Kathleen N. Moore

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.

State of the Art: Therapies Now and Around the Corner for Gynecologic Cancers

Therapeutic advances across the gynecologic cancer continuum have resulted in improvements in patient care and outcomes over the past decade, yet challenges remain. In ovarian cancer, the evolution of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy has resulted in marked benefit for patients with BRCA-mutated cancers but has also unmasked the need for new therapies in patients whose cancers are proficient in homologous recombination and lack vulnerability to PARP inhibitors, as well as for those patients whose cancers progress on PARP inhibitors. In endometrial cancer, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved outcomes for patients receiving first-line therapy for advanced or recurrent disease when combined with standard-of-care chemotherapy. However, there remains uncertainty around which patients are most likely to benefit from the addition of immunotherapy, and treatment beyond first-line therapy remains an area of high unmet need. Similarly, ICIs added to chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer or to chemoradiation for high-risk locally advanced cervical cancers has resulted in improved outcomes, but treatment options beyond this remain limited. Across gynecologic cancers, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) hold the promise for further improvement in patient outcomes. A prime example is the demonstrated benefit of mirvetuximab soravtansine over other standard chemotherapy options in folate receptor alpha–high platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Maximizing such potential will require developing a deeper understanding of relationships between ADC target expression and activity, mechanisms of resistance, and potential approaches to sequencing. Beyond ADCs, additional therapies, including those targeting DNA damage response, remain in development.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed, Advanced Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE To provide updated guidance regarding neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS) among patients with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (epithelial ovarian cancer [EOC]). METHODS A multidisciplinary Expert Panel convened and updated the systematic review. RESULTS Sixty-one studies form the evidence base. RECOMMENDATIONS Patients with suspected stage III-IV EOC should be evaluated by a gynecologic oncologist, with cancer antigen 125, computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis, and chest imaging included. All patients with EOC should be offered germline genetic and somatic testing at diagnosis. For patients with newly diagnosed advanced EOC who are fit for surgery and have a high likelihood of achieving complete cytoreduction, PCS is recommended. For patients fit for PCS but deemed unlikely to have complete cytoreduction, NACT is recommended. Patients with newly diagnosed advanced EOC and a high perioperative risk profile should receive NACT. Before NACT, patients should have histologic confirmation of invasive ovarian cancer. For NACT, a platinum-taxane doublet is recommended. Interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS) should be performed after ≤four cycles of NACT for patients with a response to chemotherapy or stable disease. For patients with stage III disease, good performance status, and adequate renal function treated with NACT, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy may be offered during ICS. After ICS, chemotherapy should continue to complete a six-cycle treatment plan with the optional addition of bevacizumab. Patients with EOC should be offered US Food and Drug Administration–approved maintenance treatments. Patients with progressive disease on NACT should have diagnosis reconfirmed via tissue biopsy. Patients without previous comprehensive genetic or molecular profiling should be offered testing. Treatment options include alternative chemotherapy regimens, clinical trials, and/or initiation of end-of-life care. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines . This guideline has been endorsed by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

GOG-3097/ENGOT-ov81/GTG-UK/RAMP 301: a phase 3, randomized trial evaluating avutometinib plus defactinib compared with investigator’s choice of treatment in patients with recurrent low grade serous ovarian cancer

There are no approved treatments specifically for low grade serous ovarian cancer; current standard of care treatment options are limited in efficacy and tolerability. The combination of avutometinib with defactinib has demonstrated efficacy and a consistent safety profile in two clinical trials in recurrent low grade serous ovarian cancer, and a lower discontinuation rate due to adverse events compared with historical rates for standard of care. To compare the progression-free survival of the combination of avutometinib with defactinib versus investigator's choice of treatment in patients with recurrent low grade serous ovarian cancer. Combination treatment with avutometinib-defactinib will significantly improve progression-free survival compared with investigator's choice of treatment in patients with recurrent low grade serous ovarian cancer. GOG-3097/ENGOT-ov81/GTG-UK/RAMP 301 is a phase 3, randomized, international, open-label study designed to compare avutometinib with defactinib versus investigator's choice of treatment in patients with recurrent low grade serous ovarian cancer who have progressed on a previous platinum-based therapy. On confirmation of disease progression using a blinded independent central review, patients on the investigator's choice of treatment arm may cross over to the avutometinib-defactinib arm. Patients must have recurrent low grade serous ovarian cancer (KRAS mutant or wild-type) and have documented progression (radiographic or clinical) or recurrence of low grade serous ovarian cancer after at least one platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Unlimited additional previous lines of therapy are allowed, including previous MEK/RAF inhibitor. Patients will be excluded if they have co-existing high grade ovarian cancer or had previous treatment with avutometinib, defactinib, or any other FAK inhibitor. Progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, blinded-independent central review. Approximately 270 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either the combination avutometinib with defactinib arm (n∼135) or the investigator's choice of treatment arm (n∼135). The estimated primary completion date of RAMP 301 is 2028, and the estimated study completion date is 2031. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06072781.

Effectiveness of PARP Inhibitor Maintenance Therapy in Ovarian Cancer by BRCA1/2 and a Scar-Based HRD Signature in Real-World Practice

Abstract Purpose: The purpose of the study was to compare the effectiveness of PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy (mPARPi) in real-world practice by biomarker status [BRCA1/2 alterations (BRCAalt) and a homologous recombination deficiency signature (HRDsig)] in advanced ovarian cancer. Experimental Design: Patients with ovarian cancer receiving first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and either mPARPi or no maintenance were included. Patient data were obtained by a US-based de-identified ovarian cancer Clinico-Genomic Database, from ∼280 US cancer clinics (01/2015–03/2023). Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (rwOS) were compared by biomarker status using Cox models, weighted by propensity scores. Results: Of 673 patients, 160 received mPARPi [31.2% BRCAalt and 51.9% HRDsig(+)] and 513 no maintenance [15.6% BRCAalt and 34.1% HRDsig(+)]. BRCAalt patients receiving mPARPi versus no maintenance had favorable rwPFS [HR, 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.26–0.87; P = 0.0154], as did BRCA wild-type (WT; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57–1.01; P = 0.0595). Favorable rwOS was not observed with mPARPi for BRCAalt or BRCA-WT. HRDsig(+) patients receiving mPARPi versus no maintenance had favorable rwPFS (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24–0.55; P < 0.001) and numerically favorable rwOS (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.21–1.02; P = 0.0561). No differences were observed for HRDsig(−). mPARPi treatment interaction was observed for HRDsig(+) versus HRDsig(−) (rwPFS P < 0.001/rwOS P = 0.016) but not for BRCAalt versus BRCA-WT. Patients with BRCA-WT/HRDsig(+) receiving mPARPi had favorable rwPFS (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P = 0.003), whereas no difference was observed for BRCA-WT/HRDsig(−). Conclusions: HRDsig predicted benefit of mPARPi better than BRCAalt. Patients with HRDsig(+) status experienced favorable outcomes, even if they had BRCA-WT status. In contrast, patients with HRDsig(−) status did not show significant benefit from mPARPi treatment. HRDsig might predict benefit from mPARPi regardless of BRCAalt status.

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.

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.

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.

Historic Clinical Trial External Control Arm Provides Actionable GEN-1 Efficacy Estimate Before a Randomized Trial

PURPOSE To inform continued development of the novel immune agent GEN-1, we compared ovarian cancer patients' end points from a neoadjuvant single-arm phase IB study with those of similar historic clinical trial (HCT) patients who received standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS Applying OVATION-1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02480374 ) inclusion and exclusion criteria to Medidata HCT data, we identified historical trial patients for comparison. Integrating patient-level Medidata historic trial data (N = 41) from distinct neoadjuvant ovarian phase I-III trials with patient-level OVATION-1 data (N = 18), we selected Medidata patients with similar baseline characteristics as OVATION-1 patients using propensity score methods to create an external control arm (ECA). RESULTS Fifteen OVATION-1 patients (15 of 18, 83%) were matched to 15 (37%, 15 of 41) Medidata historical trial control patients. Matching attenuated preexisting differences in attributes between the groups. The median progression-free survival time was not reached by the OVATION-1 group and was 15.8 months (interquartile range, 11.40 months to nonestimable) for the ECA. The hazard of progression was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.16 to 1.73), favoring GEN-1 patients. Compared with ECA patients, OVATION-1 patients had more nausea, fatigue, chills, and infusion-related reactions. CONCLUSION Comparing results of a single-arm early-phase trial to those of a rigorously matched HCT ECA yielded insights regarding comparative efficacy prior to a randomized controlled trial. The effect size estimate itself informed both the decision to continue development and the randomized phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03393884 ) sample size. The work illustrates the potential of HCT data to inform drug development.

A Biomarker-enriched, Randomized Phase II Trial of Adavosertib (AZD1775) Plus Paclitaxel and Carboplatin for Women with Platinum-sensitive TP53 -mutant Ovarian Cancer

Abstract Purpose: Preclinical studies show that adavosertib, a WEE1 kinase inhibitor, sensitizes TP53-mutant cells to chemotherapy. We hypothesized that adavosertib, plus chemotherapy, would enhance efficacy versus placebo in TP53-mutated ovarian cancer. Patients and Methods: Following safety run-in, this double-blind phase II trial (NCT01357161) randomized women with TP53-mutated, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer to oral adavosertib (225 mg twice daily for 2.5 days/21-day cycle) or placebo, plus carboplatin (AUC5) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m2), until disease progression or for six cycles. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) by enhanced RECIST v1.1 [ePFS (volumetric)] and safety. Secondary/exploratory objectives included PFS by RECIST v1.1 (single dimension), objective response rate, overall survival, and analysis of tumor gene profile versus sensitivity to adavosertib. Results: A total of 121 patients were randomized to adavosertib (A+C; n = 59) and placebo (P+C; n = 62) plus chemotherapy. Adding adavosertib to chemotherapy improved ePFS [median, 7.9 (95% confidence interval (CI), 6.9–9.9) vs. 7.3 months (5.6–8.2); HR 0.63 (95% CI, 0.38–1.06); two-sided P = 0.080], meeting the predefined significance threshold (P < 0.2). Clinical benefit was observed following A+C for patients with different TP53 mutation subtypes, identifying possible response biomarkers. An increase in adverse events was seen with A+C versus P+C: greatest for diarrhea (adavosertib 75%; placebo 37%), vomiting (63%; 27%), anemia (53%; 32%), and all grade ≥3 adverse events (78%; 65%). Conclusions: Establishing an optimal strategy for managing tolerability and identifying specific patient populations most likely to benefit from treatment may increase clinical benefit. Future studies should consider additional adavosertib doses within the chemotherapy treatment cycle and the potential for maintenance therapy.

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 < .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.

CA-125 KELIM as a Potential Complementary Tool for Predicting Veliparib Benefit: An Exploratory Analysis From the VELIA/GOG-3005 Study

PURPOSE In VELIA trial, veliparib combined with carboplatin-paclitaxel, followed by maintenance (veliparib-throughout) was associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel alone in patients with high-grade ovarian carcinomas. We explored the prognostic value of the modeled cancer antigen (CA)-125 elimination rate constant K (KELIM), which is known to be an indicator of the intrinsic tumor chemosensitivity (the faster the rate of CA-125 decline, the higher the KELIM and the higher the chemosensitivity), and its association with benefit from veliparib. PATIENTS AND METHODS Individual KELIM values were estimated from longitudinal CA-125 kinetics. Patients were categorized as having favorable (≥ median) or unfavorable (< median) KELIM. The prognostic value of KELIM for veliparib-related PFS benefit was explored in cohorts treated with primary or interval debulking surgery, according to the surgery completeness, the disease progression risk group, and the homologous recombination (HR) status ( BRCA mutation, HR deficiency [HRD], or HR proficiency [HRP]). RESULTS The data from 854 of 1,140 enrolled patients were analyzed (primary debulking surgery, n = 700; interval debulking surgery, n = 154). Increasing KELIM values were associated with higher benefit from veliparib in HRD cancer, as were decreasing KELIM values in HRP cancer. The highest PFS benefit from veliparib was observed in patients with both favorable KELIM and BRCA mutation (hazard ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.61) or BRCA wild-type HRD cancer (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.70), consistent with the association between poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor efficacy and platinum sensitivity. In contrast, seventy-four percent of patients with a BRCA mutation and unfavorable KELIM progressed within 18 months while on veliparib. The patients with HRP cancer and unfavorable KELIM might have benefited from the veliparib chemosensitizing effect. CONCLUSION In addition to HRD/ BRCA status, the tumor primary chemosensitivity observed during the first-line chemotherapy might be another complementary determinant of poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor efficacy.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Paclitaxel and Carboplatin Versus Paclitaxel and Ifosfamide in Patients With Carcinosarcoma of the Uterus or Ovary: An NRG Oncology Trial

PURPOSE This phase III randomized trial ( NCT00954174 ) tested the null hypothesis that paclitaxel and carboplatin (PC) is inferior to paclitaxel and ifosfamide (PI) for treating uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS). PATIENTS AND METHODS Adults with chemotherapy-naïve UCS or ovarian carcinosarcoma (OCS) were randomly assigned to PC or PI with 3-week cycles for 6-10 cycles. With 264 events in patients with UCS, the power for an overall survival (OS) hybrid noninferiority design was 80% for a null hazard ratio (HR) of 1.2 against a 13% greater death rate on PI with a type I error of 5% for a one-tailed test. RESULTS The study enrolled 536 patients with UCS and 101 patients with OCS, with 449 and 90 eligible, respectively. Primary analysis was on patients with UCS, distributed as follows: 40% stage I, 6% stage II, 31% stage III, 15% stage IV, and 8% recurrent. Among eligible patients with UCS, PC was assigned to 228 and PI to 221. PC was not inferior to PI. The median OS was 37 versus 29 months (HR = 0.87; 90% CI, 0.70 to 1.075; P < .01 for noninferiority, P > .1 for superiority). The median progression-free survival was 16 versus 12 months (HR = 0.73; P = < 0.01 for noninferiority, P < .01 for superiority). Toxicities were similar, except that more patients in the PC arm had hematologic toxicity and more patients in the PI arm had confusion and genitourinary hemorrhage. Among 90 eligible patients with OCS, those in the PC arm had longer OS (30 v 25 months) and progression-free survival (15 v 10 months) than those in the PI arm, but with limited precision, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION PC was not inferior to the active regimen PI and should be standard treatment for UCS.

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

Efficacy and Safety of Avutometinib ± Defactinib in Recurrent Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer: Primary Analysis of ENGOT-OV60/GOG-3052/RAMP 201

PURPOSE This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of avutometinib (rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma/mitogen-activated extracellular signal-regulated kinase [MEK] clamp) alone or in combination with defactinib (focal adhesion kinase inhibitor) in patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC). METHODS In this phase II, open-label study, patients with recurrent, measurable LGSOC after ≥1 line of platinum chemotherapy were stratified by tumor Kirsten rat sarcoma virus homolog ( KRAS ) mutation status and randomly assigned to oral avutometinib 4.0 mg two times per week monotherapy or avutometinib 3.2 mg two times per week in combination with oral defactinib 200 mg two times per day. The combination was selected as the go-forward regimen for expansion. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review. RESULTS A total of 115 patients received the go-forward combination regimen. Patients had a median of 3 (range, 1-9) prior lines of therapy, including hormonal (86%), bevacizumab (51%), and MEK inhibitor (22%). Confirmed ORR was 31% (95% CI, 23% to 41%) with a median duration of response of 31.1 months (95% CI, 14.8 to 31.1). ORR was 44% in KRAS- mutant and 17% in KRAS wild-type cohorts. The median progression-free survival was 12.9 months (95% CI, 10.9 to 20.2) overall and 22.0 months (95% CI, 11.1 to 36.6) and 12.8 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 18.4) in KRAS- mutant and wild-type cohorts, respectively. The most frequent grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were elevated creatine phosphokinase (24%), diarrhea (8%), and anemia (5%). Ten percent of patients discontinued because of AEs. CONCLUSION The efficacy and safety profile of avutometinib in combination with defactinib support this combination as a potential standard of care for recurrent LGSOC. A randomized phase 3 study of avutometinib and defactinib versus investigator's choice of therapy for women with recurrent LGSOC is currently enrolling (RAMP301; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06072781 ).

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.

Molecular Results and Potential Biomarkers Identified from the Phase 3 MILO/ENGOT-ov11 Study of Binimetinib versus Physician Choice of Chemotherapy in Recurrent Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer

Abstract Purpose: We present the results of a post hoc tumor tissue analysis from the phase 3 MILO/ENGOT-ov11 study (NCT01849874). Patients and Methods: Mutation/copy-number analysis was performed on tissue obtained pre-randomization. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS). Unbiased univariate analysis, Cox regression, and binary logistic regression were used to test associations between mutation status and outcomes, including PFS and binary response by local RECIST 1.1. Results: MILO/ENGOT-ov11 enrolled 341 patients, ranging in age from 22 to 79, from June, 2013 to April, 2016. Patients were randomized 2:1 to binimetinib or physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCC). The most commonly altered gene was KRAS (33%). In 135 patients treated with binimetinib with response rate (RR) data, other detected MAPK pathway alterations included: NRAS (n = 11, 8.1%), BRAF V600E (n = 8, 5.9%), RAF1 (n = 2, 1.5%), and NF1 (n = 7, 5.2%). In those with and without MAPK pathway alterations, the RRs with binimetinib were 41% and 13%, respectively. PFS was significantly longer in patients with, compared with those without, MAPK pathway alterations treated with binimetinib [HR, 0.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31–0.79]. There was a nonsignificant trend toward PFS improvement in PCC-treated patients with MAPK pathway alterations compared with those without (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.43–1.59). Conclusions: Although this hypothesis-generating analysis is limited by multiple testing, higher RRs and longer PFS were seen in patients with low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC) treated with binimetinib, and to a lesser extent in those treated with PCC, who harbored MAPK pathway alterations. Somatic tumor testing should be routinely considered in patients with LGSOC and used as a future stratification factor.

A Study of Avutometinib (VS-6766) + Defactinib (VS-6063) in Recurrent Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer

This study will assess the safety and efficacy of avutometinib (VS-6766) in combination with defactinib versus Investigator's choice of treatments (ICT) in subjects with recurrent LGSOC who have progressed on a prior platinum-based therapy.

A Study of Avutometinib (VS-6766) v. Avutometinib (VS-6766) + Defactinib in Recurrent Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer With and Without a KRAS Mutation

This study will assess the safety and efficacy of avutometinib (VS-6766) monotherapy and in combination with defactinib in subjects with recurrent Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer (LGSOC)

Study of IMNN-001 (Also Known as GEN-1) With NACT for Treatment of Ovarian Cancer (OVATION 2)

This is a randomized, open label, multicenter trial to evaluate the safety, dosing, efficacy and biological activity of intraperitoneal IMNN-001 plus NACT compared to NACT alone.

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.

Study of Safety & Biological Activity of IP IMNN-001 (also Known As GEN-1) with Neoadjuvant Chemo in Ovarian Cancer

This dose escalation study will determine a maximum tolerated dose and/or optimal biological dose of GEN-1 for carboplatin/paclitaxel combination in newly diagnosed ovarian cancer.

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.

A Study of MEK162 vs. Physician's Choice Chemotherapy in Patients With Low-grade Serous Ovarian, Fallopian Tube or Peritoneal Cancer

The MILO Study (MEK Inhibitor in Low-grade Serous Ovarian Cancer) is a Phase 3 study during which patients with recurrent or persistent low-grade serous (LGS) carcinomas of the ovary, fallopian tube or primary peritoneum will receive either investigational study drug MEK162 or a chemotherapy chosen by the physician (liposomal doxorubicin, paclitaxel or topotecan). Patients will be followed to compare the effectiveness of the study drug to that of the selected chemotherapies. Patients may be eligible to crossover from physician's choice chemotherapy to MEK162 if they meet certain inclusion criteria including centrally confirmed disease progression. Approximately 360 patients from North America, Europe and Australia will be enrolled in this study.

Paclitaxel and Carboplatin or Ifosfamide in Treating Patients With Newly Diagnosed, Persistent or Recurrent Uterine, Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, or Peritoneal Cavity Cancer

This randomized phase III trial studies paclitaxel and carboplatin see how well they work compared with paclitaxel and ifosfamide in treating patients with fallopian tube, or peritoneal cavity cancer that is newly diagnosed, persistent, or has come back (recurrent). Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as paclitaxel, carboplatin, and ifosfamide, 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 paclitaxel is more effective when given with carboplatin or ifosfamide in treating patients with uterine, ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cavity cancer.