Intraperitoneal Nivolumab After Debulking Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer: A Phase I Study with Expansion Cohort.

PURPOSE: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are expected to be synergistic with intraperitoneal (IP) immunotherapy by increasing tumor antigen expression and mutational load. We assessed the feasibility and safety of IP nivolumab following complete CRS and HIPEC in pretreated patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03959761). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received IP nivolumab (0.5, 1 and 3 mg/kg) using a 3+3 dose-escalation design, starting 5-7 days after CRS and HIPEC. Four IP Q2W nivolumab infusions were planned. The primary objective was to demonstrate the feasibility of IP nivolumab based on dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Secondary objectives were to assess changes in tolerance of CRS and HIPEC. RESULTS: A total of 17 patients were enrolled including 10 patients in the dose-escalation and 7 patients in the expansion phase. No DLT was observed at any dose-level in the 9 evaluable patients. Six of the 17 patients (35%) did not complete all planned infusions: 4 (23.5%) due to peritoneal catheter complications, 2 (11.8%) due to early progression. No procedure-related deaths occurred. Eleven patients (65%) experienced serious adverse events (SAEs), mainly transitory grade 3-4 transaminases elevations (6/11), and surgery-related (9/11). Four SAEs were related to the peritoneal catheter and two to HIPEC. No SAEs/grade 3-4 adverse events related to IP nivolumab occurred. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study demonstrating the feasibility of IP nivolumab in patients with relapsed advanced ovarian cancer; further investigation at 3 mg/kg is warranted.

Bevacizumab, olaparib, and durvalumab in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer: a phase II clinical trial from the GINECO group.

Most patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) ultimately relapse after platinum-based chemotherapy. Combining bevacizumab, olaparib, and durvalumab likely drives synergistic activity. This open-label phase 2 study (NCT04015739) aimed to assess activity and safety of this triple combination in female patients with relapsed high-grade AOC following prior platinum-based therapy. Patients were treated with olaparib (300 mg orally, twice daily), the bevacizumab biosimilar FKB238 (15 mg/kg intravenously, once-every-3-weeks), and durvalumab (1.12 g intravenously, once-every-3-weeks) in nine French centers. The primary endpoint was the non-progression rate at 3 months for platinum-resistant relapse or 6 months for platinum-sensitive relapse per RECIST 1.1 and irRECIST. Secondary endpoints were CA-125 decline with CA-125 ELIMination rate constant K (KELIM-B) per CA-125 longitudinal kinetics over 100 days, progression free survival and overall survival, tumor response, and safety. Non-progression rates were 69.8% (90%CI 55.9%-80.0%) at 3 months for platinum-resistant relapse patients (N = 41), meeting the prespecified endpoint, and 43.8% (90%CI 29.0%-57.4%) at 6 months for platinum-sensitive relapse (N = 33), not meeting the prespecified endpoint. Median progression-free survival was 4.1 months (95%CI 3.5-5.9) and 4.9 months (95%CI 2.9-7.0) respectively. Favorable KELIM-B was associated with better survival. No toxic deaths or major safety signals were observed. Here we show that further investigation of this triple combination may be considered in AOC patients with platinum-resistant relapse.

Progression-free survival and safety at 3.5 years of follow-up: results from the randomized phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial of niraparib maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer - a plain language summary.

What is this summary about? This PLSP provides a short summary of an original scientific article that presented results from the PRIMA study after 3.5 years of follow-up time. The original article was published in the European Journal of Cancer in 2023.The PRIMA study included adult patients with newly diagnosed advanced high-risk ovarian cancer whose tumors shrunk or became undetectable after treatment with chemotherapy with or without surgery. The PRIMA study evaluated how well the drug niraparib, also known as Zejula, worked at delaying or preventing ovarian cancer from coming back (recurring) or getting worse (progressing) compared with placebo (a substance with no effects that a doctor gives to a patient instead of a drug). The first results from the PRIMA study were published in 2019, when patients had participated in the PRIMA study for about 1.2 years.The article this PLSP is based on reports longer-term data from the PRIMA study, when patients had participated in the PRIMA study for about 3.5 years. Patients were monitored (or followed) for a longer time to understand how well niraparib continued to work and to evaluate whether the safety of niraparib changed with additional time being monitored.What were the results? Patients who took niraparib had more time before their cancer came back or got worse than patients who took placebo. In terms of safety, no new types of side effects with niraparib treatment were observed with additional time being monitored as part of the PRIMA study.What do the results mean? These results support that niraparib remains an important treatment option to help delay the cancer from coming back or getting worse in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer that responded to initial treatment.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02655016 (PRIMA study) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Single-agent metronomic versus weekly oral vinorelbine as first-line chemotherapy in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: The randomized Tempo Breast study.

INTRODUCTION: Single-agent oral vinorelbine is a standard of care for hormone receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) that has progressed on endocrine therapy. Metronomic administration may offer a better balance of efficacy and safety than standard regimens, but data from previous trials are scarce. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase II trial, patients were randomized to oral vinorelbine administered on a metronomic (50 mg three times weekly) or weekly (60 mg/m2 in cycle 1, increasing to 80 mg/m2 if well tolerated) schedule. Treatment was continued until disease progression or intolerance. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR, the proportion of patients with a best overall confirmed response of CR, PR, or stable disease lasting 6 months or more). RESULTS: One-hundred sixty-three patients were randomized and treated. The DCR was 63.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 52.0-73.8) with metronomic vinorelbine and 72.8% (95% CI: 61.8-82.1) with weekly vinorelbine. Weekly vinorelbine was also associated with longer progression-free survival (5.6 vs 4.0 months) and overall survival (26.7 vs 22.3 months) than metronomic vinorelbine, but was associated with more adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized phase II trial, single-agent metronomic oral vinorelbine was effective and well tolerated as first-line chemotherapy for patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative ABC. Formal comparisons are not done in this phase II study and one can simply observe that confidence intervals of all endpoints overlap. When deciding for a chemotherapy after failure of endocrine therapy and CDK 4/6 inhibitors, oral vinorelbine might be an option to be given with either schedule. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT 2014-003860-19.

Prognostic Value of the Modeled Prostate-Specific Antigen KELIM Confirmation in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated With Taxanes in FIRSTANA.

PURPOSE: In a previous exploratory study, modeled early longitudinal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics observed within the 100-first treatment days with androgen deprivation therapy with or without docetaxel was associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with prostate cancer with rising PSA levels after primary local therapy. This prognostic value had to be confirmed in different settings. The objectives were to assess PSA kinetics modeling in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with chemotherapy in FIRSTANA trial and to investigate modeled PSA kinetic parameters prognostic/predictive value. MATERIALS AND METHODS: FIRSTANA phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01308567) assessed whether cabazitaxel is superior to docetaxel in terms of PFS/OS in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. PSA longitudinal kinetics was assessed using the previous kinetic-pharmacodynamics model. Patient modeled ELIMination rate constant K (PSA.KELIM) was used to categorize favorable/unfavorable PSA declines (standardized PSA.KELIM < or ≥ 1.0 days-1) and further correlated with PFS/OS. RESULTS: In total, 1,050 of 1,168 enrolled patients were assessable for PSA.KELIM estimation. The median PSA.KELIM was 0.02 days-1. In univariate analyses, PSA.KELIM exhibited a significant prognostic value regarding survival: unfavorable versus favorable PSA.KELIM; median PFS, 3.6 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.2) versus 4.7 months (95% CI, 3.9 to 5.2), P = .002; median OS, 17.4 months (95% CI, 14.8 to 19.3) versus 28.4 months (95% CI, 26.7 to 31.6), P < .001. In multivariate analyses, PSA.KELIM was significant for PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.93], P = .005) and OS (HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.60], P < .001), together with baseline radiological tumor progression and PSA doubling time. PSA.KELIM predictive value was not significant across treatment arms. CONCLUSION: This external validation study confirmed previous results about modeled PSA longitudinal kinetics prognostic value regarding PFS/OS in patients with mCRPC treated with taxanes. PSA.KELIM could be used to identify a subpopulation with poor prognosis, who may benefit from treatment intensification.

Identification of Patients with Early HR+ HER2- Breast Cancer at High Risk of Recurrence.

Breast cancer incidence has increased in the last two decades and, simultaneously, survival has improved due to earlier detection and improved treatment options. Despite this improvement, locoregional recurrences and distant metastases occur in up to 10 and 30% of women diagnosed with early breast cancer, respectively. Around 70% of breast cancers are hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-), and associated with a persistent risk of relapse up to 20 years after diagnosis/initial treatment. We conducted a narrative review by combining PubMed searches with our clinical experience to describe patient characteristics, biomarkers, and genomic profiling tools available to clinicians for the identification of patients with HR+, HER2- early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence and to provide recommendations to classify patients into recurrence risk categories. National and international treatment guidelines are also summarised. Accurate assessment of the risk of recurrence in these patients is crucial as the predicted risk guides treatment decisions; imprecise estimations can result in over- or undertreatment, with either scenario having negative consequences for patients. Multiple prognostic tools and factors are recommended for early breast cancer, and no single test provides accurate prognosis in isolation. Since no single test can provide accurate prognosis in isolation, a combination of tools should be used. Risk thresholds are important to guide optimised and balanced therapeutic decisions in HR+, HER2- early breast cancer. However, prognostic assessment should be performed on a case-by-case basis, making patient-specific prognostic approaches essential to avoid over- or undertreatment.

Clinical impact of CA-125 ELIMination rate constant K (KELIM) on surgical strategy in advanced serous ovarian cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: The modeled CA-125 elimination constant K (KELIM) is a pragmatic early marker of tumor chemosensitivity in ovarian cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy before interval surgery. The primary objective of this study was to assess the prognostic value of KELIM regarding the feasibility of complete surgery, and secondary objectives were to assess the prognostic value of KELIM for the risk of a platinum resistant relapse, progression free survival, and overall survival. METHODS: The study was based on a retrospective cohort of 284 patients treated for an advanced serous high grade ovarian cancer, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages III-IV, with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by interval surgery, in a comprehensive cancer center. CA-125 concentrations at baseline and during neoadjuvant chemotherapy were collected. The KELIM predictive value regarding the tumor radiological response rate, likelihood of complete surgery, risk of subsequent platinum resistant relapse, progression free survival, and overall survival were assessed with univariate and multivariate tests. RESULTS: In 232 patients, KELIM was an independent and major predictor of the probability of complete surgery and survival. The final logistic regression model, including KELIM (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI)0.16 to 0.73, p=0.006) and complete surgery (no vs yes, OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.53, p<0.001), highlighted the complementary impact of chemosensitivity and surgical outcome relative to the complete surgery. In the multivariate analysis, KELIM and complete surgery were significantly associated with a lower risk of early relapse. In the case of an unfavorable KELIM, when surgical efforts allowed complete cytoreduction, median overall survival was similar to that reported in the case of a favorable KELIM (46.3 months (range 34.6-60.3) vs 46.5 months (range 40.6-68.7), respectively). CONCLUSION: Primary tumor chemosensitivity, assessed by the modeled CA-125 KELIM, calculated during neoadjuvant chemotherapy, is a major parameter to consider for decision making regarding interval surgery. Complementary to the RECIST score and laparoscopy, this non-invasive tool, available online, helps tailor the interval surgery strategy according to patient tumor chemosensitivity.

Confirmation of the utility of the CA-125 elimination rate (KELIM) as an indicator of the chemosensitivity in advanced-stage ovarian cancer in a "real-life setting".

OBJECTIVE: The modeled CA-125 ELIMination rate constant K (KELIM) has been validated as a marker of response to chemotherapy in >12,000 patients with advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) treated in first-line setting enrolled in >12 clinical trials. Patient KELIM is calculable online https://www.biomarker-kinetics.org/presentation. The objective was to investigate the prognostic value of KELIM in a large real-life national cancer registry with non-selected patients. METHODS: We investigated 4,025 EOC patients from the Netherlands Cancer Registry treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) ± followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS). Patient KELIM values were calculated in patients with ≥ 3 CA-125 measurements during NACT. KELIM was standardized with a pre-specified cut-off and scored as unfavorable/favorable (<1.0/≥1.0). KELIM's prognostic value regarding radiological response, completeness of IDS, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) was assessed using univariate/multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The data from 1,582 patients treated with heterogeneous chemotherapy regimens and sequences were assessable. KELIM was prognostic for radiological response and the likelihood of complete IDS after NACT (odds ratio=2.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.04-3.29). Moreover, KELIM was independently associated with PFS (hazard ratio [HR]=0.76; 95% CI=0.66-0.87), and OS (HR=0.79; 95% CI=0.69-0.91). Combining KELIM with the completeness of the IDS resulted in 3 prognostic groups (satisfactory, intermediate, and poor) with significant OS differences, namely a good, intermediate, and poor survival respectively. CONCLUSION: The value of KELIM, as a pragmatic indicator of response to chemotherapy, was maintained in a large real-life population-based cohort, highlighting its applicability in routine conditions.

NIRVANA-1: maintenance therapy with niraparib versus niraparib-bevacizumab in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Following the results of the PRIMA and PAOLA-1 trials, the most effective maintenance strategy for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III patients is still debated, raising the question which of those two maintenance strategies is the most effective: PARP inhibitors alone or PARP inhibitors in combination with bevacizumab. The ongoing NIRVANA-1 study will try to answer this question by assessing the efficacy and safety of niraparib + bevacizumab in comparison with niraparib alone after adjuvant chemotherapy for completely resected stage III patients. Stratification factors include tumor BRCA status, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage (IIIA vs IIIB/IIIC) and the use of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy during surgery - within the OVHIPEC-2 trial. The primary end point will be progression-free survival rate at 24 months. Safety, median progression-free survival and overall survival will also be studied.

In many patients with ovarian cancer who are treated with platinum-based chemotherapy after surgery, the tumor comes back several months later. In order to minimize this risk, one treatment approach that has shown promising results is PARP inhibitors. This treatment works by inhibiting cancer cells' ability to repair themselves after DNA damage. One of the PARP inhibitors approved by medical authorities is niraparib, used as a solo therapy after surgery and chemotherapy. Nevertheless, the most effective maintenance strategy for patients in this setting is still debated. In a worldwide clinical trial called NIRVANA-1, researchers are investigating how niraparib would work if combined with another treatment called bevacizumab, which stops the growth of new blood vessels in tumors. Patients who participate in this trial will be randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: the combination of niraparib + bevacizumab or niraparib by itself. The main purpose of NIRVANA-1 is to understand whether the combination of niraparib and bevacizumab prevents the cancer from returning in patients with completely resected stage III ovarian cancer. The trial will also assess the safety of this combination compared with niraparib alone. At the time of this writing, NIRVANA-1 is open for new patients to join. Sponsored by ARCAGY-GINECO, the NIRVANA-1 trial is currently recruiting patients from France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Japan and Korea. The duration of the inclusion period is estimated to be around 36 months. The study is registered on ClinicalTrial.gov with registration number NCT05183984.

Progression-free survival and safety at 3.5years of follow-up: results from the randomised phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial of niraparib maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To report updated long-term efficacy and safety from the double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study (NCT02655016). METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with complete or partial response (CR or PR) to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy received niraparib or placebo once daily (2:1 ratio). Stratification factors were best response to first-line chemotherapy regimen (CR/PR), receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no), and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status (deficient [HRd]/proficient [HRp] or not determined). Updated (ad hoc) progression-free survival (PFS) data (as of November 17, 2021) by investigator assessment (INV) are reported. RESULTS: In 733 randomised patients (niraparib, 487; placebo, 246), median PFS follow-up was 3.5years. Median INV-PFS was 24.5 versus 11.2months (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.68) in the HRd population and 13.8 versus 8.2months (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.79) in the overall population for niraparib and placebo, respectively. In the HRp population, median INV-PFS was 8.4 versus 5.4months (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87), respectively. Results were concordant with the primary analysis. Niraparib-treated patients were more likely to be free of progression or death at 4years than placebo-treated patients (HRd, 38% versus 17%; overall, 24% versus 14%). The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events in niraparib patients were thrombocytopenia (39.7%), anaemia (31.6%), and neutropenia (21.3%). Myelodysplastic syndromes/acute myeloid leukaemia incidence rate (1.2%) was the same for niraparib- and placebo-treated patients. Overall survival remained immature. CONCLUSIONS: Niraparib maintained clinically significant improvements in PFS with 3.5years of follow-up in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer at high risk of progression irrespective of HRD status. No new safety signals were identified.

A PK-PD model linking biomarker dynamics to progression-free survival in patients treated with everolimus and sorafenib combination therapy, EVESOR phase I trial.

PURPOSE: The objective was to develop a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) model linking everolimus and sorafenib exposure with biomarker dynamics and progression-free survival (PFS) based on data from EVESOR trial in patients with solid tumors treated with everolimus and sorafenib combination therapy and to simulate alternative dosing schedules for sorafenib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Everolimus (5-10 mg once daily, qd) and sorafenib (200-400 mg twice daily, bid) were administered according to four different dosing schedules in 43 solid tumor patients. Rich PK and PD sampling for serum angiogenesis biomarkers was performed. Baseline activation of RAS/RAF/ERK (MAPK) pathway was assessed by quantification of mRNA specific gene panel in tumor biopsies. The PK-PD modeling was performed using NONMEM® software. RESULTS: An indirect response PK-PD model linking sorafenib plasma exposure with soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (sVEGFR2) dynamics was developed. Progression-free survival (PFS) was described by a parametric time-to-event model. Higher decreases in sVEGFR2 at day 21 and higher baseline activation of MAPK pathway were associated with longer PFS (p = 0.002 and p = 0.007, respectively). The simulated schedule sorafenib 200 mg bid 5 days-on/2 days-off + continuous everolimus 5 mg qd was associated with median PFS of 4.3 months (95% CI 1.6-14.4), whereas the median PFS in the EVESOR trial was 3.6 months (95% CI 2.7-4.2, n = 43). CONCLUSION: Sorafenib 200 mg bid 5 days-on/2 days-off + everolimus 5 mg qd continuous was selected for an additional arm of EVESOR trial to evaluate whether this simulated schedule is associated with higher clinical benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01932177.

Impact of Age on Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor (PARPi)-Induced Lymphopenia: A Scoping Review of the Literature and Internal Analysis of a Retrospective Database.

BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are increasingly used in oncology; their hematological toxicities affect classically red, platelet and neutrophil lineages, but some opportunistic infections have been reported concomitantly to deep lymphopenias. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to provide an external and internal analysis of the crossed impacts of PARPi and age on lymphopenia risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A scoping review was performed on the PubMed and Embase databases to assess the reporting of lymphocyte rates in original studies on PARPi treatment for adult patients up to 1 April 2022. A retrospective cohort was extracted from the medical charts of all patients treated for gynecological cancer at our institution from 2015 to 2022 in accordance with ethical regulations. RESULTS: The scoping review research strategy retrieved 5840 abstracts; 225 studies were selected for full-text analysis. Lymphopenia was reported in 41.8% of the studies; frequency of all-grade and grade ≥ 3 lymphopenia reached 20.5% and 8.9%, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 lymphopenia was significantly higher in studies including older patients (median age ≥ 60 years vs. < 60 years), at 7.5% vs. 10.3% (p < 0.0001). PARIB-OLD-HCL included 46 patients, 19 of whom were aged < 70 years (median 44 years) and 27 of whom were aged ≥ 70 years (median 79 years); the frequency of all-grade and grade ≥ 3 lymphopenia reached 67% (< 70 years: 63%; ≥ 70 years: 70%) and 13% (< 70 years: 5%; ≥ 70 years: 19%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Lymphopenia events were much more frequent in real-life than in previously reported studies, particularly in older patients. Future work is needed to improve patient follow-up and discuss prophylactic strategies.

HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: Available Treatments and Current Developments.

For several years, the overexpression of the HER2 receptor in breast cancer has been correlated with a poor prognosis and an increased risk of developing brain metastases. Currently, the combination of anti-HER2 double blockade and taxane and trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) are considered the standard treatments for metastatic breast cancer overexpressing these receptors in the first and second line. Very recently, the development of a new antidrug conjugate, trastuzumab-deruxtecan, has improved the overall survival of patients, even in second-line treatment. However, trastuzumab-deruxtecan has become a new standard. Despite the benefits of these antidrug conjugates, this benefit in patients with brain metastases remains unclear. Tucatinib is a new tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has given hope for the treatment of these patients. The objective of this article was to review data on the established drugs and novel agents for HER2-positive MBC and to discuss how to incorporate anti-HER2 therapies in first and later-line settings.

Clinical results of the EVESOR trial, a multiparameter phase I trial of everolimus and sorafenib combination in solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Everolimus (EVE) and sorafenib (SOR) combination was associated with synergistic activity in preclinical models. However, previous clinical studies were hampered by cumulative toxicities when both were given continuously. The academic EVESOR trial (NCT01932177) was designed to assess alternative doses and intermittent dosing schedules of EVE and SOR combination therapy to improve the benefit-risk ratio for patients with solid tumors. METHODS: EVESOR is a multiparameter dose-escalation phase I trial investigating different doses and dosing schedules, with the final objective of generating data for modeling and simulation. Patients were allocated into continuous (A and B) or intermittent (C and D) schedules to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). The clinical outcomes are presented here. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were included from 2013 to 2019. Most of them had gynecological (25.6%), cholangiocarcinomas (23.2%), colorectal (14.0%), and breast cancers (11.6%). Dose-escalation up to EVE 10 mg QD and SOR 400 mg BID was possible on intermittent schedules. Five dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and dose reductions were required in 39.5% patients, stabilizing at EVE 5 mg and SOR 200 mg BID for 58.1% of them. The overall response rate was 6.3%, and disease control rate was 75.0%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.6 months. The longest median PFS were observed in cholangiocarcinomas (9.9 months), and gynecological adenocarcinomas (9.2 months). CONCLUSION: Intermittent arms were associated with improved efficacy/toxicity profiles; and EVE 5 mg QD and SOR 200 mg BID was defined a clinically feasible dose. Strong signs of efficacy were found in cholangiocarcinomas and gynecologic carcinomas. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01932177.

Mathematical modeling of the early modeled CA-125 longitudinal kinetics (KELIM-PARP) as a pragmatic indicator of rucaparib efficacy in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma in ARIEL2 & STUDY 10.

BACKGROUND: PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have revolutionized the management of advanced ovarian carcinoma, and were investigated as forefront treatment in recurrent disease. The objective was to explore if mathematical modeling of the early longitudinal CA-125 kinetics could be used as a pragmatic indicator of the subsequent rucaparib efficacy, like it is for platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: The datasets of ARIEL2 and Study 10 involving recurrent HGOC patients treated with rucaparib were retrospectively investigated. The same strategy as those successfully developed for platinum chemotherapy, based on CA-125 ELIMination rate constant K (KELIM™), was implemented. Individual values of rucaparib-adjusted KELIM (KELIM-PARP) were estimated based on the longitudinal CA-125 kinetics during the first 100 treatment days, and then scored as favorable (KELIM-PARP ≥1.0) or unfavorable (KELIM-PARP <1.0). The prognostic value of KELIM-PARP regarding treatment efficacy (radiological response, and progression-free survival (PFS)) was assessed using univariable/multivariable analyses, with respect to platinum-sensitivity and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status. FINDINGS: The data from 476 patients were assessed. The CA-125 longitudinal kinetics during the first 100-treatment days could be accurately assessed using the KELIM-PARP model. In patients with platinum-sensitive diseases, BRCA mutational status KELIM-PARP score and were associated with subsequent complete/partial radiological responses (KELIM-PARP: odds-ratio = 2.81, 95% CI 1.86-4.52), and PFS (KELIM-PARP: hazard-ratio = 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.91). The patients with BRCA-wild type cancer and favorable KELIM-PARP experienced long PFS with rucaparib regardless of HRD. In platinum-resistant disease patients, KELIM-PARP was associated with subsequent radiological response (odds-ratio = 2.80, 95% CI 1.82-4.72). INTERPRETATION: This proof-of-concept study confirms the early CA-125 longitudinal kinetics during rucaparib in recurrent HGOC patients are assessable by mathematical modeling, to generate individual a KELIM-PARP score associated with the subsequent efficacy. This pragmatic strategy might be useful for selecting the patients for PARPi-based combination regimens, when identifying efficacy biomarker is challenging. Further assessment of this hypothesis is warranted. FUNDING: The present study was supported by Clovis Oncology with a grant to academic research association.

Olaparib First-Line Maintenance Monotherapy in BRCA-Mutated Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Descriptive Analysis of the First French Real-World Data Study.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, was approved by the European Commission in June 2019, following the results of the SOLO-1/GOG 3004 trial as maintenance monotherapy in adult patients with BRCA-mutated epithelial ovarian cancer. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide a descriptive analysis of the first real-world data from patients with BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer who received olaparib as first-line maintenance monotherapy in the French cohort Temporary Authorisation for Use (Autorisation Temporaire d'Utilisation de cohorte, ATUc) programme from 11 March, 2019 to 16 January, 2020. METHODS: Eligible patients were aged 18 years and over with confirmed epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal or Fallopian tube cancer and a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline or somatic BRCA 1/2 mutation. Patients were in complete or partial clinical response at the end of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Olaparib maintenance therapy was initiated within 8 weeks of the patients' last dose of chemotherapy. Real-world data were collected through treatment access request forms completed by physicians. Clinical and safety data were collected monthly until the end of the ATUc programme. RESULTS: A total of 107 centres in metropolitan France and the French Overseas Departments and Territories requested the inclusion for 238 patients, of whom 194 received maintenance olaparib. In total, 87.6% of the primary tumour locations were ovary, the most common histology was high-grade serous (93.0%) and the most common International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (Fédération Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique) stage was IIIC (56.8%). BRCA testing was performed in routine practice, prior to inclusion into the ATUc programme. All patients had a BRCA mutation: 52.5% had a somatic mutation, 38.4% had a germinal mutation and 9.1% had germinal and somatic mutations. Twenty-four (12%) patients experienced serious adverse drug reactions at the last safety follow-up (17 February, 2020). The most common were anaemia (12 [6%] patients), neutropenia (3 [2%] patients) and thrombocytopenia (3 [2%] patients). CONCLUSIONS: The rapid enrolment into the ATUc programme highlighted the strong unmet need for patients with ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in first-line maintenance treatment. Olaparib was well tolerated and no new safety signals were observed in this real-world patient population.

Avelumab in patients with gestational trophoblastic tumors with resistance to polychemotherapy: Cohort B of the TROPHIMMUN phase 2 trial.

PURPOSE: There is a need for innovative treatments in women with gestational trophoblastic tumors (GTT) resistant to chemotherapy. The TROPHIMMUN trial assessed the efficacy of avelumab in patients with resistance to single-agent chemotherapy (cohort A), or to polychemotherapy (cohort B). Cohort B outcomes are reported here. METHODS: In the cohort B of this phase 2 multicenter trial (NCT03135769), women with GTT progressing after polychemotherapy received avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) normalization, followed by 3 consolidation cycles. The primary endpoint was the rate of hCG normalization enabling treatment discontinuation (2-stage Simon design). RESULTS: Between February 2017 and August 2020, 7 patients were enrolled. Median age was 37 years (range: 29-47); disease stage was I or III in 42.9% and 57.1%; FIGO score was 9-10 in 28.6%, 11 in 28.6%, and 16 in 14.3%, respectively. Median follow-up was 18.2 months. One patient (14.3%) experienced hCG normalization enabling treatment discontinuation. However, resistance to avelumab was observed in the remaining 6 patients (85.7%). The cohort B was stopped for futility. Grade 1-2 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57.1%, most commonly fatigue (42.9%), nausea, diarrhea, infusion-related reaction, muscle pains, dry eyes (each 14.3%). The median resistance-free survival was 1.4 months (95% CI 0.7-5.3). CONCLUSIONS: Although avelumab is active in patients with single-agent chemotherapy-resistant GTT (cohort A), it was associated with limited efficacy in patients with resistance to polychemotherapy (cohort B). The prognosis of patients with polychemotherapy resistance remains poor, and innovative immunotherapy-based therapeutic combinations are needed.

Validation of the geriatric vulnerability score in older patients with ovarian cancer: an analysis from the GCIG-ENGOT-GINECO EWOC-1 study.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with ovarian cancer represent a heterogeneous population. The French National Group of Investigators for the Study of Ovarian and Breast Cancer developed the geriatric vulnerability score (GVS) to identify geriatric parameters predictive of poor outcomes. A prospective validation of the GVS was needed. METHODS: The EWOC-1 study (NCT02001272) was an international, open-label, phase 2, three-arm trial designed according to a two-step process. Patients aged 70 years or older with newly diagnosed stage III or IV ovarian cancer were identified and the GVS determined. Those with a GVS of 3 or greater were randomly assigned to the EWOC-1 trial, stratified by country and surgical outcome, to receive three different carboplatin with or without paclitaxel regimens; those not included in the EWOC-1 trial were followed up in the EWOC-1 registry. External validation of the GVS was a secondary endpoint of the trial. Three validation cohorts were identified: the total population (validation cohort 1 [V1], n=447), the registry-only population (validation cohort 2 [V2], n=327), and the carboplatin-paclitaxel-treated population (validation cohort 3 [V3], n=320). FINDINGS: From Dec 11, 2013, to Nov 16, 2018, 447 patients were included in 48 academic centres in six countries; 120 in the EWOC-1 trial and 327 in the EWOC-1 registry. Median follow-up was 19·7 (95% CI 8·5-29·7) months for the total cohort; missing values were low (<2%). According to the maximum likelihood analysis, the hazard ratio (HR) of death in V1 was 1·8 (95% CI 1·1-3·1, p=0·029) for those with a GVS of 1; 2·4 (1·4-4·0, p=0·0009) with a GVS of 2; 4·1 (2·5-7·0, p<0·0001) for a GVS of 3; 5·5 (3·3-9·3, p<0·0001) for a GVS of 4; and 9·1 (4·7-17·5, p<0·0001) for a GVS of 5 compared with a score of 0. Whatever the validation cohort, GVS of 3 or more significantly segregated two groups with different overall survival: V1 (median 13·2 [95% CI: 10·8-18·7] vs 40·8 [32·0-45·6] months; HR 2·8 [95% CI 2·2-3·7]; p<0·0001); V2 (11·9 [95% CI 8·8-18·1] vs 40·8 [32·0-45·6] months, HR 3·5 [2·5-4·9]; p<0·0001); and V3 (18·1 [95% CI 15·8-31·8] vs 43·0 [40·6-49·7] months, HR 2·6 [1·9 to 3·7]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: The GVS has high prognostic performance for overall survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer, independently of geographic and historic effect (V1), as well as treatment patterns (V3), validated in an international population. Even though the GVS is time consuming it will allow the stratification of populations for clinical research and might permit the orientation of the geriatric intervention to specific domains. FUNDING: French National Cancer Institute. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.