Search

PurposeThis phase III randomized trial (NCT00954174) tested the null hypothesis that paclitaxel and carboplatin (PC) is inferior to paclitaxel and ifosfamide (PI) for treating uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS).Patients and methodsAdults with chemotherapy-naïve UCS or ovarian carcinosarcoma (OCS) were randomly assigned to PC or PI with 3-week cycles for 6-10 cycles. With 264 events in patients with UCS, the power for an overall survival (OS) hybrid noninferiority design was 80% for a null hazard ratio (HR) of 1.2 against a 13% greater death rate on PI with a type I error of 5% for a one-tailed test.ResultsThe study enrolled 536 patients with UCS and 101 patients with OCS, with 449 and 90 eligible, respectively. Primary analysis was on patients with UCS, distributed as follows: 40% stage I, 6% stage II, 31% stage III, 15% stage IV, and 8% recurrent. Among eligible patients with UCS, PC was assigned to 228 and PI to 221. PC was not inferior to PI. The median OS was 37 versus 29 months (HR = 0.87; 90% CI, 0.70 to 1.075; P < .01 for noninferiority, P > .1 for superiority). The median progression-free survival was 16 versus 12 months (HR = 0.73; P = < 0.01 for noninferiority, P < .01 for superiority). Toxicities were similar, except that more patients in the PC arm had hematologic toxicity and more patients in the PI arm had confusion and genitourinary hemorrhage. Among 90 eligible patients with OCS, those in the PC arm had longer OS (30 v 25 months) and progression-free survival (15 v 10 months) than those in the PI arm, but with limited precision, these differences were not statistically significant.ConclusionPC was not inferior to the active regimen PI and should be standard treatment for UCS.

BackgroundLow-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum is characterised by MAPK pathway aberrations and its reduced sensitivity to chemotherapy relative to high-grade serous carcinoma. We compared the MEK inhibitor trametinib to physician's choice standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma.MethodsThis international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial was done at 84 hospitals in the USA and UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma and measurable disease, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, had received at least one platinum-based regimen, but not all five standard-of-care drugs, and had received an unlimited number of previous regimens. Patients with serous borderline tumours or tumours containing low-grade serous and high-grade serous carcinoma were excluded. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral trametinib 2 mg once daily (trametinib group) or one of five standard-of-care treatment options (standard-of-care group): intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; intravenous pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 40-50 mg/m2 by body surface area once every 4 weeks; intravenous topotecan 4 mg/m2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; oral letrozole 2·5 mg once daily; or oral tamoxifen 20 mg twice daily. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region (USA or UK), number of previous regimens (1, 2, or ≥3), performance status (0 or 1), and planned standard-of-care regimen. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival while receiving randomised therapy, as assessed by imaging at baseline, once every 8 weeks for 15 months, and then once every 3 months thereafter, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02101788, and is active but not recruiting.FindingsBetween Feb 27, 2014, and April 10, 2018, 260 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the trametinib group (n=130) or the standard-of-care group (n=130). At the primary analysis, there were 217 progression-free survival events (101 [78%] in the trametinib group and 116 [89%] in the standard-of-care group). Median progression-free survival in the trametinib group was 13·0 months (95% CI 9·9-15·0) compared with 7·2 months (5·6-9·9) in the standard-of-care group (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·36-0·64]; p

ObjectiveIn the Phase 3 VELIA trial (NCT02470585), veliparib added to carboplatin plus paclitaxel concomitantly and as maintenance for women with newly-diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy alone. Here we present exploratory analyses by paclitaxel dosing schedule and germline BRCA (gBRCA) status.MethodsWomen with untreated ovarian carcinoma were randomized (1:1:1) to: veliparib during chemotherapy and maintenance (veliparib-throughout), veliparib during chemotherapy followed by placebo maintenance (veliparib-combination only), or placebo during chemotherapy and maintenance (control). Chemotherapy included carboplatin plus dose-dense (DD; weekly) or every-3-week (Q3W) paclitaxel (a stratification factor at randomization), selected at the investigator's discretion pre-randomization. PFS was assessed by paclitaxel dosing schedule using a Cox proportional hazard model adjusted by treatment arm and stratification factors; safety was analyzed based on paclitaxel dosing schedule and gBRCA status.Results1132 patients were analyzed by paclitaxel schedule. Pooled treatment arms demonstrated longer median PFS with DD (n = 586) versus Q3W (n = 546) paclitaxel (ITT: 20.5 vs 15.7 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; homologous recombination proficient cancer: 15.1 vs 11.8 months, HR 0.64; BRCAwt: 18.0 vs 12.9 months, HR 0.70). Comparison between arms favored veliparib-throughout versus control in both DD (PFS, 24.2 vs 18.3 months, hazard ratio 0.67) and Q3W (19.3 vs 14.6, hazard ratio 0.69) subgroups. DD paclitaxel was associated with higher incidence of Grade 3/4 neutropenia, fatigue, and anemia versus Q3W. There were no differences in toxicity between gBRCAm (n = 211) and gBRCAwt (n = 902) subgroups.ConclusionsDD paclitaxel was tolerable and associated with longer PFS in the HR proficient and gBRCAwt groups, versus Q3W. gBRCA status did not impact safety.

Despite having similar histologic features, patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSC) often experience highly variable outcomes. The underlying determinants for long-term survival (LTS, ≥10 years) versus short-term survival (STS, 2; false discovery rate < 0.01). In the subsequent validation cohort, transmembrane protein 62 (TMEM62) was found to be related to LTS. CIBERSORT analysis showed that T cells (follicular helper) were found at higher levels in tumors from LTS than STS groups. In vitro data using OVCAR5 and OVCAR8 cells showed decreased proliferation with TMEM62 overexpression and positive correlation with a longevity-regulating pathway (KEGG HSA04213) at the RNA level. In vivo analysis using the OVCAR8-TMEM62-TetON model showed decreased tumor burden in mice with high- vs. low-expressing TMEM62 tumors. Our results demonstrate that restoring TMEM62 may be a novel approach for treatment of HGSC. These findings may have implications for biomarker and intervention strategies to help improve patient outcomes

PurposeIncreasing measures of adiposity have been correlated with poor oncologic outcomes and a lack of response to anti-angiogenic therapies. Limited data exists on the impact of subcutaneous fat density (SFD) and visceral fat density (VFD) on oncologic outcomes. This ancillary analysis of GOG-218, evaluates whether imaging markers of adiposity were predictive biomarkers for bevacizumab (bev) use in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).Patients and methodsThere were 1249 patients (67%) from GOG-218 with imaging measurements. SFD and VFD were calculated utilizing Hounsfield units (HU). Proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between SFD and VFD with overall survival (OS).ResultsIncreased SFD and VFD showed an increased HR for death (HR per 1-SD increase 1.12, 95% CI:1.05-1.19 p = 0.0009 and 1.13, 95% CI: 1.05-1.20 p = 0.0006 respectively). In the predictive analysis for response to bev, high VFD showed an increased hazard for death in the placebo group (HR per 1-SD increase 1.22, 95% CI: 1.09-1.37; p = 0.025). However, in the bev group there was no effect seen (HR per 1-SD increase: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.90-1.14) Median OS was 45 vs 47 months in the VFD low groups and 36 vs 42 months in the VFD high groups on placebo versus bev, respectively.ConclusionHigh VFD and SFD have a negative prognostic impact on patients with EOC. High VFD appears to be a predictive marker of bev response and patients with high VFD may be more likely to benefit from initial treatment with bev.

BACKGROUND:Olaparib was approved on December 19, 2014 by the US FDA as 4th-line therapy (and beyond) for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations; rucaparib was approved on December 19, 2016 as 3rd-line therapy (and beyond) for germline or somatic BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent disease. On October 23, 2019, niraparib was approved for treatment of women with damaging mutations in BRCA1/2 or other homologous recombination repair genes who had been treated with three or more prior regimens. We compared the cost-effectiveness of PARPi(s) with intravenous regimens for platinum-resistant disease. METHODS:Median progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity data from regulatory trials were incorporated in a model which transitioned patients through response, hematologic complications, non-hematologic complications, progression, and death. Using TreeAge Pro 2017, each PARPi(s) was compared separately to non‑platinum-based and bevacizumab-containing regimens. Costs of IV drugs, managing toxicities, infusions, and supportive care were estimated using 2017 Medicare data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and PFS was reported in quality adjusted life months for platinum-resistant populations. RESULTS:Non‑platinum-based intravenous chemotherapy was most cost effective ($6,412/PFS-month) compared with bevacizumab-containing regimens ($12,187/PFS-month), niraparib ($18,970/PFS-month), olaparib ($16,327/PFS-month), and rucaparib ($16,637/PFS-month). ICERs for PARPi(s) were 3-3.5× times greater than intravenous non‑platinum-based regimens. CONCLUSION:High costs of orally administered PARPi(s) were not mitigated or balanced by costs of infusion and managing toxicities of intravenous regimens typically associated with lower response and shorter median PFS. Balancing modest clinical benefit with costs of novel therapies remains problematic and could widen disparities among those with limited access to care.

ObjectivesScalable informatics solutions that provide molecularly tailored treatment recommendations to clinicians are needed to streamline precision oncology in care settings.Materials and methodsWe developed a cloud-based virtual molecular tumor board (VMTB) platform that included a knowledgebase, scoring model, rules engine, an asynchronous virtual chat room and a reporting tool that generated a treatment plan for each of the 1725 patients based on their molecular profile, previous treatment history, structured trial eligibility criteria, clinically relevant cancer gene-variant assertions, biomarker-treatment associations, and current treatment guidelines. The VMTB systematically allows clinician users to combine expert-curated data and structured data from clinical charts along with molecular testing data to develop consensus on treatments, especially those that require off-label and clinical trial considerations.ResultsThe VMTB was used as part of the cancer care process for a focused subset of 1725 patients referred by advocacy organizations wherein resultant personalized reports were successfully delivered to treating oncologists. Median turnaround time from data receipt to report delivery decreased from 14 days to 4 days over 4 years while the volume of cases increased nearly 2-fold each year. Using a novel scoring model for ranking therapy options, oncologists chose to implement the VMTB-derived therapies over others, except when pursuing immunotherapy options without molecular support.DiscussionVMTBs will play an increasingly critical role in precision oncology as the compendium of biomarkers and associated therapy options available to a patient continues to expand.ConclusionFurther development of such clinical augmentation tools that systematically combine patient-derived molecular data, real-world evidence from electronic health records and expert curated knowledgebases on biomarkers with computational tools for ranking best treatments can support care pathways at point of care.

ObjectiveThis study evaluated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced stage serous EOC.MethodsPatients enrolled in GOG-172 and 182 who provided specimens for translational research and consent were included. Germline DNA was evaluated with the Illumina's HumanOMNI1-Quad beadchips and scanned using Illumina's iScan optical imaging system. SNPs with allele frequency>0.05 and genotyping rate>0.98 were included. Analysis of SNPs for PFS and OS was done using Cox regression. Statistical significance was determined using Bonferroni corrected p-values with genomic control adjustment.ResultsThe initial GWAS analysis included 1,124,677 markers in 396 patients. To obtain the final data set, quality control checks were performed and limited to serous tumors and self-identified Caucasian race. In total 636,555 SNPs and 289 patients passed all the filters. The pre-specified statistical level of significance was 7.855e-08. No SNPs met this criteria for PFS or OS, however, two SNPs were close to significance (rs10899426 p-2.144e-08) (rs6256 p-9.774e-07) for PFS and 2 different SNPs were identified (rs295315 p-7.536e-07; rs17693104 p-7.734e-07) which were close to significance for OS.ConclusionsUsing the pre-specified level of significance of 1×10-08, we did not identify any SNPs of statistical significance for OS or PFS, however several were close. The SNP's identified in this GWAS study will require validation and these preliminary findings may lead to identification of novel pathways and biomarkers.

PurposeIntraperitoneal (IP) therapy improves survival compared to intravenous (IV) treatment for women with newly diagnosed, optimally cytoreduced, ovarian cancer. However, the role of IP therapy in recurrent disease is unknown. Preclinical data demonstrated IP administration of the proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib prior to IP carboplatin increased tumor platinum accumulation resulting in synergistic cytotoxicity. We conducted this phase I trial of IP bortezomib and carboplatin in women with recurrent disease.MethodsWomen with recurrent ovarian cancer were treated with escalating doses of IP bortezomib - in combination with IP carboplatin (AUC 4 or 5) every 21days for 6cycles. Pharmacokinetics of both agents were evaluated in cycle 1.ResultsThirty-three women participated; 32 were evaluable for safety. Two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) at the first dose level (carboplatin AUC 5, bortezomib 0.5mg/m2), prompting carboplatin reduction to AUC 4 for subsequent dose levels. With carboplatin dose fixed at AUC 4, bortezomib was escalated from 0.5 to 2.5mg/m2 without DLT. Grade 3/4 related toxicities included abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea which were infrequent. The overall response rate in patients with measurable disease (n=21) was 19% (1 complete, 3 partial). Cmax and AUC in peritoneal fluid and plasma increased linearly with dose, with a favorable exposure ratio of the peritoneal cavity relative to peripheral blood plasma.ConclusionIP administration of this novel combination was feasible and showed promising activity in this phase I trial of heavily pre-treated women with ovarian cancer. Further evaluation of this IP combination should be conducted.

Background: The NOVA study (NCT01847274) compared niraparib with placebo as a maintenance treatment for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (OC) but was not powered to detect an overall survival (OS) improvement. Objective: To compare OS in a real-world population of patients with BRCA wild-type (BRCA wt) recurrent OC who received second-line maintenance (2LM) niraparib monotherapy versus active surveillance (AS). Design: A retrospective study using a US-based nationwide deidentified electronic health record-derived database. Methods: Patients diagnosed with epithelial OC (January 1, 2011–May 31, 2021) who completed second-line (2L) therapy (January 1, 2017–March 2, 2022) and were BRCA wt were included. A NOVA study-like subpopulation included patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–1 and platinum-sensitive disease. Patients were assigned to 2LM niraparib or AS cohorts. Follow-up was measured from the index date (2L non-maintenance therapy end) until the first of study end (May 31, 2022), last clinical activity, or death. Median OS (mOS) and hazard ratios were estimated with an emulated trial methodology. Results: The overall population comprised 199 patients in the 2LM niraparib monotherapy cohort and 707 patients in the AS cohort; the NOVA study-like subpopulation included 123 patients in the 2LM niraparib monotherapy cohort and 143 in the AS cohort. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar in both populations. Overall, adjusted mOS was 24.1 months for the 2LM niraparib monotherapy cohort versus 18.4 months for the AS cohort (hazard ratio, 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.7–0.9). In the NOVA study-like subpopulation, adjusted mOS was 28.1 months for the 2LM niraparib monotherapy cohort versus 21.5 months for the AS cohort (hazard ratio, 0.6; 95% CI: 0.5–0.9). Conclusion: These results provide important real-world OS data for patients with recurrent BRCA wt OC who received niraparib monotherapy compared with patients receiving AS. Plain language summary: Niraparib maintenance treatment versus monitoring for recurrent ovarian cancer without BRCA mutation This study examined the real-life survival of patients with ovarian cancer (OC) who received two lines of chemotherapy for OC, known as recurrent OC. We compared two groups: one patient group received a subsequent oral medication called niraparib (a type of maintenance therapy) to delay recurrence, whereas the other group was monitored by their physicians without receiving any medication (also known as active surveillance). This study analyzed health records from across the United States, focusing on patients who were diagnosed with OC between January 2011 and May 2021. Importantly, these patients completed their second line of therapy between January 2017 and March 2022 and had BRCA wild-type disease (meaning that they did not have a specific gene mutation known as BRCA). Patients then received maintenance therapy with niraparib or active surveillance. To assess how long patients lived, patient records were reviewed until the study ended in May 2022, or for patients who did not have data available through that date, until the date of their last visit or death. The study found a significant difference in how long the two groups of patients survived on average. Those patients who received the medication niraparib survived for 24.1 months, compared with 18.4 months for patients in the group that was monitored by their physicians. These results provide valuable insights into the real-life benefits of using niraparib to treat OC outside of a clinical trial. Importantly, these results support the positive outcomes seen in clinical trials, indicating that this medication is a promising option for patients with recurring OC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveTo determine the effect of age on completion of and toxicities following treatment of local regionally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) on Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) Phase I-III trials.MethodsAn ancillary data analysis of GOG protocols 113, 120, 165, 219 data was performed. Wilcoxon, Pearson, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for univariate and multivariate analysis. Log rank tests were used to compare survival lengths.ResultsOne-thousand-three-hundred-nineteen women were included; 60.7% were Caucasian, 15% were age 60-70years and an additional 5% were >70; 87% had squamous histology, 55% had stage IIB disease and 34% had IIIB disease. Performance status declined with age (p=0.006). Histology and tumor stage did not significantly differ. Number of cycles of chemotherapy received, radiation treatment time, nor dose modifications varied with age. Notably, radiation protocol deviations and failure to complete brachytherapy (BT) did increase with age (p=0.022 and p50 for all-cause mortality (HR 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04) was found, but no association between age and disease specific mortality was found.ConclusionThis represents a large analysis of patients treated for LACC with chemo/radiation, approximately 20% of whom were >60years of age. Older patients, had higher rates of incomplete brachytherapy which is not explained by collected toxicity data. Age did not adversely impact completion of chemotherapy and radiation or toxicities.

ObjectiveHigh-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) generally presents at an advanced stage with poor long-term (LT) survival. Here we describe clinical features found in women surviving HGSC for ten or more years.MethodsA multi-center research consortium was established between five participating academic centers. Patient selection criteria included high-grade serous ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal carcinoma with at least ten years of follow up. Non-serous, borderline tumors and low-grade serous subtypes were excluded.ResultsThe 203 identified LT ten-year survivors with HGSC were diagnosed at a median age of 57years (range 37-84years). The majority of patients had stage IIIC (72.4%) disease at presentation. Of those who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery, optimal cytoreduction was achieved in 143 (85.6%) patients. After a median follow up of 144months, 88 (46.8%) patients did not develop recurrent disease after initial treatment. Unexpected findings from this survey of LT survivors includes 14% of patients having had suboptimal cytoreduction, 11% of patients having an initial platinum free interval of