Hidenori Kato

Frequency and clinical features of deficient mismatch repair in ovarian clear cell and endometrioid carcinoma

To clarify the frequency of deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) in Japanese ovarian cancer patients, we examined microsatellite instability (MSI) status and immunohistochemistry (IHC) subtypes, including endometrioid carcinoma (EMC), clear cell carcinoma (CCC), or a mixture of both (Mix). We registered 390 patients who were diagnosed with EMC/CCC/Mix between 2006 and 2015 and treated at seven participating facilities. For 339 patients confirmed eligible by the Central Pathological Review Board, MSI, IHC, and MutL homolog 1 methylation analyses were conducted. The tissues of patients with Lynch syndrome (LS)-related cancer histories, such as colorectal and endometrial cancer, were also investigated. MSI-high (MSI-H) status was observed in 2/217 CCC (0.9%), 10/115 EMC (8.7%), and 1/4 Mix (25%). Additionally, loss of MMR protein expression (LoE-MMR) was observed in 5/219 (2.3%), 16/115 (14.0%), and 1/4 (25%) patients with CCC, EMC, and Mix, respectively. Both MSI-H and LoE-MMR were found significantly more often in EMC (p<0.001). The median (range) ages of patients with MMR expression and LoE-MMR were 54 (30-90) and 46 (22-76) (p=0.002), respectively. In the multivariate analysis, advanced stage and histological type were identified as prognostic factors. The dMMR rate for EMC/CCC was similar to that reported in Western countries. In Japan, it is assumed that the dMMR frequency is higher because of the increased proportion of CCC.

Durvalumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by durvalumab with or without olaparib as first-line treatment for newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: Japan subset from the phase III DUO-E trial

DUO-E/GOG-3041/ENGOT-EN10 (NCT04269200) demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) improvement with durvalumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel, followed by durvalumab with or without olaparib, vs. carboplatin/paclitaxel alone (intention-to-treat [ITT] population) in patients with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. We evaluated efficacy and safety in the Japan subset of DUO-E. Patients with newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III/IV or recurrent endometrial cancer were randomized 1:1:1 to control arm (carboplatin/paclitaxel + durvalumab placebo [6 cycles] followed by durvalumab placebo + olaparib placebo), durvalumab arm (carboplatin/paclitaxel + durvalumab [1,120 mg every 3 weeks] [6 cycles] followed by durvalumab [1,500 mg every 4 weeks] + olaparib placebo), or durvalumab + olaparib arm (carboplatin/paclitaxel + durvalumab [6 cycles] followed by durvalumab + olaparib [300 mg twice a day]). Dual primary endpoints were investigator-assessed PFS for durvalumab and durvalumab + olaparib arms vs. control. This prespecified exploratory analysis evaluated PFS and safety in the Japan subset. In the Japan subset (n=88) PFS favored durvalumab (hazard ratio=0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.32-1.12) and durvalumab + olaparib (0.44, 95% CI=0.22-0.85) vs. control; median PFS was 9.9 and 15.1 vs. 9.5 months, and the 18-month PFS rate was 37.0% and 42.1% vs. 22.2%, respectively. The safety profile in the Japan subset was generally consistent with the full safety analysis set and the established profiles of the individual agents. Efficacy and safety in the Japan subset were generally consistent with outcomes in the DUO-E ITT population. This Japanese subset analysis of DUO-E supports carboplatin/paclitaxel + durvalumab followed by durvalumab with or without olaparib as new treatment options in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer and is the first to report on these regimens in Japanese patients alone.