Spezialisierte histopathologische Zweitbegutachtung fortgeschrittener Ovarialkarzinome: Erfahrungen an Kollektiven aus prospektiv randomisierten Phase-III-Studien

Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptors and Ligands in Context of Bevacizumab Response in Ovarian Carcinoma: An Exploratory Analysis of AGO-OVAR11/ICON-7

With more novel drugs being approved for the treatment of ovarian carcinoma, the question remains to what extent patients benefit from antiangiogenic treatment with bevacizumab, either in combination with poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors or as single-agent maintenance. As fibroblast growth factor receptors and their ligands (FGFRs/FGFs) are key players in angiogenic signaling and have been linked to resistance to several drugs, we investigated the prognostic or predictive potential of FGFs/FGFRs signaling in the context of bevacizumab treatment within the prospective phase III AGO-OVAR11/ICON-7 study. FGFR1, FGFR2, FGFR3, FGFR4, FGF1, and FGF19 gene expressions were determined in 380 ovarian carcinoma tumor samples collected from German centers in the multicenter phase III AGO-OVAR11 trial/ICON-7 trial. All patients received carboplatin and paclitaxel, administered every 3 weeks for 6 cycles, and were randomized to bevacizumab. Expressions of FGFR1, FGFR2, FGF1, and FGF19 were associated with progression-free survival in both uni- and multivariate (FGFR1: HR, 1.6, P < .001; FGFR2: HR, 1.6, P = .002; FGF1: HR, 2.3, P < .001; and FGF19: HR, 0.7; P = .007) analysis. A signature built by FGFR1, FGFR4, and FGF19 defined a subgroup (n = 62) of patients that derived the greatest bevacizumab-associated improvement of progression-free survival (HR, 0.3; P = .004). In this exploratory analysis of a prospective randomized phase III trial, we provide evidence that the expression of FGFRs/FGFs might have independent prognostic values. An FGFR/FGF-based gene signature identified in our study appears to predict long-term benefit from bevacizumab. This observation is hypothesis-generating and requires validation on independent cohorts.

Histopathological Revision for Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms in Expert Centers: Does It Make the Difference?

BACKGROUND

The correct histopathological diagnosis of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) is crucial for treatment selection and prognostication. It is also very challenging due to limited experience in nonexpert centers. Revision of pathology is standard of care for most patients who are referred to NEN expert centers.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the clinical impact of histopathological revision for GEP-NEN patients referred to an expert center.

METHODS

Retrospective multicenter analysis of all GEP-NENs receiving a histopathological revision in 6 European NEN expert centers (January 2016 to December 2016) to evaluate the impact on patient management.

RESULTS

175 patients were included and 14.7% referred for a second opinion. Histological samples were 69.1% biopsies, 23.4% surgical specimens, and 7.5% endoscopic resections. Histopathological changes due to revision included first assessment of Ki67 in 8.6% of cases, change in grading in 11.4% (3.4% G1 to G2; 5.7% G2 to G1; 0.6% G2 to G3; 1.7% G3 to G2), definition of tumor invasion in 10.8%, additional immunohistochemical staining in 2.3%, diagnosis of mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma in 3.4%, exclusion of NEN in 3.4%, first diagnosis of NEN in 2.3%, and tumor differentiation for G3 in 1.7%. The revision had a clinical impact in 36.0% of patients, leading to a new therapeutic indication in 26.3%. The indication to then perform a new imaging test occurred in 21.1% and recommendation to follow-up with no further treatment in 6.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Histopathological revision in expert centers for NENs can change the diagnosis, with a significant clinical impact in about one third of patients.

Operability and chemotherapy responsiveness in advanced low-grade serous ovarian cancer. An analysis of the AGO Study Group metadatabase

OBJECTIVE

Since almost two decades standard 1st-line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) has been a platinum/taxane combination. More recently, this general strategy has been challenged because different types of AOC may not benefit homogenously. Low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC) is one of the candidates in whom efficacy of standard chemotherapy should be revised.

METHODS

This study is an exploratory case control study of the AGO-metadatabase of 4 randomized phase III trials with first-line platinum combination chemotherapy without any targeted therapy. Patients with advanced FIGO IIIBIV low-grade serous ovarian cancer were included and compared with control cases having high-grade serous AOC.

RESULTS

Out of 5114 patients in this AGO database 145 (2.8%) had LGSOC and of those thirty-nine (24.1%) had suboptimal debulking with post-operative residual tumor >1cm, thus being eligible for response evaluation. An objective response was observed in only 10 patients and this 23.1% response rate (RR) was significantly lower compared to 90.1% RR in the control cohort of high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) (p<0.001). Both, LGSOC and HGSOC patients who underwent complete cytoreduction had significantly better progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in comparison to those with residuals after primary surgery, accordingly (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our observation indicates that low-grade serous cancer is not as responsive to platinum-taxane-based chemotherapy as high-grade serous AOC. In contrast, surgical debulking showed a similar impact on outcome in both types of AOC thus indicating different roles for both standard treatment modalities. Systemic treatment of low grade serous AOC urgently warrants further investigations.