Antonio Gonzalez-Martin

Geneva Homologous Recombination Deficiency Test Is Predictive of Survival Benefit From Olaparib and Bevacizumab Maintenance in Ovarian Cancer

PURPOSE The ability of the Geneva homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) test to predict progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with high-grade ovarian cancer treated with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors has been demonstrated. Its performance with respect to overall survival (OS) has not been assessed yet. METHODS Using the final results of the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 phase III clinical trial with a median follow-up of 5 years, we evaluated the Geneva HRD test on 468 samples as part of the ENGOT HRD European Initiative. Results were evaluated in terms of final PFS and OS in the olaparib + bevacizumab and placebo + bevacizumab arms and compared with the Myriad MyChoice HRD test. RESULTS Final PFS was consistent with previously published data and confirmed the predictive value of the Geneva HRD test with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.41 (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.57) for HRD-positive patients. The results for OS showed a HR of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.85) for HRD-positive patients and 1.6 (95% CI, 1.1 to 2.3) for HRD-negative patients. These results are consistent with those observed with the Myriad test, including the negative OS trend in the HRD-negative subgroup treated with olaparib + bevacizumab (HR, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.8]). A subgroup analysis of patients with intermediate HRD scores showed that the normalized large-scale state transition score used by the Geneva HRD test had both predictive and prognostic value. CONCLUSION The Geneva HRD test predicts PFS and OS benefit from olaparib + bevacizumab. The potential detrimental effect of olaparib + bevacizumab on OS in the HRD-negative population is hypothesis-generating and needs to be confirmed prospectively.

Antibody–drug conjugate targeting folate receptor α: a new milestone in personalized medicine for high-grade serous ovarian cancer

Predictors of long-term progression-free survival in patients with ovarian cancer treated with niraparib in the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study

To identify characteristics associated with long-term progression-free survival (≥2 years) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in the phase III PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study. In this post hoc analysis of PRIMA, patients randomized to niraparib were grouped based on investigator-assessed progression-free survival (progressive disease/censoring <2 years or ≥2 years after randomization). Variables assessed for predictive value were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage at diagnosis, clinical response to platinum-based chemotherapy, number of prior chemotherapy cycles, primary tumor location, body mass index, categorical age, debulking surgery type, number of baseline target lesions, number of baseline non-target lesions, Of 487 patients randomized to niraparib, 152 (31%) had progressive disease/censoring ≥2 years after randomization. Multivariable logistic regression modeling using backward elimination identified The hypothesis-generating results of this analysis suggest that NCT02655016.

An international worldwide retrospective cohort observational study comparing primary cytoreductive surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery in patients with carcinoma of the ovary, fallopian tubes, and peritoneum (SUROVA trial)

Currently, a lively debate exists within the scientific community regarding the most suitable procedure for treating stages IIIB-IVB carcinoma of the ovary, fallopian tubes, and peritoneum. The options under most consideration are primary cytoreductive surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. To compare overall survival at 5 years in patients who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery for stage IIIB-IVB ovarian cancer STUDY HYPOTHESIS: The treatment with primary cytoreductive surgery results in superior patient survival compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. This is a multicenter, retrospective cohort observational study. Data will be collected from patients undergoing surgery in hospitals worldwide. Two arms will be compared: primary cytoreductive surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. Patients must have suspected or histologically confirmed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages IIIB-IVB ovarian, peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancers. They must have undergone primary surgery or first course of neoadjuvant chemotherapy between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Based on all available information before the surgery (primary or interval), the patient must have been considered completely resectable. Overall survival at 5 years from the first treatment (chemotherapy in the case of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and cytoreduction in the case of primary cytoreductive surgery). An estimated total of 5000 patients will be enrolled in the study. March 2025 TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT06223763.

Optimizing disease progression assessment using blinded central independent review and comparing it with investigator assessment in the PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 trial: challenges and solutions

Progression-free survival is an established clinically meaningful endpoint in ovarian cancer trials, but it may be susceptible to bias; therefore, blinded independent centralized radiological review is often included in trial designs. We compared blinded independent centralized review and investigator-assessed progressive disease performance in the PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 trial examining niraparib monotherapy. PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 was a randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial; patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer received niraparib or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] v1.1), determined by two independent radiologists, an arbiter if required, and by blinded central clinician review. Discordance rates between blinded independent centralized review and investigator assessment of progressive disease and non-progressive disease were routinely assessed. To optimize disease assessment, a training intervention was developed for blinded independent centralized radiological reviewers, and RECIST refresher training was provided for investigators. Discordance rates were determined post-intervention. There was a 39% discordance rate between blinded independent centralized review and investigator-assessed progressive disease/non-progressive disease in an initial patient subset (n=80); peritoneal carcinomatosis was the most common source of discordance. All reviewers underwent training, and as a result, changes were implemented, including removal of two original reviewers and identification of 10 best practices for reading imaging data. Post-hoc analysis indicated final discordance rates between blinded independent centralized review and investigator improved to 12% in the overall population. Median progression-free survival and hazard ratios were similar between blinded independent centralized review and investigators in the overall population and across subgroups. PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 highlights the need to optimize blinded independent centralized review and investigator concordance using early, specialized, ovarian-cancer-specific radiology training to maximize validity of outcome data.

Efficacy and Safety of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Patients With HER2-Expressing Solid Tumors: Primary Results From the DESTINY-PanTumor02 Phase II Trial

PURPOSE Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) is a human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)–directed antibody-drug conjugate approved in HER2-expressing breast and gastric cancers and HER2-mutant non–small-cell lung cancer. Treatments are limited for other HER2-expressing solid tumors. METHODS This open-label phase II study evaluated T-DXd (5.4 mg/kg once every 3 weeks) for HER2-expressing (immunohistochemistry [IHC] 3+/2+ by local or central testing) locally advanced or metastatic disease after ≥1 systemic treatment or without alternative treatments. The primary end point was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included safety, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS At primary analysis, 267 patients received treatment across seven tumor cohorts: endometrial, cervical, ovarian, bladder, biliary tract, pancreatic, and other. The median follow-up was 12.75 months. In all patients, the ORR was 37.1% (n = 99; [95% CI, 31.3 to 43.2]), with responses in all cohorts; the median DOR was 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 17.8); the median PFS was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 8.0); and the median OS was 13.4 months (95% CI, 11.9 to 15.5). In patients with central HER2 IHC 3+ expression (n = 75), the ORR was 61.3% (95% CI, 49.4 to 72.4), the median DOR was 22.1 months (95% CI, 9.6 to not reached), the median PFS was 11.9 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 13.0), and the median OS was 21.1 months (95% CI, 15.3 to 29.6). Grade ≥3 drug-related adverse events were observed in 40.8% of patients; 10.5% experienced adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease (ILD), with three deaths. CONCLUSION Our study demonstrates durable clinical benefit, meaningful survival outcomes, and safety consistent with the known profile (including ILD) in pretreated patients with HER2-expressing tumors receiving T-DXd. Greatest benefit was observed for the IHC 3+ population. These data support the potential role of T-DXd as a tumor-agnostic therapy for patients with HER2-expressing solid tumors.

How long is long enough? An international survey exploring practice variations on the recommended duration of maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors in patients with platinum sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer and long-term outcomes

There are no data, and thus no consensus, on the optimal duration of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor maintenance therapy for exceptional responders (here defined as progression-free for 5 years or longer) with platinum sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. The current licence is to continue PARP inhibitors until progression or toxicity; however, international practice varies considerably. The risks of late progression and late-onset myeloid malignancies, defined as occurring beyond 5 years of PARP inhibition, are unknown. This study aims to examine the practice patterns and opinions regarding the management and surveillance protocols of exceptional responders with platinum sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. An online international survey of experts from June 2023 to June 2024 was carried out, disseminated at Gynaecologic Cancer Intergroup meetings and by Chairs of Cooperative Groups. 210 responses were received from 26 countries including Australia (27 respondents), Germany (24), the UK (21), the Netherlands (16), France (13), Spain (12), Canada (12), Italy (11), Japan (11), and other countries (63). Most respondents did not have institutional or trials group guidelines regarding duration of PARP inhibitors (154, 73.3%). For the minority with guidelines, recommendations varied: 1 year (2), 2 years (13), 3 years (4), and indefinite treatment (22). Individual practice varied considerably for those without guidelines: most (116, 76.3%) recommended ≥5 years of PARP inhibition, of which 73 (48.0%) recommended indefinite PARP inhibition. Sixty-six respondents (31.4%) reported having patients with late progression and 46 (22.0%) had cases with late-onset myeloid malignancies. Surveillance practices varied widely across all respondents. This international survey highlights the diverse practice variations and disparate views on the optimal duration of maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors in platinum sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. The responses suggest a notable risk of late progression and myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia among exceptional responders which needs confirmation. Detailed individual patient data is required to draw more reliable conclusions; another study is underway addressing this.

Safety and management of niraparib monotherapy in ovarian cancer clinical trials

Niraparib is a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that has shown a significant improvement in progression-free survival irrespective of biomarker status in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. This review focuses on the adverse events associated with niraparib and their management to maintain efficacy of niraparib treatment and improve quality of life for patients. In five trials assessing efficacy of niraparib in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (PRIMA, NOVA, NORA, QUADRA, and PRIME), treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were reported in nearly all patients (≥99%) receiving niraparib; the events were grade ≥3 in 51-74% of patients. Across all lines of therapy, treatment-emergent adverse events led to dose interruptions in 62-80% of patients receiving niraparib and dose reductions in 47-71%. Hematologic events were most frequently reported, including thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neutropenia. Common non-hematologic events included gastrointestinal events, which were generally low grade (<5% were grade ≥3). Clinical strategies to manage these and other events, such as fatigue and insomnia, cognitive behavioral therapy and pharmacologic agents, are summarized. Once-daily niraparib dosing may be advantageous for some patients for many reasons, including night-time dosing which may help alleviate gastrointestinal symptoms. An individualized starting dose (determined by baseline body weight and platelet count) of niraparib demonstrated an improved safety profile while maintaining efficacy. Patients receiving the niraparib individualized starting dose had fewer grade ≥3 adverse events, dose interruptions, and dose reductions than patients receiving a fixed starting dose. The safety profile of niraparib across five pivotal studies in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer was consistent across multiple lines of treatment, including as maintenance therapy in first-line and recurrent settings and as treatment in heavily pre-treated patients. Long-term safety data from the NOVA trial confirmed that, with appropriate and early dose modifications, niraparib is well tolerated.

Physician-reported patient involvement and treatment decisions in first-line ovarian cancer in the USA and Europe

Real-world data evaluating how approvals of novel treatment regimens for ovarian cancer have impacted the treatment paradigm, including first-line maintenance, are lacking. This analysis aimed to describe treatment patterns for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in Europe and the USA in the first-line maintenance setting. Patient characteristics, biomarker testing rates, and drivers of treatment choice were also evaluated. A retrospective chart review study of electronic medical records in Europe and the USA was conducted for patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer (June 1, 2017-May 31, 2020), in line with Healthcare Market Research guidelines. Eligible physicians extracted data from electronic medical records by completing standardized patient record forms, including questions on patient involvement in treatment decisions. Patients with advanced (stage III/IV) disease were stratified by country and diagnosis date to provide information on treatment patterns. Patient record forms for 7072 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer were completed by 416 physicians; 5386 patients had stage III/IV ovarian cancer. Over time, the percentage of patients who were tested for This real-world study showed that treatment patterns for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer varied by country. Rates of physician-reported patient involvement in treatment decisions in the first-line adjuvant and maintenance treatment settings for ovarian cancer were low, highlighting an unmet need for initiatives to improve patient involvement in shared decision-making regarding maintenance therapy selection.

Analysis of Tumor Microenvironment Changes after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with or without Bevacizumab in Advanced Ovarian Cancer (GEICO-89T/MINOVA Study)

Abstract Purpose: The aim of our study was to elucidate the impact of bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) on the tumor immune microenvironment and correlate the changes with the clinical outcome of the patients. Experimental Design: IHC and multiplex immunofluorescence for lymphoid and myeloid lineage markers were performed in matched tumor samples from 23 patients with ovarian cancer enrolled in GEICO 1205/NOVA clinical study before NACT and at the time of interval cytoreductive surgery. Results: Our results showed that the addition of bevacizumab to NACT plays a role mainly on lymphoid populations at the stromal compartment, detecting a significant decrease of CD4+ T cells, an increase of CD8+ T cells, and an upregulation in effector/regulatory cell ratio (CD8+/CD4+FOXP3+). None of the changes observed were detected in the intra-epithelial site in any arm (NACT or NACT-bevacizumab). No differences were found in myeloid lineage (macrophage-like). The percentage of Treg populations and effector/regulatory cell ratio in the stroma were the only two variables significantly associated with progression-free survival (PFS). Conclusions: The addition of bevacizumab to NACT did not have an impact on PFS in the GEICO 1205 study. However, at the cellular level, changes in CD4+, CD8+ lymphocyte populations, and CD8+/CD4+FOXP3 ratio have been detected only at the stromal site. On the basis of our results, we hypothesize about the existence of mechanisms of resistance that could prevent the trafficking of T-effector cells into the epithelial component of the tumor as a potential explanation for the lack of efficacy of ICI in the first-line treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. See related commentary by Soberanis Pina and Oza, p. 12

Association of Multiple High-Risk Factors on Observed Outcomes in Real-World Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer Treated With First-Line Therapy

PURPOSE To identify risk factors for disease progression or death and assess outcomes by risk categories in real-world patients with advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS This retrospective study included adult patients from a nationwide electronic health record–derived deidentified database with stage III/IV ovarian cancer who received first-line therapy and had ≥12 weeks of follow-up after index date (end of first-line therapy). Factors predictive of time to next treatment and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Patients were grouped according to the cumulative number of high-risk factors present (stage IV disease, no debulking surgery or neoadjuvant therapy and interval debulking surgery, visible residual disease after surgery, and breast cancer gene [ BRCA] wild-type disease/unknown BRCA status), and time to next treatment and OS were assessed. RESULTS Region of residence, disease stage, histology, BRCA status, surgery modality, and visible residual disease were significant predictors of time to next treatment; age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, disease stage, BRCA status, surgery modality, visible residual disease, and platelet levels were significant predictors of OS (N = 1,920). Overall, 96.4%, 74.1%, and 40.3% of patients had at least 1, 2, or 3 high-risk factors, respectively; 15.7% of patients had all four high-risk factors. Observed median time to next treatment was 26.4 months (95% CI, 17.1 to 49.2) in patients with no high-risk factors and 4.6 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 5.7) in patients with four high-risk factors. Observed median OS was shorter among patients with more high-risk factors. CONCLUSION These results underscore the complexity of risk assessment and demonstrate the importance of assessing a patient's cumulative risk profile rather than the impact of individual high-risk factors. They also highlight the potential for bias in cross-trial comparisons of median progression-free survival because of differences in risk-factor distribution among patient populations.

Progression-free survival and safety at 3.5 years of follow-up: results from the randomised phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial of niraparib maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer

To report updated long-term efficacy and safety from the double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study (NCT02655016). Patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with complete or partial response (CR or PR) to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy received niraparib or placebo once daily (2:1 ratio). Stratification factors were best response to first-line chemotherapy regimen (CR/PR), receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no), and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status (deficient [HRd]/proficient [HRp] or not determined). Updated (ad hoc) progression-free survival (PFS) data (as of November 17, 2021) by investigator assessment (INV) are reported. In 733 randomised patients (niraparib, 487; placebo, 246), median PFS follow-up was 3.5years. Median INV-PFS was 24.5 versus 11.2months (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.68) in the HRd population and 13.8 versus 8.2months (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.79) in the overall population for niraparib and placebo, respectively. In the HRp population, median INV-PFS was 8.4 versus 5.4months (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87), respectively. Results were concordant with the primary analysis. Niraparib-treated patients were more likely to be free of progression or death at 4years than placebo-treated patients (HRd, 38% versus 17%; overall, 24% versus 14%). The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events in niraparib patients were thrombocytopenia (39.7%), anaemia (31.6%), and neutropenia (21.3%). Myelodysplastic syndromes/acute myeloid leukaemia incidence rate (1.2%) was the same for niraparib- and placebo-treated patients. Overall survival remained immature. Niraparib maintained clinically significant improvements in PFS with 3.5years of follow-up in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer at high risk of progression irrespective of HRD status. No new safety signals were identified.

Controversies in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer in the PARP inhibitors era: a Delphi consensus

Our aim was to reach a consensus on the management of the most controversial issues of advanced ovarian cancer. Nominal group and Delphi techniques were used. A steering committee of 5 experts analyzed current management of advanced ovarian cancer, identified controversies, critically analyzed the evidence, and formulated guiding statements for clinicians. Subsequently, a panel of 15 experts was selected to test agreement with the statements through two Delphi rounds. Items were scored on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree). In the first and second rounds, consensus was considered if ≥70% of answers pertained to category 1 or category 4. Overall, 112 statements were incorporated in the following areas: 1) biomarkers and hereditary ovarian cancer; 2) first-line treatment; 3) recurrent disease when platinum might be the best option; and 4) post-poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors setting. In the first Delphi round, 37 statements reached consensus and did thus not pass to the second round. After the second round, another 18 statements reached consensus. Forty-six of the consensus were with the agreement and 9 with the disagreement. Through the methodology used, a consensus was reached in approximately half of the statements. The results of this work may be useful in addressing the most controversial issues on the management of advanced ovarian cancer.

Overall Survival With Maintenance Olaparib at a 7-Year Follow-Up in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer and a BRCA Mutation: The SOLO1/GOG 3004 Trial

PURPOSE In SOLO1/GOG 3004 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01844986 ), maintenance therapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib provided a sustained progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation. We report overall survival (OS) after a 7-year follow-up, a clinically relevant time point and the longest follow-up for any poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the first-line setting. METHODS This double-blind phase III trial randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in clinical response to platinum-based chemotherapy to maintenance olaparib (n = 260) or placebo (n = 131) for up to 2 years. A prespecified descriptive analysis of OS, a secondary end point, was conducted after a 7-year follow-up. RESULTS The median duration of treatment was 24.6 months with olaparib and 13.9 months with placebo, and the median follow-up was 88.9 and 87.4 months, respectively. The hazard ratio for OS was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.76; P = .0004 [ P &lt; .0001 required to declare statistical significance]). At 7 years, 67.0% of olaparib patients versus 46.5% of placebo patients were alive, and 45.3% versus 20.6%, respectively, were alive and had not received a first subsequent treatment (Kaplan-Meier estimates). The incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia remained low, and new primary malignancies remained balanced between treatment groups. CONCLUSION Results indicate a clinically meaningful, albeit not statistically significant according to prespecified criteria, improvement in OS with maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation and support the use of maintenance olaparib to achieve long-term remission in this setting; the potential for cure may also be enhanced. No new safety signals were observed during long-term follow-up.

Tumor Treating Fields therapy in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: Results of the ENGOT-ov50/GOG-3029/INNOVATE-3 pivotal phase 3 randomized study

Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are electric fields that disrupt processes critical for cancer cell viability and tumor progression. The pivotal, phase 3 ENGOT-ov50/GOG-3029/INNOVATE-3 study evaluated efficacy and safety of TTFields therapy with paclitaxel (PTX) vs PTX in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). Adult patients with PROC with ≤ 5 total prior lines of therapy (LOT), including ≤ 2 prior LOT for platinum-resistant disease, and ECOG PS of 0-1 were randomized 1:1 to receive TTFields (200 kHz; ≥ 18 h/day) + PTX (80 mg/m Between March 2019 and November 2021, 558 patients (ECOG PS 0, 60.2 %; median [range] age, 62 [22-91] years) were assigned TTFields+PTX (n = 280) or PTX (n = 278). 24.4 % had 4 + prior LOT. Median OS was 12.2 months with TTFields+PTX vs 11.9 months with PTX (HR, 1.01; 95 % CI, 0.83-1.24; p = 0.89). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were similar between treatment groups. Grade 1/2 device-related skin AEs occurred in 83.6 % of patients receiving TTFields therapy. In exploratory post-hoc analysis in PLD-naive patients, median OS was 16 months with TTFields+PTX (n = 113) vs 11.7 months with PTX (n = 88; nominal HR, 0.67; 95 % CI, 0.49-0.94; p = 0.03). No new safety signals were identified. TTFields+PTX did not significantly improve OS compared with PTX in the intent-to-treat population. An exploratory post-hoc analysis suggests a potentially favorable benefit-risk profile for TTFields therapy in PLD-naive patients.

Atezolizumab Combined With Platinum and Maintenance Niraparib for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer With a Platinum-Free Interval &gt;6 Months: ENGOT-OV41/GEICO 69-O/ANITA Phase III Trial

PURPOSE To evaluate atezolizumab combined with platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) followed by maintenance niraparib for late-relapsing recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS The multicenter placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III ENGOT-OV41/GEICO 69-O/ANITA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03598270 ) enrolled patients with measurable high-grade serous, endometrioid, or undifferentiated recurrent ovarian cancer who had received one or two previous CT lines (most recent including platinum) and had a treatment-free interval since last platinum (TFIp) of &gt;6 months. Patients were stratified by investigator-selected carboplatin doublet, TFIp, BRCA status, and PD-L1 status in de novo biopsy and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either atezolizumab or placebo throughout standard therapy comprising six cycles of a carboplatin doublet followed (in patients with response/stable disease) by maintenance niraparib until progression. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1. RESULTS Between November 2018 and January 2022, 417 patients were randomly assigned (15% BRCA- mutated, 36% PD-L1–positive, 66% TFIp &gt;12 months, 11% previous poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase inhibitor after frontline CT, and 53% previous bevacizumab). Median follow-up was 28.6 months (95% CI, 26.6 to 30.5 months). Atezolizumab did not significantly improve PFS (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.71 to 1.10]; P = .28). Median PFS was 11.2 months (95% CI, 10.1 to 12.1 months) with atezolizumab versus 10.1 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 11.2 months) with standard therapy. Subgroup analyses generally showed consistent results, including analyses by PD-L1 status. The objective response rate (ORR) was 45% (95% CI, 39 to 52) with atezolizumab and 43% (95% CI, 36 to 49) with standard therapy. The safety profile was as expected from previous experience of these drugs. CONCLUSION Combining atezolizumab with CT and maintenance niraparib for late-relapsing recurrent ovarian cancer did not significantly improve PFS or the ORR.

Primary Analysis of EPIK-O/ENGOT-ov61: Alpelisib Plus Olaparib Versus Chemotherapy in Platinum-Resistant or Platinum-Refractory High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer Without BRCA Mutation

PURPOSE Patients with platinum-resistant/platinum-refractory high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) without a BRCA mutation have poor prognosis and limited treatment options. We report efficacy and biomarker data from EPIK-O, which investigated alpelisib + olaparib versus single-agent chemotherapy in these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS EPIK-O was an open-label, phase III trial that randomly assigned patients with platinum-resistant/platinum-refractory HGSOC with no germline or known somatic BRCA mutation 1:1 to alpelisib 200 mg once daily + olaparib 200 mg twice daily or treatment of physician's choice (TPC; paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 once weekly or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 40-50 mg/m 2 once every 28 days). Patients had 1-3 previous systemic therapies. Previous bevacizumab was required (unless contraindicated); previous poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors were allowed. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST 1.1 (blinded independent review committee [BIRC]). Secondary efficacy end points included overall response rate (ORR; per BIRC), duration of response (per BIRC), and overall survival (OS; key secondary end point). RESULTS A total of 358 patients (alpelisib + olaparib [n = 180], TPC [n = 178]) were included. The median follow-up time was 9.3 months. At data cutoff (April 21, 2023), 33 (18.3%) and 30 (16.9%) patients remained on treatment with alpelisib + olaparib and TPC, respectively. The median PFS (BIRC) was 3.6 versus 3.9 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.48]; one-sided P = .84) for alpelisib + olaparib versus TPC. The ORR was 15.6% (95% CI, 10.6% to 21.7%) versus 13.5% (95% CI, 8.8% to 19.4%). The median OS was 10.0 versus 10.6 months (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.71). The safety profile of alpelisib + olaparib was consistent with that observed for the individual agents. CONCLUSION The primary objective, PFS improvement, was not met in EPIK-O. No new or unexpected adverse events were observed. Biomarker analyses provided new insights for responders to alpelisib + olaparib.

Potential Synergistic Effect between Niraparib and Statins in Ovarian Cancer Clinical Trials

Abstract This study investigates the potential clinical synergy between the PARP inhibitor niraparib (Zejula) and concomitant statins, exploring their combined effects on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with ovarian cancer. We retrospectively analyzed niraparib registrational clinical trials in ovarian cancer to investigate potential interactions between niraparib and statins. In the PRIMA trial, patients receiving niraparib demonstrated improved PFS compared with those on placebo (HR = 0.62; P &amp;lt; 0.001; median PFS 13.8 vs. 8.2 months). The post hoc analysis revealed that patients receiving maintenance niraparib who reported concomitant use of statins exhibited significantly improved PFS compared with those on placebo with concomitant statins (HR = 0.34; P &amp;lt; 0.001; median PFS 18.2 vs. 6.0 months). Notably, the improved efficacy in the two-arm comparison of concomitant statin patients was much better than that in the two-arm comparison of those patients without statin, as reflected in the niraparib–statin interaction (P = 0.005). These findings suggest novel opportunities in oncology for the use of statins in combination therapies with PARP inhibitors and emphasize the need for further investigation. Significance: The presented retrospective analysis suggests, to the best of our knowledge for the first time, a potential significant interaction between statins and niraparib in clinical settings. Nevertheless, further investigations are required to gain a better understanding of the potential clinical benefit.

SENECA study: staging endometrial cancer based on molecular classification

Management of endometrial cancer is advancing, with accurate staging crucial for guiding treatment decisions. Understanding sentinel lymph node (SLN) involvement rates across molecular subgroups is essential. To evaluate SLN involvement in early-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 I-II) endometrial cancer, considering molecular subtypes and new European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) risk classification. The SENECA study retrospectively reviewed data from 2139 women with stage I-II endometrial cancer across 66 centers in 16 countries. Patients underwent surgery with SLN assessment following ESGO guidelines between January 2021 and December 2022. Molecular analysis was performed on pre-operative biopsies or hysterectomy specimens. Among the 2139 patients, the molecular subgroups were as follows: 272 (12.7%) p53 abnormal (p53abn, 1191 (55.7%) non-specific molecular profile (NSMP), 581 (27.2%) mismatch repair deficient (MMRd), 95 (4.4%) POLE mutated (POLE-mut). Tracer diffusion was detected in, at least one side, in 97.2% of the cases; with a bilateral diffusion observed in 82.7% of the cases. By ultrastaging (90.7% of the cases) or one-step nucleic acid amplification (198 (9.3%) of the cases), 205 patients were identified with affected sentinel lymph nodes, representing 9.6% of the sample. Of these, 139 (67.8%) had low-volume metastases (including micrometastases, 42.9%; and isolated tumor cells, 24.9%) while 66 (32.2%) had macrometastases. Significant differences in SLN involvement were observed between molecular subtypes, with p53abn and MMRd groups having the highest rates (12.50% and 12.40%, respectively) compared with NSMP (7.80%) and POLE-mut (6.30%), (p=0.004); (p53abn, OR=1.69 (95% CI 1.11 to 2.56), p=0.014; MMRd, OR=1.67 (95% CI 1.21 to 2.31), p=0.002). Differences were also noted among ESGO risk groups (2.84% for low-risk patients, 6.62% for intermediate-risk patients, 21.63% for high-intermediate risk patients, and 22.51% for high-risk patients; p<0.001). Our study reveals significant differences in SLN involvement among patients with early-stage endometrial cancer based on molecular subtypes. This underscores the importance of considering molecular characteristics for accurate staging and optimal management decisions.

Validation of the Clinical Use of GIScar, an Academic-developed Genomic Instability Score Predicting Sensitivity to Maintenance Olaparib for Ovarian Cancer

Abstract Purpose: The optimal application of maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy for ovarian cancer requires accessible, robust, and rapid testing of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). However, in many countries, access to HRD testing is problematic and the failure rate is high. We developed an academic HRD test to support treatment decision-making. Experimental Design: Genomic Instability Scar (GIScar) was developed through targeted sequencing of a 127-gene panel to determine HRD status. GIScar was trained from a noninterventional study with 250 prospectively collected ovarian tumor samples. GIScar was validated on 469 DNA tumor samples from the PAOLA-1 trial evaluating maintenance olaparib for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, and its predictive value was compared with Myriad Genetics MyChoice (MGMC). Results: GIScar showed significant correlation with MGMC HRD classification (kappa statistics: 0.780). From PAOLA-1 samples, more HRD-positive tumors were identified by GIScar (258) than MGMC (242), with a lower proportion of inconclusive results (1% vs. 9%, respectively). The HRs for progression-free survival (PFS) with olaparib versus placebo were 0.45 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33–0.62] in GIScar-identified HRD-positive BRCA-mutated tumors, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.31–0.80) in HRD-positive BRCA-wild-type tumors, and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.74–1.40) in HRD-negative tumors. Tumors identified as HRD positive by GIScar but HRD negative by MGMC had better PFS with olaparib (HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.07–0.72). Conclusions: GIScar is a valuable diagnostic tool, reliably detecting HRD and predicting sensitivity to olaparib for ovarian cancer. GIScar showed high analytic concordance with MGMC test and fewer inconclusive results. GIScar is easily implemented into diagnostic laboratories with a rapid turnaround.

SUROVA - Surgery in Ovarian Cancer, Comparing Primary and Interval Cytoreductive Surgery

An international worldwide retrospective cohort observational study comparing primary cytoreductive surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery in patients with carcinoma of the ovary, fallopian tubes, and peritoneum.

Platinum-based Chemotherapy With Atezolizumab and Niraparib in Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

Atezolizumab in this study is expected to have a positive benefit-risk profile for the treatment of patients with platinum-sensitive relapse of ovarian cancer. Of interest, atezolizumab is being investigated also in combination with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in second line (2L)/ third line (3L) platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer patients in ATALANTE (NCT02891824), which also includes bevacizumab in the combination. The study is proceeding as expected after \>100 patients enrolled and under independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC) supervision. Platinum-containing therapy is considered the treatment of choice for patients with platinum-sensitive relapse. However the duration of response and the prolongation of the progression free interval with chemotherapy are usually brief, among other because these chemotherapy regimens cannot be continued until progression as they are associated with neurological, renal and hematological toxicity and cannot generally be tolerated for more than about 6 to 9 cycles. Niraparib received FDA approval in March 2017 as maintenance treatment of adult patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer who are in complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Recently, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has also approved niraparib as maintenance monotherapy. Despite the progress brought about by niraparib, there is a need for a more effective treatment to extend the progression free interval in this patient population. The combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti-death protein 1 (anti-PD1) or anti-death protein ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) has a compelling rationale to this aim, especially under the light of the emerging clinical data of this combination. The use of atezolizumab concurrent to platinum-containing chemotherapy followed by niraparib as maintenance therapy after completion of chemotherapy, as per normal clinical practice, may provide further benefit to patients in terms of prolonging the progression free interval and increasing the interval between lines of chemotherapy, hence delaying further hospitalization and the cumulative toxicities associated with chemotherapy. Additionally, preliminary studies with atezolizumab suggest an acceptable tolerability profile for long term clinical use in recurrent ovarian cancer patients and other indications.

A Study of Niraparib (GSK3985771) Maintenance Treatment in Participants With Advanced Ovarian Cancer Following Response on Front-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy

This study aims to assess efficacy of Niraparib (GSK3985771) as maintenance treatment in participants with Stage III or IV ovarian cancer. Participants must have completed front-line platinum based regimen with complete response (CR) or partial response (PR). Data collection for Secondary Outcome measures is ongoing and the approximate duration of the study will be 7 years.

Olaparib Maintenance Monotherapy in Patients With BRCA Mutated Ovarian Cancer Following First Line Platinum Based Chemotherapy.

Olaparib Monotherapy in Patients with BRCA Mutated Ovarian Cancer following First Line Platinum Based Chemotherapy.