1
|
Tjokrowidjaja A, Friedlander ML, Ledermann JA, Coleman RL, Mirza MR, Matulonis UA, Pujade-Lauraine E, Lord SJ, Scott CL, Goble S, York W, Lee CK. Poor Concordance Between Cancer Antigen-125 and RECIST Assessment for Progression in Patients With Platinum-Sensitive Relapsed Ovarian Cancer on Maintenance Therapy With a Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor. J Clin Oncol 2024; 42:1301-1310. [PMID: 38215359 DOI: 10.1200/jco.23.01182] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2023] [Revised: 09/22/2023] [Accepted: 10/25/2023] [Indexed: 01/14/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) is recommended by treatment guidelines and widely used to diagnose ovarian cancer recurrence. The value of CA-125 as a surrogate for disease progression (PD) and its concordance with radiologic progression are unclear, particularly for women with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) who have responded to chemotherapy and treated with maintenance poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi). METHODS In this pooled analysis of four randomized trials of maintenance PARPi or placebo (Study 19, SOLO2, ARIEL3, and NOVA), we extracted data on CA-125 PD as defined by Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup criteria and RECIST v1.1. We evaluated the concordance between CA-125 and RECIST PD and reported on the negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV). RESULTS Of 1,262 participants (n = 818 PARPi, n = 444 placebo), 403 (32%) had CA-125 PD, and of these, 366 had concordant RECIST PD (PPV, 91% [95% CI, 88 to 93]). However, of 859 (68%) without CA-125 PD, 382 also did not have RECIST PD (NPV, 44% [95% CI, 41 to 48]). Within the treatment arms, PPV remained high (PARPi, 91% [95% CI, 86 to 94]; placebo, 91% [95% CI, 86 to 95]) but NPV was lower on placebo (PARPi, 53% [95% CI, 49 to 57]; placebo, 25% [95% CI, 20 to 31]). Of 477 with RECIST-only PD, most (95%) had a normal CA-125 at the start of maintenance therapy and the majority (n = 304, 64%) had CA-125 that remained within normal range. Solid organ recurrence without peritoneal disease was more common in those with RECIST-only PD than in those with CA-125 and RECIST PD (36% v 24%; P < .001). CONCLUSION In patients with PSROC treated with maintenance PARPi, almost half with RECIST PD did not have CA-125 PD, challenging current guidelines. Periodic computed tomography imaging should be considered as part of surveillance, particularly in those with a normal CA-125 at the start of maintenance therapy and on treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angelina Tjokrowidjaja
- National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
- Australia New Zealand Gynecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, Australia
| | - M L Friedlander
- Australia New Zealand Gynecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, Australia
- University of New South Wales Clinical School, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- University College London (UCL) Cancer Institute and UCL Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Mansoor R Mirza
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet-Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Nordic Society of Gynecological Oncology, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Ursula A Matulonis
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Eric Pujade-Lauraine
- Université Paris Descartes, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
- Group d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens (GINECO), Paris, France
| | - Sarah J Lord
- National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Clare L Scott
- Australia New Zealand Gynecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, Australia
- Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Cancer Biology and Stem Cells Division, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | | | - Chee K Lee
- National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
- Australia New Zealand Gynecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ledermann JA, Matias-Guiu X, Amant F, Concin N, Davidson B, Fotopoulou C, González-Martin A, Gourley C, Leary A, Lorusso D, Banerjee S, Chiva L, Cibula D, Colombo N, Croce S, Eriksson AG, Falandry C, Fischerova D, Harter P, Joly F, Lazaro C, Lok C, Mahner S, Marmé F, Marth C, McCluggage WG, McNeish IA, Morice P, Nicum S, Oaknin A, Pérez-Fidalgo JA, Pignata S, Ramirez PT, Ray-Coquard I, Romero I, Scambia G, Sehouli J, Shapira-Frommer R, Sundar S, Tan DSP, Taskiran C, van Driel WJ, Vergote I, Planchamp F, Sessa C, Fagotti A. ESGO-ESMO-ESP consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology and early, advanced and recurrent disease. Ann Oncol 2024; 35:248-266. [PMID: 38307807 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.11.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2023] [Revised: 11/17/2023] [Accepted: 11/28/2023] [Indexed: 02/04/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J A Ledermann
- Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK.
| | - X Matias-Guiu
- CIBERONC, Madrid; Department of Pathology, Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova, IRBLLEIDA, University of Lleida, Lleida; Department of Pathology, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, IDIBELL, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
| | - F Amant
- Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Gynecology, Center for Gynecological Oncology Amsterdam, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - N Concin
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria; Department of Gynaecology and Gynaecologic Oncology, Evang. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
| | - B Davidson
- Department of Pathology, Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo; Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - C Fotopoulou
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - A González-Martin
- Department of Medical Oncology and Program in Solid Tumours-Cima, Cancer Center Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - C Gourley
- Cancer Research UK Scotland Centre, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - A Leary
- Department of Medicine, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - D Lorusso
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome; Department of Woman, Child and Public Health, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | - S Banerjee
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - L Chiva
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Cancer Center Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Navarra, Spain
| | - D Cibula
- Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - N Colombo
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia IRCCS, Milan; Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - S Croce
- Department of Biopathology, Bergonié Institut, Bordeaux, France
| | - A G Eriksson
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - C Falandry
- Institute of Aging, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon; CarMeN Laboratory, INSERM U1060/Université Lyon 1/INRAE U1397/Hospices Civils Lyon, Pierre-Bénite, France
| | - D Fischerova
- Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - P Harter
- Department of Gynaecology and Gynaecologic Oncology, Evang. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany; Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) Study Group, Germany
| | - F Joly
- GINECO Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Centre François-Baclesse, University of Caen Normandy, Caen, France
| | - C Lazaro
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO-IDIBELL-CIBERONC), L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
| | - C Lok
- Department of Gynecology, Center for Gynecological Oncology Amsterdam, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S Mahner
- Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) Study Group, Germany; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich
| | - F Marmé
- Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) Study Group, Germany; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Mannheim, Mannheim; Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
| | - C Marth
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - W G McCluggage
- Department of Pathology, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK
| | - I A McNeish
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - P Morice
- Department of Gynecologic Surgery, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France
| | - S Nicum
- Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK
| | - A Oaknin
- Gynaecologic Cancer Programme, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona
| | - J A Pérez-Fidalgo
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clínico Universitario - INCLIVA, CIBERONC, Valencia, Spain
| | - S Pignata
- Department of Urology and Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori di Napoli, IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Napoli, Italy
| | - P T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, USA
| | - I Ray-Coquard
- Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Léon Bérard, University Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | - I Romero
- Department of Medical Oncology, Instituto Valenciano Oncologia, Valencia, Spain
| | - G Scambia
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome; Department of Woman, Child and Public Health, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | - J Sehouli
- North-Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology (NOGGO), Berlin; Department of Gynecology with Center for Oncological Surgery, Charité Berlin University of Medicine, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - S Sundar
- Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham; Pan Birmingham Gynaecological Cancer Centre, City Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - D S P Tan
- Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; National University of Singapore (NUS) Centre for Cancer Research, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Cancer Science Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Department of Haematology-Oncology, National University Cancer Institute Singapore, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - C Taskiran
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, School of Medicine, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - W J van Driel
- Department of Gynecology, Center for Gynecological Oncology Amsterdam, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - I Vergote
- Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | - C Sessa
- Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), Bellinzona, Switzerland
| | - A Fagotti
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome; Department of Woman, Child and Public Health, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Roncolato F, King MT, O'Connell RL, Lee YC, Joly F, Hilpert F, Lanceley A, Yoshida Y, Bryce J, Donnellan P, Oza A, Avall-Lundqvist E, Berek JS, Ledermann JA, Berton D, Sehouli J, Kaminsky MC, Stockler MR, Friedlander M. Hidden in plain sight - Survival consequences of baseline symptom burden in women with recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2024; 185:128-137. [PMID: 38412736 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.02.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/28/2023] [Revised: 02/15/2024] [Accepted: 02/18/2024] [Indexed: 02/29/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To describe the baseline symptom burden(SB) experienced by patients(pts) with recurrent ovarian cancer(ROC) prior and associations with progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). METHODS We analysed baseline SB reported by pts. with platinum resistant/refractory ROC (PRR-ROC) or potentially‑platinum sensitive ROC receiving their third or greater line of chemotherapy (PPS-ROC≥3) enrolled in the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup - Symptom Benefit Study (GCIG-SBS) using the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns (MOST). The severity of baseline symptoms was correlated with PFS and OS. RESULTS The 948 pts. reported substantial baseline SB. Almost 80% reported mild to severe pain, and 75% abdominal symptoms. Shortness of breath was reported by 60% and 90% reported fatigue. About 50% reported moderate to severe anxiety, and 35% moderate to severe depression. Most (89%) reported 1 or more symptoms as moderate or severe, 59% scored 6 or more symptoms moderate or severe, and 46% scored 9 or more symptoms as moderate or severe. Higher SB was associated with significantly shortened PFS and OS; five symptoms had OS hazard ratios larger than 2 for both moderate and severe symptom cut-offs (trouble eating, vomiting, indigestion, loss of appetite, and nausea; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION Pts with ROC reported high SB prior to starting palliative chemotherapy, similar among PRR-ROC and PPS-ROC≥3. High SB was strongly associated with early progression and death. SB should be actively managed and used to stratify patients in clinical trials. Clinical trials should measure and report symptom burden and the impact of treatment on symptom control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Felicia Roncolato
- The University of Sydney, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, School of Medicine, Australia; Western Sydney University, Australia; Department of Medical Oncology, Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre, Campbelltown Hospital, Campbelltown, NSW, Australia
| | - Madeleine T King
- The University of Sydney, School of Psychology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Rachel L O'Connell
- The University of Sydney, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, School of Medicine, Australia
| | - Yeh Chen Lee
- The University of Sydney, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, School of Medicine, Australia; School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, Australia; Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales and Royal Hospital for Women, Randwick, NSW, Australia
| | - Florence Joly
- Group d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens (GINECO), Paris, France; Centre Francois Baclesse, Caen, France
| | - Felix Hilpert
- Arbeitsgesmeinschaft Gynakologische Onkologie Studiengruppe (AGO) und North-Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology (NOGGO), Kiel, Germany; Onkologisches Therapiezentrum, Krankenhaus, Jerusalem, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Anne Lanceley
- Department of Women's Cancer, UCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, UK
| | - Yoshio Yoshida
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Fukui, Japan
| | - Jane Bryce
- Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynecologic malignancies (MITO), Napoli, Italy; Ascension St. John Clinical Research Institute, Tulsa, OK, USA; Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Napoli, Campania, Italy
| | - Paul Donnellan
- Cancer Trials Ireland, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland
| | - Amit Oza
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Elisabeth Avall-Lundqvist
- Nordic Society of Gynaecological Oncology (NSGO), Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Oncology and Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden; Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinksa Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Jonathan S Berek
- Cooperative Gynecologic Oncology Investigators (COGI), Stanford, CA, USA; Stanford Women's Cancer Centre, Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | | | - Dominique Berton
- Group d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens (GINECO), Paris, France; Institut de Cancerologie de l'Ouest, Centre Rene, Gauducheau, Saint Herblain, France
| | - Jalid Sehouli
- Arbeitsgesmeinschaft Gynakologische Onkologie Studiengruppe (AGO) und North-Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology (NOGGO), Berlin, Germany; Department of Gynecology and Oncological Surgery, Charite Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Marie-Christine Kaminsky
- Group d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens (GINECO), Paris, France; Institut de Cancerologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre Les Nancy, France
| | - Martin R Stockler
- The University of Sydney, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, School of Medicine, Australia
| | - Michael Friedlander
- School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, Australia; Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales and Royal Hospital for Women, Randwick, NSW, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Arend RC, Monk BJ, Shapira-Frommer R, Haggerty AF, Alvarez EA, Amit A, Alvarez Secord A, Muller C, Casado Herraez A, Herzog TJ, Tewari KS, Cohen JG, Huang M, Yachnin A, Holeman LL, Ledermann JA, Rachmilewitz Minei T, Buyse M, Fain Shmueli S, Lavi M, Harats D, Penson RT. Ofranergene Obadenovec (Ofra-Vec, VB-111) With Weekly Paclitaxel for Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer: Randomized Controlled Phase III Trial (OVAL Study/GOG 3018). J Clin Oncol 2024; 42:170-179. [PMID: 37906726 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.02915] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/28/2022] [Revised: 06/10/2023] [Accepted: 08/26/2023] [Indexed: 11/02/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the addition of ofranergene obadenovec (ofra-vec, VB-111), a novel gene-based anticancer targeted therapy, to once a week paclitaxel in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). METHODS This placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03398655) randomly assigned patients with PROC 1:1 to receive intravenous ofra-vec every 8 weeks with once a week IV paclitaxel or placebo with paclitaxel until disease progression. The dual primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by Blinded Independent Central Review. RESULTS Between December 2017 and March 2022, 409 patients were randomly assigned. The median PFS was 5.29 months in the ofra-vec arm and 5.36 months in the control arm, hazard ratio (HR) 1.03 (CI, 0.83 to 1.29; P = .7823). The median OS with ofra-vec was 13.37 months versus 13.14 months, HR 0.97 (CI, 0.75 to 1.27; P = .8440). Objective response rates (ORRs) per RECIST 1.1 were similar in both arms: 28.9% with ofra-vec versus 29.6% with control. In both treatment arms, response to CA-125 was a substantial prognostic factor for both PFS and OS. In the ofra-vec arm, the HR in CA-125 responders compared with that in nonresponders for PFS was 0.2428 (CI, 0.1642 to 0.3588), and for OS, the HR was 0.3343 (CI, 0.2134 to 0.5238). Safety profile was characterized by common transient flu-like symptoms such as fever and chills. CONCLUSION The addition of ofra-vec to paclitaxel did not improve PFS or OS. The PFS and ORR in the control arm exceeded the results that were anticipated on the basis of the AURELIA chemotherapy control arm. CA-125 response was a substantial prognostic biomarker for PFS and OS in patients with PROC treated with paclitaxel.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca C Arend
- University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL
| | - Bradley J Monk
- HonorHealth Research Institute, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ
| | | | | | | | - Amnon Amit
- Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
| | | | | | | | - Thomas J Herzog
- University of Cincinnati Cancer Center, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
| | | | | | - Marilyn Huang
- Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, FL
| | | | - Laura L Holeman
- Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK
| | | | | | - Marc Buyse
- International Drug Development Institute, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Nuttall Musson E, Miller RE, Mansour MR, Lockley M, Ledermann JA, Payne EM. Monitoring clone dynamics and reversibility in clonal haematopoiesis and myelodysplastic neoplasm associated with PARP inhibitor therapy-a role for early monitoring and intervention. Leukemia 2024; 38:215-218. [PMID: 37978317 PMCID: PMC10776406 DOI: 10.1038/s41375-023-02040-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2023] [Revised: 08/14/2023] [Accepted: 09/13/2023] [Indexed: 11/19/2023]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Rowan E Miller
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Marc R Mansour
- UCL Cancer Institute, London, UK
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Michelle Lockley
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Centre for Cancer Genomics and Computational Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- UCL Cancer Institute, London, UK
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Elspeth M Payne
- UCL Cancer Institute, London, UK
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Shovlin CL, Patel D, Bielowka A, Ledermann JA, Modarresi A, Bernabeu-Herrero ME, Aldred MA, Alsafi A. MEK 1 inhibition and bleeding in hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia. Br J Haematol 2024; 204:361-365. [PMID: 37872650 DOI: 10.1111/bjh.19167] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2023] [Revised: 10/06/2023] [Accepted: 10/10/2023] [Indexed: 10/25/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Claire L Shovlin
- National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
- NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Dilip Patel
- National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
- NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK
| | - Adrianna Bielowka
- National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
- NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK
| | | | - Atieh Modarresi
- National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Maria E Bernabeu-Herrero
- National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
- NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK
| | | | - Ali Alsafi
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Ledermann JA, Shapira-Frommer R, Santin AD, Lisyanskaya AS, Pignata S, Vergote I, Raspagliesi F, Sonke GS, Birrer M, Provencher DM, Sehouli J, Colombo N, González-Martín A, Oaknin A, Ottevanger PB, Rudaitis V, Kobie J, Nebozhyn M, Edmondson M, Sun Y, Cristescu R, Jelinic P, Keefe SM, Matulonis UA. Molecular determinants of clinical outcomes of pembrolizumab in recurrent ovarian cancer: Exploratory analysis of KEYNOTE-100. Gynecol Oncol 2023; 178:119-129. [PMID: 37862791 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.09.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2023] [Revised: 09/15/2023] [Accepted: 09/23/2023] [Indexed: 10/22/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This prespecified exploratory analysis evaluated the association of gene expression signatures, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and multiplex immunohistochemistry (mIHC) tumor microenvironment-associated cell phenotypes with clinical outcomes of pembrolizumab in advanced recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) from the phase II KEYNOTE-100 study. METHODS Pembrolizumab-treated patients with evaluable RNA-sequencing (n = 317), whole exome sequencing (n = 293), or select mIHC (n = 125) data were evaluated. The association between outcomes (objective response rate [ORR], progression-free survival [PFS], and overall survival [OS]) and gene expression signatures (T-cell-inflamed gene expression profile [TcellinfGEP] and 10 non-TcellinfGEP signatures), TMB, and prespecified mIHC cell phenotype densities as continuous variables was evaluated using logistic (ORR) and Cox proportional hazards regression (PFS; OS). One-sided p-values were calculated at prespecified α = 0.05 for TcellinfGEP, TMB, and mIHC cell phenotypes and at α = 0.10 for non-TcellinfGEP signatures; all but TcellinfGEP and TMB were adjusted for multiplicity. RESULTS No evidence of associations between ORR and key axes of gene expression was observed. Negative associations were observed between outcomes and TcellinfGEP-adjusted glycolysis (PFS, adjusted-p = 0.019; OS, adjusted-p = 0.085) and hypoxia (PFS, adjusted-p = 0.064) signatures. TMB as a continuous variable was not associated with outcomes (p > 0.05). Positive associations were observed between densities of myeloid cell phenotypes CD11c+ and CD11c+/MHCII-/CD163-/CD68- in the tumor compartment and ORR (adjusted-p = 0.025 and 0.013, respectively). CONCLUSIONS This exploratory analysis in advanced ROC did not find evidence for associations between gene expression signatures and outcomes of pembrolizumab. mIHC analysis suggests CD11c+ and CD11c+/MHCII-/CD163-/CD68- phenotypes representing myeloid cell populations may be associated with improved outcomes with pembrolizumab in advanced ROC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02674061.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan A Ledermann
- Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
| | - Ronnie Shapira-Frommer
- The Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer Hospital, Ramat Gan, Israel
| | - Alessandro D Santin
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States
| | - Alla S Lisyanskaya
- Department of Oncogynecology, St. Petersburg City Clinical Oncology Dispensary, St. Petersburg, Russia
| | - Sandro Pignata
- Department of Urology and Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, Italy
| | - Ignace Vergote
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | - Gabe S Sonke
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Michael Birrer
- UAMS Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute, Little Rock, AR, United States
| | - Diane M Provencher
- Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Institut du Cancer de Montréal, Montreal, Canada
| | - Jalid Sehouli
- Gynecology with Center of Oncological Surgery, Charité-Medical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Nicoletta Colombo
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy; European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Antonio González-Martín
- Department of Medical Oncology and Program in Solid Tumors-Cima, Cancer Center Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Ana Oaknin
- Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain
| | - P B Ottevanger
- Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Vilius Rudaitis
- Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vilnius University Institute of Clinical Medicine, Vilnius, Lithuania
| | - Julie Kobie
- Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, United States
| | | | | | - Yuan Sun
- Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, United States
| | | | | | | | - Ursula A Matulonis
- Division of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Bonaca MP, Moslehi JJ, Ledermann JA, Michelon E, Wei C, Moran M, Monk BJ, Pujade-Lauraine E. Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Patients With Ovarian Cancer Treated With Avelumab, Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin, or Both. Oncologist 2023; 28:e977-e980. [PMID: 37665777 PMCID: PMC10546816 DOI: 10.1093/oncolo/oyad213] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2023] [Accepted: 06/22/2023] [Indexed: 09/06/2023] Open
Abstract
In the phase III JAVELIN Ovarian 200 trial, 566 patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer were randomized 1:1:1 to receive avelumab alone, avelumab plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), or PLD alone. Cardiac monitoring was included for all patients. We report left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) data from the trial. Grade ≥3 cardiac adverse events (AEs) occurred in 4 (2.1%), 1 (0.5%), and 0 patients in the avelumab, combination, and PLD arms, respectively. LVEF decreases of ≥10% to below institutional lower limit of normal at any time during treatment were observed in 1 (0.8%), 3 (1.9%), and 2 (1.5%) patients, respectively; 4 had subsequent assessments, and these showed transient decreases. No patient had a cardiovascular AE related to LVEF decrease. This analysis is, to our knowledge, the first analysis of LVEF in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER NCT02580058.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marc P Bonaca
- Colorado Prevention Center Clinical Research, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Javid J Moslehi
- Section of Cardio-Oncology and Immunology, Division of Cardiology and the Cardiovascular Research Institute, UCSF School of Medicine, Cardiovascular Research Institute (CVRI), San Francisco, CA, USA
| | | | | | | | - Michael Moran
- Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Berlin, Germany (Affiliation at the time the research was conducted)
| | - Bradley J Monk
- Arizona Oncology (US Oncology Network), University of Arizona and Creighton University, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
González-Martín A, Harter P, Leary A, Lorusso D, Miller RE, Pothuri B, Ray-Coquard I, Tan DSP, Bellet E, Oaknin A, Ledermann JA. Newly diagnosed and relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2023; 34:833-848. [PMID: 37597580 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.07.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2023] [Revised: 07/26/2023] [Accepted: 07/28/2023] [Indexed: 08/21/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- A González-Martín
- Department of Medical Oncology and Program in Solid Tumors Cima-Universidad de Navarra, Cancer Center Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid and Pamplona, Spain
| | - P Harter
- Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Ev. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
| | - A Leary
- Department of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, INSERM U981, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France
| | - D Lorusso
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCSS, Rome; Department of Woman, Child and Public Health, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | - R E Miller
- Department of Medical Oncology, University College Hospital, London; Department of Medical Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK
| | - B Pothuri
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, USA
| | - I Ray-Coquard
- Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Leon Bernard and Université Claude Bernard Lyon I, Lyon, France
| | - D S P Tan
- Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; National University of Singapore (NUS) Centre for Cancer Research, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore; Cancer Science Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore; Department of Haematology-Oncology, National University Cancer Institute, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - E Bellet
- ACTO-Alleanza contro il Tumore Ovarico, Milan, Italy
| | - A Oaknin
- Gynaecologic Cancer Programme, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain
| | - J A Ledermann
- Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Zhang H, AbdulJabbar K, Grunewald T, Akarca AU, Hagos Y, Sobhani F, Lecat CSY, Patel D, Lee L, Rodriguez-Justo M, Yong K, Ledermann JA, Le Quesne J, Hwang ES, Marafioti T, Yuan Y. Self-supervised deep learning for highly efficient spatial immunophenotyping. EBioMedicine 2023; 95:104769. [PMID: 37672979 PMCID: PMC10493897 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104769] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2023] [Revised: 08/07/2023] [Accepted: 08/08/2023] [Indexed: 09/08/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Efficient biomarker discovery and clinical translation depend on the fast and accurate analytical output from crucial technologies such as multiplex imaging. However, reliable cell classification often requires extensive annotations. Label-efficient strategies are urgently needed to reveal diverse cell distribution and spatial interactions in large-scale multiplex datasets. METHODS This study proposed Self-supervised Learning for Antigen Detection (SANDI) for accurate cell phenotyping while mitigating the annotation burden. The model first learns intrinsic pairwise similarities in unlabelled cell images, followed by a classification step to map learnt features to cell labels using a small set of annotated references. We acquired four multiplex immunohistochemistry datasets and one imaging mass cytometry dataset, comprising 2825 to 15,258 single-cell images to train and test the model. FINDINGS With 1% annotations (18-114 cells), SANDI achieved weighted F1-scores ranging from 0.82 to 0.98 across the five datasets, which was comparable to the fully supervised classifier trained on 1828-11,459 annotated cells (-0.002 to -0.053 of averaged weighted F1-score, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, P = 0.31). Leveraging the immune checkpoint markers stained in ovarian cancer slides, SANDI-based cell identification reveals spatial expulsion between PD1-expressing T helper cells and T regulatory cells, suggesting an interplay between PD1 expression and T regulatory cell-mediated immunosuppression. INTERPRETATION By striking a fine balance between minimal expert guidance and the power of deep learning to learn similarity within abundant data, SANDI presents new opportunities for efficient, large-scale learning for histology multiplex imaging data. FUNDING This study was funded by the Royal Marsden/ICR National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hanyun Zhang
- Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Division of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Khalid AbdulJabbar
- Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Division of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Tami Grunewald
- Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK
| | - Ayse U Akarca
- Department of Cellular Pathology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Yeman Hagos
- Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Division of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Faranak Sobhani
- Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Division of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Catherine S Y Lecat
- Research Department of Hematology, Cancer Institute, University College London, UK
| | - Dominic Patel
- Research Department of Hematology, Cancer Institute, University College London, UK
| | - Lydia Lee
- Research Department of Hematology, Cancer Institute, University College London, UK
| | | | - Kwee Yong
- Research Department of Hematology, Cancer Institute, University College London, UK
| | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK
| | - John Le Quesne
- School of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK; CRUK Beatson Institute, Garscube Estate, Glasgow, UK; Department of Histopathology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK
| | - E Shelley Hwang
- Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Teresa Marafioti
- Department of Cellular Pathology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Yinyin Yuan
- Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Division of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Morgan RD, Clamp AR, Barnes BM, Timms K, Schlecht H, Yarram-Smith L, Wallis Y, Valganon-Petrizan M, MacMahon S, White R, Morgan S, McKenna S, Hudson E, Tookman L, George A, Manchanda R, Sundar SS, Nicum S, Brenton JD, Kristeleit RS, Banerjee S, McNeish IA, Ledermann JA, Taylor SS, Evans DGR, Jayson GC. Homologous recombination deficiency in newly diagnosed FIGO stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer: a multi-national observational study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023; 33:1253-1259. [PMID: 37072323 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-004211] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/20/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance therapy improves survival outcomes in women with newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer with a deficiency in homologous recombination. We report data from the first year of routine homologous recombination deficiency testing in the National Health Service (NHS) in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland between April 2021 and April 2022. METHODS The Myriad myChoice companion diagnostic was used to test DNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue in women with newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. Tumors with homologous recombination deficiency were those with a BRCA1/2 mutation and/or a Genomic Instability Score (GIS) ≥42. Testing was coordinated by the NHS Genomic Laboratory Hub network. RESULTS The myChoice assay was performed on 2829 tumors. Of these, 2474 (87%) and 2178 (77%) successfully underwent BRCA1/2 and GIS testing, respectively. All complete and partial assay failures occurred due to low tumor cellularity and/or low tumor DNA yield. 385 tumors (16%) contained a BRCA1/2 mutation and 814 (37%) had a GIS ≥42. Tumors with a GIS ≥42 were more likely to be BRCA1/2 wild-type (n=510) than BRCA1/2 mutant (n=304). The distribution of GIS was bimodal, with BRCA1/2 mutant tumors having a higher mean score than BRCA1/2 wild-type tumors (61 vs 33, respectively, χ2 test p<0.0001). CONCLUSION This is the largest real-world evaluation of homologous recombination deficiency testing in newly diagnosed FIGO stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. It is important to select tumor tissue with adequate tumor content and quality to reduce the risk of assay failure. The rapid uptake of testing across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland demonstrates the power of centralized NHS funding, center specialization, and the NHS Genomic Laboratory Hub network.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert D Morgan
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Andrew R Clamp
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Bethany M Barnes
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Helene Schlecht
- North West Genomic Laboratory Hub, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Yvonne Wallis
- Central and South Genomic Laboratory Hub, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Mikel Valganon-Petrizan
- North Thames Genomic Laboratory Hub, The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, UK
| | - Suzanne MacMahon
- North Thames Genomic Laboratory Hub, The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, UK
| | - Rhian White
- All Wales Genomics Laboratory, Institute of Medical Genetics, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - Sian Morgan
- All Wales Genomics Laboratory, Institute of Medical Genetics, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | | | | | | | - Angela George
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
- Department of Health Services Research, The Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary's University of London, London, UK
| | - Sudha S Sundar
- Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK
- Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Shibani Nicum
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- UCL Cancer Institute, London, UK
| | - James D Brenton
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
- CRUK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Susana Banerjee
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Iain A McNeish
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
- Ovarian Cancer Action Research Centre, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- UCL Cancer Institute, London, UK
| | - Stephen S Taylor
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - D Gareth R Evans
- Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Evolution, Infection and Genomics, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Gordon C Jayson
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Peipert JD, Goble S, Isaacson J, Tang X, Wallace K, Coleman RL, Ledermann JA, Cella D. Patient-reported outcomes of maintenance rucaparib in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma in ARIEL3, a phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Gynecol Oncol 2023; 175:1-7. [PMID: 37262961 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.05.060] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2023] [Revised: 05/15/2023] [Accepted: 05/17/2023] [Indexed: 06/03/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare NFOSI-18 Disease Related Symptoms - Physical (DRSP), Total score, and side effect bother between maintenance rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) vs. placebo in the phase III ARIEL3 trial. METHODS ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) included patients with ovarian carcinoma who responded to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy. The NFOSI-18 DRS-P and Total scales were secondary endpoints. The NFOSI-18 contains a side effect impact item (GP5): "I am bothered by side effects of treatment." We compared treatment arms on change from baseline of DRS-P and Total scores using mixed models with repeated measures (MRMM). Time to first and confirmed deterioration of NFOSI-18 DRS-P and Total scales were analyzed using Cox regression. We also calculated the proportion of patients reporting moderate to high side effect bother on GP5. RESULTS In the intention-to-treat (ITT) cohort, mean change from baseline favored the placebo. Compared to placebo, rucaparib was associated with higher risk of deterioration [e.g., 4-point deteriorator definition hazard ratio (HR): 1.85; 95% CI: 1.46, 2.36; median time to first deterioration on DRSP: 1.9 vs. 7.0 months]. Confirmed deterioration results resembled those for first deterioration. Proportions of patients reporting moderate/high side effect bother on GP5 fluctuated around 20% across treatment cycles. Results in BRCA mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts were generally similar to those from the ITT cohort. CONCLUSION This placebo-controlled study in the maintenance therapy setting provides a unique view of the impact of PARP inhibition on the patient-reported outcomes that are commonly used in ovarian cancer clinical trials. Information regarding the adverse side effect impact of PARP inhibitors should be weighed against their clinical benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John Devin Peipert
- Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
| | | | | | - Xiaodan Tang
- Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Katrine Wallace
- Clovis Oncology, Boulder, CO, USA; Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health, Chicago, IL, USA
| | | | | | - David Cella
- Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
O'Malley DM, Ledermann JA, Coleman RL. Response to letter to the editor "AML and MDS associated with PARP inhibitor treatment of ovarian cancer". Gynecol Oncol 2023; 171:164-165. [PMID: 36774327 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.01.033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2023] [Accepted: 01/27/2023] [Indexed: 02/11/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- David M O'Malley
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, The Ohio State University, James Comprehensive Cancer Center, 320 West 10(th) Avenue, M210 Starling Loving, Columbus, OH 43210, United States of America. david.o'
| | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London and UCL Hospitals, London, UK
| | - Robert L Coleman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Andersen Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Sessa C, Balmaña J, Bober SL, Cardoso MJ, Colombo N, Curigliano G, Domchek SM, Evans DG, Fischerova D, Harbeck N, Kuhl C, Lemley B, Levy-Lahad E, Lambertini M, Ledermann JA, Loibl S, Phillips KA, Paluch-Shimon S. Risk reduction and screening of cancer in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndromes: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline. Ann Oncol 2023; 34:33-47. [PMID: 36307055 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.10.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 38.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2022] [Revised: 10/05/2022] [Accepted: 10/06/2022] [Indexed: 02/03/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- C Sessa
- Medical Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland
| | - J Balmaña
- Medical Oncology Hospital Vall d'Hebron and Hereditary Cancer Genetics Group, Vall d'Hebron Institut of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain
| | - S L Bober
- Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - M J Cardoso
- Champalimaud Foundation, Breast Unit and Faculdade de Medicina, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - N Colombo
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia e IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - G Curigliano
- Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies Division, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - S M Domchek
- Basser Center for BRCA, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA
| | - D G Evans
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution Infection and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Manchester, UK; Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, MAHSC, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - D Fischerova
- Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - N Harbeck
- Breast Center, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Comprehensive Cancer Center Munich, LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany
| | - C Kuhl
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Aachen, University Hospital Aachen (UKA), RWTH Aachen, Germany
| | - B Lemley
- KIU - Patient Organisation for Women with Gynaecological Cancer, Copenhagen, Denmark; Clinical Trials Project, ESGO ENGAGe, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - E Levy-Lahad
- Medical Genetics Institute, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - M Lambertini
- Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genoa, Italy; Department of Medical Oncology, U.O. Clinica di Oncologia Medica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
| | - J A Ledermann
- Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London and UCL Hospitals, London, UK
| | - S Loibl
- GBG Forschungs GmbH, Neu-Isenburg, Germany
| | - K-A Phillips
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - S Paluch-Shimon
- Sharett Institute of Oncology Department, Hadassah University Hospital & Faculty of Medicine Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
O'Malley DM, Oza AM, Lorusso D, Aghajanian C, Oaknin A, Dean A, Colombo N, Weberpals JI, Clamp AR, Scambia G, Leary A, Holloway RW, Gancedo MA, Fong PC, Goh JC, Swisher EM, Maloney L, Goble S, Lin KK, Kwan T, Ledermann JA, Coleman RL. Clinical and molecular characteristics of ARIEL3 patients who derived exceptional benefit from rucaparib maintenance treatment for high-grade ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2022; 167:404-413. [PMID: 36273926 PMCID: PMC10339359 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.08.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2022] [Revised: 08/22/2022] [Accepted: 08/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) is a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma who responded to their latest line of platinum therapy. Rucaparib improved progression-free survival across all predefined subgroups. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of clinical and molecular characteristics associated with exceptional benefit from rucaparib. METHODS Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Molecular features (genomic alterations, BRCA1 promoter methylation) and baseline clinical characteristics were evaluated for association with exceptional benefit (progression-free survival ≥2 years) versus progression on first scan (short-term subgroup) and other efficacy outcomes. RESULTS Rucaparib treatment was significantly associated with exceptional benefit compared with placebo: 79/375 (21.1%) vs 4/189 (2.1%), respectively (p < 0.0001). Exceptional benefit was more frequent among patients with favorable baseline clinical characteristics and with carcinomas harboring molecular evidence of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). A comparison between patients who derived exceptional benefit from rucaparib and those in the short-term subgroup revealed both clinical markers (no measurable disease at baseline, complete response to latest platinum, longer penultimate platinum-free interval) and molecular markers (BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, and RAD51D alterations and genome-wide loss of heterozygosity) significantly associated with exceptional benefit. CONCLUSIONS Exceptional benefit in ARIEL3 was more common in, but not exclusive to, patients with favorable clinical characteristics or molecular features associated with HRD. Our results suggest that rucaparib can deliver exceptional benefit to a diverse set of patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David M O'Malley
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, The Ohio State University, James Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA. David.O'
| | - Amit M Oza
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Carol Aghajanian
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Ana Oaknin
- Gynecologic Cancer Program, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Andrew Dean
- Department of Medical Oncology, St John of God Subiaco Hospital, Subaico, WA, Australia
| | - Nicoletta Colombo
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Milan-Bicocca and European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Johanne I Weberpals
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Andrew R Clamp
- Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust and University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Giovanni Scambia
- Department of Cancer Gynecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS and Scientific Directorate, Rome, Italy
| | - Alexandra Leary
- Gynecological Unit, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, INSERM U981, Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens (GINECO), Villejuif, France
| | - Robert W Holloway
- Gynecologic Oncology, Florida Hospital Cancer Institute, Orlando, FL, USA
| | | | - Peter C Fong
- Medical Oncology, Auckland City Hospital and University of Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Jeffrey C Goh
- Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia
| | - Elizabeth M Swisher
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Lara Maloney
- Clinical Development, Clovis Oncology, Inc., Boulder, CO, USA
| | - Sandra Goble
- Biostatistics, Clovis Oncology, Inc., Boulder, CO, USA
| | - Kevin K Lin
- Molecular Diagnostics, Clovis Oncology, Inc., Boulder, CO, USA
| | - Tanya Kwan
- Molecular Diagnostics, Clovis Oncology, Inc., Boulder, CO, USA
| | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London and UCL Hospitals, London, UK
| | - Robert L Coleman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Gilks CB, Selinger CI, Davidson B, Köbel M, Ledermann JA, Lim D, Malpica A, Mikami Y, Singh N, Srinivasan R, Vang R, Lax SF, McCluggage WG. Data Set for the Reporting of Ovarian, Fallopian Tube and Primary Peritoneal Carcinoma: Recommendations From the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Int J Gynecol Pathol 2022; 41:S119-S142. [PMID: 36305537 DOI: 10.1097/pgp.0000000000000908] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
The move toward consistent and comprehensive surgical pathology reports for cancer resection specimens has been a key development in supporting evidence-based patient management and consistent cancer staging. The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) previously developed a data set for reporting of the ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinomas which was published in 2015. In this paper, we provide an update on this data set, as a second edition, that reflects changes in the 2020 World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Female Genital Tumours as well as some other minor modifications. The data set has been developed by a panel of internationally recognized expert pathologists and a clinician and consists of "core" and "noncore" elements to be included in surgical pathology reports, with detailed commentary to guide users, including references. This data set replaces the widely used first edition, and will facilitate consistent and accurate case reporting, data collection for quality assurance and research, and allow for comparison of epidemiological and pathologic parameters between different populations.
Collapse
|
17
|
Miller RE, Elyashiv O, El-Shakankery KH, Ledermann JA. Ovarian Cancer Therapy: Homologous Recombination Deficiency as a Predictive Biomarker of Response to PARP Inhibitors. Onco Targets Ther 2022; 15:1105-1117. [PMID: 36217436 PMCID: PMC9547601 DOI: 10.2147/ott.s272199] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2022] [Accepted: 09/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have revolutionised the management of patients with high-grade serous and endometrioid ovarian cancer demonstrating significant improvements in progression-free survival. Whilst the greatest benefit is seen with BRCA1/2 mutant cancers, it is clear that the benefit extends beyond this group. This sensitivity is thought to be due to homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which is present in up to 50% of the high-grade serous cancers. Several different HRD assays exist, which fall into one of three main categories: homologous recombination repair (HRR)-related gene analysis, genomic “scars” and/or mutational signatures, and real-time HRD functional assessment. We review the emerging data on HRD as a predictive biomarker for PARP inhibitors and discuss the merits and disadvantages of different HRD assays.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rowan E Miller
- Department of Medical Oncology, University College London Hospital, London, UK,Department of Medical Oncology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, UK
| | - Osnat Elyashiv
- Department of Medical Oncology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | | | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- Department of Medical Oncology, University College London Hospital, London, UK,UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK,Correspondence: Jonathan A Ledermann, UCL Cancer Institute, 72 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6DD, UK, Email
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Oaknin A, Bosse TJ, Creutzberg CL, Giornelli G, Harter P, Joly F, Lorusso D, Marth C, Makker V, Mirza MR, Ledermann JA, Colombo N. Endometrial cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2022; 33:860-877. [PMID: 35690222 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.05.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 123] [Impact Index Per Article: 61.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2022] [Revised: 04/27/2022] [Accepted: 05/19/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- A Oaknin
- Gynaecologic Cancer Programme, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain
| | - T J Bosse
- Departments of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - C L Creutzberg
- Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - G Giornelli
- Department of Oncology, Instituto Alexander Fleming, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - P Harter
- Department of Gynecology & Gynecologic Oncology, Ev. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
| | - F Joly
- ANTICIPE, Cancer and Cognition Platform, Normandie University, Caen, France; Medical Oncology Department, Centre François Baclesse, Caen, France
| | - D Lorusso
- Department of Life Science and Public Health, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Largo Agostino Gemelli, Rome, Italy; Department of Women and Child Health, Division of Gynaecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - C Marth
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - V Makker
- Gynecologic Medical Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA
| | - M R Mirza
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - J A Ledermann
- Cancer Institute, University College London (UCL), London, UK; Department of Oncology, UCL Hospitals, London, UK
| | - N Colombo
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Clamp AR, James EC, McNeish IA, Dean A, Kim JW, O'Donnell DM, Gallardo-Rincon D, Blagden S, Brenton J, Perren TJ, Sundar S, Lord R, Dark G, Hall M, Banerjee S, Glasspool RM, Hanna CL, Williams S, Scatchard KM, Nam H, Essapen S, Parkinson C, McAvan L, Swart AM, Popoola B, Schiavone F, Badrock J, Fananapazir F, Cook AD, Parmar M, Kaplan R, Ledermann JA. Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy in first-line epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer treatment (ICON8): overall survival results from an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2022; 23:919-930. [PMID: 35690073 PMCID: PMC9630160 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(22)00283-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2022] [Revised: 05/05/2022] [Accepted: 05/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer is carboplatin and paclitaxel administered once every 3 weeks. The JGOG 3016 trial reported significant improvement in progression-free and overall survival with dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and 3-weekly (ie, once every 3 weeks) carboplatin. However, this benefit was not observed in the previously reported progression-free survival results of ICON8. Here, we present the final coprimary outcomes of overall survival and updated progression-free survival analyses of ICON8. METHODS In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial (ICON8), women aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed stage IC-IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma (here collectively termed ovarian cancer, as defined by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] 1988 criteria) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were recruited from 117 hospitals with oncology departments in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Ireland. Patients could enter the trial after immediate primary surgery (IPS) or with planned delayed primary surgery (DPS) during chemotherapy, or could have no planned surgery. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London randomisation line with stratification by Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup group, FIGO disease stage, and outcome and timing of surgery, to either 3-weekly carboplatin area under the curve (AUC)5 or AUC6 and 3-weekly paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (control; group 1), 3-weekly carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 and weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (group 2), or weekly carboplatin AUC2 and weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (group 3), all administered via intravenous infusion for a total of six 21-day cycles. Coprimary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival, with comparisons done between group 2 and group 1, and group 3 and group 1, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started at least one chemotherapy cycle. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146, and ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN10356387, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 patients were randomly assigned to group 1 (n=522), group 2 (n=523), or group 3 (n=521). The median age was 62 years (IQR 54-68), 1073 (69%) of 1566 patients had high-grade serous carcinoma, 1119 (71%) had stage IIIC-IV disease, and 745 (48%) had IPS. As of data cutoff (March 31, 2020), with a median follow-up of 69 months (IQR 61-75), no significant difference in overall survival was observed in either comparison: median overall survival of 47·4 months (95% CI 43·1-54·8) in group 1, 54·8 months (46·6-61·6) in group 2, and 53·4 months (49·2-59·6) in group 3 (group 2 vs group 1: hazard ratio 0·87 [97·5% CI 0·73-1·05]; group 3 vs group 1: 0·91 [0·76-1·09]). No significant difference was observed for progression-free survival in either comparison and evidence of non-proportional hazards was seen (p=0·037), with restricted mean survival time of 23·9 months (97·5% CI 22·1-25·6) in group 1, 25·3 months (23·6-27·1) in group 2, and 24·8 months (23·0-26·5) in group 3. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were reduced neutrophil count (78 [15%] of 511 patients in group 1, 183 [36%] of 514 in group 2, and 154 [30%] of 513 in group 3), reduced white blood cell count (22 [4%] in group 1, 80 [16%] in group 2, and 71 [14%] in group 3), and anaemia (26 [5%] in group 1, 66 [13%] in group 2, and 24 [5%] in group 3). No new serious adverse events were reported. Seven treatment-related deaths were reported (two in group 1, four in group 2, and one in group 3). INTERPRETATION In our cohort of predominantly European women with epithelial ovarian cancer, we found that first-line weekly dose-dense chemotherapy did not improve overall or progression-free survival compared with standard 3-weekly chemotherapy and should not be used as part of standard multimodality front-line therapy in this patient group. FUNDING Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew R Clamp
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust and University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Elizabeth C James
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.
| | - Iain A McNeish
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Andrew Dean
- Oncology, St John of God Hospital, Subiaco, WA, Australia
| | - Jae-Won Kim
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea
| | | | | | - Sarah Blagden
- Department of Oncology, Churchill Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - James Brenton
- Li Ka Shing Centre, Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, UK
| | - Tim J Perren
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, St James' University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| | - Sudha Sundar
- Institute of Cancer and Genomics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Rosemary Lord
- Department of Oncology, Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Wirral, UK
| | - Graham Dark
- Northern Centre for Cancer Care, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle, UK
| | - Marcia Hall
- Department of Medical Oncology, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK
| | - Susana Banerjee
- Gynaecological Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | | | - C Louise Hanna
- Department of Oncology, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK
| | | | - Kate M Scatchard
- North Devon District Hospital, Barnstaple, UK; Exeter Oncology Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK
| | - Helena Nam
- Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford, UK; Southend University Hospital, Southend, UK
| | - Sharadah Essapen
- St Luke's Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | | | - Lucy McAvan
- Department of Oncology, University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK
| | - Ann Marie Swart
- Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Babasola Popoola
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Francesca Schiavone
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jonathan Badrock
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Fuad Fananapazir
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Adrian D Cook
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Mahesh Parmar
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Richard Kaplan
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, UCL Cancer Institute and UCL Hospitals, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Frenel JS, Kim JW, Aryal N, Asher R, Berton D, Vidal L, Pautier P, Ledermann JA, Penson RT, Oza AM, Korach J, Huzarski T, Pignata S, Colombo N, Park-Simon TW, Tamura K, Sonke GS, Freimund AE, Lee CK, Pujade-Lauraine E. 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. Ann Oncol 2022; 33:1021-1028. [PMID: 35772665 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.06.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2022] [Revised: 06/16/2022] [Accepted: 06/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J S Frenel
- Institut de Cancerologie de l'Ouest, GINECO, GINEGEPS, Centre René Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France.
| | - J W Kim
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - N Aryal
- NHMRC CTC Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Sydney, Australia
| | - R Asher
- NHMRC CTC Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Sydney, Australia
| | - D Berton
- Institut de Cancerologie de l'Ouest, GINECO, GINEGEPS, Centre René Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France
| | - L Vidal
- GEICO & H Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - P Pautier
- GINECO & Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France
| | | | - R T Penson
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA
| | - A M Oza
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - J Korach
- ISGO & Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - T Huzarski
- Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
| | - S Pignata
- MITO & Department of Urology and Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale Napoli, Naples, Italy
| | - N Colombo
- MaNGO & European Institute of Oncology IRCCS and University of Milan-Bicocca, Milano, Italy
| | - T W Park-Simon
- AGO & Medical School, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hannover, Hannover, Germany
| | - K Tamura
- Department of Breast and Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - G S Sonke
- DGOG & Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - A E Freimund
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - C K Lee
- NHMRC CTC Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Sydney, Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Campbell R, Costa DSJ, Stockler MR, Lee YC, Ledermann JA, Berton D, Sehouli J, Roncolato FT, Connell RO, Okamoto A, Bryce J, Oza AM, Avall-Lundqvist E, Berek JS, Lanceley A, Joly F, Hilpert F, Feeney A, Kaminsky MC, Diamante K, Friedlander ML, King MT. Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns (MOST) indexes and their associations with health-related quality of life in recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2022; 166:254-262. [PMID: 35718565 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.05.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2022] [Revised: 05/27/2022] [Accepted: 05/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment (MOST) concerns is a validated patient-reported symptom assessment tool for assessing symptom benefit and adverse effects of palliative chemotherapy in women with recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). We aimed to examine (i) how symptoms within MOST symptom indexes track together (i.e. co-occur) and (ii) the association between MOST symptom indexes and key aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQL). METHOD A prospective cohort of women with ROC completed the MOST-T35, EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OV28 at baseline and before each cycle of chemotherapy. Analyses were conducted on baseline and end-of-treatment data. Exploratory factor analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis identified groups of co-occurring symptoms. Path models examined associations between MOST symptom indexes and HRQL. RESULTS Data from 762 women at baseline and 681 at treatment-end who completed all 22 symptom-specific MOST items and at least one HRQL measure were analysed. Four symptom clusters emerged at baseline and treatment-end: abdominal symptoms, symptoms associated with peripheral neuropathy, nausea and vomiting, and psychological symptoms. Psychological symptoms (MOST-Psych) and symptoms due to disease (ovarian cancer) or treatment (MOST-DorT) were associated with poorer scores on QLQ-C30 and OV28 functioning domains and worse overall health at both time points. CONCLUSION Four MOST symptom clusters were consistent across statistical methods and time points. These findings suggest that routine standardized assessment of psychological and physical symptoms in clinical practice with MOST plus appropriate symptom management referral pathways is an intervention for improving HRQL that warrants further research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel Campbell
- University of Sydney, Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, Australia.
| | - Daniel S J Costa
- University of Sydney, Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, Australia
| | - Martin R Stockler
- University of Sydney, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Yeh Chen Lee
- University of Sydney, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group (ANZGOG), Australia; Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- The Cancer Research UK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre, NCRI UK, London, United Kingdom
| | - Dominique Berton
- GINECO-Group d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens, Paris, France; Institut de Cancerologie de l'Ouest (ICO), Centre René Gauducheau, Saint Herblain, France
| | - Jalid Sehouli
- Arbeitsgesmeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie Studiengruppe (AGO) und North-Eastern German Society of Gynecologcial Oncology (NOGGO), Berlin, Germany; Department of Gynecology and Oncological Surgery, Charité, University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Felicia T Roncolato
- University of Sydney, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group (ANZGOG), Australia; Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, New South Wales, Australia; Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre, Campbelltown Hospital, NSW, Australia
| | - Rachel O Connell
- University of Sydney, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Aikou Okamoto
- Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group (JGOG), Tokyo, Japan; Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Jane Bryce
- Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale, Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer and Gynecologic Malignancies (MITO), Napoli, Italy; Ascension St. John Clinical Research Institute, Tulsa, USA
| | - Amit M Oza
- Princess Margaret Consortium (PMHC), Toronto, Canada; Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Elisabeth Avall-Lundqvist
- Nordic Society of Gynaecological Oncology (NSGO), Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Oncology and Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linkoping University, NSGO, Linkoping, Sweden; Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Jonathan S Berek
- Cooperative Gynecologic Oncology Investigators (COGI), Stanford, CA, USA; Stanford Women's Cancer Centre, Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Anne Lanceley
- UCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Florence Joly
- GINECO-Group d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens, Paris, France; Centre Francois Baclesse, Caen, France
| | - Felix Hilpert
- Arbeitsgesmeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie Studiengruppe (AGO) und North-Eastern German Society of Gynecologcial Oncology (NOGGO), Berlin, Germany; Onkologisches Therapiezentrum, Krankenhaus Jerusalem, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Amanda Feeney
- The Cancer Research UK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre, NCRI UK, London, United Kingdom
| | - Marie C Kaminsky
- GINECO-Group d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens, Paris, France; Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Alexis Vautrin, Vandoeuvre Les Nancy, France
| | - Katrina Diamante
- University of Sydney, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Michael L Friedlander
- Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group (ANZGOG), Australia; Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Madeleine T King
- University of Sydney, Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Coleman RL, Oza AM, Lorusso D, Aghajanian C, Oaknin A, Dean A, Colombo N, Weberpals JI, Clamp AR, Scambia G, Leary A, Holloway RW, Amenedo Gancedo M, Fong PC, Goh JC, O'Malley DM, Goble SM, Maloney L, Ledermann JA. Efficacy and safety of rucaparib maintenance treatment in patients from ARIEL3 with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma not associated with homologous recombination deficiency. J Clin Oncol 2022. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2022.40.16_suppl.5544] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
5544 Background: In ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), rucaparib maintenance treatment led to significant improvement vs placebo for the primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma responsive to the last line of platinum therapy (Coleman et al. Lancet. 2017;390:1949–61). The largest benefit was observed in pts with carcinomas with a BRCA mutation or high loss of heterozygosity (LOH), a marker of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). However, rucaparib also improved PFS in pts with carcinomas negative by HRD test (ie, BRCA wild-type with low LOH), a subset of pts for which there is no identified molecular mechanism conferring PARP inhibitor sensitivity. Among these pts (rucaparib, n = 107; placebo, n = 54), median PFS was 6.7 vs 5.4 months, respectively (HR, 0.58 [95% CI 0.40–0.85]; P= 0.0049), and 31.8% vs 4.3% were progression-free at 1 yr. In this post hoc exploratory analysis, we further evaluated the efficacy of rucaparib maintenance vs placebo in this subset of pts. Methods: Pts were randomized 2:1 to oral rucaparib (600 mg BID) or placebo. For this analysis, investigator-assessed PFS and safety were evaluated in pts with HRD-negative carcinoma, defined as BRCA wild-type with genomic LOH < 16% using Foundation Medicine’s T5 NGS assay. Results: Visit cutoff dates for efficacy and safety were Apr 15, 2017, and Dec 31, 2019. Across subgroups based on demographic or disease characteristics, the trend of rucaparib benefit vs placebo was consistently observed in pts with HRD-negative carcinoma (Table). The safety profile of rucaparib in the HRD-negative population was consistent with that of the overall safety population reported previously. Conclusions: Rucaparib maintenance reduced risk of progression in pts with ovarian carcinomas, including those not associated with HRD, regardless of clinical prognostic factors. [Table: see text]
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Amit M. Oza
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Domenica Lorusso
- Unità di Ginecologia Oncologica, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori and MITO, Milan, Italy
| | - Carol Aghajanian
- Gynecologic Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Ana Oaknin
- Gynaecologic Cancer Programme, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Vall d’Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Andrew Dean
- Department of Oncology, St John of God Subiaco Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Nicoletta Colombo
- Gynecologic Cancer Program, European Institute of Oncology and University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Johanne I Weberpals
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Andrew R. Clamp
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust and University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Giovanni Scambia
- Gynecologic Oncology, Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Roma, Rome, Italy
| | - Alexandra Leary
- Gynecological Unit, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, INSERM U981; Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens (GINECO), Villejuif, France
| | - Robert W. Holloway
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Florida Hospital Cancer Institute, Orlando, FL
| | | | - Peter C.C. Fong
- Medical Oncology Department, Auckland City Hospital, Grafton, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Jeffrey C. Goh
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia, and University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia
| | - David M. O'Malley
- Clinical Research Gynecologic Oncology, The Ohio State University, James Cancer Center, Columbus, OH
| | | | - Lara Maloney
- Clinical Development, Clovis Oncology, Inc., Boulder, CO
| | - Jonathan A. Ledermann
- Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London and UCL Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Penson RT, Arend RC, Secord AA, Casado Herraez A, Herzog TJ, Ledermann JA, Moore KN, Shapira-Frommer R, Tewari KS, Rachmilewitz Minei T, Harats D, Fain Shmueli S, Monk BJ. Pivotal study of ofra-vec (VB-111) combined with paclitaxel versus paclitaxel for treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (OVAL, VB-111-701/GOG-3018). J Clin Oncol 2022. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2022.40.16_suppl.tps5606] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
TPS5606 Background: Ofranergene obadenovec (Ofra-vec, VB-111) is an anti-cancer gene based immune activator and targeted vascular disruptor. The dual mechanism of action triggers a broad antiangiogenic effect and induces of a tumor directed immune response. A phase II trial in patients with platinum resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) demonstrated that ofra-vec in combination with weekly paclitaxel was well tolerated and associated with a CA-125 Objective Response Rate (ORR) of 58%, a trend for improved survival and induction of an immunotherapeutic effect of tumor infiltration with CD-8 T cells. Based on these observations, a pivotal phase III study was initiated in collaboration with the GOG Foundation, Inc. Methods: Study NCT03398655 is an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study. Eligible patients have recurrent PROC and may have been previously treated with up to 5 prior lines of therapy (but not >2 for PROC). Patient are randomized 1:1 to receive ofra-vec (1x1013 Viral Particles) with weekly paclitaxel (80mg/m2), or weekly paclitaxel with placebo. Randomization is stratified by number of prior treatment lines, prior antiangiogenic therapy and platinum refractory disease status. The dual primary endpoints are OS and PFS. A pre-planned interim analysis of CA-125 response (GCIG) performed by the DSMC met the pre-defined criteria showing that CA-125 ORR in the treatment arm was at least 10% higher than in the control arm. Study is enrolling in the US, EU, Japan and Israel, with 90% enrollment to date. Completion of accrual is anticipated in Q1 2022. Clinical trial information: NCT03398655.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Thomas J. Herzog
- University of Cincinnati, University of Cincinnati Cancer Institute, Cincinnati, OH
| | | | - Kathleen N. Moore
- Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Science Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, Oklahoma City, OK
| | - Ronnie Shapira-Frommer
- Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno Oncology and Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel
| | - Krishnansu Sujata Tewari
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of California, Irvine, CA
| | | | | | | | - Bradley J. Monk
- GOG Foundation, Creighton University, University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Flynn MJ, Ledermann JA. Ovarian cancer recurrence: is the definition of platinum resistance modified by PARPi and other intervening treatments? The evolving landscape in the management of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Cancer Drug Resist 2022; 5:424-435. [PMID: 35800366 PMCID: PMC9255242 DOI: 10.20517/cdr.2022.13] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2022] [Revised: 03/30/2022] [Accepted: 04/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
Definitions of platinum resistance have been questioned and changed over the last five years, even though no predictive biomarker of resistance exists. These have sculpted how we approach platinum retreatment and, consequently, how we devise new treatment strategies for those patients with tumour progression on platinum therapy. Platinum-non-eligible ovarian cancer is treated with single-agent non-platinum drugs. When bevacizumab can be added to chemotherapy, progression-free survival improves significantly. For patients with a BRCA mutation, PARP inhibitor monotherapy is an option compared to chemotherapy. There is currently no clearly identified role for immune-checkpoint inhibition in this patient population. This review describes some of the challenges in treating patients with platinum resistance and suggests refinements in the selection of patients most likely to benefit from targeting a DNA damage response, angiogenesis or immune modulation. It also describes novel agents of interest and possible mechanisms of the synergy of therapeutic combinations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael J. Flynn
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospital, London NW1 2PG, United Kingdom
| | - Jonathan A. Ledermann
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospital, London NW1 2PG, United Kingdom
- UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London WC1E 6DD, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Lee YC, King MT, O'Connell RL, Lanceley A, Joly F, Hilpert F, Davis A, Roncolato FT, Okamoto A, Bryce J, Donnellan P, Oza AM, Avall-Lundqvist E, Berek JS, Ledermann JA, Berton D, Sehouli J, Feeney A, Kaminsky MC, Diamante K, Stockler MR, Friedlander ML. Symptom burden and quality of life with chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer: the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup-Symptom Benefit Study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 32:761-768. [PMID: 35086926 PMCID: PMC9185817 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-003142] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG)-Symptom Benefit Study was designed to evaluate the effects of chemotherapy on symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in women having chemotherapy for platinum resistant/refractory recurrent ovarian cancer (PRR-ROC) and potentially platinum sensitive with ≥3 lines of chemotherapy (PPS-ROC ≥3). Methods Participants completed the Measure of Ovarian Cancer Symptoms and Treatment (MOST) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire QLQ-C30 questionnaires at baseline and every 3–4 weeks until progression. Participants were classified symptomatic if they rated ≥4 of 10 in at least one-third of symptoms in the MOST index. Improvement in MOST was defined as two consecutive scores of ≤3 in at least half of the symptomatic items at baseline. Improvement in HRQL was defined as two consecutive scores ≥10 points above baseline in the QLQ-C30 summary score scale (range 0–100). Results Of 948 participants enrolled, 910 (96%) completed baseline questionnaires: 546 with PRR-ROC and 364 with PPS-ROC ≥3. The proportions of participants symptomatic at baseline as per MOST indexes were: abdominal 54%, psychological 53%, and disease- or treatment-related 35%. Improvement was reported in MOST indexes: abdominal 40%, psychological 35%, and disease- or treatment-related 38%. Median time to improvement in abdominal symptoms occurred earlier for PRR-ROC than for PPS-ROC ≥3 (4 vs 6 weeks, p=0.044); median duration of improvement was also similar (9.0 vs 11.7 weeks, p=0.65). Progression-free survival was longer among those with improvement in abdominal symptoms than in those without (median 7.2 vs 2.5 months, p<0.0001). Improvements in HRQL were reported by 77/448 (17%) with PRR-ROC and 61/301 (20%) with PPS-ROC ≥3 (p=0.29), and 102/481 (21%) of those with abdominal symptoms at baseline. Conclusion Over 50% of participants reported abdominal and psychological symptoms at baseline. Of those, 40% reported an improvement within 2 months of starting chemotherapy. Approximately one in six participants reported an improvement in HRQL. Symptom monitoring and supportive care is important as chemotherapy palliated less than half of symptomatic participants.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yeh Chen Lee
- Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group (ANZGOG), Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.,University of Sydney, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.,Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Madeleine T King
- University of Sydney, Quality of Life Office of Psycho-Oncology Research Group (PoCoG), Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Rachel L O'Connell
- University of Sydney, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Anne Lanceley
- UCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Florence Joly
- GINECO-Group d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens, Paris, France.,Oncology, Ctr Francois Baclesse, Caen, France
| | - Felix Hilpert
- Arbeitsgesmeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie Studiengruppe (AGO) und North-Eastern German Society of Gynecologcial Oncology (NOGGO), Kiel, Germany.,Onkologisches Therapiezentrum, Krankenhaus Jerusalem, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Alison Davis
- Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group (ANZGOG), Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.,Medical Oncology, Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
| | - Felicia T Roncolato
- Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group (ANZGOG), Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.,University of Sydney, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Aikou Okamoto
- Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group (JGOG), Tokyo, Japan.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Minato-ku, Japan
| | - Jane Bryce
- Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Napoli, Campania, Italy.,Ascension St John Clinical Research Institute, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.,MITO Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian and gynecologic cancer, Italy
| | - Paul Donnellan
- Cancer Trials Ireland, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland
| | - Amit M Oza
- Princess Margaret Consortium (PMHC), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Elisabeth Avall-Lundqvist
- Nordic Society of Gynaecological Oncology (NSGO), Copenhagen, Denmark.,Department of Oncology and Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden.,Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Jonathan S Berek
- Cooperative Gynecologic Oncology Investigators (COGI), Stanford, California, USA.,Stanford Women's Cancer Centre, Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
| | | | - Dominique Berton
- GINECO-Group d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens, Paris, France.,Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Centre René Gauducheau, Saint Herblain, France
| | - Jalid Sehouli
- Arbeitsgesmeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie Studiengruppe (AGO) und North-Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology (NOGGO), Berlin, Germany.,Department of Gynecology and Oncological Surgery, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Amanda Feeney
- The Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, NCRI UK, London, UK
| | - Marie-Christine Kaminsky
- GINECO-Group d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens, Paris, France.,Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre Les Nancy, France
| | - Katrina Diamante
- University of Sydney, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Martin R Stockler
- University of Sydney, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Michael L Friedlander
- Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group (ANZGOG), Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia .,Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Ledermann JA, Zurawski B, Raspagliesi F, De Giorgi U, Arranz Arija J, Romeo Marin M, Lisyanskaya A, Póka RL, Markowska J, Cebotaru C, Casado Herraez A, Colombo N, Kutarska E, Hall M, Jacobs A, Ahrens-Fath I, Baumeister H, Zurlo A, Sehouli J. 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. ESMO Open 2021; 7:100311. [PMID: 34920291 PMCID: PMC8685985 DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100311] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2021] [Revised: 10/13/2021] [Accepted: 10/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J A Ledermann
- Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK.
| | - B Zurawski
- Department of Oncology, Franciszek Lukaszczyk Oncology Center, Bydgoszcz, Poland
| | - F Raspagliesi
- Department of Gynecologic Surgery, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - U De Giorgi
- Department of Oncology, Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori IRST IRCCS, Meldola, Italy
| | - J Arranz Arija
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain
| | - M Romeo Marin
- Department of Medical Oncology, B-ARGO group, Catalan Institute of Oncology, Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain
| | - A Lisyanskaya
- Department of Oncogynecology, St.-Petersburg Oncological City Hospital, St. Petersburg, Russia
| | - R L Póka
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Debrecen University Clinical Center, Debrecen, Hungary
| | - J Markowska
- Klinika Onkologii, Oddzial Ginekologii Onkologicznej, Poznan, Poland
| | - C Cebotaru
- Radioterapie, Institutul Oncologic "Prof. Dr. Ioan Chiricuta", Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - A Casado Herraez
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clínico Universitario San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
| | - N Colombo
- Department of Medical Gynecologic Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, and University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - E Kutarska
- Iii Oddzial Ginekologii Onkologicznej, Centrum Onkologii Ziemi Lubelskiej, Lublin, Poland
| | - M Hall
- Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Middlesex, UK
| | | | | | | | - A Zurlo
- Glycotope GmbH, Berlin, Germany
| | - J Sehouli
- Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Charité Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Kwan TT, Oza AM, Tinker AV, Ray-Coquard I, Oaknin A, Aghajanian C, Lorusso D, Colombo N, Dean A, Weberpals J, Severson E, Vo LT, Goble S, Maloney L, Harding T, Kaufmann SH, Ledermann JA, Coleman RL, McNeish IA, Lin KK, Swisher EM. Preexisting TP53-Variant Clonal Hematopoiesis and Risk of Secondary Myeloid Neoplasms in Patients With High-grade Ovarian Cancer Treated With Rucaparib. JAMA Oncol 2021; 7:1772-1781. [PMID: 34647981 PMCID: PMC8517887 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.4664] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE A total of 1% to 3% of patients treated with a poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor for high-grade ovarian cancer (HGOC) develop therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (t-MNs), which are rare but often fatal conditions. Although the cause of these t-MNs is unknown, clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) variants can increase the risk of primary myeloid malignant neoplasms and are more frequent among patients with solid tumors. OBJECTIVES To examine whether preexisting CHIP variants are associated with the development of t-MNs after rucaparib treatment and how these CHIP variants are affected by treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective genetic association study used peripheral blood cell (PBC) samples collected before rucaparib treatment from patients in the multicenter, single-arm ARIEL2 (Study of Rucaparib in Patients With Platinum-Sensitive, Relapsed, High-Grade Epithelial Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, or Primary Peritoneal Cancer) (n = 491; between October 30, 2013, and August 9, 2016) and the multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind ARIEL3 (Study of Rucaparib as Switch Maintenance Following Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Patients With Platinum-Sensitive, High-Grade Serous or Endometrioid Epithelial Ovarian, Primary Peritoneal or Fallopian Tube Cancer) (n = 561; between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016), which tested rucaparib as HGOC therapy in the treatment and maintenance settings, respectively. The follow-up data cutoff date was September 1, 2019. Of 1052 patients in ARIEL2 and ARIEL3, PBC samples from 20 patients who developed t-MNs (cases) and 44 randomly selected patients who did not (controls) were analyzed for the presence of CHIP variants using targeted next-generation sequencing. Additional longitudinal analysis was performed on available ARIEL2 samples collected during treatment and at the end of treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Enrichment analysis of preexisting variants in 10 predefined CHIP-associated genes in cases relative to controls; association with clinical correlates. RESULTS Among 1052 patients (mean [SE] age, 61.7 [0.3] years) enrolled and dosed in ARIEL2 and ARIEL3, 22 (2.1%) developed t-MNs. The t-MNs were associated with longer overall exposure to prior platinum therapies (13.2 vs 9.0 months in ARIEL2, P = .04; 12.4 vs 9.6 months in ARIEL3, P = .003). The presence of homologous recombination repair gene variants in the tumor, either germline or somatic, was associated with increased prevalence of t-MNs (15 [4.1%] of 369 patients with HGOC associated with an HRR gene variant vs 7 [1.0%] of 683 patients with wild-type HGOC, P = .002). The prevalence of preexisting CHIP variants in TP53 but not other CHIP-associated genes at a variant allele frequency of 1% or greater was significantly higher in PBCs from cases vs controls (9 [45.0%] of 20 cases vs 6 [13.6%] of 44 controls, P = .009). TP53 CHIP was associated with longer prior exposure to platinum (mean 14.0 months of 15 TP53 CHIP cases vs 11.1 months of 49 non-TP53 CHIP cases; P = .02). Longitudinal analysis showed that preexisting TP53 CHIP variants expanded in patients who developed t-MNs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The findings of this genetic association study suggest that preexisting TP53 CHIP variants may be associated with t-MNs after rucaparib treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Amit M. Oza
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Anna V. Tinker
- BC Cancer–Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Isabelle Ray-Coquard
- Groupe d’Investigateurs Nationaux pour les Etudes des Cancers de l’Ovaire, Lyon, France,Medical Oncology Department, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France,Centre Léon Bérard, University Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | - Ana Oaknin
- Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Carol Aghajanian
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Domenica Lorusso
- Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy,Now with Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS and Scientific Directorate, Rome, Italy
| | - Nicoletta Colombo
- Gynecologic Cancer Medical Treatments, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy,Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Andrew Dean
- Oncology, St John of God Subiaco Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Johanne Weberpals
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Eric Severson
- Pathology and Diagnostic Medicine, Foundation Medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Robert L. Coleman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston,Now with US Oncology Research, The Woodlands, Texas
| | - Iain A. McNeish
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | | | - Elizabeth M. Swisher
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Willis SE, Winkler C, Roudier MP, Baird T, Marco-Casanova P, Jones EV, Rowe P, Rodriguez-Canales J, Angell HK, Ng FSL, Waring PM, Hodgson D, Ledermann JA, Weberpals JI, Dean E, Harrington EA, Barrett JC, Pierce AJ, Leo E, Jones GN. Retrospective analysis of Schlafen11 (SLFN11) to predict the outcomes to therapies affecting the DNA damage response. Br J Cancer 2021; 125:1666-1676. [PMID: 34663950 PMCID: PMC8651811 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01560-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2021] [Revised: 08/06/2021] [Accepted: 09/17/2021] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The absence of the putative DNA/RNA helicase Schlafen11 (SLFN11) is thought to cause resistance to DNA-damaging agents (DDAs) and PARP inhibitors. Methods We developed and validated a clinically applicable SLFN11 immunohistochemistry assay and retrospectively correlated SLFN11 tumour levels to patient outcome to the standard of care therapies and olaparib maintenance. Results High SLFN11 associated with improved prognosis to the first-line treatment with DDAs platinum-plus-etoposide in SCLC patients, but was not strongly linked to paclitaxel–platinum response in ovarian cancer patients. Multivariate analysis of patients with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer from the randomised, placebo-controlled Phase II olaparib maintenance Study19 showed SLFN11 tumour levels associated with sensitivity to olaparib. Study19 patients with high SLFN11 had a lower progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratio compared to patients with low SLFN11, although both groups had the benefit of olaparib over placebo. Whilst caveated by small sample size, this trend was maintained for PFS, but not overall survival, when adjusting for BRCA status across the olaparib and placebo treatment groups, a key driver of PARP inhibitor sensitivity. Conclusion We provide clinical evidence supporting the role of SLFN11 as a DDA therapy selection biomarker in SCLC and highlight the need for further clinical investigation into SLFN11 as a PARP inhibitor predictive biomarker.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophie E Willis
- Translational Medicine, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK
| | | | | | - Tarrion Baird
- Translational Medicine, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Emma V Jones
- Translational Medicine, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK
| | - Philip Rowe
- GMD, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, UK
| | | | - Helen K Angell
- Translational Medicine, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK
| | - Felicia S L Ng
- Translational Medicine, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK
| | - Paul M Waring
- Translational Medicine, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK
| | - Darren Hodgson
- Translational Medicine, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, UCL Cancer Institute, London, UK
| | | | - Emma Dean
- Clinical, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - J Carl Barrett
- Translational Medicine, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA
| | - Andrew J Pierce
- Translational Medicine, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Gemma N Jones
- Translational Medicine, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Oaknin A, Oza AM, Lorusso D, Aghajanian C, Dean A, Colombo N, Weberpals JI, Clamp AR, Scambia G, Leary A, Holloway RW, Amenedo Gancedo M, Fong PC, Goh JC, O'Malley DM, Armstrong DK, Banerjee S, García-Donas J, Swisher EM, Cameron T, Maloney L, Goble S, Ledermann JA, Coleman RL. Maintenance treatment with rucaparib for recurrent ovarian carcinoma in ARIEL3, a randomized phase 3 trial: The effects of best response to last platinum-based regimen and disease at baseline on efficacy and safety. Cancer Med 2021; 10:7162-7173. [PMID: 34549539 PMCID: PMC8525125 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4260] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2021] [Revised: 06/25/2021] [Accepted: 07/16/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The efficacy and safety of rucaparib maintenance treatment in ARIEL3 were evaluated in subgroups based on best response to most recent platinum‐based chemotherapy and baseline disease. Methods Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either oral rucaparib at a dosage of 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator‐assessed PFS was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA‐mutated, homologous recombination deficient (HRD; BRCA mutated or wild‐type BRCA/high loss of heterozygosity), and the intent‐to‐treat (ITT) population. Results Median PFS for patients in the ITT population with a complete response to most recent platinum‐based chemotherapy was 11.1 months in the rucaparib arm (126 patients) versus 5.6 months in the placebo arm (64 patients) (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.23–0.48]), and in patients with a partial response (249 vs. 125), it was 9.0 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.38 [0.30–0.49]). In subgroups of the ITT population based on baseline disease, median PFS was 8.2 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.40 [0.28–0.57]) in patients with measurable disease (141 rucaparib vs. 66 placebo), 10.4 versus 4.5 months (HR, 0.31 [0.20–0.48]) in those with nonmeasurable but evaluable disease (104 vs. 56), and 14.1 versus 7.3 months (HR, 0.35 [0.24–0.51]) in those with no residual disease (130 vs. 67). Across subgroups, significantly longer median PFS was observed with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA‐mutated and HRD cohorts. Objective responses were reported in patients with measurable disease and in patients with nonmeasurable but evaluable baseline disease. Safety was consistent across subgroups. Conclusion Rucaparib maintenance treatment provided clinically meaningful efficacy benefits across subgroups based on response to last platinum‐based chemotherapy or baseline disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ana Oaknin
- Gynaecologic Cancer Programme, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Amit M Oza
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Domenica Lorusso
- Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer and Gynecologic Malignancies and Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Carol Aghajanian
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Andrew Dean
- Oncology, St John of God Subiaco Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Nicoletta Colombo
- Gynecologic Cancer Program, University of Milan-Bicocca and European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Johanne I Weberpals
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Andrew R Clamp
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust and University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Giovanni Scambia
- Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS and Scientific Directorate, Rome, Italy
| | - Alexandra Leary
- Gynecological Unit, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, INSERM U981, and Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens, Villejuif, France
| | - Robert W Holloway
- Gynecologic Oncology, AdventHealth Cancer Institute, Orlando, Florida, USA
| | | | - Peter C Fong
- Medical Oncology Department, Auckland City Hospital, and University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Jeffrey C Goh
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, and University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia
| | - David M O'Malley
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, The Ohio State University, James Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Deborah K Armstrong
- Oncology, Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Susana Banerjee
- Gynaecology Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jesus García-Donas
- Division of Medical Oncology, HM Hospitales-Centro Integral Oncológico Hospital de Madrid Clara Campal, Madrid, Spain
| | - Elizabeth M Swisher
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Terri Cameron
- Clinical Science, Clovis Oncology UK Ltd, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Lara Maloney
- Clinical Development, Clovis Oncology, Inc, Boulder, Colorado, USA
| | - Sandra Goble
- Biostatistics, Clovis Oncology, Inc, Boulder, Colorado, USA
| | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- Department of Oncology, University College London (UCL) Cancer Institute and UCL Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
| | - Robert L Coleman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Wood GE, Ledermann JA. Adjuvant and post-surgical treatment in high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2021; 78:64-73. [PMID: 34607745 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.09.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2021] [Accepted: 09/06/2021] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Cytoreductive surgery is the mainstay of treatment for high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer. Although for early stage disease outcomes following surgery alone are good, the risk of recurrence necessitates adjuvant chemotherapy for the majority of patients. Post-operative chemotherapy in advanced-stage disease, or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery has improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). However, despite the use of chemotherapy, the rate of recurrence remains high. In recent years, there has been considerable increase in knowledge regarding the biology of ovarian cancer, which has led to a journey of drug discovery, facilitating the use of novel targeted agents such as VEGF inhibitors and, more recently, PARP inhibitors in the first-line treatment of ovarian cancer. Here, we outline the current evidence-based guidance for systemic therapies in ovarian cancer and highlight the ongoing research to improve patient outcome.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Georgina E Wood
- Department of Oncology, UCL Hospitals, 250 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK
| | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- Department of Oncology, UCL Hospitals, 250 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK; UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Monk BJ, Colombo N, Oza AM, Fujiwara K, Birrer MJ, Randall L, Poddubskaya EV, Scambia G, Shparyk YV, Lim MC, Bhoola SM, Sohn J, Yonemori K, Stewart RA, Zhang X, Perkins Smith J, Linn C, Ledermann JA. Chemotherapy with or without avelumab followed by avelumab maintenance versus chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated epithelial ovarian cancer (JAVELIN Ovarian 100): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2021; 22:1275-1289. [PMID: 34363762 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(21)00342-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 104] [Impact Index Per Article: 34.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2021] [Revised: 06/04/2021] [Accepted: 06/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although most patients with epithelial ovarian cancer respond to frontline platinum-based chemotherapy, around 70% will relapse within 3 years. The phase 3 JAVELIN Ovarian 100 trial compared avelumab (anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) in combination with chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance, or chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance, versus chemotherapy alone in patients with treatment-naive epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS JAVELIN Ovarian 100 was a global, open-label, three-arm, parallel, randomised, phase 3 trial run at 159 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 25 countries. Eligible women were aged 18 years and older with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (following debulking surgery, or candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive chemotherapy (six cycles; carboplatin dosed at an area under the serum-concentration-time curve of 5 or 6 intravenously every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or 80 mg/m2 once a week [investigators' choice]) followed by avelumab maintenance (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks; avelumab maintenance group); chemotherapy plus avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks) followed by avelumab maintenance (avelumab combination group); or chemotherapy followed by observation (control group). Randomisation was in permuted blocks of size six and stratified by paclitaxel regimen and resection status. Patients and investigators were masked to assignment to the two chemotherapy groups without avelumab at the time of randomisation until completion of the chemotherapy phase. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review in all randomly assigned patients (analysed by intention to treat). Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02718417. The trial was fully enrolled and terminated at interim analysis due to futility, and efficacy is no longer being assessed. FINDINGS Between May 19, 2016 and Jan 23, 2018, 998 patients were randomly assigned (avelumab maintenance n=332, avelumab combination n=331, and control n=335). At the planned interim analysis (data cutoff Sept 7, 2018), prespecified futility boundaries were crossed for the progression-free survival analysis, and the trial was stopped as recommended by the independent data monitoring committee and endorsed by the protocol steering committee. Median follow-up for progression-free survival for all patients was 10·8 months (IQR 7·1-14·9); 11·1 months (7·0-15·3) for the avelumab maintenance group, 11·0 months (7·4-14·5) for the avelumab combination group, and 10·2 months (6·7-14·0) for the control group. Median progression-free survival was 16·8 months (95% CI 13·5-not estimable [NE]) with avelumab maintenance, 18·1 months (14·8-NE) with avelumab combination treatment, and NE (18·2 months-NE) with control treatment. The stratified hazard ratio for progression-free survival was 1·43 (95% CI 1·05-1·95; one-sided p=0·99) with the avelumab maintenance regimen and 1·14 (0·83-1·56; one-sided p=0·79) with the avelumab combination regimen, versus control treatment. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were anaemia (69 [21%] patients in the avelumab maintenance group, 63 [19%] in the avelumab combination group, and 53 [16%] in the control group), neutropenia (91 [28%], 99 [30%], and 88 [26%]), and neutrophil count decrease (49 [15%], 45 [14%], and 59 [18%]). Serious adverse events of any grade occurred in 92 (28%) patients in the avelumab maintenance group, 118 (36%) in the avelumab combination group, and 64 (19%) in the control group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in one (<1%) patient in the avelumab maintenance group (due to atrial fibrillation) and one (<1%) patient in the avelumab combination group (due to disease progression). INTERPRETATION Although no new safety signals were observed, results do not support the use of avelumab in the frontline treatment setting. Alternative treatment regimens are needed to improve outcomes in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. FUNDING Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bradley J Monk
- Arizona Oncology (US Oncology Network), Phoenix, AZ, USA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ, USA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Creighton University School of Medicine at Dignity Health St Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
| | - Nicoletta Colombo
- University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy; Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Amit M Oza
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Keiichi Fujiwara
- Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Hidaka-City, Saitama, Japan
| | | | - Leslie Randall
- Virginia Commonwealth University, Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Elena V Poddubskaya
- I M Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia; Clinical Center Vitamed, Moscow, Russia
| | - Giovanni Scambia
- Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Yaroslav V Shparyk
- Lviv State Oncological Regional Treatment and Diagnostic Center, Lviv, Ukraine
| | - Myong Cheol Lim
- Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, South Korea
| | - Snehalkumar M Bhoola
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ, USA; Arizona Oncology Associates PC-HAL, Tempe, AZ, USA; Gynecologic Oncology, Cancer and Blood Specialists of Arizona, Gilbert, AZ, USA
| | - Joohyuk Sohn
- Severance Hospital, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Kan Yonemori
- Department of Breast and Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Ross A Stewart
- Pfizer Oncology, Pfizer, San Diego, CA, USA; Oncology Research and Development, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK
| | | | | | - Carlos Linn
- Global Product Development, Pfizer, Taipei, Taiwan
| | | |
Collapse
|
32
|
Colombo N, Ledermann JA. Updated treatment recommendations for newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian carcinoma from the ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann Oncol 2021; 32:1300-1303. [PMID: 34293462 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.07.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2021] [Revised: 07/06/2021] [Accepted: 07/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- N Colombo
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia - IRCCS, Milano, Italy; Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy
| | - J A Ledermann
- UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK; Deptartment of Oncology, UCL Hospitals, London, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Tjokrowidjaja A, Friedlander M, Lord SJ, Asher R, Rodrigues M, Ledermann JA, Matulonis UA, Oza AM, Bruchim I, Huzarski T, Gourley C, Harter P, Vergote I, Scott CL, Meier W, Shapira-Frommer R, Milenkova T, Pujade-Lauraine E, Gebski V, Lee CK. Prognostic nomogram for progression-free survival in patients with BRCA mutations and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer on maintenance olaparib therapy following response to chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 2021; 154:190-200. [PMID: 34293664 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.06.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2021] [Revised: 06/15/2021] [Accepted: 06/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The impact of maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors (PARPi) on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with BRCA mutations and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) varies widely. Individual prognostic factors do not reliably distinguish patients who progress early from those who have durable benefit. We developed and validated a prognostic nomogram to predict PFS in these patients. METHODS The nomogram was developed using data from a training patient cohort with BRCA mutations and high-grade serous PSROC on the placebo arm of two maintenance therapy trials, Study 19 and SOLO2/ENGOT-ov21. We performed multivariable Cox regression analysis based on pre-treatment characteristics to develop a nomogram that predicts PFS. We assessed the discrimination and validation of the nomogram in independent validation patient cohorts treated with maintenance olaparib. RESULTS The nomogram includes four PFS predictors: CA-125 at randomisation, platinum-free interval, presence of measurable disease and number of prior lines of platinum therapy. In the training (placebo) cohort (internal validation C-index 0.64), median PFS in the model-predicted good, intermediate and poor-risk groups was: 7.7 (95% CI 5.3-11.3), 5.4 (4.8-5.8) and 2.9 (2.8-4.4) months, respectively. In the validation (olaparib) cohort (C-index 0.71), median PFS in the model-predicted good, intermediate and poor-risk groups was: not reached, 16.6 (13.1-22.4) and 8.3 (7.1-10.8) months, respectively. The nomogram showed good calibration in the validation cohort (calibration plot). CONCLUSIONS This nomogram can be used to predict PFS and counsel patients with BRCA mutations and PSROC prior to maintenance olaparib and for stratification of patients in trials of maintenance therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angelina Tjokrowidjaja
- National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia; Department of Medical Oncology, St George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW 2217, Australia; Australia New Zealand Gynecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
| | - Michael Friedlander
- Australia New Zealand Gynecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia; Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia
| | - Sarah J Lord
- National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia; School of Medicine, The University of Notre Dame, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia
| | - Rebecca Asher
- National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia
| | - Manuel Rodrigues
- INSERM U830, DNA Repair and Uveal Melanoma (D.R.U.M.), Equipe Labellisée Par La Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, Paris, France; Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Paris, France
| | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London WC1E 6DD, Great Britain, UK
| | - Ursula A Matulonis
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Amit M Oza
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G 2C1, Canada
| | - Ilan Bruchim
- Gynecologic Oncology Division, Hillel Yaffe Medical Center, Technion Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
| | - Tomasz Huzarski
- Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, 70-204 Szczecin, Poland
| | - Charlie Gourley
- Nicola Murray Centre for Ovarian Cancer Research, Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, MRC IGMM, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Philipp Harter
- Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
| | - Ignace Vergote
- Department of Oncology, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium; Division of Gynaecological Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Clare L Scott
- Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Stem Cells, and Cancer, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Werner Meier
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Evangelisches Krankenhaus Düsseldorf, Germany; University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | | | | | | | - Val Gebski
- National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia
| | - Chee K Lee
- National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia; Department of Medical Oncology, St George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW 2217, Australia; Australia New Zealand Gynecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Pujade-Lauraine E, Fujiwara K, Ledermann JA, Oza AM, Kristeleit R, Ray-Coquard IL, Richardson GE, Sessa C, Yonemori K, Banerjee S, Leary A, Tinker AV, Jung KH, Madry R, Park SY, Anderson CK, Zohren F, Stewart RA, Wei C, Dychter SS, Monk BJ. 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. Lancet Oncol 2021; 22:1034-1046. [PMID: 34143970 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(21)00216-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 153] [Impact Index Per Article: 51.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2020] [Revised: 04/06/2021] [Accepted: 04/07/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Keiichi Fujiwara
- Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Hidaka, Saitama, Japan
| | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- University College London Cancer Institute, London, UK; University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | - Amit M Oza
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Rebecca Kristeleit
- University College London Cancer Institute, London, UK; University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | - Isabelle-Laure Ray-Coquard
- Centre Léon Bérard, Service de Cancérologie Médicale, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France; Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens (GINECO), Paris, France
| | - Gary E Richardson
- Cabrini Hospital, Department of Medical Oncology, Malvern, VIC, Australia
| | - Cristiana Sessa
- Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Ospedale San Giovanni, Bellinzona, Switzerland
| | - Kan Yonemori
- Department of Breast and Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Susana Banerjee
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Alexandra Leary
- Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens (GINECO), Paris, France; Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France
| | | | - Kyung Hae Jung
- Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Songpa-gu, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Radoslaw Madry
- Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Department of Oncology, Poznan, Poland
| | - Sang-Yoon Park
- Center for Uterine Cancer, National Cancer Center, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea
| | | | | | | | - Caimiao Wei
- Pfizer, Global Biometrics and Data Management, Groton, CT, USA
| | | | - Bradley J Monk
- Arizona Oncology (US Oncology Network), University of Arizona College of Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Clamp AR, Lorusso D, Oza AM, Aghajanian C, Oaknin A, Dean A, Colombo N, Weberpals JI, Scambia G, Leary A, Holloway RW, Amenedo Gancedo M, Fong PC, Goh JC, O'Malley DM, Armstrong DK, Banerjee S, García-Donas J, Swisher EM, Cameron T, Goble S, Coleman RL, Ledermann JA. Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma: the effects of progression-free interval and prior therapies on efficacy and safety in the randomized phase III trial ARIEL3. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2021; 31:949-958. [PMID: 34103386 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-002240] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2020] [Revised: 04/20/2021] [Accepted: 04/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo regardless of biomarker status when used as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer. The aim of the current analyses was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rucaparib in subgroups based on progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of prior chemotherapies, and prior use of bevacizumab. METHODS Patients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Within subgroups, progression-free survival was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutant, homologous recombination deficient (BRCA-mutant or wild-type BRCA/high genomic loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS In the intent-to-treat population, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 8.2 months with rucaparib versus 4.1 months with placebo (n=151 vs n=76; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.46, p<0.0001) for patients with progression-free interval 6 to ≤12 months, and 13.6 versus 5.6 months (n=224 vs n=113; HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52, p<0.0001) for those with progression-free interval >12 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.4 versus 5.4 months (n=231 vs n=124; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54, p<0.0001) for patients who had received two prior chemotherapies, and 11.1 versus 5.3 months (n=144 vs n=65; HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.41, p<0.0001) for those who had received ≥3 prior chemotherapies. Median progression-free survival was 10.3 versus 5.4 months (n=83 vs n=43; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, p=0.0004) for patients who had received prior bevacizumab, and 10.9 versus 5.4 months (n=292 vs n=146; HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.45, p<0.0001) for those who had not. Across subgroups, median progression-free survival was also significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts. Safety was consistent across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS Rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo irrespective of progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of lines of prior chemotherapy, and previous use of bevacizumab.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew R Clamp
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust and University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Domenica Lorusso
- Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer and Gynecologic Malignancies and Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Amit M Oza
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Carol Aghajanian
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Ana Oaknin
- Gynaecologic Cancer Programme, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Andrew Dean
- Department of Oncology, St John of God Subiaco Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Nicoletta Colombo
- Gynecologic Cancer Program, University of Milan-Bicocca and European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Giovanni Scambia
- Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS and Scientific Directorate, Rome, Italy
| | - Alexandra Leary
- Gynecological Unit, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, INSERM U981, and Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens (GINECO), Villejuif, France
| | - Robert W Holloway
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Florida Hospital Cancer Institute, Orlando, Florida, USA
| | | | - Peter C Fong
- Medical Oncology Department, Auckland City Hospital and University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Jeffrey C Goh
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia.,University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - David M O'Malley
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, The Ohio State University, James Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Deborah K Armstrong
- Oncology, Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Susana Banerjee
- Gynecology Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Jesus García-Donas
- Division of Medical Oncology, HM Hospitales-Centro Integral Oncológico Hospital de Madrid Clara Campal, Madrid, Spain
| | - Elizabeth M Swisher
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Terri Cameron
- Clinical Science, Clovis Oncology UK Ltd, Cambridge, UK
| | - Sandra Goble
- Biostatistics, Clovis Oncology, Inc, Boulder, Colorado, USA
| | - Robert L Coleman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London and UCL Hospitals, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Arend RC, Monk BJ, Herzog TJ, Ledermann JA, Moore KN, Secord AA, Shapira-Frommer R, Tewari KS, Rachmilewitz Minei T, Harats D, Penson RT. Clinical trial in progress: Pivotal study of VB-111 combined with paclitaxel versus paclitaxel for treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (OVAL, VB-111-701/GOG-3018). J Clin Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.tps5599] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
TPS5599 Background: Ofranergene obadenovec (VB-111) is a targeted anti-cancer gene therapy with a dual mechanism of action that includes a broad antiangiogenic effect and induction of a tumor directed immune response. A phase II trial in patients with platinum resistant ovarian cancer showed that VB-111 in combination with weekly paclitaxel was well tolerated and associated with a CA-125 Objective Response Rate (ORR) of 58% with a trend for improved survival. The favorable outcomes were associated with induction of an immunotherapeutic effect of tumor infiltration with CD-8 T cells. Based on these observations, a phase III study was initiated in collaboration with the GOG Foundation, Inc. Methods: Study NCT03398655 is an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study. Eligible patients have recurrent platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer with measurable disease (RECIST 1.1), and may have been previously treated with up to 5 prior lines of therapy. Patient are randomized 1:1 to receive VB-111 (1x1013 VPs) with weekly paclitaxel (80mg/m2), or weekly paclitaxel with placebo. Randomization is stratified by number of prior treatment lines, prior antiangiogenic therapy and platinum refractory disease status. The efficacy endpoints are OS, PFS and ORR by RECIST 1.1 and by CA-125 (GCIG criteria). A pre-planned interim analysis was performed by the DSMC in the first 60 patients evaluable for CA-125 response. The analysis met the pre-defined criteria of a CA-125 ORR (GCIG) in the treatment arm at least 10% higher than in the control arm. Study enrolment is ongoing and over 220 patients were enrolled in the US, EU, and Israel. Enrolment of the full sample size of 400 patients is expected to complete by the end of 2021. Clinical trial information: NCT03398655.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Bradley J. Monk
- Arizona Oncology (US Oncology Network), University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ
| | - Thomas J. Herzog
- University of Cincinnati, University of Cincinnati Cancer Institute, Cincinnati, OH
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Kwan T, Oza AM, Lorusso D, Aghajanian C, Oaknin A, Dean AP, Colombo N, Weberpals JI, Clamp AR, Scambia G, Leary A, Holloway RW, Amenedo M, Fong PC, Goh JC, O'Malley DM, Maloney L, Goble S, Ledermann JA, Coleman RL. Clinical and molecular characteristics of ARIEL3 patients who derived exceptional benefit from rucaparib maintenance treatment for high-grade ovarian cancer (HGOC). J Clin Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.5537] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
5537 Background: ARIEL3 is a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the PARP inhibitor (PARPi) rucaparib as maintenance treatment in HGOC patients (pts) who responded to the latest line of platinum therapy (NCT01968213). Rucaparib improved progression-free survival (PFS) across all predefined subgroups. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of clinical and molecular characteristics associated with exceptional benefit from rucaparib. Methods: Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive rucaparib 600 mg BID or placebo. At the data cutoff of Dec 31, 2019, 33/375 (9%) and 1/189 (0.5%) pts were still ongoing and receiving rucaparib or placebo, respectively. Molecular features (genomic alterations, BRCA1 promoter methylation) and baseline clinical characteristics were compared between pts who derived exceptional benefit (PFS ≥2 yrs), and those with disease progression on first scan (≈12 wks; the short-term [ST] subgroup) within each treatment arm. Results: Of 564 pts, 83 (15%) showed exceptional benefit: 79/375 (21%) in the rucaparib arm and 4/189 (2%) in the placebo arm. Within the rucaparib arm, exceptional benefit pts had more favorable clinical prognostic factors at baseline compared with the ST subgroup (Table). While BRCA mutations were enriched in the rucaparib exceptional benefit subgroup, 34/79 (43%) of these pts were BRCA wild type. Among other biomarkers, RAD51C/D mutations were associated with exceptional benefit; low genome-wide loss of heterozygosity was enriched within the ST subgroup; and high BRCA1 methylation was present at similar fractions. Trends were similar in the placebo arm (Table). Conclusions: Exceptional benefit in ARIEL3 was more common in, but not exclusive to, pts with favorable clinical characteristics and known mechanisms of PARPi sensitivity. Our results suggest that rucaparib can deliver exceptional benefit to a diverse set of HGOC pts. Clinical trial information: NCT01968213. [Table: see text]
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Amit M. Oza
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Domenica Lorusso
- Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer and Gynecologic Malignancies and Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Ana Oaknin
- Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Vall d’Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Nicoletta Colombo
- University of Milan-Bicocca and European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Andrew R. Clamp
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust and University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Giovanni Scambia
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS and Scientific Directorate, Rome, Italy
| | - Alexandra Leary
- Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, INSERM U981, and Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens (GINECO), Villejuif, France
| | | | | | - Peter C.C. Fong
- Auckland City Hospital and University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Jeffrey C. Goh
- Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Herston, Australia, and University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia
| | | | | | | | - Jonathan A. Ledermann
- UCL Cancer Institute, University College London and UCL Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
| | - Robert L. Coleman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Poveda A, Lheureux S, Colombo N, Cibula D, Lindemann K, Weberpals JI, Bjurberg M, Oaknin A, Sikorska M, Gonzalez Martin A, Madry R, Rubio MJ, Ledermann JA, Davidson R, Blakeley C, Bennett J, Brown J, Skof E. Olaparib maintenance monotherapy for non-germline BRCA1/2-mutated (non-gBRCAm) platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSR OC) patients (pts): Phase IIIb OPINION primary analysis. J Clin Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.5545] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
5545 Background: In the Phase II Study 19 trial (NCT00753545; Ledermann et al Lancet Oncol 2014), maintenance olaparib improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo in PSR OC pts, including non-BRCAm pts. A significant PFS benefit was also seen with maintenance olaparib vs placebo in gBRCAm PSR OC pts in the Phase III SOLO2 trial (NCT01874353; Pujade-Lauraine et al Lancet Oncol 2017). To investigate olaparib maintenance monotherapy in non-gBRCAm PSR OC pts who had received ≥2 prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC), we performed the Phase IIIb, single-arm, OPINION study (NCT03402841). Methods: Pts had high-grade serous or endometrioid OC and were in complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) to PBC. Pts received maintenance olaparib (tablets; 300 mg bid) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS (modified RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints included PFS by homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and somatic BRCA mutation (sBRCAm) status determined by central Myriad tumor and germline testing; and time to first subsequent treatment (TFST). The primary analysis was planned for 18 months (mo) after the last patient was enrolled. Results: 279 pts were enrolled from 17 countries (mean age: 64 years); 253 pts (90.7%) were confirmed non-gBRCAm. At data cut-off (Oct 2, 2020), median PFS was 9.2 mo (95% CI 7.6–10.9), with 210 PFS events (75.3% maturity). 65.3%, 38.5% and 24.3% of pts were progression-free (PF) at 6, 12 and 18 mo, respectively. The Table shows PFS in key subgroups. Median TFST was 13.9 mo (95% CI 11.5–16.4). Median exposure to olaparib was 9.4 mo (range 0.0–31.9). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 29.0% of pts and serious TEAEs in 19.7% of pts. TEAEs led to dose interruption, dose reduction and treatment discontinuation in 47.0%, 22.6% and 7.5% of pts, respectively. Conclusions: Our findings support the use of olaparib maintenance therapy in non-gBRCAm PSR OC pts, consistent with our interim analysis and previous trials in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT03402841. [Table: see text]
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Stephanie Lheureux
- Medical Oncology Department, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - David Cibula
- First Faculty Medicine of the Charles University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
| | | | | | - Maria Bjurberg
- Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Ana Oaknin
- Gynaecologic Cancer Programme, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Vall d’Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | | | - Radoslaw Madry
- Clinical Hospital of the Transfiguration of the Lord’s Medical University Karol Marcinkowski, Poznań, Poland
| | - María Jesus Rubio
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Reina Sofia, Córdoba, Spain
| | - Jonathan A. Ledermann
- UCL Cancer Institute, University College London and UCL Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | | | - Erik Skof
- Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Ledermann JA, Embleton-Thirsk AC, Perren TJ, Jayson GC, Rustin GJS, Kaye SB, Hirte H, Oza A, Vaughan M, Friedlander M, González-Martín A, Deane E, Popoola B, Farrelly L, Swart AM, Kaplan RS, Parmar MKB. Cediranib in addition to chemotherapy for women with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (ICON6): overall survival results of a phase III randomised trial. ESMO Open 2021; 6:100043. [PMID: 33610123 PMCID: PMC7903311 DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2020.100043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2020] [Revised: 12/07/2020] [Accepted: 12/16/2020] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J A Ledermann
- UCL Cancer Institute, Cancer Research UK & UCL Trials Centre, London, UK.
| | | | - T J Perren
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, Leeds, UK
| | - G C Jayson
- Christie Hospital and University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | | - S B Kaye
- Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK
| | - H Hirte
- Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, Canada
| | - A Oza
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - M Vaughan
- Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand
| | - M Friedlander
- Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | | | - E Deane
- UCL Comprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK
| | - B Popoola
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK
| | - L Farrelly
- UCL Cancer Institute, Cancer Research UK & UCL Trials Centre, London, UK
| | - A M Swart
- University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - R S Kaplan
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK
| | - M K B Parmar
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Concin N, Creutzberg CL, Vergote I, Cibula D, Mirza MR, Marnitz S, Ledermann JA, Bosse T, Chargari C, Fagotti A, Fotopoulou C, González-Martín A, Lax SF, Lorusso D, Marth C, Morice P, Nout RA, O'Donnell DE, Querleu D, Raspollini MR, Sehouli J, Sturdza AE, Taylor A, Westermann AM, Wimberger P, Colombo N, Planchamp F, Matias-Guiu X. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Virchows Arch 2021; 478:153-190. [PMID: 33604759 DOI: 10.1007/s00428-020-03007-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 81] [Impact Index Per Article: 27.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multidisciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions. Given the large body of literature on the management of endometrial carcinoma published since 2014, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (27 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2014, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 191 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. The guidelines comprehensively cover endometrial carcinoma staging, definition of prognostic risk groups integrating molecular markers, pre- and intra-operative work-up, fertility preservation, management for early, advanced, metastatic, and recurrent disease and palliative treatment. Principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole Concin
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria. .,Evangelische Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany.
| | - Carien L Creutzberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Ignace Vergote
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Gynecologic Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - David Cibula
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Mansoor Raza Mirza
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Simone Marnitz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | | | - Tjalling Bosse
- Department of Pathology, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Cyrus Chargari
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - Anna Fagotti
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
| | - Christina Fotopoulou
- Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, Imperial College London Faculty of Medicine, London, UK
| | | | - Sigurd F Lax
- Department of Pathology, Hospital Graz II, Graz, Austria.,School of Medicine, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Linz, Austria
| | - Domenica Lorusso
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
| | - Christian Marth
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Philippe Morice
- Department of Surgery, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - Remi A Nout
- Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Denis Querleu
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospital, Strasbourg, France
| | - Maria Rosaria Raspollini
- Histopathology and Molecular Diagnostics, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - Jalid Sehouli
- Department of Gynecology with Center for Oncological Surgery, Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.,Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Alina E Sturdza
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | | | - Anneke M Westermann
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands
| | - Pauline Wimberger
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, TU Dresden Medizinische Fakultat Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany
| | - Nicoletta Colombo
- Gynecologic Oncology Program, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan and University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Xavier Matias-Guiu
- Department of Pathology, Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova, University of Lleida, CIBERONC, Irblleida, Spain.,Department of Pathology, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, University of Barcelona, Idibell, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Lee CK, Friedlander ML, Tjokrowidjaja A, Ledermann JA, Coleman RL, Mirza MR, Matulonis UA, Pujade-Lauraine E, Bloomfield R, Goble S, Wang P, Glasspool RM, Scott CL. Molecular and clinical predictors of improvement in progression-free survival with maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy in women with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis. Cancer 2021; 127:2432-2441. [PMID: 33740262 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33517] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2021] [Revised: 02/18/2021] [Accepted: 02/18/2021] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The authors performed a meta-analysis to better quantify the benefit of maintenance poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy to inform practice in platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade ovarian cancer for patient subsets with the following characteristics: germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm), somatic BRCA mutation (sBRCAm), wild-type BRCA but homologous recombinant-deficient (HRD), homologous recombinant-proficient (HRP), and baseline clinical prognostic characteristics. METHODS Randomized trials comparing a PARPi versus placebo as maintenance treatment were identified from electronic databases. Treatment estimates of progression-free survival were pooled across trials using the inverse variance weighted method. RESULTS Four trials included 972 patients who received a PARPi (olaparib, 31%; niraparib, 35%; or rucaparib, 34%) and 530 patients who received placebo. For patients who had germline BRCA1 mutation (gBRCAm1) (N = 471), the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.23-0.37); for those who had germline BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm2) (N = 236), the HR was 0.26 (95% CI, 0.17-0.39); and, for those who had sBRCAm (N = 123), the HR was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.12-0.41). The treatment effect was similar between the gBRCAm and sBRCAm subsets (P = .48). In patients who had wild-type BRCA HRD tumors (excluding sBRCAm; N = 309), the HR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31-0.56); and, in those who had wild-type BRCA HRP tumors (N = 346), the HR was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.49-0.83). The relative treatment effect was greater for the BRCAm versus HRD (P = .03), BRCAm versus HRP (P < .00001), and HRD versus HRP (P < .00001) subsets. There was no difference in benefit based on age, response after recent chemotherapy, and prior bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS In platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade ovarian cancer, maintenance PARPi improves progression-free survival for all patient subsets. PARPi therapy has a similar magnitude of benefit for sBRCAm and gBRCAm. Although patients with BRCAm derive the greatest benefit, the absence of a BRCAm or HRD could not be used to exclude patients from maintenance PARPi therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chee Khoon Lee
- National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Center, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Australia New Zealand Gynecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Michael L Friedlander
- Australia New Zealand Gynecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.,University of New South Wales Clinical School, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Angelina Tjokrowidjaja
- National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Center, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Australia New Zealand Gynecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- University College London (UCL) Cancer Institute and UCL Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
| | - Robert L Coleman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mansoor R Mirza
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet-Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.,Nordic Society of Gynecological Oncology, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Ursula A Matulonis
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Eric Pujade-Lauraine
- Université Paris Descartes, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.,Group d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens (GINECO), Paris, France
| | | | | | - Ping Wang
- GlaxoSmithKline, Waltham, Massachusetts
| | - Rosalind M Glasspool
- Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Center, National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde and University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.,Scottish Gynecological Cancer Trials Group, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
| | - Clare L Scott
- Australia New Zealand Gynecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.,Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Stem Cells, and Cancer, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
Poveda A, Floquet A, Ledermann JA, Asher R, Penson RT, Oza AM, Korach J, Huzarski T, Pignata S, Friedlander M, Baldoni A, Park-Simon TW, Tamura K, Sonke GS, Lisyanskaya A, Kim JH, Filho EA, Milenkova T, Lowe ES, Rowe P, Vergote I, Pujade-Lauraine E. Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): a final analysis of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2021; 22:620-631. [PMID: 33743851 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(21)00073-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 176] [Impact Index Per Article: 58.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2020] [Revised: 01/26/2021] [Accepted: 02/03/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously been shown to extend progression-free survival versus placebo when given to patients with relapsed high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer who were platinum sensitive and who had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation, as part of the SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21 trial. The aim of this final analysis is to investigate the effect of olaparib on overall survival. METHODS This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done across 123 medical centres in 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0-1, had histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous or high-grade endometrioid ovarian cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer, and had received two or more previous platinum regimens. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive web or voice-response system. Stratification was by response to previous chemotherapy and length of platinum-free interval. Treatment assignment was masked to patients, treatment providers, and data assessors. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival has been reported previously. Overall survival was a key secondary endpoint and was analysed in all patients as randomly allocated. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one treatment dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01874353, and is no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS Between Sept 3, 2013 and Nov 21, 2014, 295 patients were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either olaparib (n=196 [66%]) or placebo (n=99 [34%]). One patient, randomised in error, did not receive olaparib. Median follow-up was 65·7 months (IQR 63·6-69·3) with olaparib and 64·5 months (63·4-68·7) with placebo. Median overall survival was 51·7 months (95% CI 41·5-59·1) with olaparib and 38·8 months (31·4-48·6) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·74 [95% CI 0·54-1·00]; p=0·054), unadjusted for the 38% of patients in the placebo group who received subsequent PARP inhibitor therapy. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia (which occurred in 41 [21%] of 195 patients in the olaparib group and two [2%] of 99 patients in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 50 (26%) of 195 patients receiving olaparib and eight (8%) of 99 patients receiving placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events with a fatal outcome occurred in eight (4%) of the 195 patients receiving olaparib, six of which were judged to be treatment-related (attributed to myelodysplastic syndrome [n=3] and acute myeloid leukaemia [n=3]). INTERPRETATION Olaparib provided a median overall survival benefit of 12·9 months compared with placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation. Although statistical significance was not reached, these findings are arguably clinically meaningful and support the use of maintenance olaparib in these patients. FUNDING AstraZeneca and Merck.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrés Poveda
- Initia Oncology, Hospital Quirónsalud, Valencia, Spain; Grupo Español de Investigación en Cáncer de Ovario, Madrid, Spain.
| | - Anne Floquet
- Institut Bergonié, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Bordeaux, France; Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens, Paris, France
| | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK; National Cancer Research Institute, London, UK
| | - Rebecca Asher
- National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Richard T Penson
- Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Amit M Oza
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Jacob Korach
- Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, Tel Hashomer, Israel; Israeli Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Ramat Gan, Israel
| | - Tomasz Huzarski
- International Hereditary Cancer Center, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland; Read-Gene SA, Grzepnica, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Sandro Pignata
- Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy; Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer and Gynecologic Malignancies, Naples, Italy
| | - Michael Friedlander
- University of New South Wales Clinical School, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, NSW, Australia
| | - Alessandra Baldoni
- Istituto Oncologico Veneto, Padova, Italy; Mario Negri Gynecologic Oncology Group, Milan, Italy
| | - Tjoung-Won Park-Simon
- Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany; German Society of Gynecological Oncology, Essen, Germany
| | | | - Gabe S Sonke
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Dutch Gynecological Oncology Group, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Alla Lisyanskaya
- St Petersburg City Clinical Oncology Dispensary, St Petersburg, Russia
| | - Jae-Hoon Kim
- Yonsei University College of Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Seoul, South Korea; Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Elias Abdo Filho
- Instituto do Câncer do Estado São Paulo-Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
| | | | | | | | - Ignace Vergote
- University Hospital Leuven, Leuven Cancer Institute, Belgium; Belgium and Luxembourg Gynaecological Oncology Group, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Eric Pujade-Lauraine
- Association de Recherche Contre les Cancers dont Gynécologiques-ARCAGY, Paris, France
| | | |
Collapse
|
43
|
Baert T, Ferrero A, Sehouli J, O'Donnell DM, González-Martín A, Joly F, van der Velden J, Blecharz P, Tan DSP, Querleu D, Colombo N, du Bois A, Ledermann JA. The systemic treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer revisited. Ann Oncol 2021; 32:710-725. [PMID: 33675937 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.02.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2020] [Revised: 02/13/2021] [Accepted: 02/16/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- T Baert
- Department of Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany; Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
| | - A Ferrero
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Division of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Mauriziano Hospital, Turin, Italy
| | - J Sehouli
- Department of Gynecology with Center for Oncological Surgery, Charité-University hospital Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - D M O'Donnell
- Department of Oncology, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - A González-Martín
- Medical Oncology Department, Clínica Universidad de Navarra University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
| | - F Joly
- Department of Oncology, Centre Francois Baclesse, Caen, France
| | - J van der Velden
- Department of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - P Blecharz
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Center of Oncology, M. Sklodowska-Curie Institute, Krakow, Poland
| | - D S P Tan
- Department of Haematology-Oncology, National University Cancer Institute of Singapore, Singapore; Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - D Querleu
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | - N Colombo
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - A du Bois
- Department of Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
| | - J A Ledermann
- Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, UCL Cancer Institute, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Arend RC, Monk BJ, Herzog TJ, Moore KN, Shapira-Frommer R, Ledermann JA, Tewari KS, Secord AA, Rachmilewitz Minei T, Freedman LS, Miller A, Shmueli SF, Lavi M, Penson RT. Utilizing an interim futility analysis of the OVAL study (VB-111-701/GOG 3018) for potential reduction of risk: A phase III, double blind, randomized controlled trial of ofranergene obadenovec (VB-111) and weekly paclitaxel in patients with platinum resistant ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2021; 161:496-501. [PMID: 33637348 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.02.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2020] [Accepted: 02/05/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Report the results from a preplanned interim analysis of a phase III, double blind, randomized controlled study of ofranergene obadenovec (VB-111), a targeted anti-cancer gene therapy, in combination with paclitaxel in patients with platinum resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). METHODS The OVAL (NCT03398655) study is an on-going study where patients are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 with VB-111 or placebo. The protocol specifies a pre-planned unblinded futility interim analysis of CA-125 response per GCIG criteria in the first 60 evaluable patients. The futility rule determined for this analysis was that the response rate of VB-111 must be greater than the response rate of placebo by at least 10% in order to continue the study. Coincident with the interim analysis, the blinded CA-125 response rate was estimated as a proportion of the first 60 evaluable patients with CA-125 response per GCIG criteria. Post-treatment fever is provided as a possible surrogate marker of VB-111 therapy activity. RESULTS The median age of the evaluable patients was 62 years (range 41-82); 97% had high-grade serous cancer; 58% had been treated with 3 or more previous lines of therapy, 70% received prior anti-angiogenic treatment, 43% received prior PARP inhibitors. CA-125 response in the VB-111 and weekly paclitaxel treated arm met the pre-specified interim criterion of an absolute advantage of 10% or higher compared to the control. Blinded results show a 53% CA-125 response rate (32/60) with 15% complete response (n=9). Assuming balanced randomization and an absolute advantage of 10% or higher to the VB-111 arm, it may be deducted that the response in the VB-111 treatment arm is 58% or higher. Among patients with post-treatment fever, the CA-125 response rate was 69%. CONCLUSIONS At the time of the interim analysis, response rate findings are comparable to the responses seen in a similar patient population in the phase I/II study. The independent data and safety monitoring committee (iDSMC) recommended continuing the OVAL trial as planned. No new safety signals were identified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca C Arend
- University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA.
| | - Bradley J Monk
- Arizona Oncology (US Oncology Network), University of Arizona College of Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Thomas J Herzog
- University of Cincinnati Cancer Institute, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA
| | - Kathleen N Moore
- Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Laurence S Freedman
- Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel
| | - Austin Miller
- NRG Oncology, Statistical and Data Center, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Morgan RD, McNeish IA, Cook AD, James EC, Lord R, Dark G, Glasspool RM, Krell J, Parkinson C, Poole CJ, Hall M, Gallardo-Rincón D, Lockley M, Essapen S, Summers J, Anand A, Zachariah A, Williams S, Jones R, Scatchard K, Walther A, Kim JW, Sundar S, Jayson GC, Ledermann JA, Clamp AR. Objective responses to first-line neoadjuvant carboplatin-paclitaxel regimens for ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma (ICON8): post-hoc exploratory analysis of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2021; 22:277-288. [PMID: 33357510 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30591-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2020] [Revised: 09/15/2020] [Accepted: 09/18/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by delayed primary surgery (DPS) is an established strategy for women with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Although this therapeutic approach has been validated in randomised, phase 3 trials, evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST), and cancer antigen 125 (CA125) has not been reported. We describe RECIST and Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) CA125 responses in patients receiving platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS in the ICON8 trial. METHODS ICON8 was an international, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial done across 117 hospitals in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Ireland. The trial included women aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, life expectancy of more than 12 weeks, and newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO; 1988) stage IC-IIA high-grade serous, clear cell, or any poorly differentiated or grade 3 histological subtype, or any FIGO (1988) stage IIB-IV epithelial cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneum. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive intravenous carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6) and intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 by body surface area) on day 1 of every 21-day cycle (control group; group 1); intravenous carboplatin (AUC5 or AUC6) on day 1 and intravenous dose-fractionated paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 by body surface area) on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 21-day cycle (group 2); or intravenous dose-fractionated carboplatin (AUC2) and intravenous dose-fractionated paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 by body surface area) on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 21-day cycle (group 3). The maximum number of cycles of chemotherapy permitted was six. Randomisation was done with a minimisation method, and patients were stratified according to GCIG group, disease stage, and timing and outcome of cytoreductive surgery. Patients and clinicians were not masked to group allocation. The scheduling of surgery and use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were determined by local multidisciplinary case review. In this post-hoc exploratory analysis of ICON8, progression-free survival was analysed using the landmark method and defined as the time interval between the date of pre-surgical planning radiological tumour assessment to the date of investigator-assessed clinical or radiological progression or death, whichever occurred first. This definition is different from the intention-to-treat primary progression-free survival analysis of ICON8, which defined progression-free survival as the time from randomisation to the date of first clinical or radiological progression or death, whichever occurred first. We also compared the extent of surgical cytoreduction with RECIST and GCIG CA125 responses. This post-hoc exploratory analysis includes only women recruited to ICON8 who were planned for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS and had RECIST and/or GCIG CA125-evaluable disease. ICON8 is closed for enrolment and follow-up, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146. FINDINGS Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 women were enrolled in ICON8, of whom 779 (50%) were planned for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS. Median follow-up was 29·5 months (IQR 15·6-54·3) for the neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS population. Of 564 women who had RECIST-evaluable disease at trial entry, 348 (62%) had a complete or partial response. Of 727 women who were evaluable by GCIG CA125 criteria at the time of diagnosis, 610 (84%) had a CA125 response. Median progression-free survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 9·2-28·0; 297 events) for patients with a RECIST complete or partial response and 13·3 months (8·1-20·1; 171 events) for those with RECIST stable disease. Median progression-free survival for women with a GCIG CA125 response was 13·8 months (95% CI 8·8-23·4; 544 events) and 9·7 months (5·8-14·5; 111 events) for those without a GCIG CA125 response. Complete cytoreduction (R0) was achieved in 187 (56%) of 335 women with a RECIST complete or partial response and 73 (42%) of 172 women with RECIST stable disease. Complete cytoreduction was achieved in 290 (50%) of 576 women with a GCIG CA125 response and 30 (30%) of 101 women without a GCIG CA125 response. INTERPRETATION The RECIST-defined radiological response rate was lower than that frequently quoted to patients in the clinic. RECIST and GCIG CA125 responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer should not be used as individual predictive markers to stratify patients who are likely to benefit from DPS, but instead used in conjunction with the patient's clinical capacity to undergo cytoreductive surgery. A patient should not be denied surgery based solely on the lack of a RECIST or GCIG CA125 response. FUNDING Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert D Morgan
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust and University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Iain A McNeish
- Ovarian Cancer Action Research Centre, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Adrian D Cook
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Elizabeth C James
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rosemary Lord
- The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Bebington, UK
| | - Graham Dark
- The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | | | - Jonathan Krell
- Ovarian Cancer Action Research Centre, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | | | - Christopher J Poole
- Arden Cancer Research Centre, University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
| | | | | | | | | | - Jeff Summers
- Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Kent, UK
| | - Anjana Anand
- Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Abel Zachariah
- Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, Shrewsbury, UK
| | - Sarah Williams
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Rachel Jones
- South West Wales Cancer Centre, Singleton Hospital, Swansea, UK
| | | | - Axel Walther
- University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Jae-Weon Kim
- Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Sudha Sundar
- Pan Birmingham Gynaecological Cancer Centre and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Gordon C Jayson
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust and University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Andrew R Clamp
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust and University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Hall MR, Dehbi HM, Banerjee S, Lord R, Clamp A, Ledermann JA, Nicum S, Lilleywhite R, Bowen R, Michael A, Feeney A, Glasspool R, Hackshaw A, Rustin G. A phase II randomised, placebo-controlled trial of low dose (metronomic) cyclophosphamide and nintedanib (BIBF1120) in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2020; 159:692-698. [PMID: 33077258 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.09.048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2020] [Accepted: 09/27/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M R Hall
- Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK.
| | - H-M Dehbi
- Comprehensive Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.
| | - S Banerjee
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
| | - R Lord
- Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Liverpool, UK.
| | - A Clamp
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust and University of Manchester, UK.
| | - J A Ledermann
- Cancer Research UK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre, London, UK.
| | - S Nicum
- Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK.
| | - R Lilleywhite
- Cancer Research UK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre, London, UK.
| | - R Bowen
- Royal United Hospital, Bath, UK.
| | - A Michael
- Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK.
| | - A Feeney
- Cancer Research UK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre, London, UK.
| | | | - A Hackshaw
- Cancer Research UK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre, London, UK.
| | - G Rustin
- Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Miller RE, Leary A, Scott CL, Serra V, Lord CJ, Bowtell D, Chang DK, Garsed DW, Jonkers J, Ledermann JA, Nik-Zainal S, Ray-Coquard I, Shah SP, Matias-Guiu X, Swisher EM, Yates LR. ESMO recommendations on predictive biomarker testing for homologous recombination deficiency and PARP inhibitor benefit in ovarian cancer. Ann Oncol 2020; 31:1606-1622. [PMID: 33004253 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.08.2102] [Citation(s) in RCA: 191] [Impact Index Per Article: 47.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2020] [Revised: 08/14/2020] [Accepted: 08/17/2020] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R E Miller
- Department of Medical Oncology, University College London, London, UK; Department of Medical Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK
| | - A Leary
- Department of Medicine and INSERM U981, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France
| | - C L Scott
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - V Serra
- Experimental Therapeutics Group Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain
| | - C J Lord
- The Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; CRUK Gene Function Laboratory, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - D Bowtell
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - D K Chang
- Glasgow Precision Oncology Laboratory, Wolfson Wohl Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK; West of Scotland Pancreatic Unit, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK
| | - D W Garsed
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - J Jonkers
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Oncode Institute, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J A Ledermann
- UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK
| | - S Nik-Zainal
- Department of Medical Genetics, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; MRC Cancer Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - I Ray-Coquard
- Centre Leon Berard, Lyon, France; University Claude Bernard Groupe University of Lyon, France
| | - S P Shah
- Computational Oncology, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - X Matias-Guiu
- Departments of Pathology, Hospital U Arnau de Vilanova and Hospital U de Bellvitge, Universities of Lleida and Barcelona, Irblleida, Idibell, Ciberonc, Barcelona, Spain
| | - E M Swisher
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, USA
| | - L R Yates
- Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge; Guy's Cancer Centre, Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Post CCB, de Boer SM, Powell ME, Mileshkin L, Katsaros D, Bessette P, Haie-Meder C, Ottevanger NPB, Ledermann JA, Khaw P, D'Amico R, Fyles A, Baron MH, Kitchener HC, Nijman HW, Lutgens LCHW, Brooks S, Jürgenliemk-Schulz IM, Feeney A, Goss G, Fossati R, Ghatage P, Leary A, Do V, Lissoni AA, McCormack M, Nout RA, Verhoeven-Adema KW, Smit VTHBM, Putter H, Creutzberg CL. Long-Term Toxicity and Health-Related Quality of Life After Adjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy or Radiation Therapy Alone for High-Risk Endometrial Cancer in the Randomized PORTEC-3 Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 109:975-986. [PMID: 33129910 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.10.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2020] [Revised: 10/16/2020] [Accepted: 10/23/2020] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The survival results of the PORTEC-3 trial showed a significant improvement in both overall and failure-free survival with chemoradiation therapy versus pelvic radiation therapy alone. The present analysis was performed to compare long-term adverse events (AE) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS AND MATERIALS In the study, 660 women with high-risk endometrial cancer were randomly assigned to receive chemoradiation therapy (2 concurrent cycles of cisplatin followed by 4 cycles of carboplatin/paclitaxel) or radiation therapy alone. Toxicity was graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0. HRQOL was measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 and CX24/OV28 subscales and compared with normative data. An as-treated analysis was performed. RESULTS Median follow-up was 74.6 months; 574 (87%) patients were evaluable for HRQOL. At 5 years, grade ≥2 AE were scored for 78 (38%) patients who had received chemoradiation therapy versus 46 (24%) who had received radiation therapy alone (P = .008). Grade 3 AE did not differ significantly between the groups (8% vs 5%, P = .18) at 5 years, and only one new late grade 4 toxicity had been reported. At 3 and 5 years, sensory neuropathy toxicity grade ≥2 persisted after chemoradiation therapy in 6% (vs 0% after radiation therapy, P < .001) and more patients reported significant tingling or numbness at HRQOL (27% vs 8%, P < .001 at 3 years; 24% vs 9%, P = .002 at 5 years). Up to 3 years, more patients who had chemoradiation therapy reported limb weakness (21% vs 5%, P < .001) and lower physical (79 vs 87, P < .001) and role functioning (78 vs 88, P < .001) scores. Both treatment groups reported similar long-term global health/quality of life scores, which were better than those of the normative population. CONCLUSIONS This study shows a long-lasting, clinically relevant, negative impact of chemoradiation therapy on toxicity and HRQOL, most importantly persistent peripheral sensory neuropathy. Physical and role functioning impairments were seen until 3 years. These long-term data are essential for patient information and shared decision-making regarding adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk endometrial cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cathalijne C B Post
- Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
| | - Stephanie M de Boer
- Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Melanie E Powell
- Clinical Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Linda Mileshkin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Dionyssios Katsaros
- Surgical Sciences and Gynecology, Città della Salute and S Anna Hospital, Torino, Italy
| | - Paul Bessette
- Gynaecologic Oncology, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
| | | | | | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, UCL Cancer Institute, London, United Kingdom
| | - Pearly Khaw
- Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Romerai D'Amico
- Radiotherapy, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale, Lecco, Italy
| | - Anthony Fyles
- Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Marie Hélène Baron
- Radiotherapy, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Besançon, Besançon, France
| | - Henry C Kitchener
- Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Hans W Nijman
- Gynecologic Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Susan Brooks
- Radiation Oncology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | | - Amanda Feeney
- Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, UCL Cancer Institute, London, United Kingdom
| | - Geraldine Goss
- Medical Oncology, Box Hill Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Roldano Fossati
- Medical Oncology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy
| | - Prafull Ghatage
- Gynecologic Oncology, Calgary-Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Alexandra Leary
- Cancer Medicine and Gynecological Tumor Translational Research Lab, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, INSERM U981, Université Paris Saclay, Villejuif, France
| | - Viet Do
- Radiation Oncology, Liverpool & Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre, NSW, Australia
| | | | - Mary McCormack
- Clinical Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Remi A Nout
- Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Karen W Verhoeven-Adema
- Central Data Management and Trial Coordination, Comprehensive Cancer Center Netherlands, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Hein Putter
- Medical Statistics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Carien L Creutzberg
- Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Mirza MR, Benigno B, Dørum A, Mahner S, Bessette P, Barceló IB, Berton-Rigaud D, Ledermann JA, Rimel BJ, Herrstedt J, Lau S, du Bois A, Herráez AC, Kalbacher E, Buscema J, Lorusso D, Vergote I, Levy T, Wang P, de Jong FA, Gupta D, Matulonis UA. Long-term safety in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer treated with niraparib versus placebo: Results from the phase III ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial. Gynecol Oncol 2020; 159:442-448. [PMID: 32981695 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.09.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2020] [Accepted: 09/04/2020] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mansoor R Mirza
- Nordic Society of Gynaecological Oncology Clinical Trial Unit (NSGO-CTU), Rigshospitalet-Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
| | - B Benigno
- Northside Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - A Dørum
- Radiumhospitalet, Oslo University Hospital, NSGO, Oslo, Norway
| | - S Mahner
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, AGO, Munich, Germany
| | - P Bessette
- Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
| | | | - D Berton-Rigaud
- Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest Centre René Gauducheau, GINECO, Saint-Herblain, France
| | - J A Ledermann
- UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, NCRI, London, UK
| | - B J Rimel
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, West Hollywood, CA, USA
| | - J Herrstedt
- Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Zealand University Hospital, NSGO, Roskilde, Denmark
| | - S Lau
- McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - A du Bois
- Kliniken Essen Mitte, AGO, Essen, Germany
| | | | - E Kalbacher
- Centre Hospitalier Régional et Universitaire de Besançon, GINECO, Besançon, France
| | - J Buscema
- Arizona Oncology Associates, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | - D Lorusso
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario a Gemelli IRCCS, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, MITO, Milan, Italy
| | - I Vergote
- University of Leuven, Leuven Cancer Institute, BGOG, Leuven, Belgium
| | - T Levy
- Wolfson Medical Center, ISGO, Holon, Israel
| | - P Wang
- GlaxoSmithKline, Waltham, MA, USA
| | | | - D Gupta
- GlaxoSmithKline, Waltham, MA, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Colombo N, Oza AM, Lorusso D, Aghajanian C, Oaknin A, Dean A, Weberpals JI, Clamp AR, Scambia G, Leary A, Holloway RW, Gancedo MA, Fong PC, Goh JC, O'Malley DM, Armstrong DK, Banerjee S, García-Donas J, Swisher EM, Meunier J, Cameron T, Maloney L, Goble S, Bedel J, Ledermann JA, Coleman RL. The effect of age on efficacy, safety and patient-centered outcomes with rucaparib: A post hoc exploratory analysis of ARIEL3, a phase 3, randomized, maintenance study in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2020; 159:101-111. [PMID: 32861537 PMCID: PMC8450972 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.05.045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2020] [Accepted: 05/26/2020] [Indexed: 10/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the phase 3 trial ARIEL3, maintenance treatment with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib provided clinical benefit versus placebo for patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Here, we evaluate the impact of age on the clinical utility of rucaparib in ARIEL3. METHODS Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma with ≥2 prior platinum-based chemotherapies who responded to their last platinum-based therapy were enrolled in ARIEL3 and randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Exploratory, post hoc analyses of progression-free survival (PFS), patient-centered outcomes (quality-adjusted PFS [QA-PFS] and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity [Q-TWiST]), and safety were conducted in three age subgroups (<65 years, 65-74 years, and ≥75 years). RESULTS Investigator-assessed PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in patients aged <65 years (rucaparib n = 237 vs placebo n = 117; median, 11.1 vs 5.4 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.33 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.25-0.43]; P < 0.0001) and 65-74 years (n = 113 vs n = 64; median, 8.3 vs 5.3 months; HR 0.43 [95% CI 0.29-0.63]; P < 0.0001) and numerically longer in patients aged ≥75 years (n = 25 vs n = 8; median, 9.2 vs 5.5 months; HR 0.47 [95% CI 0.16-1.35]; P = 0.1593). QA-PFS and Q-TWiST were significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo across all age subgroups. Safety of rucaparib was generally similar across the age subgroups. CONCLUSIONS Efficacy, patient-centered outcomes, and safety of rucaparib were similar between age subgroups, indicating that all eligible women with recurrent ovarian cancer should be offered this therapeutic option, irrespective of age. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01968213.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicoletta Colombo
- Gynecologic Cancer Program, University of Milan-Bicocca and European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, via Ripamonti 435, 20146 Milan, Italy.
| | - Amit M Oza
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 610 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Domenica Lorusso
- Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Carol Aghajanian
- Gynecologic Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Ana Oaknin
- Medical Oncology Department, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, C/Natzaret, 115-117, 08035 Barcelona, Spain
| | - Andrew Dean
- Department of Medical Oncology, St John of God Hospital Subiaco, 12 Salvado Rd, Subiaco, WA 6008, Australia
| | - Johanne I Weberpals
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Rd, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Andrew R Clamp
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust and University of Manchester, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
| | - Giovanni Scambia
- Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Alexandra Leary
- Gynecological Unit, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, INSERM U981, and Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens (GINECO), 98405 Villejuif, France
| | - Robert W Holloway
- Gynecologic Oncology, Advent Health Cancer Institute, 601 East Rollins St, Orlando, FL 32803, USA
| | - Margarita Amenedo Gancedo
- Medical Oncology Department, Oncology Center of Galicia, Rúa Doctor Camilo Veiras, 1, 15009 La Coruña, Spain
| | - Peter C Fong
- Medical Oncology Department, Auckland City Hospital, Grafton, 2 Park Road, Grafton, Auckland 1023, New Zealand
| | - Jeffrey C Goh
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, and University of Queensland, Cnr Butterfield St and Bowen Bridge Rd, Herston, QLD 4029, Australia
| | - David M O'Malley
- Gynecologic Oncology, James Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Starling-Loving Hall, 320 West 10th Ave, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
| | - Deborah K Armstrong
- Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University Medical Center, 601 N Caroline St, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA
| | - Susana Banerjee
- Gynaecology Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, Fulham Road, London SW3 6JJ, UK
| | - Jesus García-Donas
- Division of Medical Oncology, HM Hospitales-Centro Integral Oncológico Hospital de Madrid Clara Campal, Calle Oña 10, 28050 Sanchinarro, Madrid, Spain
| | - Elizabeth M Swisher
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356460, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | | | - Terri Cameron
- Clinical Science, Clovis Oncology UK Ltd., Granta Centre, Granta Park, Great Abington, Cambridge CB21 6GP, UK
| | - Lara Maloney
- Clinical Development, Clovis Oncology, Inc., 5500 Flatiron Parkway, Boulder, CO 80301, USA
| | - Sandra Goble
- Biostatistics, Clovis Oncology, Inc., 5500 Flatiron Parkway, Boulder, CO 80301, USA
| | - Josh Bedel
- Pricing & Market Access - Europe, Clovis Oncology Switzerland GmBH, Seefeldstrasse 69, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Jonathan A Ledermann
- Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London and UCL Hospitals, 72 Huntley St, London WC1E 6DD, UK
| | - Robert L Coleman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| |
Collapse
|