Ozden Altundag

Multi-institutional validation of the ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference risk grouping in Turkish endometrial cancer patients treated with comprehensive surgical staging

In this study, 683 patients with endometrial cancer (EC) after comprehensive surgical staging were classified into four risk groups as low (LR), intermediate (IR), high-intermediate (HIR) and high-risk (HR), according to the recent consensus risk grouping. Patients with disease confined to the uterus, ≥50% myometrial invasion (MI) and/or grade 3 histology were treated with vaginal brachytherapy (VBT). Patients with stage II disease, positive/close surgical margins or extra-uterine extension were treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT)±VBT. The median follow-up was 56 months. The overall survival (OS) was significantly different between LR and HR groups, and there was a trend between LR and HIR groups. Relapse-free survival (RFS) was significantly different between LR and HIR, LR and HR and IR and HR groups. There was no significant difference in OS and RFS rates between the HIR and HR groups. In HR patients, the OS and RFS rates were significantly higher in stage IB - grade 3 and stage II compared to stage III and non-endometrioid histology without any difference between the two uterine-confined stages and between stage III and non-endometrioid histology. The current risk grouping does not clearly discriminate the HIR and IR groups. In patients with comprehensive surgical staging, a further risk grouping is needed to distinguish the real HR group.Impact statement

Durvalumab with carboplatin/paclitaxel and bevacizumab followed by durvalumab and bevacizumab with or without olaparib maintenance in newly diagnosed non-BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer

Despite treatment advances in newly diagnosed advanced-stage ovarian cancer (aOC), improved outcomes are needed. DUO-O (NCT03737643), a phase III placebo-controlled trial, enrolled patients with newly diagnosed aOC. Following one cycle of carboplatin/paclitaxel ± bevacizumab, patients without a tumor BRCA mutation (non-tBRCAm) were randomly assigned (1 : 1 : 1) at cycle 2 to carboplatin/paclitaxel plus bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab (control); carboplatin/paclitaxel, bevacizumab plus durvalumab followed by bevacizumab plus durvalumab (durvalumab arm); or carboplatin/paclitaxel, bevacizumab plus durvalumab followed by bevacizumab, durvalumab plus olaparib (durvalumab + olaparib arm). Investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint) was tested for the durvalumab + olaparib arm versus control in the non-tBRCAm homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive and non-tBRCAm intention-to-treat (ITT) populations. One thousand one hundred and thirty patients were randomly allocated to the study. The prespecified interim PFS analysis [data cut-off (DCO): 5 December 2022] qualified as the primary analysis; PFS hazard ratio (HR) for the durvalumab + olaparib arm versus control was 0.49 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.69, P < 0.0001; median (m) PFS 37.3 versus 23.0 months] in the non-tBRCAm HRD-positive and 0.63 (95% CI 0.52-0.76, P < 0.0001; mPFS 24.2 versus 19.3 months) in the non-tBRCAm ITT population. For the durvalumab arm versus control, PFS HR was 0.87 (95% CI 0.73-1.04, P = 0.13; mPFS 20.6 versus 19.3 months) in the non-tBRCAm ITT population. At final PFS and interim overall survival (OS) analysis (DCO: 18 September 2023), PFS results were consistent with primary analysis; interim OS HR for the durvalumab + olaparib arm versus control was 0.95 (95% CI 0.76-1.20, P = 0.68; 39.0% maturity) in the non-tBRCAm ITT population. Safety was generally consistent with the profiles of the individual agents. DUO-O met its primary PFS endpoints for first-line durvalumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel and bevacizumab followed by durvalumab, bevacizumab plus olaparib maintenance versus carboplatin/paclitaxel and bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab in the non-tBRCAm HRD-positive and non-tBRCAm ITT populations. Further insight into long-term benefit is anticipated with additional follow-up.

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.