Helen MacKay

NRG‐GY012: Randomized phase 2 study comparing olaparib, cediranib, and the combination of cediranib/olaparib in women with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic endometrial cancer

AbstractPurposeThis paper reports the efficacy of the poly (ADP‐ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib alone and in combination with the antiangiogenesis agent cediranib compared with cediranib alone in patients with advanced endometrial cancer.MethodsThis was open‐label, randomized, phase 2 trial (NCT03660826). Eligible patients had recurrent endometrial cancer, received at least one (<3) prior lines of chemotherapy, and were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), stratified by histology (serous vs. other) to receive cediranib alone (reference arm), olaparib, or olaparib and cediranib for 28‐day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression‐free survival in the intention‐to‐treat population. Homologous repair deficiency was explored using the BROCA‐GO sequencing panel.ResultsA total of 120 patients were enrolled and all were included in the intention‐to‐treat analysis. Median age was 66 (range, 41–86) years and 47 (39.2%) had serous histology. Median progression‐free survival for cediranib was 3.8 months compared with 2.0 months for olaparib (hazard ratio, 1.45 [95% CI, 0.91‐2.3] p = .935) and 5.5 months for olaparib/cediranib (hazard ratio, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.43–1.14] p = .064). Four patients receiving the combination had a durable response lasting more than 20 months. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were hypertension in the cediranib (36%) and olaparib/cediranib (33%) arms, fatigue (20.5% olaparib/cediranib), and diarrhea (17.9% cediranib). The BROCA‐GO panel results were not associated with response.ConclusionThe combination of cediranib and olaparib demonstrated modest clinical efficacy; however, the primary end point of the study was not met. The combination was safe without unexpected toxicity.

Cell‐free DNA in recurrent and metastatic endometrial cancer: The future is now? Promises and potential pitfalls

Blanc‐Durand and colleagues present a prospective analysis of cell‐free DNA in patients with recurrent, advanced, or metastatic endometrial cancer, which offers insights into its potential application in molecular classification and the evolving targeted therapy landscape of this disease. More research is needed to validate cell‐free DNA's clinical utility but its potential to guide therapy and improve patient outcomes warrants ongoing exploration.

Intraperitoneal chemotherapy: Hot, timely, and relevant?

The use of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy has been growing in popularity in recent years. Even with a positive randomized trial, issues concerning the study design and the statistical analysis raise questions about whether this technique should be recommended as a standard‐of‐care approach. There are many questions that remain unanswered.

Advances in Vulvar Cancer Biology and Management

PURPOSE Vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC), a rare gynecologic malignancy, has been rising in incidence. Molecular classification on the basis of human papilloma virus (HPV) and tumor protein 53 (p53) status has identified three clinically distinct subtypes, but we still treat all VSCCs the same. Here, we review molecular classification of VSCC, outline treatment landscape, and highlight potential for targeted therapies in advanced VSCC. DESIGN We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on treatment of advanced VSCC with particular focus on the implications of molecular stratification on the basis of HPV and p53 status on the treatment landscape of advanced VSCC. RESULTS Incorporation of HPV and p53 status in locoregional treatment decision making has the potential to advise (de)escalation strategies. The role of immunotherapy, alone and in combination, requires further exploration particularly earlier in the course of the disease. In advanced stages, potential for targeted therapies in VSCCs include inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor, endothelial growth factor receptor, cell cycle, and DNA damage response, particularly in HPV-negative (HPV–) VSCCs. Targeting the phosphoinositide 3 kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway is attractive in HPV-positive and HPV–/p53 wildtype VSCCs. Trials incorporating antibody-drug conjugates (eg, trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) should be considered, and basket trials in perineal squamous cell cancers are warranted. Preclinical models are limited and should be expanded to inform trial design. CONCLUSION Like other rare cancers, vulvar cancer lags behind in the identification and optimization of precision medicine strategies. Molecular-based preclinical models and rationally designed clinical trials, incorporating high-quality translational studies, are urgently required. These trials will require international collaboration to ensure feasibility and improvement of outcomes for women diagnosed with this disease.

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.

Testing the Combination of Olaparib and Durvalumab, Cediranib and Durvalumab, Olaparib and Capivasertib, and Cediranib Alone in Recurrent or Refractory Endometrial Cancer Following the Earlier Phase of the Study That Tested Olaparib and Cediranib in Comparison to Cediranib Alone, and Olaparib Alone

This phase II trial studies the effects of the combination of olaparib and durvalumab, cediranib and durvalumab, olaparib and capivasertib, and cediranib alone in treating patients with endometrial cancer that has come back (recurrent) or does not respond to treatment (refractory). Olaparib, cediranib, and capivasertib may stop the growth of tumor cells by blocking some of the enzymes needed for cell growth. Durvalumab is a monoclonal antibody that may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Testing the combinations may lower the chance of endometrial cancer growing or spreading compared to usual care.

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.