Chasing Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Ovarian Cancer: Novel Combinations and Biomarker Discovery

A deep understanding of the tumor microenvironment and the recognition of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes as a prognostic factor have resulted in major milestones in immunotherapy that have led to therapeutic advances in treating many cancers. Yet, the translation of this knowledge to clinical success for ovarian cancer remains a challenge. The efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors as single agents or combined with chemotherapy has been unsatisfactory, leading to the exploration of alternative combination strategies with targeted agents (e.g., poly-ADP-ribose inhibitors (PARP)and angiogenesis inhibitors) and novel immunotherapy approaches. Among the different histological subtypes, clear cell ovarian cancer has shown a higher sensitivity to immunotherapy. A deeper understanding of the mechanism of immune resistance within the context of ovarian cancer and the identification of predictive biomarkers remain central discovery benchmarks to be realized. This will be critical to successfully define the precision use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of ovarian cancer.

Immune checkpoint blockades in gynecological cancers: A review of clinical trials

Advanced and recurrent gynecological cancers are associated with a poor prognosis and there is still a lack of effective treatments. Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy is an important element of cancer-targeted therapy and immunotherapy. The programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) pathways are the two main targets of ICB. In this study, we provide a comprehensive review of clinical evidence concerning ICB therapy in gynecological cancers and discuss future implications. All clinical trials of ICB therapy in gynecological cancers were reviewed. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov to collect data from completed and ongoing clinical trials. The clinical evidence regarding the efficacy of ICB agents in gynecological cancers were discussed. Six phase III clinical trials have reported their results of primary outcomes, and a total of 25 phase II clinical trials have been completed. As revealed in phase III trials, pembrolizumab (a PD-1 antibody) improved the overall survival and progression-free survival in endometrial cancer patients with mismatch repair deficiency and cervical cancer patients with expressions of PD-L1. Based on these findings, pembrolizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency as a cancer medication used to treat certain patients with endometrial cancer or cervical cancer. Other PD-1 antibodies, including dostarlimab and cemiplimab, also showed antitumor efficacy in clinical trials. Dostarlimab treatment showed an encouraging response rate in endometrial cancer patients with mismatch repair deficiency. Cemiplimab treatment led to a longer overall survival and a lower risk of death than chemotherapy among patients with recurrent cervical cancer. Three completed phase III trials investigated anti-PD-L1 agents (atezolizumab and avelumab) in the treatment of ovarian cancer. The results were not encouraging. Other strategies of ICB therapy which had showed potential clinical benefit in the treatment of gynecological cancers in early-phase trials need to be further evaluated in late-stage trials. The antitumor efficacy of ICB therapy is promising, and the key to making further progress in the treatment of gynecological cancers is to identify more biomarkers and explore innovative combination treatments with other targeted therapies.

Immunological control of ovarian carcinoma by chemotherapy and targeted anticancer agents

At odds with other solid tumors, epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is poorly sensitive to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), largely reflecting active immunosuppression despite CD8⁺ T cell infiltration at baseline. Accumulating evidence indicates that both conventional chemotherapeutics and targeted anticancer agents commonly used in the clinical management of EOC not only mediate a cytostatic and cytotoxic activity against malignant cells, but also drive therapeutically relevant immunostimulatory or immunosuppressive effects. Here, we discuss such an immunomodulatory activity, with a specific focus on molecular and cellular pathways that can be harnessed to develop superior combinatorial regimens for clinical EOC care.

Ovarian Cancer in the Era of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: State of the Art and Future Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer (OC) represents the eighth most common cancer and the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths among the female population. In an advanced setting, chemotherapy represents the first-choice treatment, despite a high recurrence rate. In the last ten years, immunotherapy based on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has profoundly modified the therapeutic scenario of many solid tumors. We sought to summarize the main findings regarding the clinical use of ICIs in OC.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Databases, and conference abstracts from international congresses (such as ASCO, ESMO, SGO) for clinical trials, focusing on ICIs both as monotherapy and as combinations in the advanced OC.

RESULTS

20 studies were identified, of which 16 were phase I or II and 4 phase III trials. These trials used ICIs targeting PD1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab), PD-L1 (avelumab, aterolizumab, durvalumab), and CTLA4 (ipilimumab, tremelimumab). There was no reported improvement in survival, and some trials were terminated early due to toxicity or lack of response. Combining ICIs with chemotherapy, anti-VEGF therapy, or PARP inhibitors improved response rates and survival in spite of a worse safety profile.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of biomarkers with a predictive role for ICIs' efficacy is mandatory. Moreover, genomic and immune profiling of OC might lead to better treatment options and facilitate the design of tailored trials.

Chemotherapy resistance in epithelial ovarian cancer: Mechanisms and emerging treatments

Ovarian cancer (OC) remains a fatal malignancy because most patients experience recurrent disease, which is resistant to chemotherapy. The outcomes for patients with platinum-resistant OC are poor, response rates to further chemotherapy are low and median survival is lower than 12 months. The complexity of platinum-resistant OC, which comprises a heterogeneous spectrum of diseases, is indeed far from being completely understood. Therefore, comprehending tumors' biological behaviour to identify reliable biomarkers, which may predict responses to therapies, is a demanding challenge to improve OC management. In the age of precision medicine, efforts to overcome platinum resistance in OC represent a dynamic and vast field in which innovative drugs and clinical trials rapidly develop. This review will present the exceptional biochemical environment implicated in OC and highlights mechanisms of chemoresistance. Furthermore, innovative molecules and new therapeutic opportunities are presented, along with currently available therapies and ongoing clinical trials.

Avelumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer (JAVELIN Ovarian 200): an open-label, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

Most patients with ovarian cancer will relapse after receiving frontline platinum-based chemotherapy and eventually develop platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory disease. We report results of avelumab alone or avelumab plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) compared with PLD alone in patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer.

METHODS

JAVELIN Ovarian 200 was an open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 trial, done at 149 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 24 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (maximum of three previous lines for platinum-sensitive disease, none for platinum-resistant disease) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks), avelumab plus PLD (40 mg/m² intravenously every 4 weeks), or PLD and stratified by disease platinum status, number of previous anticancer regimens, and bulky disease. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival by blinded independent central review and overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, with the objective to show whether avelumab alone or avelumab plus PLD is superior to PLD. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02580058. The trial is no longer enrolling patients and this is the final analysis of both primary endpoints.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 5, 2016, and May 16, 2017, 566 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (combination n=188; PLD n=190, avelumab n=188). At data cutoff (Sept 19, 2018), median duration of follow-up for overall survival was 18·4 months (IQR 15·6-21·9) for the combination group, 17·4 months (15·2-21·3) for the PLD group, and 18·2 months (15·8-21·2) for the avelumab group. Median progression-free survival by blinded independent central review was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·3-5·1) in the combination group, 3·5 months (2·1-4·0) in the PLD group, and 1·9 months (1·8-1·9) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·78 [repeated 93·1% CI 0·59-1·24], one-sided p=0·030; avelumab vs PLD: 1·68 [1·32-2·60], one-sided p>0·99). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 12·7-18·7) in the combination group, 13·1 months (11·8-15·5) in the PLD group, and 11·8 months (8·9-14·1) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·89 [repeated 88·85% CI 0·74-1·24], one-sided p=0·21; avelumab vs PLD: 1·14 [0·95-1·58], one-sided p=0·83]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (18 [10%] in the combination group vs nine [5%] in the PLD group vs none in the avelumab group), rash (11 [6%] vs three [2%] vs none), fatigue (ten [5%] vs three [2%] vs none), stomatitis (ten [5%] vs five [3%] vs none), anaemia (six [3%] vs nine [5%] vs three [2%]), neutropenia (nine [5%] vs nine [5%] vs none), and neutrophil count decreased (eight [5%] vs seven [4%] vs none). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32 (18%) patients in the combination group, 19 (11%) in the PLD group, and 14 (7%) in the avelumab group. Treatment-related adverse events resulted in death in one patient each in the PLD group (sepsis) and avelumab group (intestinal obstruction).

INTERPRETATION

Neither avelumab plus PLD nor avelumab alone significantly improved progression-free survival or overall survival versus PLD. These results provide insights for patient selection in future studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer.

FUNDING

Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Immune Therapy Opportunities in Ovarian Cancer

Immunotherapy has emerged as a highly promising approach in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy, PARP inhibitors (PARPis), neoantigen vaccines, and personalized T-cell therapy have been associated with encouraging clinical activity in a small subset of patients. To increase the proportion of patients who are likely to derive benefit, it will be important not only to generate sufficient numbers of antitumor T cells but also to overcome multiple inhibitory networks in the ovarian tumor microenvironment (TME). Therefore, a major direction is to develop biomarkers that would predict responsiveness to different types of immunotherapies and allow treatment selection based on the results. Moreover, such biomarkers would allow rational combination of immunotherapies while minimizing toxicities. In this review, we provide progress on immune therapies and future directions for maximally exploiting immune-based strategies for the treatment of ovarian cancer.

Immunotherapy For Ovarian Cancer: Recent Advances And Combination Therapeutic Approaches

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the most lethal gynaecological cancer. Although many advances have been made in therapeutic strategies, the global standard of care still remains radical surgery plus chemotherapy, but new scenarios need to be explored to improve survival. The role of immunotherapy in EOC treatment is controversial. Results obtained from studies evaluating immunotherapy are contradictory: in particular data on survival are not as good as expected when immunotherapy was administered alone, and other data are still immature. Thus, significant efforts must be devoted to finding new strategies for the use of immunotherapy. The aim of this paper is to review the most recent findings of the use of immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, with a particular focus on combination approaches.

Does the Immunocompetent Status of Cancer Patients Have an Impact on Therapeutic DC Vaccination Strategies?

Although different types of therapeutic vaccines against established cancerous lesions in various indications have been developed since the 1990s, their clinical benefit is still very limited. This observed lack of effectiveness in cancer eradication may be partially due to the often deficient immunocompetent status of cancer patients, which may facilitate tumor development by different mechanisms, including immune evasion. The most frequently used cellular vehicle in clinical trials are dendritic cells (DCs), thanks to their crucial role in initiating and directing immune responses. Viable vaccination options using DCs are available, with a positive toxicity profile. For these reasons, despite their limited therapeutic outcomes, DC vaccination is currently considered an additional immunotherapeutic option that still needs to be further explored. In this review, we propose potential actions aimed at improving DC vaccine efficacy by counteracting the detrimental mechanisms recognized to date and implicated in establishing a poor immunocompetent status in cancer patients.