Search

BackgroundRucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, has anticancer activity in recurrent ovarian carcinoma harbouring a BRCA mutation or high percentage of genome-wide loss of heterozygosity. In this trial we assessed rucaparib versus placebo after response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with high-grade, recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma.MethodsIn this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 87 hospitals and cancer centres across 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma, had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, had achieved complete or partial response to their last platinum-based regimen, had a cancer antigen 125 concentration of less than the upper limit of normal, had a performance status of 0-1, and had adequate organ function. Patients were ineligible if they had symptomatic or untreated central nervous system metastases, had received anticancer therapy 14 days or fewer before starting the study, or had received previous treatment with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. We randomly allocated patients 2:1 to receive oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo in 28 day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six, stratified by homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval after the penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to the most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival evaluated with use of an ordered step-down procedure for three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations (carcinoma associated with deleterious germline or somatic BRCA mutations), patients with homologous recombination deficiencies (BRCA mutant or BRCA wild-type and high loss of heterozygosity), and the intention-to-treat population, assessed at screening and every 12 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01968213; enrolment is complete.FindingsBetween April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, we randomly allocated 564 patients: 375 (66%) to rucaparib and 189 (34%) to placebo. Median progression-free survival in patients with a BRCA-mutant carcinoma was 16·6 months (95% CI 13·4-22·9; 130 [35%] patients) in the rucaparib group versus 5·4 months (3·4-6·7; 66 [35%] patients) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·23 [95% CI 0·16-0·34]; p

Purpose: The objective of this study is to determine primary survival endpoints in women with recurrent and metastatic endometrial carcinoma (RMEC) treated with progestins., Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted at The Ottawa Hospital using electronic medical records. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of RMEC between 2000 and 2019, endometrioid histology, and ≥one line of progestin treatment. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Of 2342 cases reviewed, 74 met inclusion criteria. Sixty-six (88.0%) patients received megestrol acetate and 9 (12.0%) received a progestin alternative. The distribution of tumors by grade was: 1: 25 (33.3%), 2: 30 (40.0%), and 3: 20 (26.7%). The PFS and OS for the entire study sample was 14.3 months (95% CI 6.2-17.9) and 23.3 months (14.8-36.8), respectively. The PFS for patients with Grade 1-2 RMEC was 15.7 months (8.0, 19.5), compared to 5.0 months (3.0, 23.0) with Grade 3 disease. The OS for patients with Grade 1-2 versus Grade 3, was 25.9 months (15.3, 40.3) versus 12.5 months (5.7, 35.9), respectively. Thirty-four (45.9%) and 40 (54.1%) patients were treated with 0 and ≥1 line of chemotherapy. The PFS for chemotherapy-naïve patients was 17.9 months (14.3, 27.0), versus 6.2 months (3.9, 14.8) following ≥1 line of treatment. The OS was 29.1 months (17.9, 61.1) for chemotherapy-naïve patients versus 23.0 months (10.5, 37.6) for patients previously exposed., Conclusions: This real-world data on RMEC suggests there is a role for progestins in select subgroups of women. The PFS for chemotherapy-naïve patients was 17.9 months (14.3, 27.0), versus 6.2 months (3.9, 14.8) following ≥1 line of treatment. The OS was 29.1 months (17.9, 61.1) for chemotherapy-OS was 29.1 months (17.9, 61.1) for chemotherapy-naïve patients versus 23.0 months (10.5, 37.6) for patients previously exposed., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) is a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma who responded to their latest line of platinum therapy. Rucaparib improved progression-free survival across all predefined subgroups. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of clinical and molecular characteristics associated with exceptional benefit from rucaparib., Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Molecular features (genomic alterations, BRCA1 promoter methylation) and baseline clinical characteristics were evaluated for association with exceptional benefit (progression-free survival ≥2 years) versus progression on first scan (short-term subgroup) and other efficacy outcomes., Results: Rucaparib treatment was significantly associated with exceptional benefit compared with placebo: 79/375 (21.1%) vs 4/189 (2.1%), respectively (p < 0.0001). Exceptional benefit was more frequent among patients with favorable baseline clinical characteristics and with carcinomas harboring molecular evidence of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). A comparison between patients who derived exceptional benefit from rucaparib and those in the short-term subgroup revealed both clinical markers (no measurable disease at baseline, complete response to latest platinum, longer penultimate platinum-free interval) and molecular markers (BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, and RAD51D alterations and genome-wide loss of heterozygosity) significantly associated with exceptional benefit., Conclusions: Exceptional benefit in ARIEL3 was more common in, but not exclusive to, patients with favorable clinical characteristics or molecular features associated with HRD. Our results suggest that rucaparib can deliver exceptional benefit to a diverse set of patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest DMO reports personal fees from consulting and/or advisory board participation from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, Agenus, Ambry, Amgen, Arquer Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Celsion Corp, Corcept Therapeutics, Eisai, Elevar, Genelux, Genentech/Roche, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, Inxmed, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Mersana, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Novocure, Regeneron, Roche Diagnostics MSA, Rubis, SeaGen, SDP Oncology (BBI), Takeda, and Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline, Toray; research funding (all funding to institution) from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, Agenus, Ajinomoto, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cerulean Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Ergomed, Genentech/Roche, GenMab, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, INC Research, inVentiv Health Clinical, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Merck, National Cancer Institute, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, Novocure, PRA International, Regeneron, SeaGen, Serono, Stemcentrx, Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline, Tracon Pharmaceuticals, VentiRx, and Yale University; and has given a presentation on ovarian cancer at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. AMO reports grants to his institution from AstraZeneca; has served on steering committees for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca (uncompensated), and Tesaro (uncompensated); has served in an advisory role for AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline (uncompensated); and has acted as a principal investigator on investigator-initiated trials with agents from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline. DL reports institutional research funding from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Corcept Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Genmab, ImmunoGen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, PharmaMar, Roche, and Seagen; consulting fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and PharmaMar; payment or honoraria for lectures from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Seagen; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Clovis Oncology, Agenus, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Roche; and serves on the board of directors for GCIG and as chair of GCA for ENGOT. CA has served on a steering committee for AbbVie and Genentech; has served as a principle investigator for studies by Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Genentech; served on advisory boards for AbbVie, AstraZeneca/Merck, Blueprint Medicine, Eisai/Merck, Mersana Therapeutics, Repare Therapeutics, and Roche/Genentech; and serves on the board of directors (unpaid) for GOG Foundation and NRG Oncology. AO reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca Farmaceutica Spain, AstraZeneca, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceutical, Eisai Europe Limited, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Got It Consulting, Immunogen, KL Logistics, Medison Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme de España, Mersana Therapeutics, Novocure GmbH, PharmaMar, prIME Oncology, Roche Farma, Shattuck Labs, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro Bio GmbH, Tesaro Bio Spain, and Tesaro; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Roche, and PharmaMar. AD has served in a consulting or advisory role for Precision Oncology Australia, Shire Pharmaceuticals, and Specialised Therapeutics Australia; and sits on the scientific advisory board for A2A Pharmaceuticals. NC reports institutional research funding from Clovis Oncology; serving in a consulting or advisory role for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mersana, Novartis, Nuvation Bio, Oncxerna, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Novartis; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca. JIW has received research support from AstraZeneca. ARC reports consulting fees for advisory boards for AstraZeneca; payment or honoraria for speakers bureaus for Clovis Oncology and Merck Sharp & Dohme; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Tesaro; and institutional research funding from Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca. GS reports royalties or licenses from Merck Sharp & Dohme Italia; consulting fees from Tesaro Bio Italy and Johnson & Johnson; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Clovis Oncology Italy. AL has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Ability Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, GamaMabs, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Gritstone, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Tesaro; steering committee for Merck Sharp & Dohme; reports institutional support for clinical trials or academic research from Clovis Oncology, Ability Pharmaceuticals, Agenus, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Inivata, Iovance, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Tesaro; and reports boarding and travel expenses for congress activities from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Roche. RWH reports consulting fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline. MAG has served on speakers' bureaus for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and PharmaMar; and reports support for attending meetings and/or travel from GlaxoSmithKline. PCF reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Merck Sharp & Dohme; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Pfizer. JCG reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Australia; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen; and stock or stock options for ICON Cancer Care, Australia. EMS reports institutional research funding from Clovis Oncology. LM, SG, KL, and TK are employees of Clovis Oncology and may own stock or have stock options in that company. JAL has received lecture fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer; served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Amgen, Artios Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nuvation, Pfizer, Regeneron, VBL Therapeutics, and Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline; and received research grants from AstraZeneca and Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme. RLC reports grants or contracts from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Gateway Foundation, Genelux, Genmab, Janssen, Merck, and Roche/Genentech; consulting fees from Clovis Oncology, Agenus, Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Deciphera, Genelux, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Janssen, OncoQuest, OncXerna, Onxeo, Regeneron, and Roche/Genentech., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The absence of the putative DNA/RNA helicase Schlafen11 (SLFN11) is thought to cause resistance to DNA-damaging agents (DDAs) and PARP inhibitors., Methods: We developed and validated a clinically applicable SLFN11 immunohistochemistry assay and retrospectively correlated SLFN11 tumour levels to patient outcome to the standard of care therapies and olaparib maintenance., Results: High SLFN11 associated with improved prognosis to the first-line treatment with DDAs platinum-plus-etoposide in SCLC patients, but was not strongly linked to paclitaxel-platinum response in ovarian cancer patients. Multivariate analysis of patients with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer from the randomised, placebo-controlled Phase II olaparib maintenance Study19 showed SLFN11 tumour levels associated with sensitivity to olaparib. Study19 patients with high SLFN11 had a lower progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratio compared to patients with low SLFN11, although both groups had the benefit of olaparib over placebo. Whilst caveated by small sample size, this trend was maintained for PFS, but not overall survival, when adjusting for BRCA status across the olaparib and placebo treatment groups, a key driver of PARP inhibitor sensitivity., Conclusion: We provide clinical evidence supporting the role of SLFN11 as a DDA therapy selection biomarker in SCLC and highlight the need for further clinical investigation into SLFN11 as a PARP inhibitor predictive biomarker., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The efficacy and safety of rucaparib maintenance treatment in ARIEL3 were evaluated in subgroups based on best response to most recent platinum-based chemotherapy and baseline disease., Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either oral rucaparib at a dosage of 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutated, homologous recombination deficient (HRD; BRCA mutated or wild-type BRCA/high loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat (ITT) population., Results: Median PFS for patients in the ITT population with a complete response to most recent platinum-based chemotherapy was 11.1 months in the rucaparib arm (126 patients) versus 5.6 months in the placebo arm (64 patients) (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.23-0.48]), and in patients with a partial response (249 vs. 125), it was 9.0 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.38 [0.30-0.49]). In subgroups of the ITT population based on baseline disease, median PFS was 8.2 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.40 [0.28-0.57]) in patients with measurable disease (141 rucaparib vs. 66 placebo), 10.4 versus 4.5 months (HR, 0.31 [0.20-0.48]) in those with nonmeasurable but evaluable disease (104 vs. 56), and 14.1 versus 7.3 months (HR, 0.35 [0.24-0.51]) in those with no residual disease (130 vs. 67). Across subgroups, significantly longer median PFS was observed with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA-mutated and HRD cohorts. Objective responses were reported in patients with measurable disease and in patients with nonmeasurable but evaluable baseline disease. Safety was consistent across subgroups., Conclusion: Rucaparib maintenance treatment provided clinically meaningful efficacy benefits across subgroups based on response to last platinum-based chemotherapy or baseline disease., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: In ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo regardless of biomarker status when used as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer. The aim of the current analyses was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rucaparib in subgroups based on progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of prior chemotherapies, and prior use of bevacizumab., Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Within subgroups, progression-free survival was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA -mutant, homologous recombination deficient ( BRCA -mutant or wild-type BRCA /high genomic loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat population., Results: In the intent-to-treat population, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 8.2 months with rucaparib versus 4.1 months with placebo (n=151 vs n=76; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.46, p<0.0001) for patients with progression-free interval 6 to ≤12 months, and 13.6 versus 5.6 months (n=224 vs n=113; HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52, p<0.0001) for those with progression-free interval >12 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.4 versus 5.4 months (n=231 vs n=124; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54, p<0.0001) for patients who had received two prior chemotherapies, and 11.1 versus 5.3 months (n=144 vs n=65; HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.41, p<0.0001) for those who had received ≥3 prior chemotherapies. Median progression-free survival was 10.3 versus 5.4 months (n=83 vs n=43; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, p=0.0004) for patients who had received prior bevacizumab, and 10.9 versus 5.4 months (n=292 vs n=146; HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.45, p<0.0001) for those who had not. Across subgroups, median progression-free survival was also significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA -mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts. Safety was consistent across subgroups., Conclusions: Rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo irrespective of progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of lines of prior chemotherapy, and previous use of bevacizumab., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ARC has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Eisai, and Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline; has received research funding from Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca; and has received travel and accommodation support for congress attendance from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Roche. DL has served in a consulting or advisory role for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, Merck, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, and Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline, Genmab; has received institutional research support from Merck, PharmaMar and Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline; and received support for travel or accommodation from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline. AMO has served on steering committees for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Tesaro (uncompensated). CA has served on a steering committee for AbbVie and Genentech; served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, Eisai/Merck, ImmunoGen, Mersana Therapeutics, Roche, and Tesaro; and received research grants from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Genentech. AO has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, ImmunoGen, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro; has received support for travel or accommodation from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; and reports institutional research grant support from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie Deutschland, Ability Pharmaceuticals, Advaxis, Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen, Aprea Therapeutics, Eisai, ImmunoGen, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro. AD has served in a consulting or advisory role for Precision Oncology Australia, Shire Pharmaceuticals, and Specialised Therapeutics Australia. NC has served in a consulting or advisory role for Clovis Oncology, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, and Tesaro. JIW has received research support from AbbVie and AstraZeneca and served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca. GS has served in a consulting or advisory role for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro. AL has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Ability Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, GamaMabs, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, Gritstone, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Tesaro; steering committee for Merck Sharp & Dohme; reports institutional support for clinical trials or academic research from Clovis Oncology, Ability Pharmaceuticals, Agenus, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Inivata, Iovance, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Tesaro; and reports boarding and travel expenses for congress activities from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Roche. RWH has served on speakers bureaus for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Tesaro, and on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca. MAG has served on speakers’ bureaus for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche. PCF has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca and received honoraria from AstraZeneca. JCG has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb; served in a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Tesaro; served on speakers’ bureaus for AstraZeneca, Ipsen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and received support for travel and/or accommodation from Astellas and AstraZeneca. DMO has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Genelux, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen, Novocure, Regeneron, and Tesaro; has served on steering committees for Clovis Oncology, Agenus, Amgen, and Novocure; has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Ambry, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Gynecologic Oncology Group Foundation, and Tesaro; has given a presentation on ovarian cancer at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network; and his institution has received research support from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, Agenus, Ajinomoto, Amgen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cerulean Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, ERGOMED Clinical Research, Genentech, Gynecologic Oncology Group, INC Research, inVentiv Health Clinical, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen Research and Development, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, Novocure, PRA International, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Serono, Stemcentrx, Tesaro, TRACON Pharmaceuticals, VentiRx, and Yale University. DKA has served as a scientific advisor for Morphotek and received research funding from Clovis Oncology, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Syndax, and Tesaro. SB has served on advisory boards and received honoraria from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Merck Sereno, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mersana, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro; received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca/Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Tesaro; received support for travel or accommodation from NuCana and Tesaro; and reports institutional funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Tesaro. JG-D has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer; received personal fees from Clovis Oncology, Astellas, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer; and received nonfinancial support from Astellas, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer. TC and SG are employees of Clovis Oncology and may own stock or have stock options in that company. RLC reports grants from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Gateway Foundation, Janssen, Judy Reis/Albert Pisani, MD, Ovarian Cancer Research Fund, Merck, National Institutes of Health, Roche/Genentech, and V-Foundation; has served as an advisor to Clovis Oncology, Agenus, AstraZeneca, GamaMabs, Genmab, Janssen, OncoQuest, Pfizer (Medivation), Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro; and has an endowment as the Ann Rife Cox Chair in Gynecology. JAL has received lecture fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Artios Pharma, AstraZeneca, Cristal Therapeutics, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro; and received research grants from AstraZeneca and Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme., (© IGCS and ESGO 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: In high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), there is a spectrum of sensitivity to first line platinum-based chemotherapy. This study molecularly characterizes HGSOC patients from two distinct groups of chemotherapy responders (good vs. poor)., Methods: Following primary debulking surgery and intravenous carboplatin/paclitaxel, women with stage III-IV HGSOC were grouped by response. Patients in the good response (GR) and poor response (PR) groups respectively had a progression-free intervals (PFI) of ≥12 and ≤6 months. Analysis of surgical specimens interrogated genomic and immunologic features using whole exome sequencing. RNA-sequencing detected gene expression outliers and inference of immune infiltrate, with validation by targeted NanoString arrays. PD-L1 expression was scored by immunohistochemistry (IHC)., Results: A total of 39 patient samples were analyzed (GR = 20; PR = 19). Median PFI for GR and PR patient cohorts was 32 and 3 months, respectively. GR tumors were enriched for loss-of-function BRCA2 mutations and had a significantly higher nonsynonymous mutation rate compared to PR tumors (p = 0.001). Samples from the PR cohort were characterized by mutations in MGA and RAD51B and trended towards a greater rate of amplification of PIK3CA, MECOM, and ATR in comparison to GR tumors. Gene expression analysis by NanoString correlated increased PARP4 with PR and increased PD-L1 and EMSY with GR. There was greater tumor immune cell infiltration and higher immune cell PD-L1 protein expression in the GR group., Conclusions: Our research demonstrates that tumors from HGSOC patients responding poorly to first line chemotherapy have a distinct molecular profile characterized by actionable drug targets including PARP4., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The Wee1 (WEE1hu) inhibitor adavosertib and gemcitabine have shown preclinical synergy and promising activity in early phase clinical trials. We aimed to determine the efficacy of this combination in patients with ovarian cancer., Methods: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, women with measurable recurrent platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory high-grade serous ovarian cancer were recruited from 11 academic centres in the USA and Canada. Women were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, a life expectancy of more than 3 months, and normal organ and marrow function. Women with ovarian cancer of non-high-grade serous histology were eligible for enrolment in a non-randomised exploratory cohort. Eligible participants with high-grade serous ovarian cancer were randomly assigned (2:1), using block randomisation (block size of three and six) and no stratification, to receive intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8, and 15) with either oral adavosertib (175 mg) or identical placebo once daily on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients and the team caring for each patient were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The safety and efficacy analysis population comprised all patients who received at least one dose of treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02151292, and is closed to accrual., Findings: Between Sept 22, 2014, and May 30, 2018, 124 women were enrolled, of whom 99 had high-grade serous ovarian cancer and were randomly assigned to adavosertib plus gemcitabine (65 [66%]) or placebo plus gemcitabine (34 [34%]). 25 women with non-high-grade serous ovarian cancer were enrolled in the exploratory cohort. After randomisation, five patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer were found to be ineligible (four in the experimental group and one in the control group) and did not receive treatment. Median age for all treated patients (n=119) was 62 years (IQR 54-67). Progression-free survival was longer with adavosertib plus gemcitabine (median 4·6 months [95% CI 3·6-6·4] with adavosertib plus gemcitabine vs 3·0 months [1·8-3·8] with placebo plus gemcitabine; hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·35-0·90]; log-rank p=0·015). The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were haematological (neutropenia in 38 [62%] of 61 participants in the adavosertib plus gemcitabine group vs ten [30%] of 33 in the placebo plus gemcitabine group; thrombocytopenia in 19 [31%] of 61 in the adavosertib plus gemcitabine group vs two [6%] of 33 in the placebo plus gemcitabine group). There were no treatment-related deaths; two patients (one in each group in the high-grade serous ovarian cancer cohort) died while on study medication (from sepsis in the experimental group and from disease progression in the control group)., Interpretation: The observed clinical efficacy of a Wee1 inhibitor combined with gemcitabine supports ongoing assessment of DNA damage response drugs in high-grade serous ovarian cancer, a TP53-mutated tumour type with high replication stress. This therapeutic approach might be applicable to other tumour types with high replication stress; larger confirmatory studies are required., Funding: US National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, US Department of Defense, Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation, and AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To investigate quality-adjusted progression-free survival (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) in a post hoc exploratory analysis of the phase III ARIEL3 study of rucaparib maintenance treatment versus placebo., Patients and Methods: Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma were randomly assigned to rucaparib (600 mg twice per day) or placebo. QA-PFS was calculated as progression-free survival function × the 3-level version of the EQ-5D questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) index score function. Q-TWiST analyses were performed defining TOX as the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) or the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 2 TEAEs of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and asthenia. Q-TWiST was calculated as μTOX × TOX + TWiST, with μTOX calculated using EQ-5D-3L data., Results: The visit cutoff was Apr 15, 2017. Mean QA-PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (375 randomly assigned to rucaparib v 189 randomly assigned to placebo; difference, 6.28 months [95% CI, 4.85 to 7.47 months]); BRCA -mutant cohort (130 rucaparib v 66 placebo; 9.37 months [95% CI, 6.65 to 11.85 months]); homologous recombination deficient (HRD) cohort (236 rucaparib v 118 placebo; 7.93 months [95% CI, 5.93 to 9.53 months]); and BRCA wild-type/loss of heterozygosity (LOH) low patient subgroup (107 rucaparib v 54 placebo; 2.71 months [95% CI, 0.31 to 4.44 months]). With TOX defined using grade ≥ 3 TEAEs, the difference in mean Q-TWiST (rucaparib v placebo) was 6.88 months (95% CI, 5.71 to 8.23 months), 9.73 months (95% CI, 7.10 to 11.94 months), 8.11 months (95% CI, 6.36 to 9.49 months), and 3.35 months (95% CI, 1.66 to 5.40 months) in the ITT population, BRCA -mutant cohort, HRD cohort, and BRCA wild-type/LOH low patient subgroup, respectively. Q-TWiST with TOX defined using select grade ≥ 2 TEAEs also consistently favored rucaparib., Conclusion: The significant differences in QA-PFS and Q-TWiST confirm the benefit of rucaparib versus placebo in all predefined cohorts.

Background: In the phase 3 trial ARIEL3, maintenance treatment with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib provided clinical benefit versus placebo for patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Here, we evaluate the impact of age on the clinical utility of rucaparib in ARIEL3., Methods: Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma with ≥2 prior platinum-based chemotherapies who responded to their last platinum-based therapy were enrolled in ARIEL3 and randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Exploratory, post hoc analyses of progression-free survival (PFS), patient-centered outcomes (quality-adjusted PFS [QA-PFS] and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity [Q-TWiST]), and safety were conducted in three age subgroups (<65 years, 65-74 years, and ≥75 years)., Results: Investigator-assessed PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in patients aged <65 years (rucaparib n = 237 vs placebo n = 117; median, 11.1 vs 5.4 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.33 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.25-0.43]; P < 0.0001) and 65-74 years (n = 113 vs n = 64; median, 8.3 vs 5.3 months; HR 0.43 [95% CI 0.29-0.63]; P < 0.0001) and numerically longer in patients aged ≥75 years (n = 25 vs n = 8; median, 9.2 vs 5.5 months; HR 0.47 [95% CI 0.16-1.35]; P = 0.1593). QA-PFS and Q-TWiST were significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo across all age subgroups. Safety of rucaparib was generally similar across the age subgroups., Conclusions: Efficacy, patient-centered outcomes, and safety of rucaparib were similar between age subgroups, indicating that all eligible women with recurrent ovarian cancer should be offered this therapeutic option, irrespective of age. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01968213., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Nicoletta Colombo: Served in a consulting or advisory role for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro. Amit M. Oza: Served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Immunovaccine. Domenica Lorusso: Served in a consulting or advisory role for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, Merck, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, and Tesaro and received support for travel or accommodation from PharmaMar and Roche. Carol Aghajanian: Served on a steering committee for Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, Genentech, and Mateon Therapeutics; served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Cerulean Pharma, Eisai/Merck, ImmunoGen, and Tesaro; received research grants from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Genentech; and received honoraria from Clovis Oncology, Cerulean Pharma, Eisai/Merck, ImmunoGen, Mateon Therapeutics, and Tesaro. Ana Oaknin: Served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro; received support for travel or accommodation from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; and received research grants from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie Deutschland, Ability Pharmaceuticals, Advaxis, Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen SA, Aprea Therapeutics AB, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, ImmunoGen, Merck Sharp & Dohme de España SA, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, PharmaMar, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Tesaro. Andrew Dean: Served in a consulting or advisory role for Precision Oncology Australia, Shire Pharmaceuticals, and Specialised Therapeutics Australia. Johanne I. Weberpals: Received research support from AbbVie and AstraZeneca and served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca. Andrew R. Clamp: Served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca; received research funding from Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca; and received support for travel and accommodation for congress attendance from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Roche. Giovanni Scambia: Served in a consulting or advisory role for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro. Alexandra Leary: Served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, GamaMabs, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, PharmaMar, and Tesaro; received support for travel and accommodation from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Tesaro; and reports institutional research grant support from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GamaMabs, Inivata, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merus, Sanofi, and Tesaro. Robert W. Holloway: Served on speakers bureaus for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Tesaro. Margarita Amenedo Gancedo: Served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology and on speakers bureaus for AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche. Peter C. Fong: Served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca and received honoraria from AstraZeneca. Jeffrey C. Goh: Served in a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Tesaro; served on speakers bureaus for Ipsen and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and received support for travel or accommodation from Astellas, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. David M. O'Malley: Served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Genelux, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen, Novocure, Regeneron, and Tesaro; has served on steering committees for Clovis Oncology, Agenus, Amgen, and Novocure; has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Ambry, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Gynecologic Oncology Group Foundation, and Tesaro; has given a presentation on ovarian cancer at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network; and his institution has received research support from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, Agenus, Amgen, Ajinomoto, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cerulean Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, ERGOMED Clinical Research, Genentech, Gynecologic Oncology Group, INC Research, inVentiv Health Clinical, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen Research and Development, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, Novocure, PRA International, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Serono, Stemcentrx, Tesaro, TRACON Pharmaceuticals, VentiRx, and Yale University. Deborah K. Armstrong: Served as a scientific advisor for Morphotek and received research funding from Clovis Oncology, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Syndax, and Tesaro. Susana Banerjee: Served on advisory boards and received honoraria from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro; received honoraria from Merck Serono and Roche; and received support for travel or accommodation from NuCana and Tesaro. Jesus García-Donas: Received research funding from AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer; received personal fees from Clovis Oncology, Astellas, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer; and received nonfinancial support from Astellas, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer. Elizabeth M. Swisher: Has nothing to disclose. Juliette Meunier: Employee of Modus Outcomes, which was contracted by Clovis Oncology to conduct these analyses. Terri Cameron, Lara Maloney, Sandra Goble, and Josh Bedel: Employees of Clovis Oncology and may own stock or have stock options in that company. Jonathan A. Ledermann: Received lecture fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and Tesaro; served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Artios Pharma, AstraZeneca, Cristal Therapeutics, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro; and received research grants from AstraZeneca and Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme. Robert L. Coleman: Reports grants from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Gateway Foundation, Janssen, Judy Reis/Albert Pisani, MD, Ovarian Cancer Research Fund, Merck, National Institutes of Health, Roche/Genentech, and V-Foundation; has served as an advisor to Clovis Oncology, Agenus, AstraZeneca, GamaMabs, Genmab, Janssen, OncoQuest, Pfizer (Medivation), Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro; and has an endowment as the Ann Rife Cox Chair in Gynecology., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Preclinical studies show that adavosertib, a WEE1 kinase inhibitor, sensitizes TP53 -mutant cells to chemotherapy. We hypothesized that adavosertib, plus chemotherapy, would enhance efficacy versus placebo in TP53 -mutated ovarian cancer., Patients and Methods: Following safety run-in, this double-blind phase II trial (NCT01357161) randomized women with TP53 -mutated, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer to oral adavosertib (225 mg twice daily for 2.5 days/21-day cycle) or placebo, plus carboplatin (AUC5) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m 2 ), until disease progression or for six cycles. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) by enhanced RECIST v1.1 [ePFS (volumetric)] and safety. Secondary/exploratory objectives included PFS by RECIST v1.1 (single dimension), objective response rate, overall survival, and analysis of tumor gene profile versus sensitivity to adavosertib., Results: A total of 121 patients were randomized to adavosertib (A+C; n = 59) and placebo (P+C; n = 62) plus chemotherapy. Adding adavosertib to chemotherapy improved ePFS [median, 7.9 (95% confidence interval (CI), 6.9-9.9) vs. 7.3 months (5.6-8.2); HR 0.63 (95% CI, 0.38-1.06); two-sided P = 0.080], meeting the predefined significance threshold ( P < 0.2). Clinical benefit was observed following A+C for patients with different TP53 mutation subtypes, identifying possible response biomarkers. An increase in adverse events was seen with A+C versus P+C: greatest for diarrhea (adavosertib 75%; placebo 37%), vomiting (63%; 27%), anemia (53%; 32%), and all grade ≥3 adverse events (78%; 65%)., Conclusions: Establishing an optimal strategy for managing tolerability and identifying specific patient populations most likely to benefit from treatment may increase clinical benefit. Future studies should consider additional adavosertib doses within the chemotherapy treatment cycle and the potential for maintenance therapy., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo. Here, we report prespecified, investigator-assessed, exploratory post-progression endpoints and updated safety data., Methods: In this ongoing (enrolment complete) randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and responded to their last platinum-based regimen were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or placebo in 28-day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six with stratification based on homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval following penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival has been previously reported. Prespecified, exploratory outcomes of chemotherapy-free interval (CFI), time to start of first subsequent therapy (TFST), time to disease progression on subsequent therapy or death (PFS2), and time to start of second subsequent therapy (TSST) and updated safety were analysed (visit cutoff Dec 31, 2017). Efficacy analyses were done in all patients randomised to three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations, patients with homologous recombination deficiencies, and the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01968213., Findings: Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, 564 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to rucaparib (n=375) or placebo (n=189). Median follow-up was 28·1 months (IQR 22·0-33·6). In the intention-to-treat population, median CFI was 14·3 months (95% CI 13·0-17·4) in the rucaparib group versus 8·8 months (8·0-10·3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·43 [95% CI 0·35-0·53]; p<0·0001), median TFST was 12·4 months (11·1-15·2) versus 7·2 months (6·4-8·6; HR 0·43 [0·35-0·52]; p<0·0001), median PFS2 was 21·0 months (18·9-23·6) versus 16·5 months (15·2-18·4; HR 0·66 [0·53-0·82]; p=0·0002), and median TSST was 22·4 months (19·1-24·5) versus 17·3 months (14·9-19·4; HR 0·68 [0·54-0·85]; p=0·0007). CFI, TFST, PFS2, and TSST were also significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination-deficient cohorts. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event of grade 3 or higher was anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (80 [22%] patients in the rucaparib group vs one [1%] patient in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 83 (22%) patients in the rucaparib group and 20 (11%) patients in the placebo group. Two treatment-related deaths have been previously reported in this trial; there were no new treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: In these exploratory analyses over a median follow-up of more than 2 years, rucaparib maintenance treatment led to a clinically meaningful delay in starting subsequent therapy and provided lasting clinical benefits versus placebo in all three analysis cohorts. Updated safety data were consistent with previous reports., Funding: Clovis Oncology., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Patients with recurrent ovarian clear cell carcinoma (OCCC) have limited effective options due to chemoresistance. A phase II study was designed to assess the activity of ENMD-2076, an oral multitarget kinase selective against Aurora A and VEGFR., Patients and Methods: This multicenter phase II study included patients with recurrent OCCC who received prior platinum-based chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were objective response and 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rates. Correlative analyses include ARID1A and PTEN expression by IHC and gene sequencing with a targeted custom capture next-generation sequencing panel., Results: Forty patients were enrolled with a median age of 54, of which 38 patients were evaluable. ENMD-2076 was well tolerated with main related grade 3 toxicities being hypertension (28%), proteinuria (10%), and diarrhea (10%). Best response was partial response for 3 patients (1 unconfirmed) and stable disease for 26 patients. The overall 6-month PFS rate was 22% and differed according to ARID1A expression (ARIDIA - vs. ARID1A + ; 33% vs. 12%, P = 0.023). PTEN-positive expression was observed in 20 of 36 patients, and there was no correlation with outcome. Median PFS in patients with PI3KCA wild-type versus PI3KCA -mutated group was 5 versus 3.7 months ( P = 0.049). Molecular profiling showed variants in PI3KCA (27%), ARID1A (26%), and TP53 (7%). The patient with the longest treatment duration (22 months) was PTEN wild-type, diploid PTEN with putative biallelic inactivation of ARID1A ., Conclusions: Single-agent ENMD-2076 did not meet the preset bar for efficacy. Loss of ARID1A correlated with better PFS on ENMD-2076 and warrants further investigation as a potential predictive biomarker., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: The purpose of this multistage, adaptively, designed randomized phase II study was to evaluate the role of intraperitoneal (i.p.) chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and optimal debulking surgery in women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC)., Patients and Methods: We carried out a multicenter, two-stage, phase II trial. Eligible patients with stage IIB-IVA EOC treated with platinum-based intravenous (i.v.) NACT followed by optimal (<1 cm) debulking surgery were randomized to one of the three treatment arms: (i) i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel, (ii) i.p. cisplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel, or (iii) i.p. carboplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel. The primary end point was 9-month progressive disease rate (PD9). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL)., Results: Between 2009 and 2015, 275 patients were randomized; i.p. cisplatin containing arm did not progress beyond the first stage of the study after failing to meet the pre-set superiority rule. The final analysis compared i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel (n = 101) with i.p. carboplatin, i.v./i.p. paclitaxel (n = 102). The intention to treat PD9 was lower in the i.p. carboplatin arm compared with the i.v. carboplatin arm: 24.5% (95% CI 16.2% to 32.9%) versus 38.6% (95% CI 29.1% to 48.1%) P = 0.065. The study was underpowered to detect differences in PFS: HR PFS 0.82 (95% CI 0.57-1.17); P = 0.27 and OS HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.47-1.35) P = 0.40. The i.p. carboplatin-based regimen was well tolerated with no reduction in QOL or increase in toxicity compared with i.v. administration alone., Conclusion: In women with stage IIIC or IVA EOC treated with NACT and optimal debulking surgery, i.p. carboplatin-based chemotherapy is well tolerated and associated with an improved PD9 compared with i.v. carboplatin-based chemotherapy., Clinical Trial Number: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01622543., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: Patients with advanced or recurrent invasive vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC) have limited treatment options and a grave prognosis. Understanding the genomic landscape may facilitate the identification of new therapies and improve clinical outcomes. Experimental Design: A retrospective chart review and molecular analysis of patients with VSCC from 2000 to 2016 was performed at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. The presence of oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) was determined by nested PCR and amplified DNA was sequenced using the Ion AmpliSeq Cancer Hotspot v2 Panel. The patients were divided into two groups according to HPV status (HPV-positive versus HPV-negative) and clinical outcome correlated with mutation status using descriptive statistics. Results: In 43 VSCC patients, there was a high mutation rate in both HPV-positive (73%) and HPV-negative (90%) disease with the two subgroups expressing distinct genetic profiles. HPV-positive tumors were characterized by oncogenic mutations in PIK3CA (27%), FGFR3 (14%), and PTEN (9%), whereas HPV-negative tumors were found to have mutations in TP53 (57%), HRAS (24%), PI3KCA (19%), and CDKN2A (14%). Mutation S249C in FGFR3 occurred in 14% of HPV-positive tumors. While there were notable differences in the occurrence of TP53, HRAS, PTEN , and FGFR3 mutations according to HPV status, only the rate of TP53 mutations was statistically significant ( P = 0.0004). No significant difference in prognosis was found between patients with HPV-positive and HPV-negative VSCC. Conclusions: HPV-positive VSCC is characterized by oncogenic FGFR3 mutations that helps classify this subtype as a separate disease. Inhibitors of FGFR3 merit consideration as a therapeutic strategy in this neglected cancer in women. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4501-10. ©2017 AACR ., (©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: The incidence of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC) has been on the rise since the 1990s. There has been no new treatment for advanced and recurrent disease in decades, with most women succumbing to the disease. Despite two distinct etiologies of VSCC, human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated and HPV-independent disease, there is no difference in therapeutic options., Methods: A literature review was carried out by searching EMBASE and Medline databases between January 1990 and March 2016 by pairing the keywords of vulvar carcinoma, vulva cancer, vulvar and vulva with molecular markers involved in the cell cycle, apoptosis and angiogenesis. Molecular targets of prognostic significance were identified and targeted agents of therapeutic relevance to both HPV-independent and HPV-associated VSCC were then reviewed., Results: Recent advances in our understanding of the molecular biology of VSCC provide insight into the future management of VSCC with molecular targeted therapies. Aberrant cell cycle activity is common in both HPV-associated and HPV-independent VSCC and is characterized by overexpression of p53, Rb and cyclin D1, supporting targeting of these protein products and their downstream pathways. Extracellular regulators of cellular activity, such as EGFR, as well as inhibitors of angiogenesis are being clinically evaluated in VSCC. HPV-independent VSCC is characterized by actionable mutations, including PI3K, CDKN2A and PTEN. In HPV-associated disease, therapeutic vaccines targeting the E6 and E7 HPV oncogenes and immune-based therapies are under investigation., Conclusion: There has been a paucity of clinical trials in recent years in this neglected women's cancer. Directed therapy against cell cycle regulatory molecules and extracellular proteins and the inhibition of angiogenesis are of broad therapeutic relevance in VSCC. Therapeutic strategies that target actionable mutations should be explored. In HPV-associated VSCC, novel treatments that exploit the virology of HPV and/or enhance the host immune response merit further study., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Synergistic cytotoxicity with high-dose statins and erlotinib has been demonstrated in preclinical models across a number of tumour types. In this phase I study, we evaluated the safety and potential anti-tumour activity of escalating doses of rosuvastatin in combination with the standard clinical dose of erlotinib in heavily pretreated patients with advanced solid tumours., Methods: This was a single-center, phase I open-label study to determine the safety and recommended phase two dose (RPTD) of rosuvastatin in combination with 150 mg/day standard dose of erlotinib. Using a 3 + 3 study design and 28-day cycle, escalating doses of rosuvastatin from 1 to 8 mg/kg/day × 2 weeks (cycle 1) and 3 weeks (subsequent cycles) given concurrently with erlotinib were evaluated. In order to expand the experience and to gain additional safety and pharmacokinetic data, two expansions cohorts using concurrent or alternating weekly dosing regimens at the RPTD were also evaluated., Results: All 24 patients enrolled were evaluable for toxicity, and 22 for response. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of reversible muscle toxicity was seen at the 2 mg/kg/day dose level. Maximal tolerated dose (MTD) was determined to be 1 mg/kg/day. Thirty-three percent of patients developed at least 1 ≥ grade 2 muscle toxicity (rhabdomyolysis: 1/24, myalgia: 7/24) resulting in one study-related death. Durable stable disease for more than 170 days was seen in 25 % of patients that received concurrent treatment and were evaluable for response (n = 16). Plasma erlotinib levels on study were unaffected by the addition of rosuvastatin., Conclusions: The observed disease stabilization rate of 25 % with combination therapy in this heavily pretreated population is encouraging, however, the high levels of muscle toxicities observed limited this combination strategy.

Background: Platinum resistance is a dominant cause of poor outcomes in advanced ovarian cancer (OC). A mechanism of platinum resistance is the inhibition of apoptosis through phosphatidylinositol 3 kinase (PI3K) pathway activation. The role of phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), a negative regulator of this pathway, as a tumor biomarker is unclear. Quantitative analysis of PTEN expression as an alternative to immunohistochemistry has not been considered., Patients and Methods: In 238 patient tumors from the NCIC-CTG trial OV.16, PTEN protein expression was quantified by Automated QUantitative Analysis (AQUA). Cox model was used to study the association between PTEN expression and clinical outcomes using a minimum p-value approach in univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis was used to adjust for clinical and pathological parameters., Results: PTEN scores (range 13.9-192.3) of the 202 samples that passed quality control were analyzed. In univariate analysis, there was a trend suggesting an association between PTEN expression by AQUA as a binary variable (low ≤61 vs high >61) and progression free survival (HR=0.77, p=0.083), and in multivariate analysis, this association approached significance (HR=0.74, p=0.059). The relationship between quantitative PTEN expression and PFS differed (p=0.01 for interaction) by the extent of surgical debulking (residual disease (RD) <1cm or ≥1cm), with a numerically superior PFS in patients with high PTEN (23.5 vs 14.9m) only when RD<1cm (p=0.19). There was no association between PTEN levels and overall survival., Conclusions: AQUA is a novel method to measure PTEN expression. Further study of PTEN as a biomarker in OC is warranted., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: A phase II study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single-agent RO4929097 (a gamma-secretase inhibitor) in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer., Experimental Design: Women with progressive platinum-resistant ovarian cancer treated with ≤2 chemotherapy regimens for recurrent disease were enrolled in this trial. Patients received oral RO4929097 at 20 mg once daily, 3 days on/4 days off each week in a three week cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) rate at the end of 4 cycles. Secondary objectives included assessment of the safety of RO4929097 and exploration of molecular correlates of outcome in archival tumor tissue and serum., Results: Of 45 patients enrolled, 40 were evaluable for response. Thirty-seven (82%) patients had high-grade ovarian cancer. No objective responses were observed. Fifteen patients (33%) had stable disease as their best response, with a median duration of 3.1 months. The median PFS for the whole group was 1.3 months (1.2-2.5). Treatment was generally well tolerated with 10% of patients discontinuing treatment due to an adverse event. In high grade serous ovarian cancer patients, the median PFS trended higher when the expression of intracellular Notch (NICD) protein by immunohistochemistry was high versus low (3.3 versus 1.3 months, p=0.09). No clear relationship between circulating angiogenic factors and PFS was found despite a suggestion of an improved outcome with higher baseline VEGFA levels., Conclusions: RO4929097 has insufficient activity as a single-agent in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer to warrant further study as monotherapy. Future studies are needed to explore the potential for cohort enrichment using NICD expression., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Targeting the EGFR, with inhibitors such as erlotinib, represents a promising therapeutic option in advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC). However, they lack significant efficacy as single agents. Recently, we identified the ability of statins to induce synergistic cytotoxicity in HNSCC cells through targeting the activation and trafficking of the EGFR. However, in a phase I trial of rosuvastatin and erlotinib, statin-induced muscle pathology limited the usefulness of this approach. To overcome these toxicity limitations, we sought to uncover other potential combinations using a 1,200 compound screen of FDA-approved drugs. We identified monensin, a coccidial antibiotic, as synergistically enhancing the cytotoxicity of erlotinib in two cell line models of HNSCC, SCC9 and SCC25. Monensin treatment mimicked the inhibitory effects of statins on EGFR activation and downstream signaling. RNA-seq analysis of monensin-treated SCC25 cells demonstrated a wide array of cholesterol and lipid synthesis genes upregulated by this treatment similar to statin treatment. However, this pattern was not recapitulated in SCC9 cells as monensin specifically induced the expression of activation of transcription factor (ATF) 3, a key regulator of statin-induced apoptosis. This differential response was also demonstrated in monensin-treated ex vivo surgical tissues in which HMG-CoA reductase expression and ATF3 were either not induced, induced singly, or both induced together in a cohort of 10 patient samples, including four HNSCC. These results suggest the potential clinical utility of combining monensin with erlotinib in patients with HNSCC., (©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.)

High-risk carcinogenic subtypes of human papilloma virus (HPV) are associated with the development of squamous cell carcinomas of the cervix (CC) and a subset of head and neck (HNSCC). Recurrent metastatic diseases of these sites display a dismal prognosis. Therefore, there is an urgent need to uncover innovative therapeutic strategies in this clinical setting. Oncolytic viruses, including vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), were identified due to their ability to specifically target tumor cells that generally display defects in interferon (IFN) signaling. HPV expressed proteins can inhibit IFN signaling; therefore, HPV-infected cells may be particularly sensitive to VSV oncolysis. In this study, we evaluated the sensitivity of four CC (HPV+) and four HNSCC (HPV-) derived cell lines to VSV oncolysis. Interestingly, the CC cell lines were consistently more sensitive to VSV cytotoxicity than the HNSCC cell lines tested. Exogenous IFN addition or infection with two attenuated VSV variants that are more susceptible to IFN inhibition failed to attenuate VSV oncolysis in hypersensitive CC cell lines. Furthermore, the expression of HPV-E6, that inhibits IFN receptor signaling, in the VSV-resistant HNSCC cell line SCC25 attenuated VSV-induced IFN response and significantly enhanced VSV cytotoxicity. Finally, differential VSV infection and replication was confirmed in xenograft murine tumor models and explant tumor tissues from two patients with CC. Taken together, these results demonstrate that HPV-infected cells are susceptible to oncolytic virus therapy and that this approach may represent a novel therapeutic approach in HPV positive CC and HNSCC patients., (Copyright © 2011 UICC.)

Background: Breast cancer 1 (BRCA1) protein inactivation in sporadic ovarian carcinoma (OC) is common and low BRCA1 expression is linked with platinum sensitivity. The clinical validation of BRCA1 as a prognostic marker in OC remains unresolved., Patients and Methods: In 251 patient samples from the NCIC CTG clinical trial, OV.16, BRCA1 protein expression was determined by immunohistochemistry., Results: For all patients, when BRCA1 score was analyzed as a continuous variable, there was no significant correlation between BRCA1 protein expression and progression-free survival (PFS) [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.15 (0.96-1.37), P = 0.12] or response rate [HR = 0.89 (0.70-1.12), P = 0.32]. In the 116 patients with minimal residual disease (RD), higher BRCA1 expression correlated significantly with worse PFS [HR = 1.40 (1.04-1.89), P = 0.03]. Subgroup analysis divided patients with minimal RD into low (BRCA1 ≤2.5) and high (BRCA1 >2.5) expression groups. Patients with low BRCA1 expression had a more favorable outcome [median PFS was 24.7 and 16.6 months in patients with low and high BRCA1, respectively; HR = 0.56 (0.35-0.89), P = 0.01]., Conclusions: This study suggests that BRCA1 protein is a prognostic marker in sporadic OC patients with minimal RD. Further research is needed to evaluate BRCA1 as a predictive biomarker and to target BRCA1 expression to enhance chemotherapeutic sensitivity.

Genomic information is being used to develop robust prognostic and predictive biomarkers that will provide companion diagnostics for emerging molecular targeted therapies. The genetics and associated molecular pathways in ovarian cancer are increasingly being used for the development of novel targeted drugs with a much greater therapeutic specificity than standard chemotherapy. This review will provide an update on recent research on the therapeutic opportunities presented by mutational alterations to the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and phosphatidylinositide-3-kinase (PI3K/AKT/mTOR) pathways. In addition, the role of the deficient BRCA1/2-mediated homologous recombination (HR) ("BRCAness") pathway is presented. Understanding the molecular biology of these pathways in the context of contemporary drug development means that somatic mutations and epigenetic losses of BRCA1/2 and PTEN in ovarian cancer are being used to predict sensitivity to new poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors that exhibit synthetic lethality with BRCA1/2 dysfunction and other repair pathways. Future predictive "biomarker pipelines" are being developed so that ovarian cancer patients will be able to avoid having treatments with drugs that will have no effect, whereas other patients with cancer may be eligible for therapies with a much higher probability of treatment response., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The inhibition of Breast Cancer 1 (BRCA1) expression sensitizes breast and ovarian cancer cells to platinum chemotherapy. However, therapeutically relevant agents that target BRCA1 expression have not been identified. Our recent report suggested the potential of the histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, M344, to inhibit BRCA1 expression. In this study, we further evaluated the effect of M344 on BRCA1 mRNA and protein expression, as well as its effect on cisplatin-induced cytotoxicity in various breast (MCF7, T-47D and HCC1937) and ovarian (A2780s, A2780cp and OVCAR-4) cancer cell lines., Results: With the addition of M344, the platinum-sensitive breast and ovarian cancer cell lines that displayed relatively high BRCA1 protein levels demonstrated significant potentiation of cisplatin cytotoxicity in association with a reduction of BRCA1 protein. The cisplatin-resistant cell lines, T-47D and A2780s, elicited increased cytotoxicity of cisplatin with M344 and down regulation of BRCA1 protein levels. A2780s cells subjected to combination platinum and M344 treatment, demonstrated increased DNA damage as assessed by the presence of phosphorylated H2A.X foci in comparison to either treatment alone. Using Chromatin Immunoprecipitation, A2780s and MCF7 cells exposed to M344 alone and in combination with cisplatin, did not demonstrate enhanced acetylated Histone 4 at the BRCA1 promoter, suggesting an indirect effect on this promoter., Conclusions: The enhanced sensitivity of HDAC inhibition to platinum may be mediated through a BRCA1-dependent mechanism in breast and ovarian cancer cells. The findings of this study may be important in the future design of clinical trials involving HDAC inhibitors using BRCA1 as a tumour biomarker.

Individuals who carry an inherited mutation in the breast cancer 1 (BRCA1) and BRCA2 genes have a significant risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer over the course of their lifetime. As a result, there are important considerations for the clinician in the counseling, followup and management of mutation carriers. This review outlines salient aspects in the approach to patients at high risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer, including criteria for genetic testing, screening guidelines, surgical prophylaxis, and chemoprevention.

In sporadic epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), the inactivation of BRCA1 through various mechanisms is a relatively common event. BRCA1 protein dysfunction results in the breakdown of various critical pathways in the cell, notably, the DNA damage response and repair pathway. Tumors from patients with BRCA1 germline mutations have an increased sensitivity to DNA damaging chemotherapeutic agents, such as cisplatin, due to defective DNA repair. Thus, inhibiting BRCA1 in sporadic EOC using novel targeted therapies is an attractive strategy for the treatment of advanced or recurrent EOC. Several classes of small molecule inhibitors that affect BRCA1 have now been tested in preclinical and clinical studies suggesting that this is a rational therapeutic approach. The aim of this paper is to provide an understanding of how BRCA1 has evolved into a promising target for the treatment of sporadic disease and to outline the main potential small molecule inhibitors of BRCA1 in EOC.

Among the most promising pathways for molecular targets in sporadic epithelial ovarian cancer (SEOC) are those involving the BRCA1 protein. Because somatic mutations in BRCA1 are rare in SEOC, it was originally postulated that BRCA1 plays a limited role in the pathogenesis of this disease. However, inactivation of BRCA1 through various mechanisms is a relatively frequent event in ovarian cancer. This is important because BRCA1 is involved in the cellular response to DNA damage and repair and has an essential role in the maintenance of genomic stability. The BRCA1 tumor suppressor protein is known to interact with genes and proteins known collectively as the BRCA1 pathway, and defects in this pathway are believed to be a driving force for cancer progression. As a result, there is compelling evidence to suggest that the dysfunction of BRCA1 may be a central mechanism in all ovarian carcinogenesis, and this has clinical and molecular significance beyond the management of patients with hereditary ovarian cancer. The aim of this review is to evaluate the evidence for BRCA1 dysfunction in SEOC and to link this dysfunction to a defective DNA repair pathway and ultimately the promotion of genomic instability and tumorigenesis. Furthermore, we advocate the continued need to study BRCA1 and its pathway by prospectively correlating clinicopathologic data with molecular aberrations. This will determine whether BRCA1 has relevance as a predictive and prognostic marker in SEOC and whether aberrations in the BRCA1 pathway warrant further study as potential therapeutic targets.