Overall Survival in Patients with Endometrial Cancer Treated with Dostarlimab plus Carboplatin-Paclitaxel in the Randomized ENGOT-EN6/GOG-3031/RUBY Trial.

BACKGROUND: Part 1 of the RUBY trial (NCT03981796) evaluated dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel compared with placebo plus carboplatin-paclitaxel in patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. At the first interim analysis, the trial met one of its dual-primary endpoints with statistically significant progression-free survival benefits in the mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) and overall populations. Overall survival (OS) results are reported from the second interim analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: RUBY is a phase 3, global, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Part 1 of RUBY enrolled eligible patients with primary advanced stage III or IV or first recurrent endometrial cancer who were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either dostarlimab (500 mg) or placebo, plus carboplatin-paclitaxel every 3 weeks for 6 cycles followed by dostarlimab (1000 mg) or placebo every 6 weeks for up to 3 years. OS was a dual-primary endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 494 patients were randomized (245 in dostarlimab arm; 249 in placebo arm). In the overall population, with 51% maturity, RUBY met the dual-primary endpoint for OS at this second interim analysis, with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of death (HR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.89; P = 0.0020) in patients treated with dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel versus carboplatin-paclitaxel alone. The risk of death was lower in the dMMR/MSI-H population (HR = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17-0.63; nominal P = 0.0002) and a trend in favor of dostarlimab was seen in the mismatch repair proficient/microsatellite stable (MMRp/MSS) population (HR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.60-1.04; nominal P = 0.0493). The safety profile for dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel was consistent with the first interim analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Dostarlimab in combination with carboplatin-paclitaxel demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful overall survival benefit in the overall population of patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer while demonstrating an acceptable safety profile.

Adding immunotherapy to first-line treatment of advanced and metastatic endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy has transformed the endometrial cancer treatment landscape, particularly for those exhibiting mismatch repair deficiency [MMRd/microsatellite instability-hypermutated (MSI-H)]. A growing body of evidence supports the integration of immunotherapy with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment strategy. Recently, findings from ongoing trials such as RUBY (NCT03981796), NRG-GY018 (NCT03914612), AtTEnd (NCT03603184), and DUO-E (NCT04269200) have been disclosed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This paper constitutes a review and meta-analysis of phase III trials investigating the role of immunotherapy in the first-line setting for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. RESULTS: The pooled data from 2320 patients across these trials substantiate the adoption of chemotherapy alongside immunotherapy, revealing a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-0.79] across all patient groups. Progression-free survival benefits are more pronounced in MMRd/MSI-H tumors (n = 563; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23-0.43). This benefit, albeit less robust, persists in the MMR-proficient/microsatellite stable group (n = 1757; HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.91). Pooled data further indicate that chemotherapy plus immunotherapy enhances overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone in all patients (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89). However, overall survival data maturity remains low. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of immunotherapy into the initial treatment for advanced and metastatic endometrial cancer brings about a substantial improvement in oncologic outcomes, especially within the MMRd/MSI-H subset. This specific subgroup is currently a focal point of investigation for evaluating the potential of chemotherapy-free regimens. Ongoing exploratory analyses aim to identify non-responding patients eligible for inclusion in clinical trials.

Unilateral inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy in patients with early-stage vulvar squamous cell carcinoma and a unilateral metastatic sentinel lymph node is safe.

OBJECTIVE: Optimal management of the contralateral groin in patients with early-stage vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC) and a metastatic unilateral inguinal sentinel lymph node (SN) is unclear. We analyzed patients who participated in GROINSS-V I or II to determine whether treatment of the contralateral groin can safely be omitted in patients with a unilateral metastatic SN. METHODS: We selected the patients with a unilateral metastatic SN from the GROINSS-V I and II databases. We determined the incidence of contralateral additional non-SN metastases in patients with unilateral SN-metastasis who underwent bilateral inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (IFL). In those who underwent only ipsilateral groin treatment or no further treatment, we determined the incidence of contralateral groin recurrences during follow-up. RESULTS: Of 1912 patients with early-stage VSCC, 366 had a unilateral metastatic SN. Subsequently, 244 had an IFL or no treatment of the contralateral groin. In seven patients (7/244; 2.9% [95% CI: 1.4%-5.8%]) disease was diagnosed in the contralateral groin: five had contralateral non-SN metastasis at IFL and two developed an isolated contralateral groin recurrence after no further treatment. Five of them had a primary tumor ≥30 mm. Bilateral radiotherapy was administered in 122 patients, of whom one (1/122; 0.8% [95% CI: 0.1%-4.5%]) had a contralateral groin recurrence. CONCLUSION: The risk of contralateral lymph node metastases in patients with early-stage VSCC and a unilateral metastatic SN is low. It appears safe to limit groin treatment to unilateral IFL or inguinofemoral radiotherapy in these cases.

Phase III, randomized trial of mirvetuximab soravtansine versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: primary analysis of FORWARD I.

BACKGROUND: Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV) is an antibody-drug conjugate comprising a folate receptor alpha (FRα)-binding antibody, cleavable linker, and the maytansinoid DM4, a potent tubulin-targeting agent. The randomized, open-label, phase III study FORWARD I compared MIRV and investigator's choice chemotherapy in patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with 1-3 prior lines of therapy and whose tumors were positive for FRα expression were randomly assigned, in a 2 : 1 ratio, to receive MIRV (6 mg/kg, adjusted ideal body weight) or chemotherapy (paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival [PFS, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, blinded independent central review] in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in the prespecified FRα high population. RESULTS: A total of 366 patients were randomized; 243 received MIRV and 109 received chemotherapy. The primary endpoint, PFS, did not reach statistical significance in either the ITT [hazard ratio (HR), 0.98, P = 0.897] or the FRα high population (HR, 0.69, P = 0.049). Superior outcomes for MIRV over chemotherapy were observed in all secondary endpoints in the FRα high population including improved objective response rate (24% versus 10%), CA-125 responses (53% versus 25%), and patient-reported outcomes (27% versus 13%). Fewer treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (25.1% versus 44.0%), and fewer events leading to dose reduction (19.8% versus 30.3%) and treatment discontinuation (4.5% versus 8.3%) were seen with MIRV compared with chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with platinum-resistant EOC, MIRV did not result in a significant improvement in PFS compared with chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints consistently favored MIRV, particularly in patients with high FRα expression. MIRV showed a differentiated and more manageable safety profile than chemotherapy.

Overall survival results of AGO-OVAR16: A phase 3 study of maintenance pazopanib versus placebo in women who have not progressed after first-line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The AGO-OVAR16 study was designed to test the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pazopanib maintenance after first-line chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (AOC). METHODS: Nine hundred and forty patients with histologically confirmed AOC, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage II-IV, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 800 mg pazopanib once daily or placebo for up to 24 months, unless there was disease progression, toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint (investigator-assessed progression-free survival [PFS]) was met and previously reported. The results of final analyses of overall survival (OS) are reported here. RESULTS: A third OS interim analysis showed futility and led to study closure and a final OS analysis after last patient last visit. At the time of the final OS analysis, 494 (89.7% of the planned 551) events had occurred. No difference was observed in OS between pazopanib and placebo. The hazard ratio (HR) was 0.960 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.805-1.145), and the median OS from randomization was 59.1 months in pazopanib and 64.0 months in placebo arms. For the East Asian patients, similar to the first three interim OS analyses, a numerical negative trend was observed favoring placebo (HR, 1.332; 95% CI: 0.863-2.054). Exploratory analyses showed a trend for a longer time to first subsequent anti-cancer therapy or death with pazopanib over placebo (HR, 0.829; 95% CI: 0.713-0.965), with a median estimate of 19.0 and 14.5 months, respectively. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: Although pazopanib prolonged PFS, this was not associated with improvement in median OS. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00866697.

A GCIG international survey: clinical practice patterns of sentinel lymph node biopsies in cervical cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the practice patterns among centers and physicians worldwide regarding sentinel lymph node biopsies (SLNB) in cervical cancer (CC) patients. METHOD: A validated 35-item questionnaire regarding SLNB in CC supported by the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG), and sponsored by the North-Eastern German Society of Gynaecologic-Oncology (NOGGO) was sent to all major gynecological cancer societies across the globe for further distribution from October 2015 and continued for a period of 7 months. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-one institutions from around the world participated. One hundred and six (66%) of the participants were from university centers and 111 (69%) were gynecologic oncologists. One hundred and fifty-two (97%) performed lymphadenectomy (LNE) and 147 (94%) did so systematically; 97 (60%) used SLNB, due to lower morbidity (73%), reliability (55%) and time-saving (27%). In cases of positive SLNB (pN+), 39% of respondents stopped the operation and sent the patient for chemoradiation (CRT), 45% completed pelvic and paraaortic LNE, whereas 26% went on to perform a radical hysterectomy (RH) and systematic pelvic and paraaortic LNE. In case of negative SLNB (pN0), 39% of institutions still performed a systematic pelvic and paraaortic LNE. CONCLUSION: In this survey worldwide, SLNB adoption is an encouraging 60%, yet ample differences exist regarding strategy, and to a lower extent the techniques used. Lack of experience is the most common reason SLNB is not performed. Efforts to increase surgical education on SLNB technique and multicenter prospective trials providing evidence-based guidelines are warranted.

Treatment of patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer for whom platinum is still an option.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer remains the most deadly gynecologic cancer with the majority of patients relapsing within 3 years of diagnosis. Traditional treatment paradigms linked to platinum sensitivity or resistance are currently being questioned in the setting of new diagnostic methods and treatment options. DESIGN: Authors carried out review of the literature on key topics in treatment of recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) when platinum is still an option; including secondary surgical cytoreduction, chemotherapy, novel treatment options, and maintenance therapy. A treatment algorithm is proposed. RESULTS: Molecular characterization of EOC is critical to help guide treatment decisions. The role of secondary cytoreductive surgery is currently being evaluated with results from Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 213 and anticipated results from DESKTOP III clinical trials. Chemotherapy backbone has remained relatively unchanged but utilizing non-platinum-based regimens is under investigation. In addition, maintenance therapy with anti-angiogenic therapy and Poly (ADP-ribose) Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors has emerged as the standard of care. Novel combinations, including immunotherapy and anti-angiogenesis agents, may further change the current landscape. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of recurrent EOC is rapidly changing. Clinical trial design will need to continue to evolve as many novel therapies move to the upfront setting. Ultimately, the treatment of patients with recurrent EOC must incorporate individual patient and tumor factors.

Quality of life in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) randomized to maintenance pazopanib or placebo after first-line chemotherapy in the AGO-OVAR 16 trial. Measuring what matters-patient-centered end points in trials of maintenance therapy.

Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was a secondary end point in AGO-OVAR 16, which randomized 940 patients with EOC after first-line chemotherapy to maintenance pazopanib (PZ) or placebo (P). Additional post hoc analyses were carried out to investigate additional patient-centered end points. Patients and methods: HRQoL was measured with EORTC-QLQ-C30, QLQ-OV28 and EQ-5D-3L. Pre-specified end points included mean differences in HRQoL between treatment arms. Exploratory analyses included quality-adjusted progression-free survival (QAPFS), impact of specific symptoms and progressive disease (PD) on HRQoL and time to second-line chemotherapy. The objective was to provide clinical perspective to the significant median PFS gain of 5.6 months with PZ. Results: There were statistically significant differences between PZ and P in QLQ-C30 global health status [5.5 points; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.7-10.4, P = 0.024] from baseline to 25 months, but not EQ-5D-3L (0.018 points; 95% CI - 0.033 to 0.069, P = 0.485). The impact of diarrhea was captured in QLQ-OV28 Abdominal/GI-Symptoms scale (8.1 points; 95% CI 3.6-12.5, P = 0.001). QAPFS was 386 days (95% CI 366-404 days) with PZ versus 359 days (95% CI 338-379 days) with placebo (P = 0.052). PD was associated with a decline in HRQoL (P < 0.0001). Median time to second-line chemotherapy was 19.7 months with PZ and 15.0 months with P [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.69-0.86, P = 0.0001]. Conclusions: There were small to no significant mean score differences in global HRQoL and EQ5D-3L between PZ and placebo, respectively, despite the increased toxicity of PZ. Exploratory end points including QAPFS, impact of specific symptoms on HRQoL during treatment and at PD help place the PFS gain with PZ in context and interpret the results. Additional patient-centered end points should be considered in trials of maintenance therapy in EOC beyond mean differences in HRQoL scores alone, to support the benefit to patients of prolongation of PFS. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT00866697.

Is intraperitoneal chemotherapy still an acceptable option in primary adjuvant chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer?

The role of intraperitoneal (i.p.) chemotherapy in treating newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) has been the subject of controversy for almost three decades. Three large intergroup phase III trials (GOG 104, 114, 172) have demonstrated a survival benefit associated with i.p. over intravenous (i.v.) therapy in advanced, low-volume EOC. Despite the positive clinical trial results and a subsequent National Cancer Institute alert in 2006, i.p. treatment has not been widely accepted as the standard of care in the United States and is infrequently used in Europe. The hesitancy of clinicians to use i.p. therapy is likely attributed to higher toxicity, inconvenience, catheter complications, and clinical trial design issues. On the other hand, In a long-term follow-up report from these trials, we showed that the effect of i.p. chemotherapy extends beyond 10 years and that the more cycles of i.p. therapy portends for improved survival over similar cycles of i.v. therapy with younger patients having a higher likelihood of completing 6 cycles of i.p. TREATMENT: More recently, a fourth randomized phase III trial, GOG 252, failed to show a survival advantage associated with i.p. cisplatin and i.p. carboplatin over dose-dense i.v. paclitaxel and carboplatin. Since the use of bevacizumab was incorporated in all arms of the study, this anti-vascular agent may have equalized or negated the clinical advantage of i.p. chemotherapy and dose-dense weekly as suggested in GOG 262. We are awaiting the results of the Asian iPocc trial comparing dose-dense paclitaxel to i.p. chemotherapy without bevacizumab, though the differences in the tumor histology and pharmacokinetics in Asian versus non-Asian patients may influence the interpretation of the results worldwide. In this review, we review the polarizing opinions on the relevance of i.p. therapy in today's clinical armamentarium. Never before, have oncologists examined the same datasets with divergent conclusions. This topic is confusing to patients and clinicians alike and has led to inconsistent guidelines and reimbursement. However, it might be time to move on. Now more than ever, we have novel combinations to personalize upfront treatments for advanced ovarian cancer. In addition to i.p. therapy we also need to focus on targeted therapy, biomarkers, survivorship, and the sequencing of therapy.

Quality of life is significantly associated with survival in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: An ancillary data analysis of the NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG-0218) study.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate association between baseline quality of life (QOL) and changes in QOL measured by FACT-O TOI with progression-free disease (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). METHODS: Patients enrolled in GOG-0218 with completed FACT-O TOI assessments at baseline and at least one follow-up assessment were eligible. Baseline FACT-O TOI scores were sorted by quartiles (Q1-4) and outcomes compared between Q1 and Q2-4 with log-rank statistic and multivariate Cox regression adjusting for age, stage, post-surgical residual disease size, and performance status (PS). Trends in FACT-O TOI scores from baseline to the latest follow-up assessment were evaluated for impact on intragroup (Q1 or Q2-4) outcome by log-rank analysis. RESULTS: Of 1152 eligible patients, 283 formed Q1 and 869 formed Q2-4. Mean baseline FACT-O TOI scores were 47.5 for Q1 vs. 74.7 for Q2-4 (P<0.001). Q1 compared to Q2-4 had worse median OS (37.5 vs. 45.6months, P=0.001) and worse median PFS (12.5 vs. 13.1months, P=0.096). Q2-4 patients had decreased risks of disease progression (HR 0.974, 95% CI 0.953-0.995, P=0.018), and death (HR 0.963, 95% CI 0.939-0.987, P=0.003) for each five-point increase in baseline FACT-O TOI. Improving versus worsening trends in FACT-O TOI scores were associated with longer median PFS (Q1: 12.7 vs. 8.6months, P=0.001; Q2-4: 16.7 vs. 11.1months, P<0.001) and median OS (Q1: 40.8 vs. 16months, P<0.001; Q2-4: 54.4 vs. 33.6months, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline FACT-O TOI scores were independently prognostic of PFS and OS while improving compared to worsening QOL was associated with significantly better PFS and OS in women with EOC.

A phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo- controlled study of chemo-immunotherapy combination using motolimod with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in recurrent or persistent ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group partners study.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in women with recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma to evaluate the efficacy and safety of motolimod-a Toll-like receptor 8 (TLR8) agonist that stimulates robust innate immune responses-combined with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), a chemotherapeutic that induces immunogenic cell death. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma were randomized 1 : 1 to receive PLD in combination with blinded motolimod or placebo. Randomization was stratified by platinum-free interval (≤6 versus >6-12 months) and Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) performance status (0 versus 1). Treatment cycles were repeated every 28 days until disease progression. RESULTS: The addition of motolimod to PLD did not significantly improve overall survival (OS; log rank one-sided P = 0.923, HR = 1.22) or progression-free survival (PFS; log rank one-sided P = 0.943, HR = 1.21). The combination was well tolerated, with no synergistic or unexpected serious toxicity. Most patients experienced adverse events of fatigue, anemia, nausea, decreased white blood cells, and constipation. In pre-specified subgroup analyses, motolimod-treated patients who experienced injection site reactions (ISR) had a lower risk of death compared with those who did not experience ISR. Additionally, pre-treatment in vitro responses of immune biomarkers to TLR8 stimulation predicted OS outcomes in patients receiving motolimod on study. Immune score (tumor infiltrating lymphocytes; TIL), TLR8 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, mutational status in BRCA and other DNA repair genes, and autoantibody biomarkers did not correlate with OS or PFS. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of motolimod to PLD did not improve clinical outcomes compared with placebo. However, subset analyses identified statistically significant differences in the OS of motolimod-treated patients on the basis of ISR and in vitro immune responses. Collectively, these data may provide important clues for identifying patients for treatment with immunomodulatory agents in novel combinations and/or delivery approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT 01666444.

Anti-angiogenic agents in ovarian cancer: past, present, and future.

Angiogenesis plays a pivotal role in normal ovarian physiology as well as in the progression of ovarian cancer through ascites formation and metastatic spread. Bevacizumab (Avastin(®), Genentech; South San Francisco, CA, USA), a humanized anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) monoclonal antibody, is the most widely studied anti-angiogenesis agent both across tumor types and specifically in epithelial ovarian cancer. In 2005, single-agent bevacizumab at 15 mg/kg (IV) every 3 weeks was first reported to be active in a case of recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer after failing 11th line cytotoxic treatment. Since then, many case series, phase II and phase III trials have confirmed these results leading to regulatory approval in most countries including the US Food and Drug Administration in 2014. Guidelines now give clear recommendations as to when and how bevacizumab should be integrated into the ovarian cancer treatment paradigm. Other anti-VEGF agents such as the VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors have not shown increased activity or reduced toxicity relative to bevacizumab. However, anti-angiogenics other than anti-VEGF/VEGFR agents such as those targeting Angiopoietin-1 and -2 are in development as well as novel combinations with vascular disrupting agents (VDAs), PARP inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Clearly, the benefits of anti-angiogenic agents such as bevacizumab must be carefully weighed against the cost and associated toxicities. Although almost all patients with ovarian cancer will receive an anti-angiogenic compound, cures are not increased. Predictive biomarkers are an urgent unmet need.

Health-related quality of life in women with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving paclitaxel plus trebananib or placebo (TRINOVA-1).

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the influence of treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in 919 women with recurrent ovarian cancer enrolled in the TRINOVA-1 study, a randomized, placebo-controlled phase III study that demonstrated that trebananib 15 mg/kg QW plus weekly paclitaxel significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo plus weekly paclitaxel (7.2 versus 5.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval 0.57-0.77; P < 0.001). PATIENTS AND METHODS: HRQoL was assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovary [FACT-O; comprising FACT-G and the ovarian cancer-specific subscale (OCS)] and EuroQOL EQ-5D instruments before treatment on day 1 of weeks 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and every 8 weeks thereafter and at the safety follow-up visit. A pattern-mixture model was used to evaluate the influence of patient dropout on FACT-O and OCS scores over time. RESULTS: Of 919 randomized patients, 834 (91%) had a baseline and ≥1 post-baseline HRQoL assessment. At baseline, scores for all instruments were similar for both arms. At 25 weeks, mean ± SD changes from baseline were negligible, with mean ± SD changes typically <1 unit from baseline: -2.4 ± 16.6 in the trebananib arm and -1.6 ± 15.2 in the placebo arm for FACT-O, -0.71 ± 5.5 in the trebananib arm and -0.86 ± 4.9 in the placebo arm for OCS, and -0.02 ± 0.22 in the trebananib arm and 0.02 ± 0.19 in the placebo arm for EQ-5D. Distribution of scores was similar between treatment arms at baseline and over the course of the study. In pattern-mixture models, there was no evidence that patient dropout affected differences in mean FACT-O or OCS scores. Edema had limited effect on either FACT-O or OCS scores in patients with grade ≥2 edema or those with grade 1 or no edema. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that the improvement in PFS among patients in the trebananib arm in the TRINOVA-1 study was achieved without compromising HRQoL. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01204749.

Early initiation of chemotherapy following complete resection of advanced ovarian cancer associated with improved survival: NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

BACKGROUND: To determine whether time from surgery to initiation of chemotherapy impacts survival in advanced ovarian carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a post-trial ad hoc analysis of Gynecologic Oncology Group protocol 218, a phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial designed to study the antiangiogenesis agent, bevacizumab, in primary and maintenance therapy for patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian carcinoma. Maximum attempt at debulking was an eligibility criterion. Stage III patients, not stage IV, were required to have gross macroscopic or palpable residual disease following surgery. The survival impact of time from surgery to initiation of chemotherapy was studied using Cox regression models and stratified by treatment arm, residual disease and other clinical and pathologic factors. RESULTS: One thousand seven hundred eighteen assessable patients were randomized (stage III (n = 1237); stage IV (n = 477), including those with complete resection (stage IV only, n = 81), low-volume residual (≤1 cm, n = 701), and suboptimal (>1 cm, n = 932). On multivariate analysis, time to chemotherapy initiation was predictive of overall survival (P < 0.001), with the complete resection group (i.e. stage IV) encountering an increased risk of death when time to initiation of chemotherapy exceeded 25 days (95% confidence interval 16.6-49.9 days). CONCLUSION: Survival for women with advanced ovarian cancer may be adversely affected when initiation of chemotherapy occurs >25 days following surgery. Our analysis applies to stage IV only as women with stage III who underwent complete resection were not eligible for this trial. These results, however, are consistent with Gompertzian first-order kinetics where patients with microscopic residual are most vulnerable. CLINICAL TRIALS IDENTIFIER: NCT00262847.

Effect of BRCA1 and XPG mutations on treatment response to trabectedin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: exploratory analysis of the phase 3 OVA-301 study.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the association of BRCA1 and XPG mutations with response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a subset of patients from a phase 3 clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of trabectedin + pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) versus PLD alone in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A candidate array was designed based on the Breast Cancer Information Core database for BRCA mutation analyses. An exploratory analysis of BRCA1/XPG mutation status was conducted using a two-sided log-rank test and 0.05 significance in germline DNA samples from 264 women with failed first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, randomized (1 : 1) to trabectedin + PLD or PLD alone. RESULTS: Overall, 41 (16%) of the 264 women had BRCA1(mut) (trabectedin + PLD: n = 24/135, 18%; PLD: n = 17/129; 13%) and 17 (6%) had XPG(mut) (trabectedin + PLD: n = 8/135, 6%; PLD: n = 9/129, 7%). A higher RR was observed in BRCA1(mut) patients (20/41; 49%) versus BRCA1(wt) patients (62/223; 28%). Within the BRCA1(mut) group, trabectedin + PLD-treated patients had longer PFS and longer OS than PLD-treated patients (median PFS 13.5 versus 5.5 months, P = 0.0002; median OS 23.8 versus 12.5 months, P = 0.0086), whereas in BRCA1(wt) patients, OS was not significantly different (median OS: 19.1 versus 19.3 months; P = 0.9377). There were no differences in OS or PFS of patients with XPG(mut) between the two treatment arms. However, trabectedin + PLD-treated patients with XPG(mut) had a trend toward shorter PFS (median PFS: 1.9 versus 7.5 months; P = 0.1666) and OS (median OS: 14.5 versus 20.7 months; P = 0.1774) than those with XPG(wt). CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory analysis, patients with recurrent ovarian cancer carrying the BRCA1(mut) had improved outcomes with trabectedin + PLD treatment compared with PLD alone. Prospective evaluation of BRCA status is likely an important evaluation for DNA-damaging agents and may significantly impact interpretation of clinical studies. XPG may be a biomarker of poor outcome in these patients.

Integrating bevacizumab into the management of epithelial ovarian cancer: the controversy of front-line versus recurrent disease.

Angiogenesis plays a fundamental role in the pathogenesis of ovarian cancer. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression has been associated with the development of malignant ascites and tumor progression. Bevacizumab (Avastin(®); Genentech, South San Francisco, CA, USA), a humanized anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody, is the most widely studied antiangiogenesis agent across tumor types and specifically in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). With the recent reporting of four consecutive positive randomized trials adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy in the treatment of both front-line (GOG 218 and ICON7) and recurrent EOC ['platinum-resistant' (AURELIA Trial) or 'platinum-sensitive' (OCEANS Trial)], the most debatable question today is thus not IF we should treat ovarian cancer patients with bevacizumab, but WHEN. As bevacizumab is active in both settings, it seems appropriate to carefully consider this clinical controversy: 'what is the optimal setting for bevacizumab treatment?' A fine balance of efficacy, toxicity, quality of life, and symptom control is the main crux of this controversy. The cost effectiveness of bevacizumab in EOC is also controversial.