ESGO-ESMO-ESP consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology and early, advanced and recurrent disease.

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the European Society of Pathology held a consensus conference (CC) on ovarian cancer on 15-16 June 2022 in Valencia, Spain. The CC panel included 44 experts in the management of ovarian cancer and pathology, an ESMO scientific advisor and a methodologist. The aim was to discuss new or contentious topics and develop recommendations to improve and harmonise the management of patients with ovarian cancer. Eighteen questions were identified for discussion under four main topics: (i) pathology and molecular biology, (ii) early-stage disease and pelvic mass in pregnancy, (iii) advanced stage (including older/frail patients) and (iv) recurrent disease. The panel was divided into four working groups (WGs) to each address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above, based on their expertise. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript focuses on the recommendation statements that reached a consensus, their voting results and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals on the Management and Treatment of Advanced Ovarian Cancer in the UK: Results From the KNOW-OC Survey.

AIMS: New treatment options for advanced ovarian cancer have the potential to significantly change the treatment pathway in the UK. Understanding the structures and responsibilities of multidisciplinary teams/tumour boards (MDT) and regional variations will enable services to adapt more effectively to these changes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The KNOW-OC survey was conducted in 2020 to understand the views of a selected group of 66 healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in advanced ovarian cancer care in UK hospitals. RESULTS: The results showed that MDT involvement in the management of advanced ovarian cancer varied depending on pathway stage and line of relapse, with 98.5% of HCPs responding that the MDT was involved in decisions at initial presentation, but only 40.9% for patients with multiple relapses. The MDT was mostly responsible for determining whether the patients would undergo primary or interval cytoreductive surgery according to 75.8% of respondents, and most HCPs (80.3%) stated that tumour dissemination patterns were the most important factor influencing this decision. The most commonly assessed biomarkers at the time of the survey were CA125, gBRCA and tBRCA. Homologous recombination deficiency was viewed as the second most important factor for determining prognosis, but few centres had access to testing at the time of survey completion. The use of active surveillance was expected to decrease in favour of first-line targeted therapies. Nearly all (98.5%) HCPs agreed there is a role for secondary cytoreductive surgery for the treatment of recurrence (for carefully selected patients). CONCLUSIONS: The results highlighted UK-specific geographical variation in the views of HCPs on MDT involvement and specific practices, such as molecular biomarker testing, and the overall treatment approach. Together, these findings improve the understanding of reported clinical practice across the UK for ovarian cancer and provide insight into decision-making associated with updates to recommendations for best practice (e.g. European Society for Medical Oncology/European Society of Gynaecological Oncology consensus statements) and the introduction of new treatment options.

Efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy for patients with BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer progressing on olaparib versus placebo maintenance: post-hoc analyses of the SOLO2/ENGOT Ov-21 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the SOLO2 trial (ENGOT Ov-21; NCT01874353), maintenance olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) and BRCA mutation significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and prolonged overall survival (OS). Following disease progression on olaparib, efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy remains unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc hypothesis-generating analysis of SOLO2 data to determine the efficacy of different chemotherapy regimens following RECIST disease progression in patients who received olaparib or placebo. We evaluated time to second progression (TTSP) calculated from the date of RECIST progression to the next progression/death. RESULTS: The study population comprised 147 patients who received chemotherapy as their first subsequent treatment after RECIST progression. Of these, 69 (47%) and 78 (53%) were originally randomized to placebo and olaparib arms, respectively. In the placebo-treated cohort, 27/69 and 42/69 received non-platinum and platinum-based chemotherapy, respectively, compared with 24/78 and 54/78, respectively, in the olaparib-treated cohort. Among patients treated with chemotherapy (N = 147), TTSP was significantly longer in the placebo than in the olaparib arm: 12.1 versus 6.9 months [hazard ratio (HR) 2.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47-3.19]. Similar result was obtained on multivariable analysis adjusting for prognostic factors at RECIST progression (HR 2.13, 95% CI 1.41-3.22). Among patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 96), TTSP was significantly longer in the placebo arm: 14.3 versus 7.0 months (HR 2.89, 95% CI 1.73-4.82). Conversely, among patients treated with non-platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 51), the TTSP was comparable in the placebo and olaparib arms: 8.3 versus 6.0 months (HR 1.58, 95% CI 0.86-2.90). CONCLUSIONS: Following progression from maintenance olaparib in the recurrent setting, the efficacy of platinum-based subsequent chemotherapy seems to be reduced in BRCA1/2-mutated patients with PSROC compared to patients not previously receiving poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). The optimal strategy for patients who relapse after PARPi is an area of ongoing research.

Olaparib maintenance monotherapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer patients without a germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation: OPINION primary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The phase IIIb OPINION trial (NCT03402841) investigated olaparib maintenance monotherapy in patients without a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm) who had platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) and had received ≥2 previous lines of platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In this single-arm, open-label, international study, patients who had responded to platinum-based chemotherapy received maintenance olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) (modified RECIST version 1.1). A key secondary endpoint was PFS by homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and somatic BRCAm (sBRCAm) status. The primary analysis of PFS was planned for 18 months after the last patient received their first dose. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-nine patients were enrolled and received olaparib. At data cutoff (October 2, 2020), 210 PFS events had occurred (75.3% maturity) and median PFS was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.6-10.9) in the overall population. At 12 and 18 months, 38.5% and 24.3% of patients were progression-free, respectively. In the predefined biomarker subgroups, median PFS was 16.4, 11.1, 9.7, and 7.3 months in sBRCAm, HRD-positive including sBRCAm, HRD-positive excluding sBRCAm, and HRD-negative patients, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were nausea (48.4%) and fatigue/asthenia (44.1%). TEAEs led to dose interruption, dose reduction, and treatment discontinuation in 47.0%, 22.6%, and 7.5% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Maintenance olaparib demonstrated clinical benefit in patients without a gBRCAm, and across all subgroups, compared with historical placebo controls. There were no new safety signals.

Maintenance therapy of patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma with the anti-tumor-associated-mucin-1 antibody gatipotuzumab: results from a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Gatipotuzumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody recognizing the carbohydrate-induced epitope of the tumor-associated mucin-1 (TA-MUC1). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of switch maintenance therapy with gatipotuzumab in patients with TA-MUC1-positive recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary high-grade serous peritoneal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II trial, patients with at least stable disease (SD) following chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous gatipotuzumab (500 mg followed by 1700 mg 1 week later) or placebo every 3 weeks until tumor progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. Stratification factors were the number of prior chemotherapy lines (2 versus 3-5), response versus SD after the most recent chemotherapy, and progression-free survival (PFS) <6 versus 6-12 months following the prior therapy. Primary endpoint was PFS according to modified immune-related RECIST 1.1 response criteria. Secondary endpoints were PFS at 6 months, safety, overall response rate, CA-125 progression, overall survival, quality of life, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Overall, 216 patients were randomized to gatipotuzumab (n  = 151) or placebo (n  = 65). Median PFS with gatipotuzumab was 3.5 months as compared with 3.5 months with placebo (hazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.69-1.33, P  = 0.80). No advantage for gatipotuzumab over placebo was seen in the secondary efficacy endpoints or in any stratified subgroups. Gatipotuzumab was well tolerated, with mild to moderate infusion-related reactions being the most common adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Gatipotuzumab switch maintenance therapy does not improve outcome in TA-MUC1-positive ovarian cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT01899599; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01899599.

The systemic treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer revisited.

Treatment approaches for relapsed ovarian cancer have evolved over the past decade from a calendar-based decision tree to a patient-oriented biologically driven algorithm. Nowadays, platinum-based chemotherapy should be offered to all patients with a reasonable chance of responding to this therapy. The treatment-free interval for platinum is only one of many factors affecting patients' eligibility for platinum re-treatment. Bevacizumab increases the response to chemotherapy irrespective of the cytotoxic regimen and can be valuable in patients with an urgent need for symptom relief (e.g. pleural effusion, ascites). For patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian cancer, which responds to platinum-based treatment, maintenance therapy with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor can be offered, regardless of the BRCA mutation status. Here we review contemporary decision-making processes in the systemic treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer.

Cediranib in addition to chemotherapy for women with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (ICON6): overall survival results of a phase III randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Cediranib, an oral anti-angiogenic VEGFR 1-3 inhibitor, was studied at a daily dose of 20 mg in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy and as maintenance in a randomised trial in patients with first relapse of 'platinum-sensitive' ovarian cancer and has been shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: ICON6 (NCT00532194) was an international three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial. Between December 2007 and December 2011, 456 women were randomised, using stratification, to receive either chemotherapy with placebo throughout (arm A, reference); chemotherapy with concurrent cediranib, followed by maintenance placebo (arm B, concurrent); or chemotherapy with concurrent cediranib, followed by maintenance cediranib (arm C, maintenance). Due to an enforced redesign of the trial in September 2011, the primary endpoint became PFS between arms A and C which we have previously published, and the overall survival (OS) was defined as a secondary endpoint, which is reported here. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 25.6 months, strong evidence of an effect of concurrent plus maintenance cediranib on PFS was observed [hazard ratio (HR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.72, P < 0.0001]. In this final update of the survival analysis, 90% of patients have died. There was a 7.4-month difference in median survival and an HR of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.67-1.11, P = 0.24) in favour of arm C. There was strong evidence of a departure from the assumption of non-proportionality using the Grambsch-Therneau test (P = 0.0031), making the HR difficult to interpret. Consequently, the restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used and the estimated difference over 6 years by the RMST was 4.8 months (95% CI: -0.09 to 9.74 months). CONCLUSIONS: Although a statistically significant difference in time to progression was seen, the enforced curtailment in recruitment meant that the secondary analysis of OS was underpowered. The relative reduction in the risk of death of 14% risk of death was not conventionally statistically significant, but this improvement and the increase in the mean survival time in this analysis suggest that cediranib may have worthwhile activity in the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer and that further research should be undertaken.

ESMO recommendations on predictive biomarker testing for homologous recombination deficiency and PARP inhibitor benefit in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD) is a frequent feature of high-grade serous ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal carcinoma (HGSC) and is associated with sensitivity to PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapy. HRD testing provides an opportunity to optimise PARPi use in HGSC but methodologies are diverse and clinical application remains controversial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To define best practice for HRD testing in HGSC the ESMO Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group launched a collaborative project that incorporated a systematic review approach. The main aims were to (i) define the term 'HRD test'; (ii) provide an overview of the biological rationale and the level of evidence supporting currently available HRD tests; (iii) provide recommendations on the clinical utility of HRD tests in clinical management of HGSC. RESULTS: A broad range of repair genes, genomic scars, mutational signatures and functional assays are associated with a history of HRD. Currently, the clinical validity of HRD tests in ovarian cancer is best assessed, not in terms of biological HRD status per se, but in terms of PARPi benefit. Clinical trials evidence supports the use of BRCA mutation testing and two commercially available assays that also incorporate genomic instability for identifying subgroups of HGSCs that derive different magnitudes of benefit from PARPi therapy, albeit with some variation by clinical scenario. These tests can be used to inform treatment selection and scheduling but their use is limited by a failure to consistently identify a subgroup of patients who derive no benefit from PARPis in most studies. Existing tests lack negative predictive value and inadequately address the complex and dynamic nature of the HRD phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available HRD tests are useful for predicting likely magnitude of benefit from PARPis but better biomarkers are urgently needed to better identify current homologous recombination proficiency status and stratify HGSC management.

A phase II randomised, placebo-controlled trial of low dose (metronomic) cyclophosphamide and nintedanib (BIBF1120) in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the safety and efficacy of a combination of the oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, nintedanib (BIBF 1120) with oral cyclophosphamide in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with relapsed ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer received oral cyclophosphamide (100 mg o.d.) and were randomised (1,1) to also have either oral nintedanib or placebo. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression free survival (PFS), response rate, toxicity, and quality of life. RESULTS: 117 patients were randomised, 3 did not start trial treatment, median age 64 years. Forty-five (39%) had received ≥5 lines chemotherapy. 30% had received prior bevacizumab. The median OS was 6.8 (nintedanib) versus 6.4 (placebo) months (hazard ratio 1.08; 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.62; P = 0.72). The 6-month PFS rate was 29.6% versus 22.8% (P = 0.57). Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 64% (nintedanib) versus 54% (placebo) of patients (P = 0.28); the most frequent G3/4 toxicities were lymphopenia (18.6% nintedanib versus 16.4% placebo), diarrhoea (13.6% versus 0%), neutropenia (11.9% versus 0%), fatigue (10.2% versus 9.1%), and vomiting (10.2% versus 7.3%). Patients who had received prior bevacizumab treatment had 52 days less time on treatment (P < 0.01). 26 patients (23%) took oral cyclophosphamide for ≥6 months. There were no differences in quality of life between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest reported cohort of patients with relapsed ovarian cancer treated with oral cyclophosphamide. Nintedanib did not improve outcomes when added to oral cyclophosphamide. Although not significant, more patients than expected remained on treatment for ≥6 months. This may reflect a higher proportion of patients with more indolent disease or the higher dose of cyclophosphamide used. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.govNCT01610869.

Long-term safety in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer treated with niraparib versus placebo: Results from the phase III ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial.

OBJECTIVE: Niraparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor approved for use in heavily pretreated patients and as maintenance treatment in patients with newly-diagnosed or recurrent ovarian cancer following a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. We present long-term safety data for niraparib from the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of niraparib for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either once-daily niraparib 300 mg or placebo. Two independent cohorts were enrolled based on germline BRCA mutation status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, reported previously. Long-term safety data were from the most recent data cutoff (September 2017). RESULTS: Overall, 367 patients received niraparib 300 mg once daily. Dose reductions due to TEAEs were highest in month 1 (34%) and declined every month thereafter. Incidence of any-grade and grade ≥ 3 hematologic and symptomatic TEAEs was also highest in month 1 and subsequently declined. Incidence of grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia decreased from 28% (month 1) to 9% and 5% (months 2 and 3, respectively), with protocol-directed dose interruptions and/or reductions. Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were reported in 2 and 6 niraparib-treated patients, respectively, and in 1 placebo patient each. Treatment discontinuations due to TEAEs were <5% in each month and time interval measured. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate the importance of appropriate dose reduction according to toxicity criteria and support the safe long-term use of niraparib for maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01847274.

ESMO recommendations on predictive biomarker testing for homologous recombination deficiency and PARP inhibitor benefit in ovarian cancer

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group identified that there is currently uncertainty within the oncology community surrounding the different methods for HRD testing in HGSC. To address this, a collaborative project was launched with a number of clinicians and scientists with expertise in the fields of PARPi clinical trials, cancer genomics and DNA repair. The group defined three main aims for the project: (i) Define the term 'HRD test' and recommend how an HRD test's clinical validity is currently best assessed in the context of HGSC, (ii) provide an overview of the biological rationale and the level of evidence supporting currently available HRD tests, and (iii) provide recommendations on the clinical utility of HRD tests in clinical management of HGSC.

Predictors of progression free survival, overall survival and early cessation of chemotherapy in women with potentially platinum sensitive (PPS) recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) starting third or subsequent line(≥3) chemotherapy - The GCIG symptom benefit study (SBS).

BACKGROUND: Potentially platinum sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PPS ROC) is defined by a platinum-free interval of >6 months, and usually treated with platinum-based chemotherapy with variable response and benefit in women who have had 3 or more lines of chemotherapy(≥3). We identified baseline characteristics (health-related quality of life[HRQL] and clinicopathological factors), associated with PFS, OS and early progression (within 8 weeks). The goal is to improve patient selection for chemotherapy based on a nomogram predicting PFS. METHODS: HRQL was assessed with EORTC QLQ-C30/QLQ-OV28. Associations with PFS and OS were assessed with Cox proportional hazards regression. Variables significant in univariable analysis were included in multivariable analyses using backward elimination to select those significant. Associations with stopping chemotherapy early were assessed with logistic regression. RESULTS: 378 women were enrolled, with median(m)OS and PFS of 16.6 months and 5.3 months, respectively. The majority had ECOGPS 0-1. Chemotherapy was stopped early in 45/378 participants (12%); with mOS 3.4 months (95% CI: 1.7-7.2). Physical function(PF), role function(RF), cognitive function(CF), social function(SF), Global Health Status(GHS) and abdominal/GI symptoms(AGIS) were significant univariable predictors of PFS(p < 0.030). SF remained significant after adjusting for clinicopathological factors; p = 0.03. PF, RF, CF, SF, GHS and AGIS were significant univariable predictors of OS (p < 0.007); PF, RF, SF and GHS remained significant predictors of OS in multivariable models; p < 0.007. Poor baseline PF and GHS were significant univariable predictors of stopping chemotherapy early (p < 0.007) but neither remained significant after adjusting for clinicopathological factors. CONCLUSION: Baseline HRQL is simple to measure, is predictive of PFS and OS and when used in conjunction with clinicopathological prognostic factors, can assist with clinical decision making and treatment recommendations for women with PPSROC≥3.

ESMO-ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease.

The development of guidelines is one of the core activities of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and European Society of Gynaecologial Oncology (ESGO), as part of the mission of both societies to improve the quality of care for patients with cancer across Europe. ESMO and ESGO jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations in several selected areas in order to improve the quality of care for women with ovarian cancer. The ESMO-ESGO consensus conference on ovarian cancer was held on April 12-14, 2018 in Milan, Italy, and comprised a multidisciplinary panel of 40 leading experts in the management of ovarian cancer. Before the conference, the expert panel worked on five clinically relevant questions regarding ovarian cancer relating to each of the following four areas: pathology and molecular biology, early-stage and borderline tumours, advanced stage disease and recurrent disease. Relevant scientific literature, as identified using a systematic search, was reviewed in advance. During the consensus conference, the panel developed recommendations for each specific question and a consensus was reached. The recommendations presented here are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. This article presents the recommendations of this ESMO-ESGO consensus conference, together with a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

ESMO-ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease†.

The development of guidelines recommendations is one of the core activities of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and European Society of Gynaecologial Oncology (ESGO), as part of the mission of both societies to improve the quality of care for patients with cancer across Europe. ESMO and ESGO jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations in several selected areas in order to improve the quality of care for women with ovarian cancer. The ESMO-ESGO consensus conference on ovarian cancer was held on 12-14 April 2018 in Milan, Italy, and comprised a multidisciplinary panel of 40 leading experts in the management of ovarian cancer. Before the conference, the expert panel worked on five clinically relevant questions regarding ovarian cancer relating to each of the following four areas: pathology and molecular biology, early-stage and borderline tumours, advanced stage disease and recurrent disease. Relevant scientific literature, as identified using a systematic search, was reviewed in advance. During the consensus conference, the panel developed recommendations for each specific question and a consensus was reached. The recommendations presented here are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. This article presents the recommendations of this ESMO-ESGO consensus conference, together with a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

Antitumor activity and safety of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced recurrent ovarian cancer: results from the phase II KEYNOTE-100 study.

BACKGROUND: Advanced recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) is the leading cause of gynecologic cancer-related death in developed countries and new treatments are needed. Previous studies of immune checkpoint blockade showed low objective response rates (ORR) in ROC with no identified predictive biomarker. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase II study of pembrolizumab (NCT02674061) examined two patient cohorts with ROC: cohort A received one to three prior lines of treatment with a platinum-free interval (PFI) or treatment-free interval (TFI) between 3 and 12 months and cohort B received four to six prior lines with a PFI/TFI of ≥3 months. Pembrolizumab 200 mg was administered intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progression, toxicity, or completion of 2 years. Primary end points were ORR by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 per blinded independent central review by cohort and by PD-L1 expression measured as combined positive score (CPS). Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Cohort A enrolled 285 patients; the first 100 served as the training set for PD-L1 biomarker analysis. Cohort B enrolled 91 patients. ORR was 7.4% for cohort A and 9.9% for cohort B. Median DOR was 8.2 months for cohort A and not reached for cohort B. DCR was 37.2% and 37.4%, respectively, in cohorts A and B. Based on the training set analysis, CPS 1 and 10 were selected for evaluation in the confirmation set. In the confirmation set, ORR was 4.1% for CPS <1, 5.7% CPS ≥1, and 10.0% for CPS ≥10. PFS was 2.1 months for both cohorts. Median OS was not reached for cohort A and was 17.6 months for cohort B. Toxicities were consistent with other single-agent pembrolizumab trials. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent pembrolizumab showed modest activity in patients with ROC. Higher PD-L1 expression was correlated with higher response. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02674061.

Combining conventional therapy with immunotherapy: A risky business?

Because of the failure of immunotherapy as single agent in a number of cancers, current clinical trials are focusing on combining immunotherapy with other therapies. The most frequently chosen combination for immunotherapy is chemotherapy. However, almost no preclinical data on this combination is available. Some studies even showed a dismal effect of combining chemotherapy with immunotherapy. Taken into account that each of the therapies chosen in a combination will influence the cancer cells but also immune effector cells as well as immunosuppressive cells, and that these three partners will also interact with each other, launching a combination to the patient without proper immune monitoring and preclinical evidence might be devastating.