Michael A. Bookman

Identification of Patients With Ovarian Cancer Experiencing the Highest Benefit From Bevacizumab in the First-Line Setting on the Basis of Their Tumor-Intrinsic Chemosensitivity (KELIM): The GOG-0218 Validation Study

PURPOSE In patients with high-grade ovarian cancer, predictors of bevacizumab efficacy in first-line setting are needed. In the ICON-7 trial, a poor tumor intrinsic chemosensitivity (defined by unfavorable modeled cancer antigen-125 [CA-125] ELIMination rate constant K [KELIM] score) was a predictive biomarker. Only the patients with high-risk disease (suboptimally resected stage III, or stage IV) exhibiting unfavorable KELIM score < 1.0 had overall survival (OS) benefit from bevacizumab (median: 29.7 v 20.6 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.78). An external validation study in the GOG-0218 trial was performed. METHODS In GOG-0218, 1,873 patients were treated with carboplatin-paclitaxel ± concurrent-maintenance bevacizumab/placebo. Patient KELIM values were calculated with CA-125 kinetics during the first 100 chemotherapy days by the Lyon University team. The association between KELIM score (favorable ≥ 1.0, or unfavorable < 1.0) and bevacizumab benefit for progression-free survival (PFS)/OS was independently assessed by NGR-GOG using univariate/multivariate analyses. RESULTS KELIM was assessable in 1,662 patients with ≥ 3 CA-125 available values. An unfavorable KELIM score was associated with bevacizumab benefit compared with placebo (PFS: HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.82; OS: HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.03), whereas a favorable KELIM was not (PFS: HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.17; OS: HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.39). The highest benefit was observed in patients with a high-risk disease exhibiting unfavorable KELIM, for PFS (median: 9.1 v 5.6 months; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.78), and for OS (median: 35.1 v 29.1 months; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.97). CONCLUSION This GOG-0218 trial investigation validates ICON-7 findings about the association between poor tumor chemosensitivity and benefit from concurrent-maintenance bevacizumab, suggesting that bevacizumab may mainly be effective in patients with poorly chemosensitive disease. Bevacizumab may be prioritized in patients with a high-risk and poorly chemosensitive disease to improve their PFS/OS (patient KELIM score calculator available on the Biomarker Kinetics website).

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.

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

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.

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.

Perspectives on inclusion, diversity, equity, and access in clinical trials: findings from a 6-continent survey

Clinical trials require the inclusion of all relevant demographic groups, including under-represented populations, to ensure accurate and representative findings. The aim of the study was to assess the status quo of inclusion, diversity, equity, and access in clinical trials across various countries. An 18-item online survey was developed and administered to 5 people. The questionnaire was distributed to delegates from gynecologic research groups in the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup Network worldwide. All the analyses are purely descriptive. A total of 73 participants (86.3% physicians and 47.9% female) from 33 countries participated in the survey; 91.8% deemed the inclusion of under-represented groups in clinical trials important, and 91.2% supported increasing representation in phase III trials. Most participants believed that language barriers (68.7%) and restricted eligibility criteria (56.7%) were the main reasons for under-representation. Language barriers are seen as more significant in Africa and Europe than in Asia (83.3% and 75.0% vs 58.6%, respectively). Limited patient knowledge about clinical trials (73.1%) was also cited as a key issue. Only 20.5% reported having a minimal data set to document demographic groups. The most helpful measure was the provision of trial information in various languages (69.7%). Overall, women were more supportive of all the suggested improvement measures than were men. There is a need for better strategies to improve diversity in clinical trials, focusing on overcoming language barriers and eligibility constraints.

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.

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.

Carboplatin and Paclitaxel With or Without Bevacizumab in Treating Patients With Stage III or Stage IV Ovarian Epithelial, Primary Peritoneal, or Fallopian Tube Cancer

This randomized phase III trial studies carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab to see how well they work compared to carboplatin, paclitaxel, and placebo in treating patients with stage III or stage IV ovarian epithelial, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer. Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as carboplatin and paclitaxel, work in different ways to stop the growth of tumor cells, either by killing the cells or by stopping them from dividing. Monoclonal antibodies, such as bevacizumab, may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. It is not yet known whether carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab are more effective than carboplatin, paclitaxel, and placebo in treating ovarian epithelial, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer.