based on the results of the SORAYA trial, which tested mirvetuximab for the treatment of patients with recurrent platinum resistant HGSOC with high FRα expression and showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 32.4% and a median duration of response of 6.9 months. Mirvetuximab toxicities included low grade ocular and gastrointestinal toxicities. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) ovarian cancer 2023 guidelines adopted mirvetuximab as 2A, and mirvetuximab combined with bevacizumab as 2B, recommendations., Areas Covered: This manuscript will review the preclinical and clinical development of mirvetuximab, the toxicities associated with mirvetuximab and mitigation strategies, and future applications of mirvetuximab., Expert Opinion: Mirvetuximab represents the first biomarker-directed therapy with an indication specifically for the treatment of PROC. The efficacy and favorable safety profile support further development of mirvetuximab and mirvetuximab combinations in platinum sensitive and newly diagnosed ovarian cancer.

Niraparib is a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that has shown a significant improvement in progression-free survival irrespective of biomarker status in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. This review focuses on the adverse events associated with niraparib and their management to maintain efficacy of niraparib treatment and improve quality of life for patients. In five trials assessing efficacy of niraparib in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (PRIMA, NOVA, NORA, QUADRA, and PRIME), treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were reported in nearly all patients (≥99%) receiving niraparib; the events were grade ≥3 in 51-74% of patients. Across all lines of therapy, treatment-emergent adverse events led to dose interruptions in 62-80% of patients receiving niraparib and dose reductions in 47-71%. Hematologic events were most frequently reported, including thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neutropenia. Common non-hematologic events included gastrointestinal events, which were generally low grade (<5% were grade ≥3). Clinical strategies to manage these and other events, such as fatigue and insomnia, cognitive behavioral therapy and pharmacologic agents, are summarized. Once-daily niraparib dosing may be advantageous for some patients for many reasons, including night-time dosing which may help alleviate gastrointestinal symptoms. An individualized starting dose (determined by baseline body weight and platelet count) of niraparib demonstrated an improved safety profile while maintaining efficacy. Patients receiving the niraparib individualized starting dose had fewer grade ≥3 adverse events, dose interruptions, and dose reductions than patients receiving a fixed starting dose. The safety profile of niraparib across five pivotal studies in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer was consistent across multiple lines of treatment, including as maintenance therapy in first-line and recurrent settings and as treatment in heavily pre-treated patients. Long-term safety data from the NOVA trial confirmed that, with appropriate and early dose modifications, niraparib is well tolerated., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BJM reports consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Laekna Health Care, Merck, Mersana, Myriad, Nucana, Oncomed, Oncoquest, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech; speakers’ bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, Merck, and Roche/Genentech; and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Laekna Health Care, Merck, Mersana, Myriad, Nucana, Oncomed, Oncoquest, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech. AGM received consulting/advisory fees from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genmab, GSK, HederaDx, Immunogen, Illumina, Macrogenics, Mersana, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Roche, SOTIO, SUTRO, Seagen, and Takeda; speakers’ bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, MSD, and Roche; institutional research funding from GSK and Roche; travel support from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Roche. LB received consulting/advisory fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, and Clovis. UM received consulting/advisory fees from Merck, NextCure, Novartis, Immunogen, 2X Oncology, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Trillium, Agenus, GSK, and Boehringer Ingelheim; DSMB fees from Advaxis, Symphogen, and Alkermes; SAB for Rivkin Foundation, Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance, and Clearity Foundation. BJR received consulting/advisory fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Merck, Immunogen, and Deep6AI. XW was an investigator for the NORA trial and has no conflicts of interest to declare. KNM reports consulting fees from Aravive, AstraZeneca, Alkemeres, Addi, Blueprint Pharma, Clovis, Elevar, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, GSK/Tesaro, Hengrui, ImmunoGen, Imab, Merck, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Lilly, Mereo, OncXerna, OncoNova, Verastem, Sorrento, and VBL Therapeutics; research funding from Lilly, Merck, Verastem, and PTC Therapeutics; and serves on Board of Directors for Gynecologic Oncology Group F and is Associate Director for Gynecologic Oncology Group Partners. MRM reports personal fees and other from Karyopharm Therapeutics, Roche, and Sera Prognostics; institutional grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, BioCad, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, Geneos Therapeutics, GenMab, GSK, Merck, Oncology Venture, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Sera Prognostics, Sotio, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd, and Zai Lab., (© IGCS and ESGO 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Mullerian clear cell carcinoma (CCC) is often aggressive and chemoresistant. The prognostic significance of molecular subclassification of endometrioid carcinomas is well established. However, less is known about the molecular landscape of CCC. The aim of this study was to better characterize the genetic landscape of a large cohort of CCC and correlate these findings with clinicopathologic features. CCC of the ovary (n = 72), endometrium (n = 24), and peritoneum/abdominal wall (n = 5) were retrospectively identified. Tumors had undergone tumor-only targeted sequencing using a hybrid capture next-generation sequencing panel. Median tumor mutational burden was 6.8 mutations/megabase (range, 1.3-185, 21% were ≥10 mutations/Mb). The most frequently mutated genes were ARID1A (48%), PIK3CA (45%), TP53 (23%), and PTEN (10%). ERBB2 amplification occurred in 4%. When classified according to the Cancer Genome Atlas/the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer endometrial carcinoma molecular subgroups, 3 (3%) were POLE ultramutated, 5 (5%) were microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H), 20 (20%) were TP53-mutant subgroup, and 73 (72%) were no specific molecular profile (NSMP). Immunohistochemical expression of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and programmed death-ligand 1 were not associated with the molecular subgroup. POLE and MSI-H tumors were characterized by an excellent prognosis, and the TP53-mutant subgroup had a worse disease-free survival than NSMP. NSMP tumors could be further substratified as high-risk NSMP if they lacked PIK3CA, PIK3R1, and ARID1A mutations, and/or harbored a TERT-promoter mutation. The Cancer Genome Atlas and NSMP-specific stratifications were prognostic for both the entire cohort and the subset of stage I ovarian tumors. On multivariable analysis, stage, lymphovascular invasion, and tumor mutational burden were prognostic for disease-free survival, whereas advanced stage and TP53-mutant subgroup - but not a TP53 mutation in isolation - were negative prognostic factors for overall survival. These data suggest that routine molecular profiling of Mullerian CCC may be warranted for both prognosis and identification of potential targeted treatments, such as immunotherapy and anti-HER2 agents., (Copyright © 2023 United States & Canadian Academy of Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Single-agent chemotherapies have limited activity and considerable toxicity in patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (PROC). Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV) is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting folate receptor α (FRα). SORAYA is a single-arm, phase II study evaluating efficacy and safety of MIRV in patients with PROC., Methods: SORAYA enrolled FRα-high patients with PROC who had received one to three prior therapies, including required bevacizumab. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by investigator; duration of response was the key secondary end point., Results: One hundred six patients were enrolled; 105 were evaluable for efficacy. All patients had received prior bevacizumab, 51% had three prior lines of therapy, and 48% received a prior poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor. Median follow-up was 13.4 months. ORR was 32.4% (95% CI, 23.6 to 42.2), including five complete and 29 partial responses. The median duration of response was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 9.7). In patients with one to two priors, the ORR by investigator was 35.3% (95% CI, 22.4 to 49.9) and in patients with three priors was 30.2% (95% CI, 18.3 to 44.3). The ORR by investigator was 38.0% (95% CI, 24.7 to 52.8) in patients with prior poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor exposure and 27.5% (95% CI, 15.9 to 41.7) in those without. The most common treatment-related adverse events (all grade and grade 3-4) were blurred vision (41% and 6%), keratopathy (29% and 9%), and nausea (29% and 0%). Treatment-related adverse events led to dose delays, reductions, and discontinuations in 33%, 20%, and 9% of patients, respectively., Conclusion: MIRV demonstrated consistent clinically meaningful antitumor activity and favorable tolerability and safety in patients with FRα-high PROC who had received up to three prior therapies, including bevacizumab, representing an important advance for this biomarker-selected population.

Purpose: PARP inhibitor resistance may be overcome by combinatorial strategies with agents that disrupt homologous recombination repair (HRR). Multiple HRR pathway components are HSP90 clients, so that HSP90 inhibition leads to abrogation of HRR and sensitisation to PARP inhibition. We performed in vivo preclinical studies of the HSP90 inhibitor onalespib with olaparib and conducted a Phase 1 combination study., Patients and Methods: Tolerability and efficacy studies were performed in patient-derived xenograft(PDX) models of ovarian cancer. Clinical safety, tolerability, steady-state pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy of olaparib and onalespib were evaluated using a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design., Results: Olaparib/onalespib exhibited anti-tumour activity against BRCA1-mutated PDX models with acquired PARPi resistance and PDX models with RB-pathway alterations(CDKN2A loss and CCNE1 overexpression). Phase 1 evaluation revealed that dose levels up to olaparib 300 mg/onalespib 40 mg and olaparib 200 mg/onalespib 80 mg were safe without dose-limiting toxicities. Coadministration of olaparib and onalespib did not appear to affect the steady-state pharmacokinetics of either agent. There were no objective responses, but disease stabilisation ≥24 weeks was observed in 7/22 (32%) evaluable patients including patients with BRCA-mutated ovarian cancers and acquired PARPi resistance and patients with tumours harbouring RB-pathway alterations., Conclusions: Combining onalespib and olaparib was feasible and demonstrated preliminary evidence of anti-tumour activity., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Iniparib (BSI-201), a novel anticancer agent thought to have poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitory activity and synergy with both gemcitabine and carboplatin (GC) was evaluated in 2 cohorts with GC., Methods: Parallel multicenter, single-arm, phase II studies using a Simon two-stage design. Eligible patients had a histological diagnosis of epithelial ovarian carcinoma, fallopian tube cancer, or primary peritoneal carcinoma and demonstration of platinum-sensitive (≥6 months [mo]) or -resistant disease (relapse 2-6 mo post-platinum). Carboplatin (AUC 4 IV day 1), gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 IV days 1 and 8), and iniparib (5.6 mg/kg IV days 1, 4, 8, and 11) were given on a 21-day cycle., Results: The overall response rate (ORR RECIST 1.0) in platinum sensitive disease was 66% (95% CI, 49-80) with a higher response rate in the 15 pts with germline BRCA mutations (gBRCAmut) (73%). Median PFS was 9.9 (95% CI, 8.2-11.3) months. In the platinum resistant population the ORR was 26% (95% CI, 14-42), however in the 11 pts for whom BRCA mutation was present, the best overall response was PR in 5 (46%). Median PFS was 6.8 months (range, 5.7-7.7 months). Notably, among the 17 CA-125-response-evaluable patients who did not achieve tumor response, 7 (41.2%) patients had a CA125 response, and 93% has clinical benefit (CR + PR + SD). The GCI combination was generally well tolerated despite a high incidence of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, with no new toxicities., Conclusions: Given the subsequent lack of efficacy demonstrated for iniparib in breast cancer, these are studies of GC and demonstrate a higher than traditionally appreciated activity in patients with platinum-sensitive and -resistant recurrent ovarian cancer, especially in patients that harbor a BRCA mutation, resetting the benchmark for efficacy in phase II trials. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01033292 & NCT01033123)., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Purpose: Evaluate the antitumor activity and safety profile of the combination of mirvetuximab soravtansine and bevacizumab in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer., Methods: Patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, whose most recent platinum-free interval was ≤6 months, were administered mirvetuximab soravtansine (6 mg/kg adjusted ideal body weight) and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg), intravenously, once every 3 weeks. Eligibility included FRα expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC; ≥25% of cells with ≥2+ intensity). Prior bevacizumab and/or PARP inhibitor (PARPi) treatment were permitted. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety., Results: Ninety-four patients received combination treatment with mirvetuximab soravtansine and bevacizumab. Median age was 62 years (range, 39-81). Fifty-two percent had ≥3 prior therapies; 59% had prior bevacizumab; and 27% had prior PARPi. ORR was 44% (95% CI 33, 54) with 5 complete responses, median DOR 9.7 months (95% CI 6.9, 14.1), and median PFS 8.2 months (95% CI 6.8, 10.0). Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with the profiles of each agent, with the most common being blurred vision (all grades 57%; grade 3, 1%), diarrhea (54%; grade 3, 1%), and nausea (51%; grade 3, 1%)., Conclusion: The mirvetuximab soravtansine plus bevacizumab doublet is an active and well-tolerated regimen in patients with FRα-expressing platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Promising activity was observed for patients regardless of level of FRα expression or prior bevacizumab. These data underscore the potential for mirvetuximab soravtansine as the combination partner of choice for bevacizumab in this setting., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest LG reports personal fees from Merck and GSK; advisory board participation with AstraZeneca, Alkermes, Merck, Eisai, Eisai-Merck, GSK, and Novocure; institutional funding from OncoQuest Pharmaceuticals, Novocure GmbH, Alkermes Inc., ImmunoGen Inc., AstraZeneca, Esperas Pharma Inc., K-Group Beta Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Karyopharm, Tesaro, and IMV Inc. AO reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Doctaforum Servicios S.L, Edizioni Minerva Medica SpA, ESMO, PharmaMar, and Roche; advisory board participation with Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Inc., Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceutical, Eisai Europe Limited, EMD Serono, Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, ImmunoGen, KL Logistics, Medison Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme de España, Mersana Therapeutics, Novocure GmbH, PharmaMar, prIME Oncology, ROCHE FARMA, Sattucklabs, and Sutro Biopharma, Inc.; funding from AbbVie Deutschland Gmbh & Co Hg, Ability Pharmaceuticals, Advaxis, Agenus, Aprea Therapeutics AB, AstraZeneca AB, Beigene USA, Inc., Belgian Gynaecological Oncology Group (BGOG), Bristol-Myers Squibb International Corporation, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Eisai, Eli Lilly and Company, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Grupo Español de Investigación en Cáncer de Ovario (GEICO), ImmunoGen, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Medimmune, Merck Healthcare, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Mundipharma Research, Novartis Farmacéutica, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Seagen, Seattle Genetics, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro, University Health Network, and Verastem. UAM reports consulting fees from Merck, GSK, and AstraZeneca; personal fees from Med Learning Group; advisory board participation with 2× Oncology, NextCure, Trillium, Agenus, ImmunoGen, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Rivkin Foundation, Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance, Clearity Foundation, and Morphosys; data safety monitoring board participation with Alkermes and Symphogen. GMMS reports advisory board participation with ImmunoGen. PCL reports no disclosures. CMC reports personal fees from Qiagen, Inc., Teladoc Health, and InfiniteMD. DP reports no disclosures. SM reports no disclosures. MM reports employment and stock options with ImmunoGen Inc. JW reports employment and stock options with ImmunoGen Inc. KNM reports personal fees from AbbVie, Alkemeres, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Elevar, GSK/Tesaro, Genentech/Roche, iMab, ImmunoGen, Merck, Mereo, Mersana, Myriad, OncXerna, Oncomed, Rubius, Sorrento, Tarveda, Vavotar, and VBL Therapeutics; advisory board participation with Abbvie, Alkemeres, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elevar, Genetech/Roche, GSK/Tesaro, ImmunoGen, Merck, Mereo, Mersana, Myriad, Onco Med, OncXerna, Rubius, Sorrento, Tarveda, Vavotar, VBL Therapeutics; funding from Genentech/Roche, GSK/Tesaro, ImmunoGen, Lilly, Merck, and PTC Therapeutics. DMO reports receiving grants or contracts from AbbVie Inc., Agenus Inc., Ajinomoto Co Inc., Amgen Inc., Array BioPharma Inc., AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Clovis Oncology, Dare Bioscience, Eisai Inc., EMD Serono Inc., Ergomed Plc, Genentech, Genmab, GOG Foundation Inc., ImmunoGen Inc., Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen Biotech Inc., Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd., Merck, Merck Serono, Mersana Therapeutics, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, Novocure Inc., PRA Health Sciences, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Seagen Inc., Stemcentrx, Sumitomo, Dainippon Pharma Oncology Inc., Syneos Health, Tesaro, TRACON Pharmaceuticals, VentiRX Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Yale University; data safety monitoring board and/or advisory board participation with AbbVie Inc., Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc., Arquer Diagnostics, AstraZeneca Pharmacueticals LP, Celsion Corporation, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Eisai Inc., Elevar Therapeutics, Genentech, GOG Foundation Inc., ImmunoGen Inc., InxMed, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen Biotech Inc., Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Mersana Therapeutics Inc., Novartis, Novocure Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Roche Diagnostics MSA, Seagen Inc., Sorrento Therapeutics, Sumitomo Danippon Pharma Oncology Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Tesaro, and Tora; other financial or nonfinancial interests with Agenus Inc., Myriad Genetic Laboratories Inc., Rubis, and Tarveda Therapeutics., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Estrogen receptor (ER)-positive endometrial cancers (ECs) are characterized by phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) and receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK)/RAS/β-catenin (CTNNB1) pathway alterations in approximately 90% and 80% of cases, respectively. Extensive cross-talk between ER, PI3K, and RTK/RAS/CTNNB1 pathways leads to both ligand-dependent and ligand-independent ER transcriptional activity as well as upregulation of cyclin D1 which, in complex with cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4 and CDK6), is a critical regulator of cell cycle progression and a key mediator of resistance to hormonal therapy. We hypothesized that the combination of the aromatase inhibitor letrozole and CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib would demonstrate promising activity in this setting., Methods: We conducted a phase II, two-stage study of letrozole/abemaciclib in recurrent ER-positive EC. Eligibility criteria included measurable disease, no limit on prior therapies, and all EC histologies; prior hormonal therapy was allowed. Primary end points were objective response rate by RECIST 1.1 and progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months., Results: At the data cutoff date (December 03, 2021), 30 patients (28 with endometrioid EC) initiated protocol therapy; 15 (50%) patients had prior hormonal therapy. There were nine total responses (eight confirmed), for an objective response rate of 30% (95% CI, 14.7 to 49.4), all in endometrioid adenocarcinomas. Median PFS was 9.1 months, PFS at 6 months was 55.6% (95% CI, 35.1 to 72), and median duration of response was 7.4 months. Most common ≥ grade 3 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (20%) and anemia (17%). Responses were observed regardless of grade, prior hormonal therapy, mismatch repair, and progesterone receptor status. Exploratory tumor profiling revealed several mechanistically relevant candidate predictors of response ( CTNNB1 , KRAS , and CDKN2A mutations) or absence of response ( TP53 mutations), which require independent validation., Conclusion: Letrozole/abemaciclib demonstrated encouraging and durable evidence of activity in recurrent ER positive endometrioid EC.

Purpose: The identification of patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) beyond BRCA1/2 mutations is an urgent task, as they may benefit from PARP inhibitors. We have previously developed a method to detect mutational signature 3 (Sig3), termed SigMA, associated with HRD from clinical panel sequencing data, that is able to reliably detect HRD from the limited sequencing data derived from gene-focused panel sequencing., Experimental Design: We apply this method to patients from two independent datasets: (i) high-grade serous ovarian cancer and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) from a phase Ib trial of the PARP inhibitor olaparib in combination with the PI3K inhibitor buparlisib (BKM120; NCT01623349), and (ii) TNBC patients who received neoadjuvant olaparib in the phase II PETREMAC trial (NCT02624973)., Results: We find that Sig3 as detected by SigMA is positively associated with improved progression-free survival and objective responses. In addition, comparison of Sig3 detection in panel and exome-sequencing data from the same patient samples demonstrated highly concordant results and superior performance in comparison with the genomic instability score., Conclusions: Our analyses demonstrate that HRD can be detected reliably from panel-sequencing data that are obtained as part of routine clinical care, and that this approach can identify patients beyond those with germline BRCA1/2mut who might benefit from PARP inhibitors. Prospective clinical utility testing is warranted., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Patients with platinum-resistant or -refractory high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) have a poor prognosis, and their management represents a substantial unmet medical need. Preclinical data and results from a phase Ib trial demonstrated the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of the α-specific phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor alpelisib plus the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib in platinum-resistant, non- BRCA -mutated ovarian cancer. Here, we describe the study design and rationale for the phase III, multicenter, open-label, randomized, active-controlled EPIK-O/ENGOT-OV61 trial investigating alpelisib in combination with olaparib compared with standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with platinum-resistant or -refractory HGSOC with no germline BRCA mutation. Progression-free survival (blinded independent review committee) is the primary end point. Overall survival is a key secondary end point. Clinical Trial Registration: : NCT04729387 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Importance: Although the activity of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib (the only US Food and Drug Administration-approved immunotherapy for mismatch repair proficient endometrial cancer [MMRP EC]) is compelling, there are no biomarkers of response and most patients do not tolerate, do not respond to, or develop resistance to this regimen, highlighting the need for additional, potentially biomarker-driven therapeutic approaches for patients with recurrent MMRP EC., Objective: To assess the potential positive outcomes and safety of the combination of the polyadenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase inhibitor talazoparib and the programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor avelumab in recurrent MMRP EC., Design, Settings, and Participants: This investigator-initiated, open-label, single-arm, 2-stage, phase 2 study nonrandomized controlled trial patients at 4 institutions in the US. Key eligibility criteria included measurable disease, unlimited prior therapies, and all endometrial cancer histologies., Interventions: Talazoparib, 1 mg, orally, daily, and avelumab, 10 mg/kg, intravenously, every 2 weeks, were administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects., Main Outcomes and Measures: Statistical considerations were developed for 2 coprimary objectives of objective response rate and rate of progression-free survival at 6 months, with a 2-stage design that allowed for early discontinuation for futility. Prespecified exploratory objectives included the association of immunogenomic features (determined by targeted-panel next-generation sequencing and immunohistochemistry) with activity., Results: Thirty-five female patients (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [8.41] years) received protocol therapy; 9 (25.7%) derived clinical benefit after meeting at least 1 of the 2 coprimary end points. Four patients (11.4%) exhibited confirmed objective response rates (4 partial responses), and 8 (22.9%) survived progression free at 6 months. The most common grade 3 and 4 treatment-related toxic effects were anemia (16 [46%]), thrombocytopenia (10 [29%]), and neutropenia (4 [11%]); no patient discontinued receipt of therapy because of toxic effects. Tumors with homologous recombination repair alterations were associated with clinical benefit from treatment with avelumab and talazoparib. Tumor mutational burden, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and PD-L1 status were not associated with clinical benefit., Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this nonrandomized controlled trial suggest that treatment with avelumab and talazoparib demonstrated a favorable toxic effect profile and met the predetermined criteria to be considered worthy of further evaluation in MMRP EC. Immunogenomic profiling provided insights that may inform ongoing and future studies of polyadenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase and PD-L1 inhibitor combinations in endometrial cancer., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02912572.

Aberrant expression of viral-like repeat elements is a common feature of epithelial cancers, and the substantial diversity of repeat species provides a distinct view of the cancer transcriptome. Repeatome profiling across ovarian, pancreatic, and colorectal cell lines identifies distinct clustering independent of tissue origin that is seen with coding gene analysis. Deeper analysis of ovarian cancer cell lines demonstrated that human satellite II (HSATII) satellite repeat expression was highly associated with epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and anticorrelated with IFN-response genes indicative of a more aggressive phenotype. SATII expression - and its correlation with EMT and anticorrelation with IFN-response genes - was also found in ovarian cancer RNA-Seq data and was associated with significantly shorter survival in a second independent cohort of patients with ovarian cancer. Repeat RNAs were enriched in tumor-derived extracellular vesicles capable of stimulating monocyte-derived macrophages, demonstrating a mechanism that alters the tumor microenvironment with these viral-like sequences. Targeting of HSATII with antisense locked nucleic acids stimulated IFN response and induced MHC I expression in ovarian cancer cell lines, highlighting a potential strategy of modulating the repeatome to reestablish antitumor cell immune surveillance.

Purpose: Although local tissue-based immune responses are critical for elucidating direct tumor-immune cell interactions, peripheral immune responses are increasingly recognized as occupying an important role in anticancer immunity. We evaluated serial blood samples from patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) undergoing standard-of-care neoadjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy (including dexamethasone for prophylaxis of paclitaxel-associated hypersensitivity reactions) to characterize the evolution of the peripheral immune cell function and composition across the course of therapy., Experimental Design: Serial blood samples from 10 patients with advanced high-grade serous ovarian cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) were collected before the initiation of chemotherapy, after the third and sixth cycles, and approximately 2 months after completion of chemotherapy. T-cell function was evaluated using ex vivo IFNγ ELISpot assays, and the dynamics of T-cell repertoire and immune cell composition were assessed using bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing (RNAseq)., Results: T cells exhibited an improved response to viral antigens after NACT, which paralleled the decrease in CA125 levels. Single-cell analysis revealed increased numbers of memory T-cell receptor (TCR) clonotypes and increased central memory CD8+ and regulatory T cells throughout chemotherapy. Finally, administration of NACT was associated with increased monocyte frequency and expression of HLA class II and antigen presentation genes; single-cell RNAseq analyses showed that although driven largely by classical monocytes, increased class II gene expression was a feature observed across monocyte subpopulations after chemotherapy., Conclusions: NACT may alleviate tumor-associated immunosuppression by reducing tumor burden and may enhance antigen processing and presentation. These findings have implications for the successful combinatorial applications of immune checkpoint blockade and therapeutic vaccine approaches in EOC., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard of care for platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, but complications from repeated platinum therapy occur. We assessed the activity of two all-oral nonplatinum alternatives, olaparib or olaparib/cediranib, versus platinum-based chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: NRG-GY004 is an open-label, randomized, phase III trial conducted in the United States and Canada. Eligible patients had high-grade serous or endometrioid platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to platinum-based chemotherapy, olaparib, or olaparib/cediranib. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points included activity within germline BRCA -mutated or wild-type subgroups and patient-reported outcomes (PROs)., Results: Between February 04, 2016, and November 13, 2017, 565 eligible patients were randomly assigned. Median PFS was 10.3 (95% CI, 8.7 to 11.2), 8.2 (95% CI, 6.6 to 8.7), and 10.4 (95% CI, 8.5 to 12.5) months with chemotherapy, olaparib, and olaparib/cediranib, respectively. Olaparib/cediranib did not improve PFS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.10; P = .077). In women with germline BRCA mutation, the PFS HR versus chemotherapy was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.94) for olaparib/cediranib and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.37 to 1.07) for olaparib. In women without a germline BRCA mutation, the PFS HR versus chemotherapy was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.30) for olaparib/cediranib and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.86) for olaparib. Hematologic adverse events occurred more commonly with chemotherapy; however, nonhematologic adverse events were higher with olaparib/cediranib. In 489 patients evaluable for PROs, patients receiving olaparib/cediranib scored on average 1.1 points worse on the NFOSI-DRS-P subscale (97.5% CI, -2.0 to -0.2, P = .0063) versus chemotherapy; no difference between olaparib and chemotherapy was observed., Conclusion: Combination olaparib/cediranib did not improve PFS compared with chemotherapy and resulted in reduced PROs. Notably, in patients with a germline BRCA mutation, both olaparib and olaparib/cediranib had significant clinical activity., Competing Interests: Joyce F. LiuConsulting or Advisory Role: Tesaro, Mersana, Clovis Oncology, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Boston Biomedical (Inst), Acetylon Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Agenus (Inst), CytomX Therapeutics (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Tesaro (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Surface Oncology (Inst), 2X Oncology (Inst), Vigeo Therapeutics (Inst), Aravive (Inst), Arch Oncology (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, MerckUncompensated Relationships: Merck Mark F. BradyConsulting or Advisory Role: Cel-Sci Ursula A. MatulonisHonoraria: Advaxis, Alkermes, SymphogenConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Novartis, NextCure, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Trillium Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, AgenusResearch Funding: Merck, Novartis, Tesaro, Syndax, Immunogen, Mersana, Leap Therapeutics, Fujifilm, SQZ BiotechTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca Austin MillerConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca/Merck, Regeneron (Inst)Uncompensated Relationships: Genetect Elizabeth M. SwisherLeadership: IDEAYA Biosciences David CellaStock and Other Ownership Interests: FACIT.orgConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Asahi Kasei, Ipsen, Mei PharmaResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), PledPharma (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst) Noelle G. ClovenConsulting or Advisory Role: Toray Industries Carolyn Y. MullerResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Genmab (Inst), VBL Therapeutics (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), TapImmune Inc (Inst), Linnaeus Therapeutics (Inst), agenus (Inst), Incyte (Inst), Merck (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Have a pending patent on the cancer use for R-ketorolac - not yet its own new drug (Inst)Other Relationship: NCI, NCI, Department of Defense Richard G. MooreHonoraria: Fujirebio DiagnosticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Abcodia, Fujirebio DiagnosticsResearch Funding: Angle Steven E. WaggonerConsulting or Advisory Role: Regeneron Melissa A. GellerResearch Funding: Tesaro, Genentech, FATE Therapeutics, Morphotek, Bayer Keiichi FujiwaraHonoraria: Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Zeria Pharmaceutical, Nippon Kayaku, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Ono Pharmaceutical, TakedaConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Eisai, Takeda, Genmab, NanoCarrierResearch Funding: Eisai (Inst), Kaken Pharmaceutical (Inst), Chugai Pharma (Inst), Immunogen (Inst), Oncotherapeutics (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Zeria Pharmaceutical (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), MSD (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Merck KGaA (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), Genmab (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: MSD Angeles Alvarez SecordHonoraria: Myriad GeneticsResearch Funding: Tesaro (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Merck (Inst), PharmaMar (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Immutep (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), VBL Therapeutics (Inst), OncoQuest Pharmaceuticals (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: GlaxoSmithKlineUncompensated Relationships: Roche/Genentech, VBL Therapeutics, GOG Foundation, OncoQuest Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron, Aravive Katherine M. MoxleyConsulting or Advisory Role: Tessa Therapeutics (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline Michael A. BookmanEmployment: The Permanente Medical GroupConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Immunogen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Genentech/Roche, Seattle Genetics, AraviveNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

We reviewed clinical data for niraparib monotherapy in BRCA -mutated ( BRCA m) epithelial ovarian cancer (OC), contextualizing results with data from other poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis). Niraparib reduced the likelihood of progression or death by 60% as first-line maintenance therapy and by 73-78% in recurrent disease. In heavily pretreated OC, efficacy was greater in the BRCA m versus non- BRCA m cohort. Quality-of-life (QoL) was maintained throughout treatment. Adverse events were consistent with the known niraparib safety profile. Cumulative efficacy, safety and QoL evidence demonstrate niraparib maintenance monotherapy has a positive benefit:risk ratio in BRCA m OC. Niraparib significantly improved progression-free survival as first-line maintenance therapy in all patients with OC (i.e., of any biomarker status).

PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have drastically changed the treatment landscape of advanced ovarian tumors with BRCA mutations. However, the impact of this class of inhibitors in patients with advanced BRCA-mutant breast cancer is relatively modest. Using a syngeneic genetically-engineered mouse model of breast tumor driven by Brca1 deficiency, we show that tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) blunt PARPi efficacy both in vivo and in vitro. Mechanistically, BRCA1-deficient breast tumor cells induce pro-tumor polarization of TAMs, which in turn suppress PARPi-elicited DNA damage in tumor cells, leading to reduced production of dsDNA fragments and synthetic lethality, hence impairing STING-dependent anti-tumor immunity. STING agonists reprogram M2-like pro-tumor macrophages into an M1-like anti-tumor state in a macrophage STING-dependent manner. Systemic administration of a STING agonist breaches multiple layers of tumor cell-mediated suppression of immune cells, and synergizes with PARPi to suppress tumor growth. The therapeutic benefits of this combination require host STING and are mediated by a type I IFN response and CD8 + T cells, but do not rely on tumor cell-intrinsic STING. Our data illustrate the importance of targeting innate immune suppression to facilitate PARPi-mediated engagement of anti-tumor immunity in breast cancer., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: We had previously reported on the safety and the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of olaparib in combination with the PI3Kα-specific inhibitor alpelisib in patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer as studied in a phase 1b trial (NCT01623349). Here, we report on the breast cancer cohort from that study., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had recurrent triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or recurrent breast cancer of any subtype with a germline BRCA mutation and were enrolled to a dose-escalation or -expansion cohort. After definition of the RP2D, secondary end points included safety and objective response rate (ORR). Exploratory analyses were performed using circulating-free DNA (cfDNA)., Results: Seventeen patients with TNBC were enrolled with a median of three prior lines of chemotherapy. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were hyperglycemia (18%) and rash (12%). The ORR was 18% (23% for patients treated at the RP2D) and 59% had disease control. The median duration of response was 7.4 months. Analysis of cfDNA tumor fractions (TFx) revealed that patients with TFx < 15% after completion of the first cycle had a longer progression-free survival compared with those with TFx ≥ 15% (6.0 vs. 0.9 months; P = 0.0001)., Conclusions: Alpelisib in combination with olaparib is tolerable in patients with pre-treated TNBC, with evidence of activity in non-BRCA carriers. cfDNA provided important prognostic information. Results highlight potential synergistic use of a PI3K inhibitor to sensitize HR-proficient (BRCA wild-type) TNBC to PARP inhibition and suggest the potential to expand the use of PARP inhibition beyond BRCA-mutant tumors., (©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy, with poor survival rates among patients who have advanced disease despite recent significant advances in therapy, including therapy targeting the homologous recombination pathway. Evidence that cell-mediated antitumor immunity, as well as documented programmed death ligand 1 expression, is correlated with improved survival in EOC garnered early optimism regarding the utility of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in ovarian cancer. However, the results of multiple clinical trials investigating ICB have revealed very low levels of activity of single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors, and the testing of combination therapies has not yet identified any combinations with robust activity in a significant proportion of patients who have EOC. In this review, we summarize the results of the major studies of ICB monotherapy and combinations; review novel combinations under investigation, including ICB with cellular therapies; and discuss potential candidate biomarkers for improving the selection of patients who may respond to ICB.

Introduction: Chemotherapy plus radiation (Cis-RT + CP) did not demonstrate superiority in prolonging relapse-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone in patients with stage III or IVA endometrial carcinoma. The impact of treatment on quality of life (QOL), neurotoxicity (NTX) and psychometric properties of the gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms subscale during treatment and up to 1 year are described herein., Methods: QOL assessments were scheduled at baseline, 6 weeks (post completion of RT (Cis-RT + CP) or prior to cycle 3 (CP)), then 18 weeks (end of treatment) and 70 weeks (1 year after the end of treatment) after starting treatment. QOL instruments included the FACT-En TOI, FACT/GOG-neurotoxicity (Ntx) subscale (short), and the gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms subscale., Results: At the end of treatment, patients receiving Cis-RT + CP reported a statistically significant decreased QOL when compared to CP. The decline in QOL was reflected in physical well-being, functional well-being, and endometrial cancer specific concerns, but the minimally important differences (MID) were not considered clinically meaningful. Patients in both groups reported increased chemotherapy-induced Ntx symptoms with the CP group having worse scores and reaching peak symptoms at the time of chemotherapy completion. Patients on Cis-RT + CP reported statistically significantly worse GI symptoms after radiation therapy compared to patients on CP, this occurred across assessment intervals, though the MID was not meaningful. Psychometric evaluations indicated that the GI symptom scale is reliable, valid, and responsive to change., Conclusions: PROs indicate that the chemoradiotherapy group experienced worse HRQoL and GI toxicity compared to patients randomized to chemotherapy alone for locally advanced endometrial cancer though based on the MID, these were not clinically meaningful differences. The GI symptom subscale was a reliable and valid scale that has value for future trials., Trial Registration: NCT00942357., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Matulonis reports receiving consulting fees received from Merck, Novartis, Blueprint Medicine and Next Cure as well as participating on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Symphogen and Advaxis. Ms. Helen Huang, Dr. Marcus Randall, Dr. Paul DiSilvestro, Dr. Fowler, Dr. Powell, Dr. Dr. Spirtos, Dr. Tewari, Dr. Nakayama, Dr. Mutch have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Virginia L. Filiaci reports receiving support for the present manuscript from NCTN and NCORP SDMC grant funding from the NIH/NCI. She also reports grants from GOG Foundation, Inc. for contracts with institution for clinical trial work and NCI/NIH for IOTN, BIQSFP, MP2PRT and miscellaneous other subcontracts. Dr. Filiaci also reports receiving support for attending IDMC meeting from VBL Therapeutics as well as participating on Advisory Board for Tesaro. Monitoring Board. Dr. Katherine Moxley reports P20 grant to University of Oklahoma for Drug Resistance Core from the NIH as well as support for travel to attend NRG Oncology 2019 Winter and Summer meetings. Additionally, Dr. Moxley reports serving in a Leadership role for the SGO Program Committee. Dr. David Miller reports grants received from EMD Serono Research and Development Institute to him as well as grants to his Institution from the following entities: US Biotest, Advenchen Laboratories, Tesaro, Xenetic Biosciences, Advaxis, Janssen, Aeterna Zentaris, TRACON Pharma, Pfizer, Immunogen, Mateon Therapeutics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Aprea AB, Regeneron, NVision, Leap Therapeutics, Novartis, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Agenus and Akesobio. Dr. Miller also personally received consulting fees from the following: Genentech, Tesaro, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Guardant Health, Janssen Oncology, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Incyte, Guardant Health, Janssen, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, Asymmetric Therapeutics, LLC, Boston Biomedical Research Institute, Tarveda Therapeutics, Myriad Genetic Laboratories Inc., GlaxoSmithKline LLC, AbbVie Inc., Incyte, EMD Serono Inc. and Seager Inc. as well as consulting fees paid to his Institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Miller also received honoraria from Clovis Oncology and Genentech. He also reports participating on an Advisory Board for Incyte. Dr. Lari Wenzel reports serving as Co-Chair of the NRG Oncology PCOR Committee. Dr. Daniela Matei reports NCI NRG Support grant received. Due to his unfortunate passing before publication, no statement is available for Dr. William Richards., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In a trial of patients with high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), addition of the ATR inhibitor berzosertib to gemcitabine improved progression free survival (PFS) compared to gemcitabine alone but biomarkers predictive of treatment are lacking. Here we report a candidate biomarker of response to gemcitabine versus combined gemcitabine and ATR inhibitor therapy in HGSOC ovarian cancer. Patients with replication stress (RS)-high tumors (n = 27), defined as harboring at least one genomic RS alteration related to loss of RB pathway regulation and/or oncogene-induced replication stress achieve significantly prolonged PFS (HR = 0.38, 90% CI, 0.17-0.86) on gemcitabine monotherapy compared to those with tumors without such alterations (defined as RS-low, n = 30). However, addition of berzosertib to gemcitabine benefits only patients with RS-low tumors (gemcitabine/berzosertib HR 0.34, 90% CI, 0.13-0.86) and not patients with RS-high tumors (HR 1.11, 90% CI, 0.47-2.62). Our findings support the notion that the exacerbation of RS by gemcitabine monotherapy is adequate for lethality in RS-high tumors. Conversely, for RS-low tumors addition of berzosertib-mediated ATR inhibition to gemcitabine is necessary for lethality to occur. Independent prospective validation of this biomarker is required., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Topoisomerase-1 inhibitors are an important class of cytotoxics associated with toxicity that limits their use. CRLX101 is a novel cyclodextrin-containing polymer conjugate of camptothecin (CPT) that self-assembles into nanoparticles to deliver sustained levels of active CPT into cancer cells while substantially reducing systemic exposure., Methods: We conducted sequential phase II, open label, single arm clinical trials to evaluate CRLX101 as a single agent (n = 29) and with bevacizumab (Bev) (n = 34). Patients (pts) had measurable recurrent epithelial ovarian, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer, that could be platinum refractory, resistant or sensitive. Cohort A (Single agent CRLX101) allowed up to 3 prior chemotherapy regimens, but no prior topo-1 inhibitors. Pts received CRLX101 15 mg/m 2 IV every 14 days Q28 with response evaluation every 2 cycles. Cohort B also received Bev 10 mg/kg D1,15 Q28, and included only platinum resistant disease with up to 2 prior lines, and more rigorous eligibility criteria., Results: CRLX101 was well tolerated other than nausea, fatigue and anemia. 29 pts. received a median of 3 (1-16) cycles with a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 68% and overall response rate (ORR) of 11%. With the addition of Bev in Cohort B (n = 34), the CBR was increased to 95% and the ORR to 18%. PFS was 4.5 months (0.9 to 15.9 months) in Cohort A and 6.5 months (2.8 to 14.4 months) in Cohort B. Bev increased the incidence of hypertension and qualitatively increased bladder toxicities, but without SAEs., Conclusions: CRLX101 meets the clinical need for an effective and tolerable topoisomerase I inhibitor and can be safely combined with bevacizumab., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest SMC Consultant—AstraZeneca, Eisai. MJB Advisory board member: AstraZeneca; Clovis; GSK. PAK Advisory Board: Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Bayer, GSK, Merck, Pfizer, Tesaro, Vertex, Repare. Institutional Funding as P.I.: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Tesaro/GSK. UAM Dr. Matulonis reports personal fees from Myriad Genetics, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from Mersana, personal fees from Geneos, personal fees from Fuji Film, from 2× Oncology, personal fees from Immunogen, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from NextCure. RTP Research Funding: Array BioPharma Inc., AstraZeneca, Genentech, Vascular Biogenics Ltd. Royalties: BMJ Publishing, UptoDate, Elsevier Ltd., Wolters Kluwer Health, TelaDoc, MA Medical Int., WebMD. Scientific Advisory Boards: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Care4ward (Unpaid), Clovis Oncology, Curio Science, Eisai Inc., Genentech, Janssen Oncology (J&J), Merck & Co., Mersana Therapeutics, Inc., NewLink Genetics, Nexus Global Group, Pieris Pharma Inc., Roche, Inc., Sutro Biopharma, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Tesaro Inc., Vascular Biogenics Ltd. CNK, NSH, CLY, KRC, HL, and AMD have no COIs to disclose., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The impact of maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors (PARPi) on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with BRCA mutations and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) varies widely. Individual prognostic factors do not reliably distinguish patients who progress early from those who have durable benefit. We developed and validated a prognostic nomogram to predict PFS in these patients., Methods: The nomogram was developed using data from a training patient cohort with BRCA mutations and high-grade serous PSROC on the placebo arm of two maintenance therapy trials, Study 19 and SOLO2/ENGOT-ov21. We performed multivariable Cox regression analysis based on pre-treatment characteristics to develop a nomogram that predicts PFS. We assessed the discrimination and validation of the nomogram in independent validation patient cohorts treated with maintenance olaparib., Results: The nomogram includes four PFS predictors: CA-125 at randomisation, platinum-free interval, presence of measurable disease and number of prior lines of platinum therapy. In the training (placebo) cohort (internal validation C-index 0.64), median PFS in the model-predicted good, intermediate and poor-risk groups was: 7.7 (95% CI 5.3-11.3), 5.4 (4.8-5.8) and 2.9 (2.8-4.4) months, respectively. In the validation (olaparib) cohort (C-index 0.71), median PFS in the model-predicted good, intermediate and poor-risk groups was: not reached, 16.6 (13.1-22.4) and 8.3 (7.1-10.8) months, respectively. The nomogram showed good calibration in the validation cohort (calibration plot)., Conclusions: This nomogram can be used to predict PFS and counsel patients with BRCA mutations and PSROC prior to maintenance olaparib and for stratification of patients in trials of maintenance therapies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement AT reports institutional research funding from AstraZeneca; travel and accommodation funding from AstraZeneca and Janssen. MF has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline; provided consulting or advisory role to AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline and Takeda; reports institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Novartis and BeiGene; travel and accommodation funding from AstraZeneca. MR has honoraria from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline; provided consulting or advisory role to AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline; participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline; received travel and accommodation funding from GlaxoSmithKline. JAL has received honoraria from AstraZeneca/MedImmune; provided a consulting or advisory role to Artios, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Clovis Oncology, Cristal Therapeutics, Esai, Merck, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics and Tesaro; Speakers’ bureau for Clovis Oncology, Pfizer and Tesaro/GSK; reports institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology; travel and accommodation funding from Clovis and discloses another relationship with Regeneron. UAM has provided a consulting or advisory role to Merck, Immunogen and Novartis; reports research funding from Merck, Novartis, Tesaro, Syndax, Immunogen, Mersana, Leap Therapeutics, Fujifilm, and SQZ Biotechnologies; travel and accommodation funding from AstraZeneca. AMO has received honoraria from Intas; provided a consulting or advisory role for Immunogen, Merck KGaA; reports institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Immunovaccine; travel and accommodation funding from AstraZeneca; and discloses other relationships with AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Merck and Tesaro. CG has received honoraria from Roche/Genentech, provided a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca; Speakers’ bureau for AstraZeneca; reports research funding from AstraZeneca. PH has received honoraria from AstraZeneca; provided a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca; reports institutional research funding from AstraZeneca; travel and accommodation funding from AstraZeneca. IV has provided consulting or advisory role to Amgen Europe, AstraZeneca, Carrick Therapeutics, Clovis Oncology, Debiopharm Group, F. Hoffmann La Roche, Genmab, GSK Pharmaceuticals, Immunogen, Medical University of Vienna, Millennium, MSD Belgium, Octimet Oncology, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Roche, Sotio and Tesaro; reports institutional research funding from Amgen, Genmab, Oncoinvent, Roche; travel and accommodation funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Merck, Roche and Tesaro. CLS reports research funding from Roche, Genentech, Clovis Oncology, Sierra Oncology, and Eisai; travel and accommodation funding from AstraZeneca; other relationship with Clovis Oncology. RSF has received honoraria from MSD Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, and AstraZeneca; provided a consulting or advisory role for VBL Therapeutics, Clovis Oncology; travel and accommodation funding from Bristol-Meyers Squibb, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca. TM discloses employment and stockholder interests with AstraZeneca. EPL has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, Tesaro; provided consulting or advisory role to AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Incyte, Merck, Pfizer/EMD, Serono, Roche, Tesaro; travel and accommodation funding from AstraZeneca, Roche, Tesaro and discloses other relationship with ARCAGY RESEARCH. CKL has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim; research funding from AstraZeneca; provided a consulting or advisory role to AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim; received travel and accommodation funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)