Richard G. Moore

Analysis of serum HE4 levels in various histologic subtypes of epithelial ovarian cancer and other malignant tumors

BACKGROUND: The measurement of serum HE4 levels has emerged as a sensitive and specific biomarker for epithelial ovarian cancers (EOCs). However, serum levels in women diagnosed with various histologic subtypes of EOC and in women with metastatic non-ovarian primary malignancies have not been widely reported. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to identify how serum HE4 levels vary in women diagnosed with different histologic subtypes of EOC and non-ovarian malignancies. METHODS: Data from six prospective pelvic mass clinical trials was combined and an evaluation of serum HE4 levels in women diagnosed with a malignancy was performed. For all patients, serum was obtained prior to surgery and final pathology, including primary tumor site, histologic subtype, grade and stage, were recorded. The mean, median, standard deviation, maximum, and minimum HE4 levels were determined for each group. RESULTS: A total of 984 patients were included in this study, with the average patient age being 60 years old. There were 230 premenopausal and 754 postmenopausal patients. Serum HE4 levels were elevated (≥70.0 pMol) in 85%of EOCs, 40%of LMP tumors, 21%of non-EOCs (germ cell tumors), 25%of cervical cancers, and 47%of non-gynecologic metastatic cancers. Analysis of histologic subtypes revealed 90%( n = 391) of serous, 85%( n = 73) of endometrioid, 45%( n = 42) of mucinous, 86%( n = 51) of mixed tumors, and 69%( n = 36) of clear cell tumors had elevated serum HE4 levels. CONCLUSIONS: Serum HE4 levels are most often elevated in women with high grade serous and endometrioid EOCs, and though serum elevations are seen more often with advanced stage disease, HE4 is also often elevated in early stage disease and lower grade tumors.

HE4 Overexpression by Ovarian Cancer Promotes a Suppressive Tumor Immune Microenvironment and Enhanced Tumor and Macrophage PD-L1 Expression

Abstract Ovarian cancer is a highly fatal malignancy characterized by early chemotherapy responsiveness but the eventual development of resistance. Immune targeting therapies are changing treatment paradigms for numerous cancer types but have had minimal success in ovarian cancer. Through retrospective patient sample analysis, we have determined that high human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) production correlates with multiple markers of immune suppression in ovarian cancer, including lower CD8+ T cell infiltration, higher PD-L1 expression, and an increase in the peripheral monocyte to lymphocyte ratio. To further understand the impact that HE4 has on the immune microenvironment in ovarian cancer, we injected rats with syngeneic HE4 high– and low–expressing cancer cells and analyzed the differences in their tumor and ascites immune milieu. We found that high tumoral HE4 expression promotes an ascites cytokine profile that is rich in myeloid-recruiting and differentiation factors, with an influx of M2 macrophages and increased arginase 1 production. Additionally, CTL activation is significantly reduced in the ascites fluid, and there is a trend toward lower CTL infiltration of the tumor, whereas NK cell recruitment to the ascites and tumor is also reduced. PD-L1 expression by tumor cells and macrophages is increased by HE4 through a novel posttranscriptional mechanism. Our data have identified HE4 as a mediator of tumor-immune suppression in ovarian cancer, highlighting this molecule as a potential therapeutic target for the treatment of this devastating disease.

HE4 and CA125 serum biomarker monitoring in women with epithelial ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND: CA125 is the gold standard serum biomarker for monitoring patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Human epididymal protein 4 (HE4) is a novel serum biomarker for EOC patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this trial was to examine the utility of measuring serum HE4 levels for monitoring EOC patients and to compare HE4 performance parameters to serum CA125. METHODS: A retrospective trial using residual longitudinal serum samples drawn during treatment and monitoring from EOC patients. Serum CA125 and HE4 levels were analyzed at each time point, and a velocity of change was calculated and correlated with clinical status. The null hypothesis was that HE4 is inferior to CA125, and this was tested using concordance and two-sided Fisher’s exact testing. McNemar’s test was used to assess the overall agreement of the two assays with the clinical status. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients with 272 separate clinical periods and 1739 events (serum samples) were evaluated. Using a 25% change in serum biomarker levels to indicate change in disease status, the accuracy and NPV determined for HE4 versus CA125 were 81.8% versus 82.6% ( p = 0.846) and 87.4% versus 89.7% ( p = 0.082), respectively. Concordance comparison of HE4 accuracy / CA125 accuracy was 0.990, indicating HE4 was not inferior to CA125 (McNemar’s test p-value = 0.522). Performing a velocity of change analysis, the accuracy and NPV determined for HE4 versus CA125 were 78.3% versus 78.6% ( p = 0.995) and 74.9% versus 76.3% ( p = 0.815), respectively. Concordance comparison of HE4 velocity accuracy / CA125 velocity accuracy was 0.996, again indicating HE4 was not inferior to CA125 (McNemar’s test p-value = 0.884). The combination of HE4 and CA125 velocity changes showed a similar accuracy of 81.3% ( p = 0.797 compared to HE4 and CA125 alone) and NPV of 81.1% ( p≥0.172 compared to HE4 and CA125 alone), and an increased sensitivity of 70.5% ( p≤0.070 compared to HE4 and CA125 alone). CONCLUSION: HE4 is equivalent to CA125 for monitoring of EOC patients. The combination of CA125 and HE4 velocities is superior to either marker alone.

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.

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.

Normal Risk Ovarian Screening Study: 21-Year Update

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. PURPOSE The Normal Risk Ovarian Screening Study (NROSS) tested a two-stage screening strategy in postmenopausal women at conventional hereditary risk where significantly rising cancer antigen (CA)-125 prompted transvaginal sonography (TVS) and abnormal TVS prompted surgery to detect ovarian cancer. METHODS A total of 7,856 healthy postmenopausal women were screened annually for a total of 50,596 woman-years in a single-arm study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00539162 ). Serum CA125 was analyzed with the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) each year. If risk was unchanged and <1:2,000, women returned in a year. If risk increased above 1:500, TVS was undertaken immediately, and if risk was intermediate, CA125 was repeated in 3 months with a further increase in risk above 1:500 prompting referral for TVS. An average of 2% of participants were referred to TVS annually. RESULTS Thirty-four patients were referred for operations detecting 15 ovarian cancers and two borderline tumors with 12 in early stage (I-II). In addition, seven endometrial cancers were detected with six in stage I. As four ovarian cancers and two borderline tumors were diagnosed with a normal ROCA, the sensitivity for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer was 74% (17 of 23), and 70% of ROCA-detected cases (12 of 17) were in stage I-II. NROSS screening reduced late-stage (III-IV) disease by 34% compared with UKCTOCS controls and by 30% compared with US SEER values. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 50% (17 of 34) for detecting ovarian cancer and 74% (25 of 34) for any cancer, far exceeding the minimum acceptable study end point of 10% PPV. CONCLUSION While the NROSS trial was not powered to detect reduced mortality, the high specificity, PPV, and marked stage shift support further development of this strategy.

The utility of the novel biomarker HE4 for monitoring epithelial ovarian cancer during PARP inhibitor treatment

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor maintenance therapy is commonly used in patients with ovarian cancer. Prior studies have reported that serum cancer antigen 125 (CA125) poorly predicts disease progression for patients on PARP inhibitors. Human epididymal protein 4 (HE4) is a serum biomarker cleared by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for monitoring disease in patients with ovarian cancer. The objective of this study was to assess the utility of serum HE4 levels as a biomarker for monitoring patients on PARP inhibitors and to compare HE4 performance parameters to those of serum CA125 levels. A retrospective chart review was performed evaluating patients on PARP inhibitors for ovarian cancer. Patients were included if they received a PARP inhibitor for at least 2 months and had at least 3 serial serum HE4 measurements during treatment. Changes in the serum CA125 and HE4 levels between measurements and over time were calculated and correlated with disease status. The null hypothesis was that HE4 was inferior to CA125. A total of 102 patients with 103 treatment periods and 1554 evaluable serum samples were evaluated. Of these patients, 55 (53.9%) experienced a change in disease status while receiving PARP inhibitor treatment. An analysis using increases from serum baselines of ≥25.0% for HE4 and ≥15.0% for CA125 to indicate a change in disease status showed the accuracy of HE4 was 89.4% compared to 79.1% for CA125 (p < .001), indicating HE4 is not inferior to CA125 for monitoring disease status. Concordance comparison of HE4 accuracy over CA125 was 1.130 (McNemar's test p < .001), again indicating HE4 was not inferior to CA125. HE4 was shown not to be inferior to CA125 for monitoring patients with ovarian cancer on PARP inhibitors. An analysis using an increase from baseline of ≥25% for HE4 provided the highest accuracy for monitoring patients on PARP inhibitors.

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.