Investigator

Philippe Follana

MD · Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, medical oncology

PFPhilippe Follana
Papers(5)
Atezolizumab With Bev…Maintenance olaparib …Association between m…Improving real-world …<i>ESR1</i> …
Collaborators(10)
Florence JolyFrédéric SelleCoriolan LebretonJérôme AlexandreElise BonnetPierre FournelKaren LeroyIsabelle Ray-CoquardMarie-Ange Mouret-Rey…Michel Fabbro
Institutions(11)
Centre Antoine Lacass…Centre François Bacle…Groupe Hospitalier Di…Institut BergoniAssistance Publique –…Groupe Hospitalier Mu…CHU de Saint-EtienneHpital Europen George…Centre Leon BErardCentre Jean PerrinInstitut Regional Du …

Papers

Atezolizumab With Bevacizumab and Nonplatinum Chemotherapy for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: Final Results From the Placebo-Controlled AGO-OVAR 2.29/ENGOT-ov34 Phase III Trial

PURPOSE To evaluate atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab and non–platinum-based chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS The double-blind randomized phase III AGO-OVAR 2.29/ENGOT-ov34 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03353831 ) enrolled patients with first or second relapse of ovarian cancer ≤6 months after completing platinum-based chemotherapy (or third relapse regardless of treatment-free interval). PD-L1 status was tested centrally (VENTANA SP142 assay) in recent (&lt;3 months) biopsies before random assignment. All patients received bevacizumab and investigator-selected chemotherapy (once weekly paclitaxel or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin) until disease progression or toxicity, plus either atezolizumab 840 mg or placebo once every 2 weeks until progression (maximum 2 years), randomly assigned 1:1, and stratified by number of previous lines, planned chemotherapy, previous bevacizumab, and PD-L1 status. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS Among 574 patients randomly assigned between September 2018 and July 2022, 72% were bevacizumab-pretreated, 36% had received three previous treatment lines, 26% had PD-L1–positive tumors, and 54% received paclitaxel with study therapy. After 418 patients had died, the hazard ratio for OS was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.68 to 1.01; P = .06; median 14.2 months with atezolizumab and 13.0 months with placebo) and the hazard ratio for PFS was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P = .12; median 6.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). OS hazard ratios were similar regardless of PD-L1 status. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 72% of atezolizumab-treated and 69% of placebo patients. CONCLUSION Combining atezolizumab with bevacizumab and chemotherapy did not significantly improve OS or PFS in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer ineligible for platinum. The safety profile was as expected from previous experience with these drugs.

Maintenance olaparib after platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic endometrial cancer: GINECO randomized phase IIb UTOLA trial

Single-agent maintenance poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition may represent an effective strategy in patients with advanced/metastatic endometrial cancer responding to platinum-based chemotherapy, including for molecular subtypes with suboptimal options. To explore this approach, we initiated the randomized phase IIb UTOLA trial (NCT03745950). Female patients without progression following front-line platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic endometrial cancer were randomized 2:1 to twice-daily maintenance oral olaparib 300 mg or placebo until progression or intolerance, stratified by p53 status, mismatch repair status, and response to initial chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints were PFS in subgroups, time to second progression or death, time to first and second subsequent therapy, objective response rate, overall survival, patient-reported outcomes, and safety. In the intention-to-treat population (n = 145), there was no PFS difference between olaparib and placebo (median 5.6 vs. 4.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.65-1.35; p = 0.74). However, intriguing numerical PFS effects were observed in exploratory analyses of pre-specified subgroups (p53-abnormal, complete response to initial chemotherapy, chromosomal instability). There was no overall survival difference between treatments. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 36% versus 10% of olaparib- versus placebo-treated patients and were consistent with the olaparib safety profile in other cancers. Maintenance olaparib did not improve PFS, but promising numerical effects in subsets of patients warrant prospective evaluation.

Association between molecular classification and overall survival in patients with metastatic endometrial carcinoma: ancillary results of the UTOLA phase II GINECO trial

We aimed to describe the association between molecular sub-groups and outcomes in patients with advanced/metastatic endometrial carcinoma amenable to maintenance/active surveillance after carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Patients treated in the GINECO trial UTOLA (NCT03745950, randomly allocating patients 2:1 to olaparib/placebo after tumor control under carboplatin-based chemotherapy), with prospective centralized targeted next-generation sequencing, and mismatch repair and p53 immunostainings were included. Next-generation sequencing (667.5 kb) included POLE (exo-nuclease domain), TP53, PIK3CA, PIK3R1, PTEN, KRAS, and CTNNB1. Tumors were categorized following the 2022 European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology guidelines as POLE-mutated, mismatch repair-deficient, p53-abnormal (immunostaining or TP53 mutation), and with no specific molecular profile. Exploratory analyses categorized non-p53-abnormal tumors based on literature (mismatch repair-deficient: mutational burden; no specificity: PIK3R1/PTEN wild-type tumors, CTNNB1/KRAS-mutated tumors, others). Among 145 patients in the intention to treat population (median follow-up 31 months), 1, 21 (15%), 76 (53%), and 45 (32%) had POLE, mismatch repair-deficient, p53-abnormal, and non-specific tumors (2 missing mismatch repair), respectively. Molecular characterization was associated with progression-free (log-rank, p = .017) and overall survival (p < .001). Patients with p53abn tumors had a hazard ratio for death of 2.43, 95% confidence interval 1.50 to 3.93 (adjusted on age, stage IV, measurable lesions after chemotherapy). Exploratory analyses showed high mutational burden mismatch repair-deficient tumors with prognostic similar to p53abn tumors, whereas tumors with lower mutational burden had better progression-free survival. PIK3R1/PTEN wild-type and CTNNB1/KRAS-mutated non-specific tumors had better outcomes than p53abn tumors. Other non-specific tumors have survival similar to p53abn tumors. Integration of molecular sub-group as a stratification parameter might be considered for randomized trials in advanced/metastatic endometrial carcinoma after carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Deeper characterization of mismatch repair-proficient tumors might enhance prognostication.

Improving real-world evaluation of patient- and physician-reported tolerability: niraparib for recurrent ovarian cancer (NiQoLe)

Abstract Background Maintenance niraparib at an individualized starting dose (ISD) is established in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC). However, patients’ perspectives on the burden of prolonged maintenance therapy have not been reported in prospective trials or routine practice. Methods In the real-life multicenter NiQoLe study, patients with PSROC received ISD maintenance niraparib. The primary objective was to describe physician-reported adverse events (AEs) leading to treatment modification during the first 3 months. Secondary endpoints included patient-reported outcomes (symptomatic AEs using PRO-CTCAE, self-reported fatigue, and impact on daily activities/function using FACT-F) collected remotely weekly using a specifically designed electronic device. Results Most (80%) of 139 treated patients (median age = 70 years) began niraparib at 200 mg/day. Median treatment duration was 5.7 (range = 0.2-21.4) months. During the first 3 months, 86 patients (62%) required treatment modification (median = 27 days to modification). Physician-reported grade ≥3 niraparib-related AEs occurred in 34 patients (24%); 68 patients (49%) had treatment modification for AEs, predominantly thrombocytopenia. The most frequent patient-reported AEs (PRO-CTCAE) were fatigue, insomnia, constipation, and dry mouth. Self-reported AEs were severe in 66% of patients. At baseline, 33% of patients reported severe fatigue (FACT-F), which generally persisted during niraparib. Physicians systematically underestimated major patient-reported symptoms. Conclusions In routine practice, niraparib dose modification was often required during the first 3 months despite individualized dosing. Physicians underestimated the burden of fatigue and symptomatic AEs. Digital self-reporting of AEs is feasible, provides patient-centered information complementing physician-reported AEs, and allows fuller appreciation of toxicity in real-world studies. Clinical trial information NCT03752216

ESR1 Mutation in Endocrine Treatment-Naïve Endometrial Cancer: Prevalence, Characteristics, and Prognostic Implications, Results from the UTOLA Phase II GINECO Trial

Abstract Purpose: Aromatase inhibitors (AI) are used to treat estrogen receptor (ER)–positive low-grade endometrioid endometrial cancer. In breast cancer, ESR1 mutations are rare at diagnosis (&amp;lt;5%) but are frequently acquired in AI-resistant cases and are considered one of the major resistance mechanisms to endocrine therapy. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of ESR1 mutations in hormonotherapy-naïve endometrial cancer samples and correlate them with molecular profiles, ER expression, and clinical outcomes. Experimental Design: A total of 147 patients with advanced endometrial cancer who had responded to first-line chemotherapy were recruited into the UTOLA trial. Archival endometrial cancer tumor tissues underwent sequencing of 127 genes, including ESR1. Only hotspot mutations in the ligand-binding domain were evaluated. ESR1 mutation prevalence was validated in the Genomics England dataset. In UTOLA, tumors were classified as POLE, MMR deficient, TP53abn, or no specific molecular profiles (NSMP) based on the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (PROMISE) classification. Results: Of 147 patients, 137 had sufficient tumor material for sequencing. ESR1 mutations were identified in eight tumors (6%), including Y537S/C/N (n = 4), L536H/P (n = 2), and E380Q (n = 2). A similar prevalence (3.5%) was found among 1,311 tumors in the Genomics England dataset. All ESR1 mutation cases were low-grade endometrioid endometrial cancer, ER-positive, and PR-positive, and classified as NSMP. Among patients with metastatic NSMP low-grade endometrioid endometrial cancer, 22% (8/37) harbored ESR1 mutations. Survival outcomes after platinum chemotherapy were similar between patients with ESR1 mutation endometrial cancer and ESR1 wild type (median, not reached vs. 25.3 months; P = 0.114). Conclusions: ESR1 mutations, while rare overall in treatment-naïve endometrial cancer, are more prevalent in patients with NSMP low-grade endometrioid endometrial cancer, potentially affecting AI efficacy. ESR1 status should be considered in selecting hormonotherapy and as a stratification factor in AI trials.

12Works
5Papers
54Collaborators
2Trials
Ovarian NeoplasmsEndometrial NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorPrognosisBreast NeoplasmsNeoplasm MetastasisCarcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial

Positions

2006–

MD

Centre Antoine-Lacassagne · medical oncology