Randomized Phase II Study of Gemcitabine With or Without ATR Inhibitor Berzosertib in Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer: Final Overall Survival and Biomarker Analyses

PURPOSE

The multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 NCI-9944 study (NCT02595892) demonstrated that addition of ATR inhibitor (ATRi) berzosertib to gemcitabine increased progression-free survival (PFS) compared to gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio [HR]=0.57, one-sided log-rank P = .044, which met the one-sided significance level of 0.1 used for sample size calculation).

METHODS

We report here the final overall survival (OS) analysis and biomarker correlations (ATM expression by immunohistochemistry, mutational signature 3 and a genomic biomarker of replication stress) along with post-hoc exploratory analyses to adjust for crossover from gemcitabine to gemcitabine/berzosertib.

RESULTS

At the data cutoff of January 27, 2023 (>30 months of additional follow-up from the primary analysis), median OS was 59.4 weeks with gemcitabine/berzosertib versus 43.0 weeks with gemcitabine alone (HR 0.79, 90% CI 0.52 to 1.2, one-sided log-rank P = .18). An OS benefit with addition of berzosertib to gemcitabine was suggested in patients stratified into the platinum-free interval ≤3 months (N = 26) subgroup (HR, 0.48, 90% CI 0.22 to 1.01, one-sided log-rank P =.04) and in patients with ATM-negative/low (N = 24) tumors (HR, 0.50, 90% CI 0.23 to 1.08, one-sided log-rank P = .06).

CONCLUSION

The results of this follow-up analysis continue to support the promise of combined gemcitabine/ATRi therapy in platinum resistant ovarian cancer, an active area of investigation with several ongoing clinical trials.

Vaccination of Adults With Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To guide the vaccination of adults with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and nonrandomized studies on the efficacy and safety of vaccines used by adults with cancer or their household contacts. This review builds on a 2013 guideline by the Infectious Disease Society of America. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2013, to February 16, 2023. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 102 publications were included in the systematic review: 24 systematic reviews, 14 RCTs, and 64 nonrandomized studies. The largest body of evidence addressed COVID-19 vaccines.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The goal of vaccination is to limit the severity of infection and prevent infection where feasible. Optimizing vaccination status should be considered a key element in the care of patients with cancer. This approach includes the documentation of vaccination status at the time of the first patient visit; timely provision of recommended vaccines; and appropriate revaccination after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, or B-cell-depleting therapy. Active interaction and coordination among healthcare providers, including primary care practitioners, pharmacists, and nursing team members, are needed. Vaccination of household contacts will enhance protection for patients with cancer. Some vaccination and revaccination plans for patients with cancer may be affected by the underlying immune status and the anticancer therapy received. As a result, vaccine strategies may differ from the vaccine recommendations for the general healthy adult population vaccine.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

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.

Consensus report of the 2021 National Cancer Institute neuroendocrine tumor clinical trials planning meeting

Important progress has been made over the last decade in the classification, imaging, and treatment of neuroendocrine neoplasm (NENs), with several new agents approved for use. Although the treatment options available for patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have greatly expanded, the rapidly changing landscape has presented several unanswered questions about how best to optimize, sequence, and individualize therapy. Perhaps the most important development over the last decade has been the approval of 177Lu-DOTATATE for treatment of gastroenteropancreatic-NETs, raising questions around optimal sequencing of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) relative to other therapeutic options, the role of re-treatment with PRRT, and whether PRRT can be further optimized through use of dosimetry among other approaches. The NET Task Force of the National Cancer Institute GI Steering Committee convened a clinical trial planning meeting in 2021 with multidisciplinary experts from academia, the federal government, industry, and patient advocates to develop NET clinical trials in the era of PRRT. Key clinical trial recommendations for development included 1) PRRT re-treatment, 2) PRRT and immunotherapy combinations, 3) PRRT and DNA damage repair inhibitor combinations, 4) treatment for liver-dominant disease, 5) treatment for PRRT-resistant disease, and 6) dosimetry-modified PRRT.

Pharmacokinetics and RP2D analysis from ETCTN 10388: A phase I trial of triapine and lutetium Lu-177 dotatate in well-differentiated somatostatin receptor–positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs)

648

Background: Radiation is a potent inducer of DNA double-strand breaks, and ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) is the rate-limiting enzyme for conversion of ribonucleoside diphosphate to deoxyribonucleotide diphosphate, and thus repair of DNA in this setting. ETCTN 10388 evaluated safety of combination Lu-177 DOTATATE, a beta-emitting radionuclide in combination with triapine, a ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) inhibitor. Methods: This investigator initiated, NCI sponsored, multicenter phase 1 trial, enrolled a total of 31 patients in the dose escalation [using the Bayesian optimal interval design (BOIN)] and dose expansion cohorts. Oral triapine was administered on days 1-14 and Lu-177 DOTATATE [200 mCi] intravenously on day 1 of every 56-day cycle. A total of 4 cycles were administered. All enrolled patients had blood samples collected for triapine pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis in EDTA tubes prior to and at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 h after oral administration during cycle 1. Results: Five patients were enrolled in triapine Dose Level 1 (100 mg/day), twenty-five to dose level two (150 mg/day), and one patient to dose level three (200 mg/day). PK data were available for 12 patients enrolled in the dose escalation cohort. The geometric mean (SD) AUC0-inf was 1159 (1.22) µg/L•h for the 100mg dose level and 1862 (1.76) µg/L•h for the 150 mg dose level, suggesting that exposure increased with dose, and inter-patient variability was as expected for an oral agent. Triapine PK parameter values observed in this trial, were comparable to previous reports that used a previous formulation [ 1 ]. While exposure was similar, variability appeared smaller with the current oral formulation. Adverse events (AE) were assessed in all 31 patients per CTCAE 5.0. A total of one DLT in dose level 1, seven DLTs (Transient cytopenia; primarily neutropenia and rarely thrombocytopenia) in dose level 2, and one grade 5 DLT (Death probably from progressive cancer and carcinoid heart disease but possibly from trial drugs) in dose level 3 were observed. Detailed AE profile will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: The RP2D of triapine is 150 mg QD on days 1-14 in combination with Lu-177 DOTATATE on day 1 of every 56-day cycle. Clinical trial information: 04234568 .

ETCTN 10450: A phase I trial of peposertib and lutetium 177 DOTATATE in well-differentiated somatostatin receptor-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs)

TPS658

Background: Radiolabeled somatostatin analogues provide a means of delivering targeted radiation with a high therapeutic index to NETs that express somatostatin receptors (SSTRs). Radiolabeled somatostatin analogue Lutetium 177 DOTATATE (Lutathera) is a beta-emitting radionuclide, FDA approved for use in SSTR positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEPNETS) in the US based on the NETTER-1 Phase III trial. Despite favorable PFS and safety profile, the drug has limited cytoreductive capability with a 17% ORR. Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) also doesn’t seem to be very effective in treating peritoneal disease. We hypothesize that addition of an effective radiation sensitizer could help improve antitumor activity of Lutathera. Radiation is a potent inducer of DNA double-strand break (DSB); targeting signaling networks involved in DSB repair is a promising approach for enhancing cellular radiosensitivity. The primary repair mechanism of radiation-induced DSBs is nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ) pathway, in which the DNA-PK (Deoxyribonucleic acid protein kinase) complex plays a pivotal role. Upregulation of DNA-PK promotes repair of DSBs leading to tumor radio-resistance preclinically and clinically. Thus, DNA-PK is an important molecular target for inhibiting DSB repair and enhancing the cytotoxicity of radiation. Peposertib is a selective inhibitor of DNA-PK that targets tumor cell DNA damage repair and survival by blocking NHEJ. We previously reported strong anti-tumor activity when Peposertib was used as radiation sensitizer in pre-clinical NET models. Methods: This study is an investigator initiated, NCI sponsored, multicenter phase 1 trial of peposertib and Lutetium Lu 177 DOTATATE in well-differentiated somatostatin receptor-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (GEP-NETs) after the failure of at least one line of prior systemic cancer treatment. A total of 29 patients will be enrolled in the dose escalation with help of Bayesian optimal interval design (BOIN) and dose expansion cohorts. The study will be open through the NCI ETCTN (National Cancer Institute Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network) program. Patients will be treated with 177 lutetium dotatate in combination with peposertib. Peposertib will be administered orally from D1-21 with each dose of PRRT [200 mCi]. Primary endpoint is to evaluate recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary endpoints are to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity (ORR and PFS). We are also evaluating Lu-177 DOTATATE dosimetry in collaboration with NIH IROC and plasma hPG80, a novel blood based diagnostic biomarker. In addition, the study will correlate clinical outcome with somatic tumor mutations and germline mutations. Clinical trial information: 04750954 .

Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors in the Management of Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update

ASCO Rapid Recommendations Updates highlight revisions to select ASCO guideline recommendations as a response to the emergence of new and practice-changing data. The rapid updates are supported by an evidence review and follow the guideline development processes outlined in the ASCO Guideline Methodology Manual. The goal of these articles is to disseminate updated recommendations, in a timely manner, to better inform health practitioners and the public on the best available cancer care options.

State of the Biomarker Science in Ovarian Cancer: A National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Planning Meeting Report

PURPOSE

Despite therapeutic advances in the treatment of ovarian cancer (OC), 5-year survival remains low, and patients eventually die from recurrent, chemotherapy-resistant disease. The National Cancer Gynecologic Cancer Steering Committee identified the integration of scientifically defined subgroups as a top strategic priority in clinical trial planning.

METHODS

A group of experts was convened to review the scientific literature in OC to identify validated predictive biomarkers that could inform patient selection and treatment stratification. Here, we report on these findings and their potential for use in future clinical trial design on the basis of hierarchal evidence grading.

RESULTS

The biomarkers were classified on the basis of mechanistic targeting, including DNA repair and replication stress, immunotherapy and tumor microenvironment, oncogenic signaling, and angiogenesis. Currently, BRCA mutations and homologous recombination deficiency to predict poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor response are supported in OC by the highest level of evidence. Additional biomarkers of response to agents targeting the pathways above have been identified but require prospective validation.

CONCLUSION

Although a number of biomarkers of response to various agents in OC have been described in the literature, high-level evidence for the majority is lacking. This report highlights the unmet need for identification and validation of predictive biomarkers to guide therapy and future trial design in OC.

Clinical research in ovarian cancer: consensus recommendations from the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) sixth Ovarian Cancer Conference on Clinical Research was held virtually in October, 2021, following published consensus guidelines. The goal of the consensus meeting was to achieve harmonisation on the design elements of upcoming trials in ovarian cancer, to select important questions for future study, and to identify unmet needs. All 33 GCIG member groups participated in the development, refinement, and adoption of 20 statements within four topic groups on clinical research in ovarian cancer including first line treatment, recurrent disease, disease subgroups, and future trials. Unanimous consensus was obtained for 14 of 20 statements, with greater than 90% concordance in the remaining six statements. The high acceptance rate following active deliberation among the GCIG groups confirmed that a consensus process could be applied in a virtual setting. Together with detailed categorisation of unmet needs, these consensus statements will promote the harmonisation of international clinical research in ovarian cancer.

Biomarker development: bedside to bench

This commentary complements the report from Nixon and colleagues by addressing the critical definitions, assay and analytical quality control and interpretation, and resources available to advance similar fit-for-purpose biomarker development.

Olaparib With or Without Cediranib Versus Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Recurrent Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian Cancer (NRG-GY004): A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial

PURPOSE

Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard of care for platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, but complications from repeated platinum therapy occur. We assessed the activity of two all-oral nonplatinum alternatives, olaparib or olaparib/cediranib, versus platinum-based chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

NRG-GY004 is an open-label, randomized, phase III trial conducted in the United States and Canada. Eligible patients had high-grade serous or endometrioid platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to platinum-based chemotherapy, olaparib, or olaparib/cediranib. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points included activity within germline BRCA-mutated or wild-type subgroups and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

RESULTS

Between February 04, 2016, and November 13, 2017, 565 eligible patients were randomly assigned. Median PFS was 10.3 (95% CI, 8.7 to 11.2), 8.2 (95% CI, 6.6 to 8.7), and 10.4 (95% CI, 8.5 to 12.5) months with chemotherapy, olaparib, and olaparib/cediranib, respectively. Olaparib/cediranib did not improve PFS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.10; P = .077). In women with germline BRCA mutation, the PFS HR versus chemotherapy was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.94) for olaparib/cediranib and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.37 to 1.07) for olaparib. In women without a germline BRCA mutation, the PFS HR versus chemotherapy was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.30) for olaparib/cediranib and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.86) for olaparib. Hematologic adverse events occurred more commonly with chemotherapy; however, nonhematologic adverse events were higher with olaparib/cediranib. In 489 patients evaluable for PROs, patients receiving olaparib/cediranib scored on average 1.1 points worse on the NFOSI-DRS-P subscale (97.5% CI, -2.0 to -0.2, P = .0063) versus chemotherapy; no difference between olaparib and chemotherapy was observed.

CONCLUSION

Combination olaparib/cediranib did not improve PFS compared with chemotherapy and resulted in reduced PROs. Notably, in patients with a germline BRCA mutation, both olaparib and olaparib/cediranib had significant clinical activity.

Comparison of Design, Eligibility, and Outcomes of Neuroendocrine Neoplasm Trials Initiated From 2000 to 2009 vs 2010 to 2020

Importance

Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) have historically been grouped homogenously in clinical trials, despite their heterogeneity. Given the adoption of a more advanced pathologic classification system and drug licensure of several targeted therapies over the last decade, information is needed on whether study characteristics of NEN studies have evolved.

Objective

To assess changes in study design, eligibility, accrual, sponsorship, and outcomes between phase II or III NEN clinical trials that began enrollment from 2000 to 2009 vs 2010 to 2020.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This quality improvement study used a systematic survey of completed studies published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2020. Therapeutic phase II and III NEN studies were identified through a database search of Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE (OvidSP), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCOhost), Web of Science (Clarivate), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Wiley), ClinicalTrials.gov (National Institutes of Health), EU Clinical Trials Register, and National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials. Data were analyzed between March and June 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Study characteristic proportions between the 2 enrollment periods.

Results

Of 3243 identified studies, 119 studies met criteria for inclusion, of which 117 studies (54 studies that began enrollment between 2000-2009 and 63 studies that began enrollment between 2010-2020) included exact dates of enrollment and were compared. Studies that began enrollment after 2010, compared with studies that began enrollment from 2000 to 2009, were less likely to include all NENs (13 studies [21%] vs 34 studies [63%]; P < .001) and more likely to include select NENs (eg, gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors, 25 studies [40%] vs 11 studies [20%]; P = .02; pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, 32 studies [51%] vs 16 studies [30%]; P = .02). Studies that began enrollment after 2010, compared with studies that began enrollment from 2000 to 2009, were more likely to specify tumor differentiation (59 studies [98%] vs 34 studies [63%]; P < .001) or Ki-67 index (23 studies [38%] vs 5 studies [9%]; P < .001) in inclusion criteria. Studies that began enrollment after 2010, compared with studies that began enrollment from 2000 to 2009, were more likely to use progression-free survival (22 studies [35%] vs 9 studies [18%]; P = .04) rather than objective response rate (19 studies [30%] vs 27 studies [53%]; P = .01) as a primary or coprimary end point.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that NEN trials enrolling over the last decade were more focused on select tumor populations, compared with studies that began enrollment before 2010. Despite this shift, more than 20% of studies still included all NENs. Studying novel agents in specific disease populations may enhance drug development in the field.

Assessment of Adult Women With Ovarian Masses and Treatment of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide expert guidance to clinicians and policymakers in three resource-constrained settings on diagnosis and staging of adult women with ovarian masses and treatment of patients with epithelial ovarian (including fallopian tube and primary peritoneal) cancer.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary, multinational ASCO Expert Panel reviewed existing guidelines, conducted a modified ADAPTE process, and conducted a formal consensus process with additional experts.

RESULTS

Existing sets of guidelines from eight guideline developers were found and reviewed for resource-constrained settings; adapted recommendations from nine guidelines form the evidence base, informing two rounds of formal consensus; and all recommendations received ≥ 75% agreement.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Evaluation of adult symptomatic women in all settings includes symptom assessment, family history, and ultrasound and cancer antigen 125 serum tumor marker levels where feasible. In limited and enhanced settings, additional imaging may be requested. Diagnosis, staging, and/or treatment involves surgery. Presurgical workup of every suspected ovarian cancer requires a metastatic workup. Only trained clinicians with logistical support should perform surgical staging; treatment requires histologic confirmation; surgical goal is staging disease and performing complete cytoreduction to no gross residual disease. In first-line therapy, platinum-based chemotherapy is recommended; in advanced stages, patients may receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. After neoadjuvant chemotherapy, all patients should be evaluated for interval debulking surgery. Targeted therapy is not recommended in basic or limited settings. Specialized interventions are resource-dependent, for example, laparoscopy, fertility-sparing surgery, genetic testing, and targeted therapy. Multidisciplinary cancer care and palliative care should be offered.Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines. It is ASCO's view that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guideline is intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.

Minding the gap: Gynecologic oncology practices differ by gender

11011

Background: Although most gynecologic oncologists (GOs) are now women, gender differences in clinical practice and compensation persist. Practice characteristics and infrastructural support that may influence gender-based differences were explored. Methods: Every 5 years, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) conducts a member survey that provides details on member demographics, practice characteristics, activities, and revenue. Between 8/15-9/30/19 SGO members received a direct link to the survey. Gender was self-identified. Differences in responses were evaluated by gender. Results: Of 1425 surveys delivered, 690 were completed (48% response rate). 312 (45%) identified as male; 367 (53%) as female; 1 nonbinary; 1 other; 7 no response. Male GOs were more likely white (75 vs 68%, p=0.048), married (91 vs 81%, p<0.001), heterosexual (94 vs 90%, p=0.045), and hold an academic rank of professor (23 vs 12%, p<0.001). Practice setting and number of partners were similar. Chemotherapy prescribing was more common for females (82 vs 73%, p=0.004), but other clinical activities were similar (Table). Female GOs had lower clinical volumes than males for cervical, ovarian, vaginal/vulvar cancer and benign gynecologic procedures. Females reported fewer medical assistants and transcriptionists supporting their clinical activities. Overall and practice support was higher for male GOs although hospital support was similar for both genders. Female GOs reported more time spent on research (26 vs 19%, p=0.005), but the same research support. Conclusions: Clinical activities, specifically chemotherapy prescribing, and support differ for male and female GOs and may explain gender inequities. Clinical support should be equalized to maximize workplace productivity regardless of gender. Coordination of support between the practice and hospital and standard compensation for chemotherapy prescribing could decrease the large gender wage gap in this specialty.[Table: see text]

Moving Forward in Cervical Cancer: Enhancing Susceptibility to DNA Repair Inhibition and Damage, an NCI Clinical Trials Planning Meeting Report

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide, and prognosis is poor for those who experience recurrence or develop metastatic disease, in part due to the lack of active therapeutic directions. The National Cancer Institute convened a Cervical Cancer Clinical Trials Planning Meeting in October 2018 to facilitate the design of hypothesis-driven clinical trials focusing on locally advanced, metastatic, and recurrent cervical cancer around the theme of enhancing susceptibility to DNA repair inhibition and DNA damage. Before the meeting, a group of experts in the field summarized available preclinical and clinical data to identify potentially active inducers and inhibitors of DNA. The goals of the Clinical Trials Planning Meeting focused on identification of novel experimental strategies capitalizing on DNA damage and repair (DDR) regulators and cell cycle aberrations, optimization of radiotherapy as a DDR agent, and design of clinical trials incorporating DDR regulation into the primary and recurrent or metastatic therapies for cervical carcinoma. Meeting deliverables were novel clinical trial concepts to move into the National Clinical Trials Network. This report provides an overview for the rationale of this meeting and the state of the science related to DDR regulation in cervical cancer.

A Surgical Window Trial Evaluating Medroxyprogesterone Acetate with or without Entinostat in Patients with Endometrial Cancer and Validation of Biomarkers of Cellular Response

PURPOSE

This surgical window of opportunity (window) study assessed the short-term effect of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) alone versus MPA plus the histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor entinostat on regulation of progesterone receptor (PR) in women with newly diagnosed endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This multisite, randomized, open-label surgical window study treated women intramuscularly on day 1 with 400 mg MPA. Entinostat given 5 mg by mouth on days 1, 8, and 15 was randomly assigned with equal probability. Surgery followed on days 21-24. Pretreatment and posttreatment tissue was assessed for PR H-scores, Ki-67 levels, and histologic response.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were accrued in 4 months; 22 and 20 participants had PR evaluable pretreatment and posttreatment slides in the MPA and MPA/entinostat arms, respectively. Median posttreatment PR H-scores were significantly lower than pretreatment H-scores in both arms but did not differ significantly (MPA: 247 vs. 27, MPA/entinostat 260 vs. 23, respectively, P = 0.87). Decreased Ki-67 was shown in 90% treated with MPA/entinostat compared with 68% treated with MPA alone (P = 0.13). Median PR H-score decreases were larger when Ki-67 was decreased (208) versus not decreased (45). The decrease in PR pretreatment versus posttreatment was associated with loss of Ki-67 nuclear staining, consistent with reduced cellular proliferation (P < 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

This surgical window trial rapidly accrued in a multisite setting and evaluated PR as its primary endpoint and Ki-67 as secondary endpoint. Despite no immediate effect of entinostat on PR in this short-term study, lessons learned can inform future window and treatment trials.

Molecular Features of Cancers Exhibiting Exceptional Responses to Treatment

A small fraction of cancer patients with advanced disease survive significantly longer than patients with clinically comparable tumors. Molecular mechanisms for exceptional responses to therapy have been identified by genomic analysis of tumor biopsies from individual patients. Here, we analyzed tumor biopsies from an unbiased cohort of 111 exceptional responder patients using multiple platforms to profile genetic and epigenetic aberrations as well as the tumor microenvironment. Integrative analysis uncovered plausible mechanisms for the therapeutic response in nearly a quarter of the patients. The mechanisms were assigned to four broad categories-DNA damage response, intracellular signaling, immune engagement, and genetic alterations characteristic of favorable prognosis-with many tumors falling into multiple categories. These analyses revealed synthetic lethal relationships that may be exploited therapeutically and rare genetic lesions that favor therapeutic success, while also providing a wealth of testable hypotheses regarding oncogenic mechanisms that may influence the response to cancer therapy.

PARP Inhibitors in the Management of Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide recommendations on the use of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) for management of epithelial ovarian, tubal, or primary peritoneal cancer (EOC).

METHODS

Randomized, controlled, and open-labeled trials published from 2011 through 2020 were identified in a literature search. Guideline recommendations were based on the review of the evidence, US Food and Drug Administration approvals, and consensus when evidence was lacking.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 17 eligible trials.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The guideline pertains to patients who are PARPi naïve. All patients with newly diagnosed, stage III-IV EOC whose disease is in complete or partial response to first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy with high-grade serous or endometrioid EOC should be offered PARPi maintenance therapy with niraparib. For patients with germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in BRCA1 (g/sBRCA1) or BRCA2 (g/sBRCA2) genes should be treated with olaparib. The addition of olaparib to bevacizumab may be offered to patients with stage III-IV EOC with g/sBRCA1/2 and/or genomic instability and a partial or complete response to chemotherapy plus bevacizumab combination. Maintenance therapy (second line or more) with single-agent PARPi may be offered for patients with EOC who have not received a PARPi and have responded to platinum-based therapy regardless of BRCA mutation status. Treatment with a PARPi should be offered to patients with recurrent EOC that has not recurred within 6 months of platinum-based therapy, who have not received a PARPi and have a g/sBRCA1/2, or whose tumor demonstrates genomic instability. PARPis are not recommended for use in combination with chemotherapy, other targeted agents, or immune-oncology agents in the recurrent setting outside the context of a clinical trial. Recommendations for managing specific adverse events are presented. Data to support reuse of PARPis in any setting are needed.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines.

Phase II trial of bevacizumab and sorafenib in recurrent ovarian cancer patients with or without prior-bevacizumab treatment

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether blocking multiple points of the angiogenesis pathway by addition of sorafenib, a multi-kinase inhibitor against VEGFR2/3, Raf, c-Kit, and PDGFR, to bevacizumab would yield clinical activity in ovarian cancer (OvCa).

METHODS

This phase II study tested bevacizumab plus sorafenib in two cohorts; bevacizumab-naïve and bevacizumab-exposed patients. Bevacizumab (5 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks) was given with sorafenib 200 mg bid 5 days-on/2 days-off. The primary objective was response rate using a Simon two-stage optimal design. Progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity were the secondary endpoints. Exploratory correlative studies included plasma cytokine concentrations, tissue proteomics and dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI).

RESULTS

Between March 2007 and August 2012, 54 women were enrolled, 41 bevacizumab-naive and 13 bevacizumab-prior, with median 5 (2-9) and 6 (5-9) prior systemic therapies, respectively. Nine of 35 (26%) evaluable bevacizumab-naive patients attained partial responses (PR), and 18 had stable disease (SD) ≥ 4 months. No responses were seen in the bevacizumab-prior group and 7 (54%) patients had SD ≥ 4 months, including one exceptional responder with SD of 27 months. The overall median PFS was 5.5 months (95%CI: 4.0-6.8 months). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events (≥5%) included hypertension (17/54 [31%]; grade 3 in 16 patients and grade 4 in one patient) and venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (5/54 [9%]; grade 3 in 4 patients and grade 4 in one patient). Pretreatment low IL8 concentration was associated with PFS ≥ 4 months (p = .031).

CONCLUSIONS

The bevacizumab and sorafenib combination did not meet the pre-specified primary endpoint although some clinical activity was seen in heavily-pretreated bevacizumab-naive OvCa patients with platinum-resistant disease. Anticipated class toxicities required close monitoring and dose modifications.

Berzosertib plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

High-grade serous ovarian cancers show increased replication stress, rendering cells vulnerable to ATR inhibition because of near universal loss of the G1/S checkpoint (through deleterious TP53 mutations), premature S phase entry (due to CCNE1 amplification, RB1 loss, or CDKN2A mRNA downregulation), alterations of homologous recombination repair genes, and expression of oncogenic drivers (through MYC amplification and other mechanisms). We hypothesised that the combination of the selective ATR inhibitor, berzosertib, and gemcitabine could show acceptable toxicity and superior efficacy to gemcitabine alone in high-grade serous ovarian cancer.

METHODS

In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 study, 11 different centres in the US Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network enrolled women (aged ≥18 years) with recurrent, platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer (determined histologically) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, who had unlimited previous lines of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-sensitive setting but no more than one line of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-resistant setting. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m²) on day 1 and day 8, or gemcitabine plus intravenous berzosertib (210 mg/m²) on day 2 and day 9 of a 21-day cycle until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Randomisation was done centrally using the Theradex Interactive Web Response System, stratified by platinum-free interval, and with a permuted block size of six. Following central randomisation, patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, and analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02595892, and is active but closed to enrolment.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 14, 2017, and Sept 7, 2018, 88 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 70 were randomly assigned to treatment with gemcitabine alone (36 patients) or gemcitabine plus berzosertib (34 patients). At the data cutoff date (Feb 21, 2020), the median follow-up was 53·2 weeks (25·6-81·8) in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group and 43·0 weeks (IQR 23·2-69·1) in the gemcitabine alone group. Median progression-free survival was 22·9 weeks (17·9-72·0) for gemcitabine plus berzosertib and 14·7 weeks (90% CI 9·7-36·7) for gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·33-0·98; one-sided log-rank test p=0·044). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (14 [39%] of 36 patients in the gemcitabine alone group vs 16 [47%] of 34 patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group) and decreased platelet count (two [6%] vs eight [24%]). Serious adverse events were observed in ten (28%) patients in the gemcitabine alone group and nine (26%) patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group. There was one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine alone group due to sepsis and one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group due to pneumonitis.

INTERPRETATION

To our knowledge, this is the first randomised study of an ATR inhibitor in any tumour type. This study shows a benefit of adding berzosertib to gemcitabine in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer. This combination warrants further investigation in this setting.

FUNDING

US National Cancer Institute.

New strategies in ovarian cancer treatment

Insights from basic science dissecting carcinogenesis in the fallopian tube and ovary have led to a deeper understanding of the origin, molecular characteristics, and types of ovarian cancers. This logically then has led to the development of novel approaches to treat ovarian cancer. Increasingly, novel agents are being developed to target the different growth pathways. The identification of molecular markers associated with different histopathologies has resulted in newer clinical trial designs to capture both clinical and translational endpoints. Unique molecular characteristics in DNA damage and repair pathways and unique cell surface markers have driven new drug development, yielding promise for both patients with platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant ovarian cancers. Specific examples described include the histology-selective mutations, such as ARID1A in clear cell and endometrioid ovarian cancers; the rationale for using cell cycle checkpoint inhibitors when there already is a p53-mediated loss of cell cycle checkpoint regulation or combinations of agents that will both induce neoantigen formation and unleash immune modulators; and techniques to enhance the therapeutic delivery of known agents. A systematic and thoughtful approach to combining agents in clinical trials is needed so that irrespective of the trial outcomes, the results inform both clinical and translational endpoints.

Etctn 10388: A phase I trial of triapine and lutetium Lu 177 dotatate in well-differentiated somatostatin receptor-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs)

TPS4660

Background: Radiolabeled somatostatin analogues provide a means of delivering targeted radiation with a high therapeutic index to NETs that express somatostatin receptors (SSTRs). Radiolabeled somatostatin analogue Lutetium Lu 177 Dotatate (Lutathera) is a beta-emitting radionuclide, recently FDA approved for use in SSTR positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEPNETS) in the US based on the NETTER-1 Phase III trial. Despite favorable PFS and safety profile, the drug has limited cytoreductive capability with a 17% ORR. We hypothesize that addition of an effective radiation sensitizer could help improve antitumor activity of Lutathera. Ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) is the only enzyme responsible for conversion of ribonucleoside diphosphate to deoxyribonucleotide diphosphate (dNDP), the key building blocks for DNA synthesis. Radiation is a potent inducer of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), and RNR is the rate-limiting enzyme in the repair of DNA in this setting. Triapine is an inhibitor of RNR. This study will test the hypothesis that radiation sensitizer triapine can be safely combined with peptide receptor radionuclide therapy and ultimately may improve antitumor activity of Lutetium Lu 177 Dotatate. Methods: This study is an investigator initiated, NCI sponsored, multicenter phase 1 trial of triapine and Lutetium Lu 177 Dotatate in well-differentiated somatostatin receptor-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (GEP-NETs) after the failure of at least one line of prior systemic cancer treatment. A total of 29 patients will be enrolled in the dose escalation with help of Bayesian optimal interval design (BOIN) and dose expansion cohorts. The study will be open through the NCI ETCTN (National Cancer Institute Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network) program. Patients will be treated with 177 lutetium dotatate in combination with triapine. Triapine will be administered orally (100 mg once a day starting dose) from D1-14 with each dose of PRRT [200 mCi]. Primary endpoint is to evaluate recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary endpoints are to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity (ORR and PFS). We are also evaluating NETEST, a novel blood based test that evaluates levels of 51 neuroendocrine tumor gene transcripts. In addition, the study will correlate clinical outcome with baseline somatostatin receptor density, somatic tumor mutations and germline mutations. Clinical trial information: 04234568 .

A phase III study comparing single-agent olaparib or the combination of cediranib and olaparib to standard platinum-based chemotherapy in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer

6003

Background: Combination cediranib (C) and olaparib (O) improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with relapsed platinum (plat)-sensitive high-grade ovarian cancer (ovca) compared to O alone in a Phase 2 trial (NCT01116648). We conducted this randomized, open-label Phase 3 trial (NCT02446600) to assess whether combination C+O, or O alone, was superior to standard of care (SOC) plat-based therapy in relapsed plat-sensitive ovca. Methods: Eligible pts had recurrent plat-sensitive [ > 6-month plat-free interval (PFI)] high-grade serous or endometrioid, or BRCA-related, ovca. One prior non-plat therapy and unlimited prior plat-therapies were allowed; prior anti-angiogenics in the recurrent setting or prior PARP inhibitor were exclusions. Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to SOC (carboplatin/paclitaxel; carboplatin/gemcitabine; or carboplatin/liposomal doxorubicin), O (300mg twice daily), or C+O (C 30mg daily + O 200mg twice daily). Randomization was stratified by g BRCA status, PFI (6-12 vs > 12 months), and prior anti-angiogenic therapy. Target sample size was 549 pts; primary analysis occurred 2 years after the last pt enrolled. The primary endpoint was PFS. Type 1 error = 0.025 was controlled by a gatekeeping hierarchy that assessed C+O vs SOC, then O alone vs SOC, and finally C+O vs O. All maintenance therapy was prohibited. Results: Between 4FEB2016 and 13NOV2017, 565 pts enrolled (187 SOC, 189 O, 189 C+O), and 528 pts initiated treatment (166 SOC, 183 O, 179 C+O). 23.7% of patients had g BRCAmut. Median follow-up was 29.1 months. 53 pts on SOC initiated non-protocol therapy (predominantly PARP inhibitor maintenance) before disease progression. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.856 (95% CI 0.66-1.11, p = 0.08, 1-tail) between C+O and SOC and 1.20 (95% CI 0.93-1.54) between O and SOC, with median PFS of 10.3, 8.2, and 10.4 months for SOC, O, and C+O, respectively. Response rates were 71.3% (SOC), 52.4% (O), and 69.4% (C+O). In gBRCA pts, HR for PFS was 0.55 (95% CI 0.73-1.30) for C+O vs SOC, and 0.63 (95% CI 0.37-1.07) for O vs SOC. In non-g BRCA pts, HR for these comparisons was 0.97 (95% CI 0.73-1.30) and 1.41 (1.07-1.86). No OS differences between arms were observed at 44% events. Pts receiving C+O (vs SOC) had more frequent Grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal (30.1% vs 8.4%), hypertension (31.7% vs 1.8%), and fatigue events (17.5% vs 1.8%). Conclusion: C+O demonstrated similar activity to SOC in relapsed plat-sensitive ovca but did not meet the primary endpoint of improved PFS. Clinical trial information: NCT02446600.

Prexasertib, a cell cycle checkpoint kinase 1 inhibitor, in BRCA mutant recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC): A proof-of-concept single arm phase II study

6038

Background: Preclinical data suggest cell cycle checkpoint inhibition induces greater cell death in BRCA mutant HGSOC by causing replication stress and dysregulation of DNA damage responses. We hypothesized that prexasertib, a cell cycle checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1) inhibitor, would be active in BRCA mutated HGSOC patients. Methods: We conducted a single center, two-stage phase II study of prexasertib (105mg/m2 IV every 2 weeks) in HGSOC patients with known germline or somatic BRCA mutations. The primary endpoint was RECIST response rate (RR). Progression-free survival (PFS) and safety (CTCAE v4) were secondary endpoints. Baseline research biopsies and blood samples were collected for exploratory biomarker endpoints. Results: Between February 2015 and July 2019, 22 heavily pretreated (median 5 prior systemic therapies [1-12]) women with BRCA mutant HGSOC (median age 58.7 [44-74.8]) received at least one dose of prexasertib. 13 (59%) patients were secondary platinum-resistant (median 8 [3-12] prior therapies) and 9 (41%) maintained platinum-sensitivity (median 4 [1-5] prior therapies). All but one received prior PARP inhibitor (PARPi) either in combination (10 [48%]) or as monotherapy (11 [52%]), with a median 5 month [mo; 1-29] PARPi-free interval prior to study entry. There was one complete response (41+mo, platinum-sensitive, no prior PARPi) and one partial response (9+mo, platinum-sensitive, 13.5mo PARPi-free interval) yielding an 11% RR (2/18 evaluable). No response was seen in platinum-resistant patients with prior PARPi. Median duration on study treatment was 4mo [1-9] among 21 patients with prior PARPi and 4mo [1.5-9] among 17 evaluable patients with prior PARPi. Common (>10%) grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (82%), leukopenia (64%), and thrombocytopenia (14%); only one patient had grade 3 febrile neutropenia. 16 of 18 (89%) patients with grade 3/4 neutropenia received prophylactic growth factors for subsequent treatments. Conclusions: Prexasertib is tolerable and has modest activity in heavily pretreated BRCA mutant HGSOC patients. Further evaluation of predictive biomarkers for exceptional responders is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02203513.

Evaluation of toxicities related to novel therapy in clinical trials for women with gynecologic cancer

BACKGROUND

Women with gynecologic cancer may be at increased risk for adverse events (AEs) due to peritoneal disease burden and prior treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, and pelvic radiotherapy). This study compared the toxicity profiles of patients with and without gynecologic cancer enrolled in phase 1 trials.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Institute phase 1 database for all trials enrolling 1 or more patients with gynecologic cancer over 2 decades (1995-2015). Clinical parameters collected included demographics, cancer history, trial information, AEs, and responses. AEs (according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) were documented for each patient during treatment, and they were counted once and analyzed on the basis of the highest grade and drug attribution. Multiple regression models were used to compare AEs at the baseline and during treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 4269 patients enrolled in 150 trials were divided into 3 groups: 1) women with gynecologic cancer (n = 685), 2) women with nongynecologic cancer (n = 1698), and 3) men with cancer (n = 1886). The median age was 58 years. The mean number of total AEs reported during treatment was highest for women with gynecologic cancer (17.1 vs 14.7 vs 13.5; P < .001), even though they were similar at the baseline (7.0 vs 7.4 vs 7.0; P = .09). The mean number of drug-related AEs was also highest for women with gynecologic cancer (8.3 vs 6.9 vs 6.2; P < .001). Grade 3 to 5 AEs were similar (2.3 vs 2.3 vs 2.1); however, grade 2 AEs were more frequent in women with gynecologic cancer (4.6 vs 3.9 vs 3.5). Treatment discontinuations due to AEs were similar (9% vs 9% vs 10%).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with gynecologic cancer experienced more frequent low-grade AEs during treatment, and this warrants attention to support their symptom burden. Study dose management should be considered for recurrent grade 2 AEs, particularly during continuous therapy.

Germline and Somatic Tumor Testing in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide recommendations on genetic and tumor testing for women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer based on available evidence and expert consensus.

METHODS

A literature search and prospectively defined study selection criteria sought systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and comparative observational studies published from 2007 through 2019. Guideline recommendations were based on the review of the evidence.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 19 eligible studies. The evidence consisted of systematic reviews of observational data, consensus guidelines, and RCTs.

RECOMMENDATIONS

All women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer should have germline genetic testing for BRCA1/2 and other ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. In women who do not carry a germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant, somatic tumor testing for BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants should be performed. Women with identified germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 genes should be offered treatments that are US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in the upfront and the recurrent setting. Women diagnosed with clear cell, endometrioid, or mucinous ovarian cancer should be offered somatic tumor testing for mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR). Women with identified dMMR should be offered FDA-approved treatment based on these results. Genetic evaluations should be conducted in conjunction with health care providers familiar with the diagnosis and management of hereditary cancer. First- or second-degree blood relatives of a patient with ovarian cancer with a known germline pathogenic cancer susceptibility gene variant should be offered individualized genetic risk evaluation, counseling, and genetic testing. Clinical decision making should not be made based on a variant of uncertain significance. Women with epithelial ovarian cancer should have testing at the time of diagnosis.

Defining and targeting wild-type BRCA high-grade serous ovarian cancer: DNA repair and cell cycle checkpoints

Introduction: Molecular analyzes including molecular descriptor/phenotype interactions have led to better characterization of epithelial ovarian cancer patients, including a definition of a BRCA wild-type (BRCAwt) phenotype. Understanding how and when to use agents targeted against dependent BRCAwt pathways or other molecular events at disease progression is an important translational and therapeutic direction in ovarian cancer research. Areas covered: In this overview, we provide definitions and descriptions of a BRCAwt genotype and phenotype. We discuss novel investigational drugs that hold promise for the treatment of BRCAwt ovarian cancer, including inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, ribonucleotide reductase, DNA protein kinase-catalytic subunit, ataxia-telangiectasia-mutated kinase (ATM), ataxia-telangiectasia mutated and Rad3-related kinase (ATR), CHK 1/2, cyclin kinases, glutaminase-1, WEE1 kinase, as well as tumor microenvironment and angiogenesis inhibitors. This article explores the known and the emerging areas of clinical research on patients with BRCAwt ovarian cancer. Expert opinion: Discovery of molecular changes tied to annotated disease information, along with an expanding array of pathway targets and targeted therapeutic agents, creates optimism and opportunity for women with ovarian cancer. Using precision oncology approaches, clinical researchers are, and will be, poised to select more effective treatments for ovarian cancer patients.

Patients with BRCA mutated ovarian cancer may have fewer circulating MDSC and more peripheral CD8+ T cells compared with women with BRCA wild-type disease during the early disease course

Immunosuppressive myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and regulatory T cells (Tregs) are associated with immunologic tolerance and poor prognosis in ovarian cancer (OvCa). We hypothesized that women with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation-associated (gBRCAm) OvCa would have fewer circulating immunosuppressive immune cells compared to those with BRCA wild-type (BRCAwt) disease during their early disease course (<5 years post-diagnosis) where gBRCAm is a favorable prognostic factor. We collected and viably froze peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from patients with recurrent OvCa olaparib clinical trials (NCT01445418/NCT01237067). Immune subset analyses were performed using flow cytometry for Tregs, exhausted CD8⁺ T cells, monocytes and MDSCs. Functional marker expression, including cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), T cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain 3 (TIM-3) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) was evaluated. Data were analyzed using FlowJo. Pretreatment PBMCs were collected from 41 patients (16 gBRCAm/25 BRCAwt). The percentage of MDSCs among viable CD45⁺ PBMC was lower in gBRCAm OvCa compared with BRCAwt OvCa (median 0.565 vs. 0.93%, P=0.0086) but this difference was not seen in those women >5 years post-diagnosis. CD8⁺ T cells among viable CD45⁺ PBMCs and CTLA-4⁺/CD8⁺ T cells were higher in gBRCAm carriers than patients with BRCAwt, in particular for those <5 years post-diagnosis (median 20.4 vs. 9.78%, P=0.031 and median MFI 0.19 vs. 0.22, P=0.0074, respectively). TIM-3 expression on Tregs was associated with poor progression-free survival, independent of gBRCAm status (P<0.001). Our pilot data suggested that patients with gBRCAm OvCa may have fewer circulating MDSCs but higher CD8⁺ T cells in PBMCs during their early disease course. This may contribute to the observed survival benefit for these women in their first post-diagnosis decade.

A phase I study of the PD-L1 inhibitor, durvalumab, in combination with a PARP inhibitor, olaparib, and a VEGFR1-3 inhibitor, cediranib, in recurrent women's cancers with biomarker analyses

BACKGROUND

Strategies to improve activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors are needed. We hypothesized enhanced DNA damage by olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, and reduced VEGF signaling by cediranib, a VEGFR1-3 inhibitor, would complement anti-tumor activity of durvalumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, and the 3-drug combination would be tolerable.

METHODS

This phase 1 study tested the 3-drug combination in a 3 + 3 dose escalation. Cediranib was taken intermittently (5 days on/2 days off) at 15 or 20 mg (dose levels 1 and 2, respectively) with durvalumab 1500 mg IV every 4 weeks, and olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily. The primary end point was the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Response rate, pharmacokinetic (PK), and correlative analyses were secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

Nine patients (7 ovarian/1 endometrial/1 triple negative breast cancers, median 3 prior therapies [2-6]) were treated. Grade 3/4 adverse events include hypertension (1/9), anemia (1/9) and lymphopenia (3/9). No patients experienced dose limiting toxicities. The RP2D is cediranib, 20 mg (5 days on/2 days off) with full doses of durvalumab and olaparib. Four patients had partial responses (44%) and 3 had stable disease lasting ≥6 months, yielding a 67% clinical benefit rate. No significant effects on olaparib or cediranib PK parameters from the presence of durvalumab, or the co-administration of cediranib or olaparib were identified. Tumoral PD-L1 expression correlated with clinical benefit but cytokines and peripheral immune subsets did not.

CONCLUSIONS

The RP2D is tolerable and has preliminary activity in recurrent women's cancers. A phase 2 expansion study is now enrolling for recurrent ovarian cancer patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02484404. Registered June 29, 2015.

Radiopharmaceuticals for Persistent or Recurrent Uterine Cervix Cancer

Uterine cervix cancers pose therapeutic challenges because of an overactive ribonucleotide reductase, which provides on-demand deoxyribonucleotides for DNA replication or for a DNA damage repair response. Ribonucleotide reductase overactivity bestows cancer cell resistance to the effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy used to treat disease; but nevertheless, this same biologic overexpression provides opportune vulnerabilities relatively specific to uterine cervix cancers for new therapeutic strategies to take advantage. The discovery of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ErbB2 or HER2) overexpression on metastatic uterine cervix cancer cells provides an opportunity for clinical trials of targeted radiopharmaceuticals in combination with DNA damage response modifying drugs. The National Cancer Institute's clinical trial infrastructure and its experimental therapeutics portfolio can now offer clinical trial evaluation of molecularly-targeted and tolerated radiopharmaceutical-drug combinations for women with persistent or recurrent metastatic uterine cervix cancer. This article discusses the current thinking of the National Cancer Institute in regard to attractive radiopharmaceutical strategies for this disease and others.

Critical questions in ovarian cancer research and treatment: Report of an American Association for Cancer Research Special Conference

Substantial progress has been made in understanding ovarian cancer at the molecular and cellular level. Significant improvement in 5-year survival has been achieved through cytoreductive surgery, combination platinum-based chemotherapy, and more effective treatment of recurrent cancer, and there are now more than 280,000 ovarian cancer survivors in the United States. Despite these advances, long-term survival in late-stage disease has improved little over the last 4 decades. Poor outcomes relate, in part, to late stage at initial diagnosis, intrinsic drug resistance, and the persistence of dormant drug-resistant cancer cells after primary surgery and chemotherapy. Our ability to accelerate progress in the clinic will depend on the ability to answer several critical questions regarding this disease. To assess current answers, an American Association for Cancer Research Special Conference on "Critical Questions in Ovarian Cancer Research and Treatment" was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on October 1-3, 2017. Although clinical, translational, and basic investigators conducted much of the discussion, advocates participated in the meeting, and many presentations were directly relevant to patient care, including treatment with poly adenosine diphosphate ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, attempts to improve immunotherapy by overcoming the immune suppressive effects of the microenvironment, and a better understanding of the heterogeneity of the disease.

Phase I/Ib study of olaparib and carboplatin in heavily pretreated recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer at low genetic risk

Purpose: To investigate maximum tolerated dose (MTD), activity and predictive biomarkers of olaparib with carboplatin in BRCA wild-type (BRCAwt) high grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) patients. Methods: A 3+3 dose escalation study examined olaparib capsules (400 mg twice daily [BID], days 1-7) with carboplatin (AUC3-5 on day 1) every 21 days for 8 cycles, followed by olaparib 400 mg BID maintenance. Blood and tumor biopsy samples were collected pre- and on-treatment in the expansion cohort for PAR levels and proteomic endpoints. Results: 30 patients (median 7 prior regimens [2-12], 63% (19/30) platinum-resistant) were enrolled. Dose-limiting toxicity was thrombocytopenia/neutropenia, and infection with carboplatin AUC5 (2/6 patients). MTD was olaparib 400 mg BID + carboplatin AUC4. Grade 3/4 adverse events (>10%) included neutropenia (23%), thrombocytopenia (20%), and anemia (13%). Five of 25 (20%) evaluable patients had partial response (PR; median 4.5 months [3.3-9.5]). Clinical benefit rate (PR + stable disease ≥4 months) was 64% (16/25). A greater decrease in tissue PAR levels was seen in the clinical benefit group versus no benefit (median normalized linear change -1.84 [-3.39- -0.28] vs 0.51 [-0.27- 1.29], p = 0.001) and a DNA repair score by proteomics did not correlate with response. Conclusions: The olaparib and carboplatin combination is tolerable and has clinical benefit in subsets of heavily pretreated BRCAwt HGSOC, independent of platinum sensitivity.

Overall survival and updated progression-free survival outcomes in a randomized phase II study of combination cediranib and olaparib versus olaparib in relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Olaparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor and cediranib is an oral anti-angiogenic. In the primary analysis of this phase II study, combination cediranib/olaparib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with olaparib alone in relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. This updated analysis was conducted to characterize overall survival (OS) and update PFS outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ninety patients were enrolled to this randomized, open-label, phase II study between October 2011 and June 2013 across nine United States-based academic centers. Data cut-off was 21 December 2016, with a median follow-up of 46 months. Participants had relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer of high-grade serous or endometrioid histology or had a deleterious germline BRCA1/2 mutation (gBRCAm). Participants were randomized to receive olaparib capsules 400 mg twice daily or cediranib 30 mg daily and olaparib capsules 200 mg twice daily until disease progression.

RESULTS

In this updated analysis, median PFS remained significantly longer with cediranib/olaparib compared with olaparib alone (16.5 versus 8.2 months, hazard ratio 0.50; P = 0.007). Subset analyses within stratum defined by BRCA status demonstrated statistically significant improvement in PFS (23.7 versus 5.7 months, P = 0.002) and OS (37.8 versus 23.0 months, P = 0.047) in gBRCA wild-type/unknown patients, although OS was not statistically different in the overall study population (44.2 versus 33.3 months, hazard ratio 0.64; P = 0.11). PFS and OS appeared similar between the two arms in gBRCAm patients. The most common CTCAE grade 3/4 adverse events with cediranib/olaparib remained fatigue, diarrhea, and hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination cediranib/olaparib significantly extends PFS compared with olaparib alone in relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Subset analyses suggest this margin of benefit is driven by PFS prolongation in patients without gBRCAm. OS was also significantly increased by the cediranib/olaparib combination in this subset of patients. Additional studies of this combination are ongoing and should incorporate analyses based upon BRCA status.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT0111648.

Gynecological Cancers Translational, Research Implementation, and Harmonization: Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup Consensus and Still Open Questions

In the era of personalized medicine, the introduction of translational studies in clinical trials has substantially increased their costs, but provides the possibility of improving the productivity of trials with a better selection of recruited patients. With the overall goal of creating a roadmap to improve translational design for future gynecological cancer trials and of defining translational goals, a main discussion was held during a brainstorming day of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Translational Research Committee and overall conclusions are here reported. A particular emphasis was dedicated to the new frontier of the immunoprofiling of gynecological cancers. The discussion pointed out that to maximize patients' benefit, translational studies should be integral to clinical trial design with standardization and optimization of procedures including a harmonization program of Standard Operating Procedures. Pathology-reviewed sample collection should be mandatory and ensured by dedicated funding. Biomarker validation and development should be made public and transparent to ensure rapid progresses with positive outcomes for patients. Guidelines/templates for patients' informed consent are needed. Importantly for the public, recognized goals are to increase the involvement of advocates and to improve the reporting of translational data in a forum accessible to patients.

Technology Applications: Use of Digital Health Technology to Enable Drug Development

PURPOSE

This pilot study developed and evaluated the feasibility, usability, and perceived satisfaction with an end-user mobile medical application and provider web portal. The two interfaces allowed for remote monitoring, provided daily guidance in the management of hypertension and diarrhea, and allowed for rapid management of adverse events during a clinical trial of olaparib and cediranib.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

eCO (eCediranib/Olaparib) was designed for patient self-reported, real-time management of hypertension and diarrhea using remote monitoring. eCO links to a Bluetooth-enabled blood pressure (BP) monitor and transmits data to a secure provider web portal. eCO use was assessed for suitability, usability, and satisfaction after 4 weeks using a 17-item questionnaire. Metrics regarding patient-reported BP and diarrhea events were analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients enrolled in the pilot. A total of 98.2% of expected BP values were reported: 94.2% via Bluetooth and 5.8% entered manually. Twelve patients experienced 21 BP events (systolic BP > 140 and/or diastolic BP > 90 mmHg on two consecutive readings); data from cycle 1 were comparable to the study database. Thirteen patients reported diarrhea (more than one stool per 24 hours over baseline) categorized as grade 1 or 2, which was comparable to the study database. Survey analysis showed that patients had statistically significant, positive responses to the use of the eCO application. Patients indicated eCO use made them feel more involved in their care and better connected to their health care team. The only aspect of the application that did not show a statistically significant positive response was the process of reporting diarrhea.

CONCLUSION

The eCO application was designed to assist in managing acute treatment-related events most often associated with treatment discontinuation, need for drug holidays, or dose interruption. Hypertension and diarrhea events reported via eCO allowed rapid provider response and a positive overall patient experience.

The new classifications of ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer and their clinical implications

The roles of histologic characterization and staging are to provide reproducible metrics for cancer classification with which to direct the most appropriate clinical care and to yield the most stable reliable system to allow both prospective and retrospective data analysis. Both the histologic and staging classifications of malignant ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancers have recently changed. The World Health Organization sponsored a review and reclassification of the pathology of cancers of the ovaries, fallopian tubes, and peritoneum, and published these updates in 2014. In so doing, they codified the two-tiered grading system that has been in use in serous ovarian cancers for nearly a decade. In parallel, FIGO reviewed and updated the surgical staging system, applied to all histotypes of ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers, also published in 2014. In both cases, the changes made are meant to encompass a better understanding of disease, but both have important merits and drawbacks. Changes in staging complicate analysis of retrospective data against current data. Though in some aspects controversial, the changes overall are meant to represent a better biologic understanding of disease that we hope will lead to an improvement in patient care and directed therapy.

Moving forward with actionable therapeutic targets and opportunities in endometrial cancer: A NCI clinical trials planning meeting report

The incidence of endometrial cancer (EC) in the U.S. has been rising, from an estimated annual incidence of 49,560 in 2013 to 61,380 in 2017. Meanwhile, the SEER-based relative survival of women with EC in the U.S. has remained flat [82.3% from 1987 to 1989, 82.8% from 2007 to 2013] and our recent increased understanding of EC biology and subtypes has not been translated into therapeutic advances. The U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) therefore convened a Uterine Clinical Trials Planning Meeting in January 2016 to initiate and accelerate design of molecularly-targeted EC trials. Prior to the meeting a group of experts in this field summarized available data, emphasizing data on human samples, to identify potentially actionable alterations in EC, and the results of their work has been separately published. The Clinical Trials Meeting planners focused on discussion of (1) novel trial designs, including window-of opportunity trials and appropriate control groups for randomized trials, (2) targets specific to serous carcinoma and promises and pitfalls of separate trials for women with tumors of this histology (3) specific recommendations for future randomized trials.

Prexasertib, a cell cycle checkpoint kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, in BRCA wild-type recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer: a first-in-class proof-of-concept phase 2 study

Background

High-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) is characterized by TP53 mutations, DNA repair defects, and genomic instability. We hypothesized that prexasertib, a cell cycle checkpoint kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, would be active in BRCA wild-type HGSOC.

Methods

In this open label, single centre, two-stage proof-of-concept phase 2 study, women aged 18 years or older with measurable, recurrent high-grade serous or high-grade endometrioid ovarian carcinoma were enrolled. All patients must have had either a negative family history of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or known BRCA wild-type for BRCA wild-type cohort. Other key eligibility criteria were an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 or 2, and adequate haematological, renal, and hepatic function. Patients received intravenous prexasertib 105mg/m² once every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or patient withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed tumour response per protocol based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1·1 in evaluable patients. The final analysis of this cohort is reported here. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02203513) and enrolling the patients of BRCA mutation cohort.

Findings

Between January 2015 and November 2016, 28 women (median age 64-year-old [IQR 58–69·5], with median 5 prior systemic therapies [IQR 2·5–5]) were enrolled and received at least one dose of prexasertib. Eight of 24 evaluable patients had a partial response (PR; 33%, 95% CI: 16–55) and 50% had a GCIG CA125 response. The RR in the intention-to-treat population was 29% (8/28, 95% CI: 13–49). The common (>10%) grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (26 [93%] patients), thrombocytopenia (seven [25%] patients), and anaemia (three [11%] patients). Grade 4 neutropenia occurred in 22 (79%) patients after the first dose and was transient ≤ 7 days (median 6 days [IQR 4–8]) without growth factor support; the incidence of febrile neutropenia was 7% (2/28).

Interpretation

We demonstrate clinical activity of prexasertib in BRCA wild-type HGSOC, especially patients with platinum-resistant or refractory ovarian cancer. These results warrant further development for this unmet patient need.

Funding

Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research, USA.

Clinical trials in gynecologic oncology: Past, present, and future

The Gynecologic Oncology Group has historically performed ground-breaking, practice-changing clinical trials in women's cancers. The current standard of care for initial treatment of ovarian, endometrial, cervical, and trophoblastic cancers was determined by clinical trials completed within this cooperative group structure. For example, trial GOG-0111 set the standard for combining platinum and taxane chemotherapy in ovarian cancer, and more recently GOG-0240 provided evidence for adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy for women with advanced cervical cancer. The landscape of clinical trial design has markedly changed in recent decades, with a clear emphasis on streamlining drug development towards specific patient populations and indications for investigational agents. Translational science in gynecologic cancers can set the stage for rapid and efficient introduction of new therapies for our patients. The gynecologic oncology community of researchers and clinicians is well positioned to enter into the new era of drug development, with breakthrough discoveries increasing each year. It is clear that we must incorporate smarter clinical trial design to get the right drugs to the right patients expeditiously, so we can continue to improve outcome for women with gynecologic cancers.

Moving forward with actionable therapeutic targets and opportunities in endometrial cancer: NCI clinical trials planning meeting report on identifying key genes and molecular pathways for targeted endometrial cancer trials

The incidence and mortality rates from endometrial cancer are increasing. There have been no new drugs approved for the treatment of endometrial cancer in decades. The National Cancer Institute, Gynecologic Cancer Steering Committee identified the integration of molecular and/or histologic stratification into endometrial cancer management as a top strategic priority. Based on this, they convened a group of experts to review the molecular data in this disease. Here we report on the actionable opportunities and therapeutic directions identified for incorporation into future clinical trials.

The HRD Decision-Which PARP Inhibitor to Use for Whom and When

Rucaparib, a polyADPribose polymerase inhibitor (PARPi), was approved recently for use in women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). It is now one of three approved PARPi for use in recurrent ovarian cancer, a family of agents that has changed the HGSOC treatment landscape and outcome. Clin Cancer Res; 23(23); 7155-7. ©2017 AACRSee related article by Balasubramaniam et al., p. 7165.

Long-Term Responders on Olaparib Maintenance in High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer: Clinical and Molecular Characterization

Purpose: Maintenance therapy with olaparib has improved progression-free survival in women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), particularly those harboring BRCA1/2 mutations. The objective of this study was to characterize long-term (LT) versus short-term (ST) responders to olaparib.Experimental Design: A comparative molecular analysis of Study 19 (NCT00753545), a randomized phase II trial assessing olaparib maintenance after response to platinum-based chemotherapy in HGSOC, was conducted. LT response was defined as response to olaparib/placebo >2 years, ST as <3 months. Molecular analyses included germline BRCA1/2 status, three-biomarker homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) score, BRCA1 methylation, and mutational profiling. Another olaparib maintenance study (Study 41; NCT01081951) was used as an additional cohort.Results: Thirty-seven LT (32 olaparib) and 61 ST (21 olaparib) patients were identified. Treatment was significantly associated with outcome (P < 0.0001), with more LT patients on olaparib (60.4%) than placebo (11.1%). LT sensitivity to olaparib correlated with complete response to chemotherapy (P < 0.05). In the olaparib LT group, 244 genetic alterations were detected, with TP53, BRCA1, and BRCA2 mutations being most common (90%, 25%, and 35%, respectively). BRCA2 mutations were enriched among the LT responders. BRCA methylation was not associated with response duration. High myriad HRD score (>42) and/or BRCA1/2 mutation was associated with LT response to olaparib. Study 41 confirmed the correlation of LT response with olaparib and BRCA1/2 mutation.Conclusions: Findings show that LT response to olaparib may be multifactorial and related to homologous recombination repair deficiency, particularly BRCA1/2 defects. The type of BRCA1/2 mutation warrants further investigation. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4086-94. ©2017 AACR.