Nobutaka Takahashi

Impact of the FIGO2023 staging system on endometrial cancer in Japan: differences between next-generation sequencing and simplified surrogate marker analysis

Abstract Background The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) revised the staging system of endometrial cancer in 2023. In this study, we aimed to determine stage transitions and prognosis of endometrial cancer using FIGO2008, FIGO2023 without molecular classification (FIGO2023), and FIGO2023 with molecular classification (FIGO2023m). Methods Eighty-three patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer who underwent surgery and next-generation sequencing (NGS) molecular profiling as part of the Project HOPE cohort study were enrolled. Each case was staged according to the FIGO2008 and FIGO2023 criteria, and we evaluated changes in stage and disease-specific survival (DSS). Molecular classification based on NGS was performed to evaluate FIGO2023m, and the concordance rate with immunohistochemical marker analysis was assessed. Results Transitioning from FIGO2008 to FIGO2023 resulted in the restaging of 18 cases. Conversely, transitioning from FIGO2008 to FIGO2023m led to the restaging of 15 cases. The concordance rate between FIGO2023 and FIGO2023m staging was 96.4%. With FIGO2023m, the 5-year DSS was 97.6% for stage I (95% confidence interval [CI] 83.9–99.7), 83.3% for stage II (95% CI 56.8–94.3), 100% for stage III (95% CI NA), and 25.0% for stage IV (95% CI 0.9–66.5). Discrepancies in disease staging due to discordance between simplified surrogate marker analysis and NGS evaluation occurred in two cases. Conclusions The revision of the staging system from FIGO2008 to FIGO2023 and FIGO2023m resulted in the restaging of several cases, with significant changes between stages I and II.

Nivolumab Versus Gemcitabine or Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin for Patients With Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer: Open-Label, Randomized Trial in Japan (NINJA)

PURPOSE This phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label study investigated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab versus chemotherapy (gemcitabine [GEM] or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin [PLD]) in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eligible patients had platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer, received ≤ 1 regimen after diagnosis of resistance, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of ≤ 1. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab (240 mg once every 2 weeks [as one cycle]) or chemotherapy (GEM 1000 mg/m2 for 30 minutes [once on days 1, 8, and 15] followed by a week's rest [as one cycle], or PLD 50 mg/m2 once every 4 weeks [as one cycle]). The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate, duration of response, and safety. RESULTS Patients (n = 316) were randomly assigned to nivolumab (n = 157) or GEM or PLD (n = 159) between October 2015 and December 2017. Median OS was 10.1 (95% CI, 8.3 to 14.1) and 12.1 (95% CI, 9.3 to 15.3) months with nivolumab and GEM or PLD, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.3; P = .808). Median PFS was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.9 to 2.2) and 3.8 (95% CI, 3.6 to 4.2) months with nivolumab and GEM or PLD, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9; P = .002). There was no statistical difference in overall response rate between groups (7.6% v 13.2%; odds ratio, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.2 to 1.3; P = .191). Median duration of response was numerically longer with nivolumab than GEM or PLD (18.7 v 7.4 months). Fewer treatment-related adverse events were observed with nivolumab versus GEM or PLD (61.5% v 98.1%), with no additional or new safety risks. CONCLUSION Although well-tolerated, nivolumab did not improve OS and showed worse PFS compared with GEM or PLD in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

Characterization of rare histological subtypes of ovarian cancer based on molecular profiling

AbstractObjectivePan‐cancer analysis across The Cancer Genome Atlas has revealed the molecular profiles of major types of carcinomas. High‐grade serous carcinomas (HGSCs) have been characterized; however, in ovarian cancer, the profile of carcinoma with minor histopathological changes remains unclear. This study aimed to perform the molecular profiling of rare malignant ovarian tumors, including non‐epithelial tumors (NETs; germ cell tumors and sex cord tumors) and clear cell carcinoma (CCC), to determine how they differ from the major HGSCs.MethodsSixty‐nine malignant ovarian tumors surgically resected at the Shizuoka Cancer Center between January 2014 and March 2019 were classified based on their histopathological types. The germline and somatic mutations in these carcinomas, including NETs, were determined using next‐generation sequencing. Gene expression analysis was performed to investigate the major pathways of drug resistance, which is a characteristic of CCC.ResultsNETs harbored copy‐neutral loss of heterozygosity, accompanied by a high homologous recombination deficiency score; germline mutations of PALB2 and BARD1 were identified in two patients with NET. In chemoresistant CCC, the epithelial‐mesenchymal transition pathway was activated regardless of ABC transporter expression.ConclusionThis study revealed some genomic characteristics of rare malignant ovarian tumors, including NETs and CCC.

Current trends in chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer

Abstract Chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer has progressed over the past several decades with the introduction of cytotoxic agents. Various methods, including single agents, combination therapy and changes in the method of administration, have been validated in many clinical trials and have been combined in an attempt to improve the prognosis of advanced ovarian cancer. In recent years, molecular-targeted agents have been added to cytotoxic agents as a treatment option for maintenance therapy; however, their efficacy has been limited, and further development of treatment options is expected. The advent of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors has considerably improved prognosis and has affected treatment strategies for advanced ovarian cancer over the past few years. With the addition of the recently introduced immune checkpoint inhibitors, future treatment strategies for advanced ovarian cancer may become more complex. In this review, we introduce the latest advances in chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer and discuss future perspectives.

High cost of chemotherapy for gynecologic malignancies

Abstract Background The prognosis of gynecological malignancies has improved with the recent advent of molecularly targeted drugs and immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, these drugs are expensive and contribute to the increasing costs of medical care. Methods The Japanese Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) Health Economics Committee conducted a questionnaire survey of JCOG-affiliated facilities from July 2021 to June 2022 to assess the prevalence of high-cost regimens. Results A total of 57 affiliated facilities were surveyed regarding standard regimens for advanced ovarian and cervical cancers for gynecological malignancies. Responses were obtained from 39 facilities (68.4%) regarding ovarian cancer and 37 (64.9%) concerning cervical cancer, with respective case counts of 854 and 163. For ovarian cancer, 505 of 854 patients (59.1%) were treated with regimens that included PARP inhibitors, costing >500 000 Japanese yen monthly, while 111 patients (13.0%) received treatments that included bevacizumab, with costs exceeding 200 000 Japanese yen monthly. These costs are ~20 and ~10 times higher than those of the conventional regimens, respectively. For cervical cancer, 79 patients (48.4%) were treated with bevacizumab regimens costing >200 000 Japanese yen per month, ~10 times the cost of conventional treatments. Conclusions In this survey, >70% of patients with ovarian cancer were treated with regimens that included poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors or bevacizumab; ~50% of patients with cervical cancer were treated with regimens containing bevacizumab. These treatments were ~10 and ~20 times more expensive than conventional regimens, respectively. These findings can inform future health economics studies, particularly in assessing cost-effectiveness and related matters.