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.

A phase II trial of bevacizumab and rucaparib in recurrent carcinoma of the cervix or endometrium.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the tolerability and efficacy of combination bevacizumab rucaparib therapy in patients with recurrent cervical or endometrial cancer. PATIENTS & METHODS: Thirty-three patients with recurrent cervical or endometrial cancer were enrolled. Patients were required to have tumor progression after first line treatment for metastatic, or recurrent disease. Rucaparib was given at 600 mg BID twice daily for each 21-day cycle. Bevacizumab was given at 15 mg/kg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. The primary endpoint was efficacy as determined by objective response rate or 6-month progression free survival. RESULTS: Of the 33 patients enrolled, 28 were evaluable. Patients with endometrial cancer had a response rate of 17% while patients with cervical cancer had a response rate of 14%. Median progression free survival was 3.8 months (95% C·I 2.5 to 5.7 months), and median overall survival was 10.1 months (95% C·I 7.0 to 15.1 months). Patients with ARID1A mutations displayed a better response rate (33%) and 6-month progression free survival (PFS6) rate (67%) than the entire study population. Observed toxicity was similar to that of previous studies with bevacizumab and rucaparib. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of bevacizumab with rucaparib did not show significantly increased anti-tumor activity in all patients with recurrent cervical or endometrial cancer. However, patients with ARID1A mutations had a higher response rate and PFS6 suggesting this subgroup may benefit from the combination of bevacizumab and rucaparib. Further study is needed to confirm this observation. No new safety signals were seen.

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.

PARPi after PARPi in epithelial ovarian cancer.

The objective of this study was to describe the treatment experience of patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer who are retreated with an inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose)-polymerase (PARPi). We conducted a multi-institutional, retrospective review of ovarian cancer patients who received ≥2 lines of therapy containing a PARPi. Demographic, clinical, and pathological data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Twenty-two patients were identified. For initial PARPi (PARPi1), 12 patients (54.5%) received veliparib, 7 (31.8%) olaparib and 3 (13.6%) rucaparib resulting in 10 patients who had no evidence of disease at the completion of therapy (NED), 3 partial responses (PR), 4 stable disease (SD), and 3 progressive disease (PD). (All 10 CRs involved veliparib given in conjunction with cytotoxic chemotherapy). PARPi1 was used as maintenance in 2 patients. PARPi1 was discontinued because planned number of cycles was reached (n = 10), progression (n = 8), toxicity (n = 2), other (n = 2). For second PARPi (PARPi2), 10 patients (45.4%) received niraparib, 6 (27.3%) olaparib, and 6 (27.3%) rucaparib resulting in 3 PR, 13 SD, and 3 PD. PARPi2 was used as maintenance in 3 patients. The 3 patients who experienced a PR to PARPi2 had a BRCA mutation and were NED following PARPi1. PARPi2 was discontinued because of progression (n = 13), toxicity (n = 6), other (n = 2). One patient currently remains on PARPi2. Toxicity after PARPi1 was not associated with toxicity from PARPi2 (p > 0.05). With 3 approved PARPi for different indications including frontline and recurrence, the opportunity to reuse PARPi has increased. Characterizing those who should be re-challenged is an important initiative moving forward.

A phase Ib/II and pharmacokinetic study of EP0057 (formerly CRLX101) in combination with weekly paclitaxel in patients with recurrent or persistent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer.

BACKGROUND: EP0057 (formerly CRLX101) is an investigational nanoparticle-drug conjugate (NDC) of a cyclodextrin-based polymer backbone plus camptothecin, a topoisomerase-1 inhibitor. Prior studies showed efficacy in recurrent or persistent, epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer (EOC). METHODS: This phase Ib/2 trial assessed safety and efficacy of EP0057 Q2W plus weekly paclitaxel in patients with EOC. The recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was identified using a 3+3 design. The single-arm phase 2 assessed overall response (ORR) per RECIST 1.1 in patients previously treated with bevacizumab. Secondary objectives included progression free survival (PFS) and duration of response. RESULTS: The RP2D was established as 15 mg/m2 EP0057 Q2W plus 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel administered 3 weeks on/1 week off. Nine patients enrolled on phase 1b, with no DLTs; 21 additional patients enrolled on phase 2. All completed >1 cycle. Median age was 62 (44-76) years, 57% ≥3 prior therapies. For the primary analysis, 6/19 patients with prior bevacizumab had confirmed responses (ORR=31.6% (95% CI: 15.4% to 54.0%)) including one complete response (CR). Median PFS was 5.4 months. Most common grade 3/4 adverse events attributed to treatment were decreased neutrophil count (13, 43%) and anemia (3, 10%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the observed ORR was not statistically better than the historical control rate, EP0057 remains an interesting option for treatment of recurrent EOC. EP0057 exhibits high plasma drug retention, slow clearance, and controlled slow release of CPT from the polymer when administered alone and with paclitaxel. (NCT02389985) 242 words.

The forefront of ovarian cancer therapy: update on PARP inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: In recurrent ovarian cancer, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-inhibiting agents have transformed the treatment of platinum-sensitive disease. New data support use of PARP inhibitors earlier in the treatment algorithm. DESIGN: We review results from recent phase III trials evaluating PARP inhibitors as treatment and/or maintenance therapy for patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. We discuss the efficacy and safety of these agents in the all-comer and biomarker-selected populations studied in clinical trials, and compare the strengths and limitations of the various trial designs. We also consider priorities for future research, with a particular focus on patient selection and future regimens for populations with high unmet need. RESULTS: Four phase III trials (SOLO-1, PAOLA-1/ENGOT-OV25, PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26 and VELIA/GOG-3005) demonstrated remarkable improvements in progression-free survival with PARP inhibitor therapy (olaparib, niraparib or veliparib) for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. Differences in trial design (treatment and/or maintenance setting; single agent or combination; bevacizumab or no bevacizumab), patient selection (surgical outcome, biomarker eligibility, prognosis) and primary analysis population (intention-to-treat, BRCA mutated or homologous recombination deficiency positive) affect the conclusions that can be drawn from these trials. Overall survival data are pending and there is limited experience regarding long-term safety. CONCLUSIONS: PARP inhibitors play a pivotal role in the management of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, which will affect subsequent treatment choices. Refinement of testing for patient selection and identification of regimens to treat populations that appear to benefit less from PARP inhibitors are a priority.

A randomized phase II evaluation of weekly gemcitabine plus pazopanib versus weekly gemcitabine alone in the treatment of persistent or recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Angiogenesis inhibition is a valuable strategy for ovarian cancer (EOC). Pazopanib (paz) is a potent small molecular inhibitor of VEGF-1, -2, -3, PDGFR, c-kit, and has activity as a single agent in ovarian cancer. We designed a trial to assess the benefit of adding paz to gemcitabine (gem) in patients with recurrent EOC. METHODS: An open-label, randomized, multi-site, phase 2 trial was conducted (NCT01610206) including patients with platinum resistant or sensitive disease, ≤ 3 prior lines of chemotherapy, and measurable/evaluable disease. Patients were randomly assigned to weekly gem 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21 day cycle, with or without paz 800 mg QD, stratified by platinum sensitivity and number of prior lines (1 vs 2 or 3). The primary endpoint was PFS. RESULTS: 148 patients were enrolled 2012-2017. Median age was 63 years (30-82); 60% were platinum resistant; median surveillance was 13 months (0.4-54 months). Median PFS was 5.3 (95% CI, 4.2-5.8) vs 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.1-4.1) in the gem arm. The PFS effect was most pronounced in the platinum resistant group (5.32 vs 2.33 months Tarone-Ware p < 0.001). There was no difference in OS. Overall RR (PR 20% vs 11%, Chi-squre p = 0.02) and DCR (80% vs 60%, Chi-square p < 0.001) were higher in the combination. High grade AEs in the combination arm included ≥ Grade 3: hypertension (15%), neutropenia (35%), and thrombocytopenia (12%). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of paz to gem enhanced anti-tumor activity; those with platinum-resistant disease derived the most benefit from combination therapy, even in the setting of receiving prior bevacizumab.

Tumor lysis syndrome in gynecologic cancers: An uncommon but important diagnosis to recognize.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the incidence, treatment and outcomes associated with tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) in women with gynecologic cancer (GOC). METHODS: A retrospective multi-institutional review of TLS associated with GOC. Women presenting with an elevated serum uric acid managed with intravenous (IV) rasburicase were included. Descriptive statistics of patient demographics, clinical findings, and outcome data was completed. RESULTS: From two large academic institutions N = 18 patients were found to meet inclusion criteria from 2008 to 2018, reflecting an approximate 5% incidence of clinically treated TLS associated with GOC in our cohort. Median age was 60 years, a majority were Caucasian (n = 11, 61.1%), median BMI was 36.2. TLS was associated with a high-grade GOC in n = 17 (94.4%) cases. TLS was commonly diagnosed with a new GOC (n = 12, 70.6%) and following receipt of chemotherapy in n = 9 (50.0%) cases. Six (66.7%) patients were treated with paclitaxel or combination, five (55.5%) with a platinum or combination, and two (22.2%) with a CD47 inhibitor. Chief complaints included electrolyte and renal abnormalities (n = 11, 73.3%). Peak serum uric acid, potassium, creatinine and phosphorus levels were 14.1 mg/dL, 5.7 mEq/L, 5.1 mg/dL, and 6.8 mg/dL, respectively. Nine patients received hospice during their admission with 3 (20%) deaths occurring as inpatients. There were 12 deaths with median OS of 16 d (range: 2-87 d). CONCLUSIONS: Though rare, TLS can be associated with GOC. Early recognition of presenting symptoms, laboratory findings and expedited treatment may help with electrolyte recovery; however, TLS associated with GOC may herald a rapidly deteriorating state with significant associated mortality.

Imaging biomarkers of adiposity and sarcopenia as potential predictors for overall survival among patients with endometrial cancer treated with bevacizumab.

OBJECTIVE: To examine associations of body mass index (BMI), subcutaneous fat area (SFA) and density (SFD), visceral fat area (VFA) and density (VFD) and total psoas area (TPA) to outcomes among patients receiving chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: This was a multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients with EC treated with and without bevacizumab as part of front-line, platinum based chemotherapy. Demographics and clinical characteristics were collected. SFA, VFA, SFD, VFD, and TPA were determined from pre-treatment CT scans using a deep learning algorithm. Data was compared with overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were analyzed. The majority were Caucasian (87.2%) with a mean BMI of 34.7 kg/m2. PFS and OS did not differ between patients with BMI, SFA, VFA, SFD, VFD, or TPA ≥ the 50th percentile compared to <50th percentile (p = 0.91, 0.45, 0.71, 0.74, 0.60, and 0.74 respectively) and (p = 0.99, 0.59, 0.14, 0.77, and 0.85 respectively). When adjusting for prognostic factors, elevated VFA trended towards shorter OS (25.1 vs 59.5 months, HR = 1.68 [0.92-3.05]).Patients receiving bevacizumab had similar OS compared to those who did not (37.6 vs 44.5 months, p = 0.409). When stratified by adiposity markers, no subset demonstrated benefit from bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: Obesity has been associated with increased levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), the main target for bevacizumab therapy. Imaging measurements of VFA may provide prognostic information for patients with EC but no adiposity marker was predictive of improved response to bevacizumab.

Measurements of adiposity as prognostic biomarkers for survival with anti-angiogenic treatment in epithelial ovarian cancer: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group ancillary data analysis of GOG 218.

OBJECTIVE: Adiposity has been hypothesized to interfere with the activity of bevacizumab (BEV), an anti-angiogenic agent. Measurements of adiposity, BMI, surface fat area (SFA), and visceral fat area (VFA) were investigated as prognostic of oncologic outcomes among patients treated with chemotherapy, with or without BEV, on GOG 218, a prospective phase III trial. METHOD: Pretreatment computed tomography (CT) for 1538 GOG 218 participants were analyzed. Proportional hazards models assessed association between adiposity and overall survival (OS) adjusted for other prognostic factors. The predictive value of adiposity as a function of BEV treatment was assessed in 1019 patients randomized to either chemotherapy (CT) + placebo (P) → P or CT + BEV → BEV. RESULTS: After adjusting for prognostic factors, SFA was not associated with the overall hazard of death (p = 0.981). There was a non-significant 0.1% (p = 0.062) increase in hazard of death associated with a unit increase in VFA. When comparing the treatment HRs for patients who did and did not receive BEV, there was no association with SFA (p = 0.890) or VFA (p = 0.106). A non-significant 0.8% increase in the hazard of death with unit increase in BMI (p = 0.086) was observed. BMI values were not predictive of a longer survival for patients with BEV vs placebo (p = 0.606). CONCLUSION: Measures of adiposity strongly correlated to one another but were not predictive of efficacy for BEV. VFA is a weak prognostic factor.

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.

Phase I study of the checkpoint kinase 1 inhibitor GDC-0575 in combination with gemcitabine in patients with refractory solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1) inhibition following chemotherapy-elicited DNA damage overrides cell cycle arrest and induces mitotic catastrophe and cell death. GDC-0575 is a highly-selective oral small-molecule Chk1 inhibitor that results in tumor shrinkage and growth delay in xenograft models. We evaluated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic properties of GDC-0575 alone and in combination with gemcitabine. Antitumor activity and Chk1 pathway modulation were assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase I open-label study, in the dose escalation stage, patients were enrolled in a GDC-0575 monotherapy Arm (1) or GDC-0575 combination with gemcitabine Arm (2) to determine the maximum tolerated dose. Patients in arm 2 received either i.v. gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (arm 2a) or 500 mg/m2 (arm 2b), followed by GDC-0575 (45 or 80 mg, respectively, as RP2D). Stage II enrolled disease-specific cohorts. RESULTS: Of 102 patients treated, 70% were female, the median age was 59 years (range 27-85), and 47% were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS 0. The most common tumor type was breast (37%). The most frequent adverse events (all grades) related to GDC-0575 and/or gemcitabine were neutropenia (68%), anemia (48%), nausea (43%), fatigue (42%), and thrombocytopenia (35%). Maximum concentrations of GDC-0575 were achieved within 2 hours of dosing, and half-life was ∼23 hours. No pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction was observed between GDC-0575 and gemcitabine. Among patients treated with GDC-0575 and gemcitabine, there were four confirmed partial responses, three occurring in patients with tumors harboring TP53 mutation. Pharmacodynamic data were consistent with GDC-0575 inhibition of gemcitabine-induced expression of pCDK1/2. CONCLUSION: GDC-0575 can be safely administered as a monotherapy and in combination with gemcitabine; however, overall tolerability with gemcitabine was modest. Hematological toxicities were frequent but manageable. Preliminary antitumor activity was observed but limited to a small number of patients with a variety of refractory solid tumors treated with GDC-0575 and gemcitabine. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT01564251.

Anti-NaPi2b antibody-drug conjugate lifastuzumab vedotin (DNIB0600A) compared with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer in a randomized, open-label, phase II study.

Background: Lifastuzumab vedotin (LIFA) is a humanized anti-NaPi2b monoclonal antibody conjugated to a potent antimitotic agent, monomethyl auristatin E, which inhibits cell division by blocking the polymerization of tubulin. This study is the first to compare an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) to standard-of-care in ovarian cancer (OC) patients. Patients and methods: Platinum-resistant OC patients were randomized to receive LIFA [2.4 mg/kg, intravenously, every 3 weeks (Q3W)] or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) (40 mg/m2, intravenously, Q4W). NaPi2b expression and serum CA-125 and HE4 levels were assessed. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in intent-to-treat (ITT) and NaPi2b-high patients. Results: Ninety-five patients were randomized (47 LIFA; 48 PLD). The stratified PFS hazard ratio was 0.78 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.46-1.31; P = 0.34] with a median PFS of 5.3 versus 3.1 months (LIFA versus PLD arm, respectively) in the ITT population, and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.40-1.26; P = 0.24) with a median PFS of 5.3 months versus 3.4 months (LIFA versus PLD arm, respectively) in NaPi2b-high patients. The objective response rate was 34% (95% CI, 22% to 49%, LIFA) versus 15% (95% CI, 7% to 28%, PLD) in the ITT population (P = 0.03), and 36% (95% CI, 22% to 52%, LIFA) versus 14% (95% CI, 6% to 27%, PLD) in NaPi2b-high patients (P = 0.02). Toxicities included grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) (46% LIFA; 51% PLD), serious AEs (30% both arms), and AEs leading to discontinuation of drug (9% LIFA; 8% PLD). Five (11%) LIFA versus 2 (4%) PLD patients had grade ≥2 neuropathy. Conclusion: LIFA Q3W was well tolerated and improved objective response rate with a modest, nonstatistically significant improvement of PFS compared with PLD in platinum-resistant OC. While the response rate for the monomethyl auristatin E-containing ADC was promising, response durations were relatively short, thereby highlighting the importance of evaluating both response rates and duration of response when evaluating ADCs in OC. Clinical trials.gov: NCT01991210.

Rucaparib: the past, present, and future of a newly approved PARP inhibitor for ovarian cancer.

Rucaparib camsylate (CO-338, AG-014699, PF-01367338) is a potent PARP-1, PARP-2, and PARP-3 inhibitor. Phase I and II studies demonstrated clinical efficacy in both BRCA-mutated (inclusive of germline and somatic) ovarian tumors and ovarian tumors with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) loss of heterozygosity (LOH). Rucaparib has received the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for patients with deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic)-associated advanced ovarian cancer who have been treated with two or more chemotherapies. There is evidence to suggest that rucaparib has clinical efficacy against ovarian tumors with high HRD-LOH. Rucaparib's companion diagnostic FoundationFocus™ CDx BRCA test is the first FDA-approved next-generation sequencing-based companion diagnostic test designed to identify patients likely to respond to rucaparib. This article reviews the mechanisms of action, safety, approval, and indications for use of the PARP inhibitor rucaparib as well as future trials and use of rucaparib's companion diagnostic test.

Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference: individualized therapy and patient factors.

This manuscript reports the consensus statements regarding the design and conduct of clinical trials in patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), following deliberation at the Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (OCCC), held in Tokyo in November 2015. Three important questions were identified for discussion prior to the meeting and achieved consensus during the meeting: (i) What are the most important factors to be evaluated prior to initial therapy? (ii) What are the most important factors to be evaluated specifically in recurrent disease? (iii) Are there specific considerations for special patient subpopulations? In addition, we report a list of important unmet needs compiled during the consensus process, which is intended to guide future research initiatives.