María Jesús Rubio

Analysis of Tumor Microenvironment Changes after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with or without Bevacizumab in Advanced Ovarian Cancer (GEICO-89T/MINOVA Study)

Abstract Purpose: The aim of our study was to elucidate the impact of bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) on the tumor immune microenvironment and correlate the changes with the clinical outcome of the patients. Experimental Design: IHC and multiplex immunofluorescence for lymphoid and myeloid lineage markers were performed in matched tumor samples from 23 patients with ovarian cancer enrolled in GEICO 1205/NOVA clinical study before NACT and at the time of interval cytoreductive surgery. Results: Our results showed that the addition of bevacizumab to NACT plays a role mainly on lymphoid populations at the stromal compartment, detecting a significant decrease of CD4+ T cells, an increase of CD8+ T cells, and an upregulation in effector/regulatory cell ratio (CD8+/CD4+FOXP3+). None of the changes observed were detected in the intra-epithelial site in any arm (NACT or NACT-bevacizumab). No differences were found in myeloid lineage (macrophage-like). The percentage of Treg populations and effector/regulatory cell ratio in the stroma were the only two variables significantly associated with progression-free survival (PFS). Conclusions: The addition of bevacizumab to NACT did not have an impact on PFS in the GEICO 1205 study. However, at the cellular level, changes in CD4+, CD8+ lymphocyte populations, and CD8+/CD4+FOXP3 ratio have been detected only at the stromal site. On the basis of our results, we hypothesize about the existence of mechanisms of resistance that could prevent the trafficking of T-effector cells into the epithelial component of the tumor as a potential explanation for the lack of efficacy of ICI in the first-line treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. See related commentary by Soberanis Pina and Oza, p. 12

Controversies in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer in the PARP inhibitors era: a Delphi consensus

Our aim was to reach a consensus on the management of the most controversial issues of advanced ovarian cancer. Nominal group and Delphi techniques were used. A steering committee of 5 experts analyzed current management of advanced ovarian cancer, identified controversies, critically analyzed the evidence, and formulated guiding statements for clinicians. Subsequently, a panel of 15 experts was selected to test agreement with the statements through two Delphi rounds. Items were scored on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree). In the first and second rounds, consensus was considered if ≥70% of answers pertained to category 1 or category 4. Overall, 112 statements were incorporated in the following areas: 1) biomarkers and hereditary ovarian cancer; 2) first-line treatment; 3) recurrent disease when platinum might be the best option; and 4) post-poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors setting. In the first Delphi round, 37 statements reached consensus and did thus not pass to the second round. After the second round, another 18 statements reached consensus. Forty-six of the consensus were with the agreement and 9 with the disagreement. Through the methodology used, a consensus was reached in approximately half of the statements. The results of this work may be useful in addressing the most controversial issues on the management of advanced ovarian cancer.

Population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of the SOLO1 and PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trials evaluating maintenance olaparib or bevacizumab or the combination of both in newly diagnosed, advanced BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer

In the absence of randomised head-to-head trials, we conducted a population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (PA-ITC) of phase III trial data to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of maintenance olaparib and bevacizumab alone and in combination in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation (BRCAm). An unanchored PA-ITC was performed on investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) data. Individual patient data from SOLO1 (olaparib versus placebo) and from BRCA-mutated patients in PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 (olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab) were pooled. Each arm of PAOLA-1 was weighted so that key baseline patient characteristics were similar to the SOLO1 cohort. Analyses were performed in patients with complete baseline data. Weighted Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the comparative efficacy of different maintenance therapy strategies, supplemented by weighted Kaplan-Meier analyses. Data from SOLO1 patients (olaparib, n = 254; placebo, n = 126) were compared with data from BRCA-mutated PAOLA-1 patients (olaparib plus bevacizumab, n = 151; placebo plus bevacizumab, n = 71). Adding bevacizumab to olaparib was associated with a numerical improvement in PFS compared with olaparib alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-1.09). Statistically significant improvements in PFS were seen with olaparib alone versus placebo plus bevacizumab (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.30-0.75), olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo (0.23; 0.14-0.34), and placebo plus bevacizumab versus placebo (0.65; 0.43-0.95). Results of this hypothesis-generating PA-ITC analysis support the use of maintenance olaparib alone or with bevacizumab in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCAm.

Atezolizumab Combined With Platinum and Maintenance Niraparib for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer With a Platinum-Free Interval >6 Months: ENGOT-OV41/GEICO 69-O/ANITA Phase III Trial

PURPOSE To evaluate atezolizumab combined with platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) followed by maintenance niraparib for late-relapsing recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS The multicenter placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III ENGOT-OV41/GEICO 69-O/ANITA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03598270 ) enrolled patients with measurable high-grade serous, endometrioid, or undifferentiated recurrent ovarian cancer who had received one or two previous CT lines (most recent including platinum) and had a treatment-free interval since last platinum (TFIp) of >6 months. Patients were stratified by investigator-selected carboplatin doublet, TFIp, BRCA status, and PD-L1 status in de novo biopsy and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either atezolizumab or placebo throughout standard therapy comprising six cycles of a carboplatin doublet followed (in patients with response/stable disease) by maintenance niraparib until progression. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1. RESULTS Between November 2018 and January 2022, 417 patients were randomly assigned (15% BRCA- mutated, 36% PD-L1–positive, 66% TFIp >12 months, 11% previous poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase inhibitor after frontline CT, and 53% previous bevacizumab). Median follow-up was 28.6 months (95% CI, 26.6 to 30.5 months). Atezolizumab did not significantly improve PFS (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.71 to 1.10]; P = .28). Median PFS was 11.2 months (95% CI, 10.1 to 12.1 months) with atezolizumab versus 10.1 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 11.2 months) with standard therapy. Subgroup analyses generally showed consistent results, including analyses by PD-L1 status. The objective response rate (ORR) was 45% (95% CI, 39 to 52) with atezolizumab and 43% (95% CI, 36 to 49) with standard therapy. The safety profile was as expected from previous experience of these drugs. CONCLUSION Combining atezolizumab with CT and maintenance niraparib for late-relapsing recurrent ovarian cancer did not significantly improve PFS or the ORR.

First-line lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for advanced endometrial cancer: 1-Year follow-up after final analysis of the ENGOT-en9/LEAP-001 phase 3 trial

The phase 3 ENGOT-en9/LEAP-001 trial (NCT03884101) comparing first-line lenvatinib+pembrolizumab with carboplatin+paclitaxel did not meet pre-specified statistical criteria for overall survival or progression-free survival in participants with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer. We report results after an additional year of follow-up (overall median 54.5 [range; 46.5-69.0] months). Eligible participants were adult females with stage III to IV or recurrent, histologically confirmed endometrial cancer. Measurable or non-measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 and radiographically apparent disease per blinded independent central review was required. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to lenvatinib+pembrolizumab or chemotherapy (paclitaxel+carboplatin). The primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival per RECIST version 1.1 by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included objective response rate per RECIST version 1.1 by blinded independent central review and safety. The median overall survival (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 30.9 (range; 25.4-37.6) months with lenvatinib+pembrolizumab versus 29.4 (range; 26.2-34.8) months with chemotherapy in mismatch repair-proficient endometrial cancer (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.21), 37.9 (range; 32.2-43.0) versus 32.3 (range; 27.2-35.7) months in all-comers (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.09), and not reached in either treatment group in mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancer (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93]). Corresponding results for progression-free survival were 9.6 (range; 8.2-11.9) versus 10.2 (range; 8.4-10.5) months (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.22), 12.5 (range; 10.3-15.1) versus 10.2 (range; 8.4-10.4) months (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10]), and 31.8 (22.5 to not reached) versus 9.0 (range; 8.2-17.1) months (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.93). Objective response rates were 50.6% versus 54.7%, 55.7% versus 55.5%, and 72.0% versus 58.0%, respectively. No new safety signals were identified. The results were consistent with those at the final analysis. The mismatch repair-proficient, all-comer, and mismatch repair-deficient populations continued to demonstrate antitumor activity for lenvatinib+pembrolizumab after an additional year of follow-up. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the exploratory nature of the analysis. ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT03884101.

First-Line Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy for Advanced Endometrial Cancer: A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial

PURPOSE Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (len + pembro) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in previously treated advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (aEC) in the phase III Study 309/KEYNOTE-775. We report results from the phase III, randomized, open-label European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial-en9/LEAP-001 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03884101 ) that evaluated len + pembro versus chemotherapy in first-line aEC. METHODS Patients with stage III to IV or recurrent, radiographically apparent EC and no previous chemotherapy or disease progression ≥6 months after neo/adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks or paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 plus carboplatin AUC 6 mg/mL/min once every 3 weeks. Primary end points were PFS and OS, evaluated in the mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) and all-comers populations. Noninferiority was assessed for OS at final analysis (FA) for len + pembro versus chemotherapy (multiplicity-adjusted, one-sided nominal alpha, .0159; null hypothesis–tested hazard ratio [HR], 1.1). RESULTS Eight hundred forty-two patients were randomly assigned (len + pembro, n = 420 [pMMR population, n = 320]; chemotherapy, n = 422 [pMMR population, n = 322]). At FA (data cutoff, October 2, 2023), median PFS (95% CI) in the pMMR population was 9.6 (8.2 to 11.9) versus 10.2 (8.4 to 10.5) months with len + pembro versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.21]) and among all-comers was 12.5 (10.3 to 15.1) versus 10.2 (8.4 to 10.4) months (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.09]; descriptive analyses). Median OS (95% CI) in the pMMR population was 30.9 (25.4 to 37.7) versus 29.4 (26.2 to 35.4) months with len + pembro versus chemotherapy (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.26]; noninferiority P = .246, not statistically significant per multiplicity control strategy) and among all-comers was 37.7 (32.2 to 43.6) versus 32.1 (27.2 to 35.7) months (HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.12]). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 331/420 (79%) versus 274/411 (67%) treated patients. CONCLUSION First-line len + pembro did not meet prespecified statistical criteria for PFS or OS versus chemotherapy in pMMR aEC.

Prospective Real-World Gynaecological Cancer Clinical Registry with Associated Biospecimens: A Collaborative Model to Promote Translational Research between GEICO and the Spanish Biobank Network.

Patient registries linked to biorepositories constitute a valuable asset for clinical and translational research in oncology. The Spanish Group of Ovarian Cancer Research (GEICO), in collaboration with the Spanish Biobank Network (RNBB), has developed a multicentre, multistakeholder, prospective virtual clinical registry (VCR) associated with biobanks for the collection of real-world data and biological samples of gynaecological cancer patients. This collaborative project aims to promote research by providing broad access to high-quality clinical data and biospecimens for future research according to the needs of investigators and to increase diagnostic and therapeutic opportunities for gynaecological cancer patients in Spain. The VCR will include the participation of more than 60 Spanish hospitals entering relevant clinical information in harmonised electronic case report forms (eCRFs) in four different cohorts: ovarian, endometrial, cervical, and rare gynaecological cancers (gestational trophoblastic disease). Initial data for the cases included till December 2021 are presented. The model described herein establishes a real-world win-win collaboration between multicentre structures, promoted and supported by GEICO, that will contribute to the success of translational research in gynaecological cancer.

Platinum-based Chemotherapy With Atezolizumab and Niraparib in Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

Atezolizumab in this study is expected to have a positive benefit-risk profile for the treatment of patients with platinum-sensitive relapse of ovarian cancer. Of interest, atezolizumab is being investigated also in combination with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in second line (2L)/ third line (3L) platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer patients in ATALANTE (NCT02891824), which also includes bevacizumab in the combination. The study is proceeding as expected after \>100 patients enrolled and under independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC) supervision. Platinum-containing therapy is considered the treatment of choice for patients with platinum-sensitive relapse. However the duration of response and the prolongation of the progression free interval with chemotherapy are usually brief, among other because these chemotherapy regimens cannot be continued until progression as they are associated with neurological, renal and hematological toxicity and cannot generally be tolerated for more than about 6 to 9 cycles. Niraparib received FDA approval in March 2017 as maintenance treatment of adult patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer who are in complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Recently, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has also approved niraparib as maintenance monotherapy. Despite the progress brought about by niraparib, there is a need for a more effective treatment to extend the progression free interval in this patient population. The combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti-death protein 1 (anti-PD1) or anti-death protein ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) has a compelling rationale to this aim, especially under the light of the emerging clinical data of this combination. The use of atezolizumab concurrent to platinum-containing chemotherapy followed by niraparib as maintenance therapy after completion of chemotherapy, as per normal clinical practice, may provide further benefit to patients in terms of prolonging the progression free interval and increasing the interval between lines of chemotherapy, hence delaying further hospitalization and the cumulative toxicities associated with chemotherapy. Additionally, preliminary studies with atezolizumab suggest an acceptable tolerability profile for long term clinical use in recurrent ovarian cancer patients and other indications.