Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without nintedanib for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: Lessons from the GINECO double-blind randomized phase II CHIVA trial

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab in advanced high-grade serous carcinoma: the randomized phase II NeoPembrOV clinical trial

This open-label, non-comparative, 2:1 randomized, phase II trial (NCT03275506) in women with stage IIIC/IV high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) for whom upfront complete resection was unachievable assessed whether adding pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) to standard-of-care carboplatin plus paclitaxel yielded a complete resection rate (CRR) of at least 50%. Postoperatively patients continued assigned treatment for a maximum of 2 years. Postoperative bevacizumab was optional. The primary endpoint was independently assessed CRR at interval debulking surgery. Secondary endpoints were Completeness of Cytoreduction Index (CCI) and peritoneal cancer index (PCI) scores, objective and best response rates, progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, postoperative morbidity, and pathological complete response. The CRR in 61 pembrolizumab-treated patients was 74% (one-sided 95% CI = 63%), exceeding the prespecified ≥50% threshold and meeting the primary objective. The CRR without pembrolizumab was 70% (one-sided 95% CI = 54%). In the remaining patients CCI scores were ≥3 in 27% of the standard-of-care group and 18% of the investigational group and CC1 in 3% of the investigational group. PCI score decreased by a mean of 9.6 in the standard-of-care group and 10.2 in the investigational group. Objective response rates were 60% and 72%, respectively, and best overall response rates were 83% and 90%, respectively. Progression-free survival was similar with the two regimens (median 20.8 versus 19.4 months in the standard-of-care versus investigational arms, respectively) but overall survival favored pembrolizumab-containing therapy (median 35.3 versus 49.8 months, respectively). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events with pembrolizumab-containing therapy were anemia during neoadjuvant therapy and infection/fever postoperatively. Pembrolizumab was discontinued prematurely because of adverse events in 23% of pembrolizumab-treated patients. Combining pembrolizumab with neoadjuvant chemotherapy is feasible for HGSC considered not completely resectable; observed activity in some subgroups justifies further evaluation to improve understanding of the role of immunotherapy in HGSC.

Spatial Profiling of Ovarian Carcinoma and Tumor Microenvironment Evolution under Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

This study investigates changes in CD8+ cells, CD8+/Foxp3 ratio, HLA I expression, and immune coregulator density at diagnosis and upon neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), correlating changes with clinical outcomes.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Multiplexed immune profiling and cell clustering analysis were performed on paired matched ovarian cancer samples to characterize the immune tumor microenvironment (iTME) at diagnosis and under NACT in patients enrolled in the CHIVA trial (NCT01583322).

RESULTS

Several immune cell (IC) subsets and immune coregulators were quantified pre/post-NACT. At diagnosis, patients with higher CD8+ T cells and HLA I+-enriched tumors were associated with a better outcome. The CD8+/Foxp3+ ratio increased significantly post-NACT in favor of increased immune surveillance, and the influx of CD8+ T cells predicted better outcomes. Clustering analysis stratified pre-NACT tumors into four subsets: high Binf, enriched in B clusters; high Tinf and low Tinf, according to their CD8+ density; and desert clusters. At baseline, these clusters were not correlated with patient outcomes. Under NACT, tumors were segregated into three clusters: high BinfTinf, low Tinf, and desert. The high BinfTinf, more diverse in IC composition encompassing T, B, and NK cells, correlated with improved survival. PDL1 was rarely expressed, whereas TIM3, LAG3, and IDO1 were more prevalent.

CONCLUSIONS

Several iTMEs exist during tumor evolution, and the NACT impact on iTME is heterogeneous. Clustering analysis of patients unravels several IC subsets within ovarian cancer and can guide future personalized approaches. Targeting different checkpoints such as TIM3, LAG3, and IDO1, more prevalent than PDL1, could more effectively harness antitumor immunity in this anti-PDL1-resistant malignancy.

New hopes and promises in the treatment of ovarian cancer focusing on targeted treatment-a narrative review

Unfortunately, ovarian cancer is still diagnosed most often only in an advanced stage and is also the most lethal gynecological cancer. Another problem is the fact that treated patients have a high risk of disease recurrence. Moreover, ovarian cancer is very diverse in terms of molecular, histological features and mutations. Many patients may also develop platinum resistance, resulting in poor response to subsequent lines of treatment. To improve the prognosis of patients with ovarian cancer, it is expected to make better existing and implement new, promising treatment methods. Targeted therapies seem very promising. Currently, bevacizumab - a VEGF inhibitor and therapy with olaparib - a polyADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor are approved. Other methods worth considering in the future include: folate receptor α, immune checkpoints or other immunotherapy methods. To improve the treatment of ovarian cancer, it is also important to ameliorate the determination of molecular features to describe and understand which group of patients will benefit most from a given treatment method. This is important because a larger group of patients treated for ovarian cancer can have a greater chance of surviving longer without recurrence.

Efficacy and safety of anti-angiogenic drug monotherapy and combination therapy for ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

As the development of novel anti-angiogenic drugs and the continuous evolution of guideline recommendations, the efficacy and safety of anti-angiogenic agents in ovarian cancer (OC) remains unclear. Consequently, a meta-analysis was carried out to assess the efficacy and safety of anti-angiogenic drug monotherapy and combination therapy for OC.

Methods

An exhaustive literature review was performed across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane, encompassing all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up until 6 April 2024. The evaluation of efficacy outcomes incorporated progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). Safety was assessed through the occurrence of any grade adverse events (AEs) and grade ≥3 AEs. Synthesis of the data involved the calculation of hazard ratios (HRs), relative risks (RRs), and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and prediction intervals (PIs). Trial sequential analysis was executed employing TSA v0.9.5.10 Beta software, STATA 12.0, and R software 4.3.1.

Results

In this meta-analysis, 35 RCTs were included, encompassing 16,199 subjects in total. The overall analysis indicated that anti-angiogenic drug combination therapy significantly improved PFS (HR [95% CI] = 0.678 [0.606-0.759], 95% PI: 0.415-1.108), OS (HR [95% CI] = 0.917 [0.870-0.966], 95% PI: 0.851-0.984), and ORR (RR [95% CI] = 1.441 [1.287-1.614], 95% PI: 1.032-2.014), but also increased the incidence of grade ≥3 AEs (RR [95% CI] = 1.137 [1.099-1.177], 95% PI: 1.011-1.252). The analysis did not corroborate any benefit of anti-angiogenic monotherapy over placebo concerning PFS (HR [95% CI] = 0.956 [0.709-1.288], 95% PI: 0.345-2.645) and OS (HR [95% CI] = 1.039 [0.921-1.173], 95% PI: 0.824-1.331). However, it was observed that monotherapy with anti-angiogenic drugs did increase the incidence of any grade AEs (RR [95% CI] = 1.072 [1.036-1.109], 95% PI: 0.709-1.592).

Conclusion

Our study confirmed the PFS, OS, and ORR benefits of anti-angiogenic drug combination therapy for OC patients. The efficacy results of anti-angiogenic monotherapy necessitates further evaluation as more RCTs become available. Clinicians should be vigilant of AEs when administering anti-angiogenic agents in a clinical setting.

Top advances of the year: Ovarian cancer

Although cure rates remain low and effective screening strategies are elusive, the recent advances in systemic therapies over the past year highlighted in this review have prolonged survival for women with ovarian cancer. In 2022, the first antibody-drug conjugate for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer received accelerated US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Confirmatory studies examining the efficacy of mirvetuximab and other antibody-drug conjugates are underway. In the upfront setting, the first data establishing an overall survival benefit from poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor maintenance was demonstrated after a 7-year follow-up period. In contrast, long-term updates from poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor trials in the noncurative setting reported survival detriments, and the FDA withdrew the respective indications. Several trials attempted to improve upon the standard of care for platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma and those with rare ovarian cancer histologies (carcinosarcoma, clear cell carcinoma) but failed to demonstrate a clinically or statistically meaningful benefit. This leaves the open question of how to further optimize systemic therapy for advanced ovarian carcinoma to improve long-term survival and cure rates.

Effect of angiogenesis inhibitors on wound healing in patients with ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis

Angiogenic inhibitors have been demonstrated to inhibit tumour cells in ovarian carcinoma, but the initial data are not accurate enough to indicate the influence of these drugs on the post-therapy wound healing. In order to assess the effect of angiogenic inhibitors on the treatment of wound healing in ovarian carcinoma, we performed a meta-analysis of related literature. For this meta-analysis, we looked up the data from 4 databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. All literature searches were performed up to October 2023. The ROBINS-I tool was applied to evaluate the risk of bias in the inclusion trials, and statistical analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3. In this research, 971 related research were chosen, and 9 of them were selected. These studies were published between 2013 and 2023. In all 9 trials, a total of 3902 patients were enrolled. There was a significant reduction in the risk of wound infection in the control group than in those who received angiogenesis inhibitors (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.89 p = 0.007). The risk of developing an abscess was not significantly different from that of those who received angiogenesis inhibitors (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.20-3.12 p = 0.74). The risk of perforation in the control group was smaller than that in those receiving angiogenic inhibitors (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.11-0.56 p = 0.0006). There was a significant increase in the risk of injury and GI perforation in women who received angiogenic inhibitors than in the control group. But the incidence of abscess did not differ significantly among the two groups.

Vascular normalization: reshaping the tumor microenvironment and augmenting antitumor immunity for ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer remains a challenging disease with limited treatment options and poor prognosis. The tumor microenvironment (TME) plays a crucial role in tumor growth, progression, and therapy response. One characteristic feature of the TME is the abnormal tumor vasculature, which is associated with inadequate blood perfusion, hypoxia, and immune evasion. Vascular normalization, a therapeutic strategy aiming to rectify the abnormal tumor vasculature, has emerged as a promising approach to reshape the TME, enhance antitumor immunity, and synergize with immunotherapy in ovarian cancer. This review paper provides a comprehensive overview of vascular normalization and its potential implications in ovarian cancer. In this review, we summarize the intricate interplay between anti-angiogenesis and immune modulation, as well as ICI combined with anti-angiogenesis therapy in ovarian cancer. The compelling evidence discussed in this review contributes to the growing body of knowledge supporting the utilization of combination therapy as a promising treatment paradigm for ovarian cancer, paving the way for further clinical development and optimization of this therapeutic approach.