Austin Miller

Molecular Profiling and Tumor Biomarker Analysis of GOG281/LOGS: A Positive Late-Phase Trial of Trametinib for Recurrent/Persistent Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma

Abstract Purpose: Low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (LGSOC) is a distinct form of ovarian cancer characterized by younger patient age and relative chemoresistance. The GOG281/LOGS trial (NCT02101788) investigated the efficacy of the MEK inhibitor trametinib compared with physician’s choice standard-of-care (SOC) in patients with LGSOC with persistent/recurrent disease. The study demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in the trametinib-treated arm. Experimental Design: Two hundred and sixty patients with recurrent/persistent LGSOC were enrolled and randomly assigned in GOG281. We performed molecular analysis of 170 patients with available tumor specimens, comprising whole-exome sequencing and phospho-ERK (pERK) IHC, to identify biomarkers of clinical benefit from trametinib. The demographics of the translational cohort (n = 170) were comparable with those of the total trial cohort. Results: High tumor pERK expression (greater than the median histoscore of 140) was associated with significantly prolonged PFS with trametinib treatment versus SOC (median 20.1 vs. 5.6 months, log-rank P < 0.0001; test for interaction P = 0.023). Tumors harboring canonical RAS–RAF–MAPK mutations (KRAS/BRAF/NRAS: 44/134, 32.8% of cases) had a higher response rate to trametinib (50.0% vs. 8.3%; Barnard’s P = 0.0004; test for interaction P = 0.054), but KRAS/BRAF/NRAS status was not predictive of prolonged PFS (test for interaction P = 0.719). KRAS amplification (n = 5 without KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutation) and mutation of MAPK-associated genes (n = 25 without KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutation or KRAS copy number gain) expanded the number of cases with identifiable MAPK defects to 55.2%, but consideration of these events did not improve the discrimination of trametinib responders. Chr1p loss (49% of cases) was associated with lower pERK expression (P = 0.021). Conclusions: This exploratory analysis suggests that pERK expression and mutation of KRAS/BRAF/NRAS are candidate biomarkers of improved PFS and response to trametinib, respectively.

Comparing Durvalumab, Olaparib, and Cediranib Monotherapy, Combination Therapy, or Chemotherapy in Patients with Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer with Prior Bevacizumab: The Phase II NRG-GY023 Trial

Abstract Purpose: We assessed the efficacy of anti–PD-L1 durvalumab in combination with olaparib and cediranib (DOC), compared with the standard-of-care chemotherapy (SOC) in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC), who had prior bevacizumab. Patients and Methods: NRG-GY023 was the first randomized four-arm superiority phase II trial enrolling patients with high-grade serous/endometrioid or clear-cell PROC with prior bevacizumab exposure. Patients were randomized 1:2:2:2 to SOC (weekly paclitaxel, topotecan, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin), DOC, durvalumab + cediranib (DC), or olaparib + cediranib (OC). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints included overall survival, overall response rate, and safety. The design had 80% power to detect an HR of 0.5 using a one-sided, α = 0.1-level test for each comparison with the SOC with a preplanned interim analysis. Experimental arms with HR estimates (vs. SOC) >0.87 could be discontinued. Results: A total of 153 patients were enrolled between April 4, 2021, and February 1, 2023. Accrual was permanently closed on February 1, 2023, due to futility. With a data cutoff of September 9, 2024, the median PFS was 3.4, 2.9, 2.5, and 2.8 months, and median overall survival was 7.5, 8.3, 5.7, and 10.2 months for SOC, DOC, DC, and OC, respectively. The overall response rate was 4.3% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.00–0.19], 15.9% (95% CI, 0.07–0.29), 11.9% (95% CI, 0.05–0.24), and 9.1% (95% CI, 0.03–0.20) for SOC, DOC, DC, and OC, respectively. Compared with SOC, the PFS HR estimates were 1.003 (95% CI, 0.56–1.80), 1.108 (95% CI, 0.63–1.96), and 1.021 (95% CI, 0.57–1.82) for DOC, DC, and OC, respectively. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: In patients with PROC with prior bevacizumab, all experimental arms failed to reach the primary objective of improving PFS compared with SOC.

Quality of Life and Adverse Events: Prognostic Relationships in Long-Term Ovarian Cancer Survival

Abstract Background There is a critical need to identify patient characteristics associated with long-term ovarian cancer survival. Methods Quality of life (QOL), measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian-Trial Outcome Index (FACT-O-TOI), including physical, functional, and ovarian-specific subscales, was compared between long-term survivors (LTS) (8+ years) and short-term survivors (STS) (<5 years) of GOG 218 at baseline; before cycles 4, 7, 13, 21; and 6 months post-treatment using linear and longitudinal mixed models adjusted for covariates. Adverse events (AEs) were compared between survivor groups at each assessment using generalized linear models. All P values are 2-sided. Results QOL differed statistically significantly between STS (N = 1115) and LTS (N = 260) (P < .001). Baseline FACT-O-TOI and FACT-O-TOI change were independently associated with long-term survival (odds ratio = 1.05, 95% confidence interval = 1.03 to 1.06 and odds ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval = 1.05 to 1.07, respectively). A 7-point increase in baseline QOL was associated with a 38.0% increase in probability of LTS, and a 9-point increase in QOL change was associated with a 67.0% increase in odds for LTS. QOL decreased statistically significantly with increasing AE quartiles (cycle 4 quartiles: 0-5 vs 6-8 vs 9-11 vs ≥12 AEs, P = .01; cycle 21 quartiles: 0-2 vs 3 vs 4-5 vs ≥6 AEs, P = .001). Further, LTS reported statistically significantly better QOL compared with STS (P = .03 and P = .01, cycles 4 and 21, respectively), with similar findings across higher AE grades. Conclusions Baseline and longitudinal QOL change scores distinguished LTS vs STS and are robust prognosticators for long-term survival. Results have trial design and supportive care implications, providing meaningful prognostic value in this understudied population.

Influence of Genomic Landscape on Cancer Immunotherapy for Newly Diagnosed Ovarian Cancer: Biomarker Analyses from the IMagyn050 Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract Purpose: To explore whether patients with BRCA1/2-mutated or homologous recombination deficient (HRD) ovarian cancers benefitted from atezolizumab in the phase III IMagyn050 (NCT03038100) trial. Patients and Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer were randomized to either atezolizumab or placebo with standard chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status of tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC) was determined centrally (VENTANA SP142 assay). Genomic alterations, including deleterious BRCA1/2 alterations, genomic loss of heterozygosity (gLOH), tumor mutation burden (TMB), and microsatellite instability (MSI), were evaluated using the FoundationOne assay. HRD was defined as gLOH ≥ 16%, regardless of BRCA1/2 mutation status. Potential associations between progression-free survival (PFS) and genomic biomarkers were evaluated using standard correlation analyses and log-rank of Kaplan–Meier estimates. Results: Among biomarker-evaluable samples, 22% (234/1,050) harbored BRCA1/2 mutations and 46% (446/980) were HRD. Median TMB was low irrespective of BRCA1/2 or HRD. Only 3% (29/1,024) had TMB ≥10 mut/Mb, and 0.3% (3/1,022) were MSI-high. PFS was better in BRCA2-mutated versus BRCA2–non-mutated tumors and in HRD versus proficient tumors. PD-L1 positivity (≥1% expression on ICs) was associated with HRD but not BRCA1/2 mutations. PFS was not improved by adding atezolizumab in BRCA2-mutated or HRD tumors; there was a trend toward enhanced PFS with atezolizumab in BRCA1-mutated tumors. Conclusions: Most ovarian tumors have low TMB despite BRCA1/2 mutations or HRD. Neither BRCA1/2 mutation nor HRD predicted enhanced benefit from atezolizumab. This is the first randomized double-blind trial in ovarian cancer demonstrating that genomic instability triggered by BRCA1/2 mutation or HRD is not associated with improved sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitors. See related commentary by Al-Rawi et al., p. 1645

Cediranib and Olaparib Combination Compared With Cediranib or Olaparib Alone, or Chemotherapy in Platinum-Resistant or Primary Platinum-Refractory Ovarian Cancer: NRG-GY005

PURPOSE We assessed the efficacy of cediranib, olaparib, and cediranib/olaparib compared with standard-of-care chemotherapy (SOC) in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory epithelial ovarian cancer (PROC). PATIENTS AND METHODS NRG-GY005 is an open-label, four-arm, phase II/III superiority trial enrolling patients with high-grade serous/endometrioid PROC and one to three previous therapies. Key exclusion criteria included previous receipt of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor or receipt of antiangiogenic therapy in the recurrent setting. Treatment arms (SOC [once weekly paclitaxel, topotecan, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin], cediranib, olaparib, or cediranib/olaparib) were equally randomized. A preplanned interim futility analysis on the basis of progression-free survival (PFS) selected treatment arms to advance to phase III. PFS and overall survival (OS) were phase III coprimary end points, with hierarchical testing of PFS followed by OS to preserve type 1 error control, designed to have 90% power for a 0.625 PFS hazard ratio (HR). OS was tested after PFS in the multiple hierarchical testing procedure. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS Five hundred sixty-two eligible patients were enrolled for phase II/III. Three arms met PFS criteria to carry forward to phase III (SOC, cediranib/olaparib, and cediranib). Median PFS was 3.4, 5.2, and 4 months with SOC, cediranib/olaparib, and cediranib, respectively, with a median follow-up duration of 42.2 months. PFS HR estimates for cediranib/olaparib and cediranib ( v SOC) were 0.796 (98.3% CI, 0.597 to 1.060) and 0.972 (98.3% CI, 0.726 to 1.300), respectively. Median OS was 13.6, 12.8, and 10.5 months, and of 443 patients with measurable disease, ORR was 8.6%, 24.7%, and 13.1% for SOC, cediranib/olaparib, and cediranib, respectively. No new safety signals were identified. In patients receiving cediranib/olaparib, no statistically significant difference was observed on the NFOSI-DRS-P subscale compared with SOC (98.3% CI, –1.3 to 1.5, P = .8725). CONCLUSION The cediranib-containing arms demonstrated clinical activity on the basis of PFS but were not superior compared with SOC.

Phase II Trial of Cisplatin, Gemcitabine, and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Vulvar Squamous Cell Carcinoma: NRG Oncology/GOG Study 279

PURPOSE To assess efficacy and toxicity of cisplatin (C) and gemcitabine (G) with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with locally advanced vulvar cancer not amenable to surgery. METHODS Patients enrolled in a single-arm phase II study. Pretreatment inguinal-femoral nodal assessment was performed. Sixty-four Gy IMRT was prescribed to the vulva, with 50-64 Gy delivered to the groins/low pelvis. Radiation therapy (RT) plans were quality-reviewed pretreatment. C 40 mg/m2 and G 50 mg/m2 were administered once per week throughout IMRT. Complete pathologic response (CPR) was the primary end point. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and adverse events were assessed with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v 4.0. RESULTS Fifty-seven patients enrolled, of which 52 were evaluable. The median age was 58 years (range, 25-58), and 94% were White. Forty (77%) had stage II or III disease, and all had squamous histology. A median of six chemotherapy cycles (range, 1-8) were received. Eighty-five percent of RT plans were quality-reviewed with 100% compliance to protocol. Seven patients came off trial because of toxicity or patient withdrawal. Of 52 patients available for pathologic assessment, 38 (73% [90% CI, 61 to 83]) achieved CPR. No pelvic exenterations were performed. With a median follow-up of 51 months, the 12-month PFS was 74% (90% CI, 62.2 to 82.7) and the 24-month OS was 70% (90% CI, 57 to 79). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hematologic toxicity and radiation dermatitis. There was one grade 5 event unlikely related to treatment. CONCLUSION Weekly C and G concurrent with IMRT sufficiently improved CPR in women with locally advanced vulvar squamous cell carcinoma not amenable to surgical resection.

A Study of Atezolizumab Versus Placebo in Combination With Paclitaxel, Carboplatin, and Bevacizumab in Participants With Newly-Diagnosed Stage III or Stage IV Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, or Primary Peritoneal Cancer

This is a Phase III, global, double-blind, 2-arm randomized study designed to compare the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + paclitaxel + carboplatin + bevacizumab versus placebo + paclitaxel + carboplatin + bevacizumab. Study participants will have Stage 3 or 4 ovarian cancer (OC), fallopian tube cancer (FTC), or primary peritoneal cancer (PPC) with macroscopic residual disease postoperatively (i.e., after primary tumor reductive surgery) or who will undergo neoadjuvant therapy followed by interval surgery.

Testing the Combination of Cediranib and Olaparib in Comparison to Each Drug Alone or Other Chemotherapy in Recurrent Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer

This randomized phase II/III trial studies how well cediranib maleate and olaparib work when given together or separately, and compares them to standard chemotherapy in treating patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer that has returned (recurrent) after receiving chemotherapy with drugs that contain platinum (platinum-resistant) or continued to grow while being treated with platinum-based chemotherapy drugs (platinum-refractory). Cediranib maleate and olaparib may stop the growth of tumor cells by blocking enzymes needed for cell growth. Chemotherapy drugs work in different ways to stop the growth of tumor cells, either by killing the cells, by stopping them from dividing, or by stopping them from spreading. It is not yet known whether giving cediranib maleate and olaparib together may cause more damage to cancer cells when compared to either drug alone or standard chemotherapy.