Maintenance chemotherapy in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer

Homologous recombination deficiency in newly diagnosed FIGO stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer: a multi-national observational study

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.

DNA Damage Response in Cancer Therapy and Resistance: Challenges and Opportunities

Resistance to chemo- and radiotherapy is a common event among cancer patients and a reason why new cancer therapies and therapeutic strategies need to be in continuous investigation and development. DNA damage response (DDR) comprises several pathways that eliminate DNA damage to maintain genomic stability and integrity, but different types of cancers are associated with DDR machinery defects. Many improvements have been made in recent years, providing several drugs and therapeutic strategies for cancer patients, including those targeting the DDR pathways. Currently, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARP inhibitors) are the DDR inhibitors (DDRi) approved for several cancers, including breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer. However, PARPi resistance is a growing issue in clinical settings that increases disease relapse and aggravate patients' prognosis. Additionally, resistance to other DDRi is also being found and investigated. The resistance mechanisms to DDRi include reversion mutations, epigenetic modification, stabilization of the replication fork, and increased drug efflux. This review highlights the DDR pathways in cancer therapy, its role in the resistance to conventional treatments, and its exploitation for anticancer treatment. Biomarkers of treatment response, combination strategies with other anticancer agents, resistance mechanisms, and liabilities of treatment with DDR inhibitors are also discussed.

Systematic literature review of efficacy and safety of first-line maintenance therapy trials in advanced ovarian cancer

Aim: To review safety and efficacy outcomes in studies of first-line maintenance therapies for advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed (27 February 2020) to identify clinical outcomes including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and Grade ≥3 adverse events. Results: Overall 50 references met prespecified criteria; 18 studies evaluated 10 different agents, including PARP inhibitors. PFS was an end point in 16 trials and OS in 12 trials. PARP inhibitors reported better PFS hazard ratios (HRs: 0.59–0.68) compared with other classes; no mature OS data were identified. Safety reporting was inconsistent. Conclusion: Reported PFS HRs were better for PARP inhibitors than for other ovarian cancer maintenance therapies; overall survival data remain immature.

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

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.

Treatment Experience and Predictive Factors Associated with Response in Platinum-Resistant Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A Retrospective Single-Institution Study

Ovarian cancer (OC) represents the most common and lethal gynecologic malignancy, due to its increased incidence and mortality rate. It is usually diagnosed in advanced stages and, even though surgery and platinum-based treatments are initially efficient, recurrences emerge in over 70% of cases. Although there are multiple options of chemotherapy drugs from which to choose, little is known regarding the best strategy for prolonged survival. Thus, this study aimed to assess the effect that most frequently used chemotherapeutic regimens have upon time-to-treatment-failure (TTF) from the first line and beyond, considering clinical and biological factors which influence the treatment outcome of platinum-resistant recurrent OC. We retrospectively analyzed data from 78 patients diagnosed with platinum-resistant OC, who underwent chemotherapy-based treatment with or without anti-angiogenic therapy at OncoHelp Oncology Center, Romania (January 2016–February 2021). Our study identified positive predictive factors for TTF related to histology (serous carcinoma subtype), anthropometry (age over 60 for patients treated with topotecan with or without bevacizumab), renal function (creatinine levels between 0.65 and 1 mg/dL for patients treated with regimens containing bevacizumab and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin) and treatment choice (bevacizumab in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin or topotecan used from the first line and beyond).

Frontline Maintenance Treatment for Ovarian Cancer

Purpose of Review

Advanced epithelial ovarian cancer remains the most lethal gynaecological cancer. Most patients with advanced disease will relapse within 3 years after primary treatment with surgery and chemotherapy. Recurrences become increasing difficult to treat due to the emergence of drug resistance and 5-year survival has changed little over the last decade. Maintenance treatment, here defined as treatment given beyond primary chemotherapy, can both consolidate the response and prolong the control of disease which is an approach to improve survival.

Recent Findings

Here we review maintenance strategies such as targeting angiogenesis, interference of DNA repair through inhibition of PARP, combinations of targeting agents, and immunotherapy and hormonal therapy.

Summary

Much has been learnt from the success and challenges of these treatments that have in the last few years which led to significant reduction in disease recurrence, changed the guidelines for treatment, and established a new paradigm for the treatment of ovarian cancer.

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

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.

Therapeutic options following second-line platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer: Comparison of active surveillance and maintenance treatment

Most women with advanced ovarian cancer respond to initial treatment, consisting of surgical resection and ≈6 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. However, disease recurrence occurs in most patients, and subsequent therapies become necessary. Historically, close monitoring following treatment (active surveillance) was the only available option, as continued maintenance chemotherapy treatment led to increased toxicity without providing any meaningful clinical benefit. Recently, targeted therapy with the angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab and the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib have demonstrated significant clinical benefits as maintenance treatment for recurrent disease. Despite consensus guidelines recommending their use, maintenance treatments are currently underutilized. Here, we review evidence from pivotal clinical trials of approved second-line maintenance treatments demonstrating efficacy in terms of progression-free survival and postprogression efficacy outcomes for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. Adverse events frequently associated with bevacizumab include hypertension, proteinuria, and non-central nervous system bleeding, whereas PARP inhibitors are associated with nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and anemia. Patient-centered outcomes analyses show that PARP inhibitors provide significant benefits to patient health status, even when accounting for the toxicities associated with treatment. Many factors influence the selection of second-line maintenance treatment for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer, including the maintenance treatment received in the first-line setting. Overall, targeted maintenance treatment represents a new standard of care for patients with ovarian cancer, and we recommend that maintenance treatment should be offered to all eligible patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

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

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.

Practical guidance for the management of side effects during rucaparib therapy in a multidisciplinary UK setting

The use of targeted therapeutics known as poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the management of ovarian cancer is currently transforming clinical practice. The PARP inhibitor rucaparib is indicated in the UK, European Union and the United States for use in the treatment and maintenance settings for patients with relapsed ovarian cancer. Here, we discuss some of the real-world challenges and side effects that we have encountered while prescribing rucaparib, and we provide practical guidance on how the individual members of our multidisciplinary team (MDT), including a clinician, chemotherapy nurse practitioner, and clinical pharmacist, collaborate to manage these side effects. If recognized early, the side effects experienced by patients during rucaparib therapy, which include fatigue, nausea and vomiting, liver enzyme elevations, and anemia, can be easily managed. For example, providing patients with prophylactic antiemetics can help them avoid nausea, and early detection of decreases in hemoglobin levels allows for proactive interventions to alleviate anemia. The MDT should work together with the patient to identify potential side effects early and manage them effectively. The aim of this proactive approach is to maintain patients on rucaparib for optimal clinical benefit, while minimizing the potential negative impact of side effects on patient quality of life.

Rucaparib for patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL3): post-progression outcomes and updated safety results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo. Here, we report prespecified, investigator-assessed, exploratory post-progression endpoints and updated safety data.

METHODS

In this ongoing (enrolment complete) randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and responded to their last platinum-based regimen were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or placebo in 28-day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six with stratification based on homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval following penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival has been previously reported. Prespecified, exploratory outcomes of chemotherapy-free interval (CFI), time to start of first subsequent therapy (TFST), time to disease progression on subsequent therapy or death (PFS2), and time to start of second subsequent therapy (TSST) and updated safety were analysed (visit cutoff Dec 31, 2017). Efficacy analyses were done in all patients randomised to three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations, patients with homologous recombination deficiencies, and the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01968213.

FINDINGS

Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, 564 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to rucaparib (n=375) or placebo (n=189). Median follow-up was 28·1 months (IQR 22·0-33·6). In the intention-to-treat population, median CFI was 14·3 months (95% CI 13·0-17·4) in the rucaparib group versus 8·8 months (8·0-10·3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·43 [95% CI 0·35-0·53]; p<0·0001), median TFST was 12·4 months (11·1-15·2) versus 7·2 months (6·4-8·6; HR 0·43 [0·35-0·52]; p<0·0001), median PFS2 was 21·0 months (18·9-23·6) versus 16·5 months (15·2-18·4; HR 0·66 [0·53-0·82]; p=0·0002), and median TSST was 22·4 months (19·1-24·5) versus 17·3 months (14·9-19·4; HR 0·68 [0·54-0·85]; p=0·0007). CFI, TFST, PFS2, and TSST were also significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination-deficient cohorts. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event of grade 3 or higher was anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (80 [22%] patients in the rucaparib group vs one [1%] patient in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 83 (22%) patients in the rucaparib group and 20 (11%) patients in the placebo group. Two treatment-related deaths have been previously reported in this trial; there were no new treatment-related deaths.

INTERPRETATION

In these exploratory analyses over a median follow-up of more than 2 years, rucaparib maintenance treatment led to a clinically meaningful delay in starting subsequent therapy and provided lasting clinical benefits versus placebo in all three analysis cohorts. Updated safety data were consistent with previous reports.

FUNDING

Clovis Oncology.

Expectations and preferences of patients with primary and relapsed ovarian cancer to maintenance therapy: A NOGGO/ENGOT-ov22 and GCIG survey (Expression IV)

BACKGROUND

Maintenance therapy induces remission and prolongs disease free interval in primary and recurrent ovarian disease. For the treatment decision making process, aspects of quality of life and patients' preferences are crucial, despite the fact that scientific data are lacking. Therefore, we conducted this European-wide study in patients with ovarian cancer.

METHODS

A 25 item questionnaire was provided to ovarian cancer patients via the internet or as a paper version in 10 European countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Romania, Slovenia, Finland, Turkey, and Spain). Data recorded were demographics, tumor stage, therapy after firstline and recurrent disease, preferences for administration, and expectations concerning maintenance therapy.

RESULTS

Overall, 1954 patients participated from September 2013 to March 2016; 42% had recurrent disease. Most patients (98%) with primary epithelial ovarian cancer underwent surgery followed by chemotherapy (91%). Almost one-third of participants (29%) were receiving maintenance therapy whereas 45% had only heard of it. For 70% of patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer, they heard about maintenance therapy from their doctor, 10% heard about maintenance therapy from other patients, and 8% from the internet. The main source of information about maintenance therapy in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer relapse was from the treating physician (72%), from other patients (8%), and from the internet (7%). For patients undergoing maintenance therapy, the four most disturbing adverse effects were polyneuropathy (37%), nausea (36%), hair loss (34%), and vomiting (34%). The main objective of maintenance treatment, as perceived by patients, was to increase the chances of cure (73%), improvement in quality of life (47%), and delay in tumor growth (37%). Many patients were willing to undergo maintenance therapy until tumor progression (38%) and 39% would prefer oral administration. No significant differences were detected in the cross country subanalysis regarding expectations of maintenance therapy and patients with primary or relapsed ovarian cancer.

CONCLUSION

Patients with ovarian cancer were willing to accept maintenance therapy of prolonged duration and preferred oral administration. There is still a gap between the efficacy of maintenance therapy and patient expectations. Patients need more information on the adverse effects and treatment goals of maintenance therapy to avoid misunderstandings.

Intraperitoneal (IP) port cytology after completion of primary therapy for advanced stage ovarian cancer: A novel approach to a "second look"

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether IP port cytology predicts early recurrence and/or poor prognosis in patients with ovarian cancer who have completed primary therapy.

METHODS

A prospective study of patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer undergoing IP port removal after debulking followed by IV/IP chemotherapy was performed. Ports were flushed with 10 cc of normal saline into ThinPrep fixative to be analyzed for cytology. Results were correlated with clinical factors and cancer outcomes. Survivals were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using log-rank analysis.

RESULTS

Effluent from 53 IP ports was analyzed, and patients were followed for a median of 62 months. Mean age was 58.5, with the majority of patients being white (90%), with stage 3 (62%), serous histology (87%). Seven (13.2%) patients had positive IP cytology. POS and NEG groups were similar with regard to age, BMI, stage, grade, and GOG status. Patients with POS results had increased risk of recurrence HR 3.2 (95%CI 0.4, 28.9), and death HR 6.5 (95%CI 0.7, 58.8), and were more likely to recur before 12 months, 71% vs. 22% (p = 0.007). Compared to NEG, POS conferred a shorter median survival with PFS of 32 vs. 7 months (p = 0.02) and OS of 84 vs. 42 months (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

IP port cytology is predictive of recurrence and survival in patients with ovarian cancer. This inexpensive test may serve as an adjunct to imaging and tumor markers to determine disease status at the completion of treatment. Further study should investigate how this may impact management.

Bringing new medicines to women with epithelial ovarian cancer: what is the unmet medical need?

Background

Therapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) includes first line platinum/taxane-containing chemotherapy and re-treatment with platinum-containing regimens for disease recurrence in patients likely to respond again. Single-agent, non-platinum, cytotoxic agents are commonly used to treat patients resistant to platinum retreatment, but these agents are associated with dose-limiting toxicities and response rates below 20%.

Main body

Recent advances have led to novel targeted treatments for recurrent OC that offer opportunities to improve response rates and prolong progression-free intervals. However, they also add complexity to the process of selecting treatment for individual patients at different stages of the disease process. Advanced and recurrent OC is rarely cured. Multiple lines of platinum combinations, and nonplatinum chemotherapeutics eventually fail to achieve clinical benefit, thus other active and tolerable systemic therapies are needed. Consequently, the US Food and Drug Administration has created a mechanism for “accelerated approval” of new medicines in situations of high unmet medical need.

Conclusion

We review the clinical implications of recent key clinical studies in these settings and outline the path forward for study design and approval of novel therapeutics to treat recurrent OC.

Ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer is not a single disease and can be subdivided into at least five different histological subtypes that have different identifiable risk factors, cells of origin, molecular compositions, clinical features and treatments. Ovarian cancer is a global problem, is typically diagnosed at a late stage and has no effective screening strategy. Standard treatments for newly diagnosed cancer consist of cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. In recurrent cancer, chemotherapy, anti-angiogenic agents and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are used, and immunological therapies are currently being tested. High-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) is the most commonly diagnosed form of ovarian cancer and at diagnosis is typically very responsive to platinum-based chemotherapy. However, in addition to the other histologies, HGSCs frequently relapse and become increasingly resistant to chemotherapy. Consequently, understanding the mechanisms underlying platinum resistance and finding ways to overcome them are active areas of study in ovarian cancer. Substantial progress has been made in identifying genes that are associated with a high risk of ovarian cancer (such as BRCA1 and BRCA2), as well as a precursor lesion of HGSC called serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma, which holds promise for identifying individuals at high risk of developing the disease and for developing prevention strategies.

Ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer is not a single disease and can be subdivided into at least five different histological subtypes that have different identifiable risk factors, cells of origin, molecular compositions, clinical features and treatments. Ovarian cancer is a global problem, is typically diagnosed at a late stage and has no effective screening strategy. Standard treatments for newly diagnosed cancer consist of cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. In recurrent cancer, chemotherapy, anti-angiogenic agents and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are used, and immunological therapies are currently being tested. High-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) is the most commonly diagnosed form of ovarian cancer and at diagnosis is typically very responsive to platinum-based chemotherapy. However, in addition to the other histologies, HGSCs frequently relapse and become increasingly resistant to chemotherapy. Consequently, understanding the mechanisms underlying platinum resistance and finding ways to overcome them are active areas of study in ovarian cancer. Substantial progress has been made in identifying genes that are associated with a high risk of ovarian cancer (such as BRCA1 and BRCA2), as well as a precursor lesion of HGSC called serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma, which holds promise for identifying individuals at high risk of developing the disease and for developing prevention strategies.

Ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer is not a single disease and can be subdivided into at least five different histological subtypes that have different identifiable risk factors, cells of origin, molecular compositions, clinical features and treatments. Ovarian cancer is a global problem, is typically diagnosed at a late stage and has no effective screening strategy. Standard treatments for newly diagnosed cancer consist of cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. In recurrent cancer, chemotherapy, anti-angiogenic agents and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are used, and immunological therapies are currently being tested. High-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) is the most commonly diagnosed form of ovarian cancer and at diagnosis is typically very responsive to platinum-based chemotherapy. However, in addition to the other histologies, HGSCs frequently relapse and become increasingly resistant to chemotherapy. Consequently, understanding the mechanisms underlying platinum resistance and finding ways to overcome them are active areas of study in ovarian cancer. Substantial progress has been made in identifying genes that are associated with a high risk of ovarian cancer (such as BRCA1 and BRCA2), as well as a precursor lesion of HGSC called serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma, which holds promise for identifying individuals at high risk of developing the disease and for developing prevention strategies.

Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer Administered Oral Etoposide following Taxane as Maintenance Chemotherapy

Introduction

The concept of maintenance therapy is one of the highly relevant approaches in the management of advanced ovarian cancer. The fundamental goal of maintenance therapy is to improve survival outcomes. We attempted to reinforce maintenance chemotherapy by adding oral etoposide following taxane administration.

Cases

We retrospectively evaluated 14 patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had achieved clinically defined complete response to a primary platinum/taxane chemotherapy regimen and who were administered oral etoposide (50 mg/day × 21 days per cycle monthly for 3–5 cycles) following paclitaxel or docetaxel administration as maintenance chemotherapy. With regard to oral etoposide toxicity, grade 2 oral mucositis and grade 3 anemia were observed in 1 patient each. Three to five cycles of etoposide were administered to all patients, though daily dosage was reduced to 25 mg in 2 patients due to toxicity. The median progression-free survival was 43.5 months, the median overall survival was 86 months, and 5-year overall survival was 77.1%.

Conclusion

The results from this ovarian cancer treatment evaluation suggest that oral etoposide may be administered safely following paclitaxel or docetaxel as maintenance chemotherapy. We expect this regimen to contribute to the improvement in the survival outcomes of patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Danusertib Induces Apoptosis, Cell Cycle Arrest, and Autophagy but Inhibits Epithelial to Mesenchymal Transition Involving PI3K/Akt/mTOR Signaling Pathway in Human Ovarian Cancer Cells

Ovarian carcinoma (OC) is one of the most common gynecological malignancies, with a poor prognosis for patients at advanced stage. Danusertib (Danu) is a pan-inhibitor of the Aurora kinases with unclear anticancer effect and underlying mechanisms in OC treatment. This study aimed to examine the cancer cell killing effect and explore the possible mechanisms with a focus on proliferation, cell cycle progression, apoptosis, autophagy, and epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) in human OC cell lines C13 and A2780cp. The results showed that Danu remarkably inhibited cell proliferation, induced apoptosis and autophagy, and suppressed EMT in both cell lines. Danu arrested cells in G₂/M phase and led to an accumulation of polyploidy through the regulation of the expression key cell cycle modulators. Danu induced mitochondria-dependent apoptosis and autophagy in dose and time-dependent manners. Danu suppressed PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway, evident from the marked reduction in the phosphorylation of PI3K/Akt/mTOR, contributing to the autophagy inducing effect of Danu in both cell lines. In addition, Danu inhibited EMT. In aggregate, Danu exerts potent inducing effect on cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, and autophagy, but exhibits a marked inhibitory effect on EMT. PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway contributes, partially, to the cancer cell killing effect of Danu in C13 and A2780cp cells.