Charles N. Landen

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

Phase I and Randomized Phase II Study of Ruxolitinib With Frontline Neoadjuvant Therapy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer: An NRG Oncology Group Study

PURPOSE The interleukin-6/Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 axis is a reported driver of chemotherapy resistance. We hypothesized that adding the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib to standard chemotherapy would be tolerable and improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with ovarian cancer in the upfront setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with ovarian/fallopian tube/primary peritoneal carcinoma recommended for neoadjuvant chemotherapy were eligible. In phase I, treatment was initiated with dose-dense paclitaxel (P) 70 mg/m2 once daily on days 1, 8, and 15; carboplatin AUC 5 intravenously day 1; and ruxolitinib 15 mg orally (PO) twice a day, every 21 days (dose level 1). Interval debulking surgery (IDS) was required after cycle 3. Patients then received three additional cycles of chemotherapy/ruxolitinib, followed by maintenance ruxolitinib. In the randomized phase II, patients were randomly assigned to paclitaxel/carboplatin with or without ruxolitinib at 15 mg PO twice a day for three cycles, IDS, followed by another three cycles of chemotherapy/ruxolitinib, without further maintenance ruxolitinib. The primary phase II end point was PFS. RESULTS Seventeen patients were enrolled in phase I. The maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase II dose were established to be dose level 1. One hundred thirty patients were enrolled in phase II with a median follow-up of 24 months. The regimen was well tolerated, with a trend toward higher grade 3 to 4 anemia (64% v 27%), grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (53% v 37%), and thromboembolic events (12.6% v 2.4%) in the experimental arm. In the randomized phase II, the median PFS in the reference arm was 11.6 versus 14.6 in the experimental, hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.702 (log-rank P = .059). The overall survival HR was 0.785 ( P = .24). CONCLUSION Ruxolitinib 15 mg PO twice a day was well tolerated with acceptable toxicity in combination with paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy. The primary end point of prolongation of PFS was achieved in the experimental arm, warranting further investigation.

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.

Ruxolitinib Phosphate, Paclitaxel, and Carboplatin in Treating Patients With Stage III-IV Epithelial Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, or Primary Peritoneal Cancer

This phase I/II trial studies the side effects and the best dose of ruxolitinib phosphate when given together with paclitaxel and carboplatin and to see how well they work in treating patients with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. Ruxolitinib phosphate may stop the growth of tumor cells by blocking some of the enzymes needed for cell growth. Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as paclitaxel and carboplatin, 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. Giving ruxolitinib phosphate together with paclitaxel and carboplatin may be a better treatment for epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer compared to paclitaxel and carboplatin alone.