1
|
Wagner P, Levine EA, Kim AC, Shen P, Fleming ND, Westin SN, Berry LK, Karakousis GC, Tanyi JL, Olson MT, Madajewski B, Ostrander B, Krishnan K, Balch CM, Bartlett DL. Detection of Residual Peritoneal Metastases Following Cytoreductive Surgery Using Pegsitacianine, a pH-Sensitive Imaging Agent: Final Results from a Phase II Study. Ann Surg Oncol 2024:10.1245/s10434-024-15165-4. [PMID: 38622456 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-15165-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2023] [Accepted: 02/25/2024] [Indexed: 04/17/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND For patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis, extent of disease and completeness of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) are major prognostic factors for long-term survival. Assessment of these factors could be improved using imaging agents. Pegsitacianine is a pH-sensitive polymeric micelle conjugated to the fluorophore indocyanine green. The micelle disassembles in acidic microenvironments, such as tumors, resulting in localized fluorescence unmasking. We assessed the utility of pegsitacianine in detecting residual disease following CRS. PATIENTS AND METHODS NCT04950166 was a phase II, non-randomized, open-label, multicenter US study. Patients eligible for CRS were administered an intravenous dose of pegsitacianine at 1 mg/kg 24-72 h before surgery. Following CRS, the peritoneal cavity was reexamined under near-infrared (NIR) illumination to evaluate for fluorescent tissue. Fluorescent tissue identified was excised and evaluated by histopathology. The primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant events (CSE), defined as detection of histologically confirmed residual disease excised with pegsitacianine or a revision in the assessment of completeness of CRS. Secondary outcomes included acceptable safety and pegsitacianine performance. RESULTS A total of 53 patients were screened, 50 enrolled, and 40 were evaluable for CSE across six primary tumor types. Residual disease was detected with pegsitacianine in 20 of 40 (50%) patients. Pegsitacianine showed high sensitivity and was well tolerated with no serious adverse events (SAEs). Transient treatment-related, non-anaphylactic infusion reactions occurred in 28% of patients. CONCLUSIONS Pegsitacianine was well tolerated and facilitated the recognition of occult residual disease following CRS. The high rate of residual disease detected suggests that the use of pegsitacianine augmented surgeon assessment and performance during CRS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick Wagner
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Edward A Levine
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | - Alex C Kim
- Division of Surgical Oncology, The James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Perry Shen
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | - Nicole D Fleming
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Laurel K Berry
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | - Giorgos C Karakousis
- Division of Endocrine and Oncologic Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Janos L Tanyi
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Charles M Balch
- Department of Surgical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - David L Bartlett
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Knisely A, Hinchcliff E, Fellman B, Mosley A, Lito K, Hull S, Westin SN, Sood AK, Schmeler KM, Taylor JS, Huang SY, Sheth RA, Lu KH, Jazaeri AA. Phase 1b study of intraperitoneal ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with recurrent gynecologic malignancies with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Med 2024; 5:311-320.e3. [PMID: 38471508 PMCID: PMC11015975 DOI: 10.1016/j.medj.2024.02.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2023] [Revised: 12/04/2023] [Accepted: 02/02/2024] [Indexed: 03/14/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intravenous immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has shown poor response rates in recurrent gynecologic malignancies. Intraperitoneal (i.p.) ICB may result in enhanced T cell activation and anti-tumor immunity. METHODS In this phase 1b study, registered at Clinical. TRIALS gov (NCT03508570), initial cohorts received i.p. nivolumab monotherapy, and subsequent cohorts received combination i.p. nivolumab every 2 weeks and i.p. ipilimumab every 6 weeks, guided by a Bayesian design. The primary objective was determination of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of the combination. Secondary outcomes included toxicity, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). FINDINGS The trial enrolled 23 patients: 18 with ovarian cancer, 2 with uterine cancer, and 3 with cervical cancer. Study evaluable patients (n = 16) received a median of 2 prior lines of therapy (range: 1-8). Partial response was observed in 2 patients (12.5%; 1 ovarian, 1 uterine), and complete response was observed in 1 patient (6.3%) with cervical cancer, for an ORR of 18.8% (95% confidence interval: 4.0%-45.6%). The median duration of response was 14.8 months (range: 4.1-20.8), with one complete response ongoing. Median PFS and OS were 2.7 months and not reached, respectively. Grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events occurred in 2 (8.7%) patients. CONCLUSIONS i.p. administration of dual ICB is safe and demonstrated durable responses in a subset of patients with advanced gynecologic malignancy. The RP2D is 3 mg/kg i.p. nivolumab every 2 weeks plus 1 mg/kg ipilimumab every 6 weeks. FUNDING This work was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb (CA209-9C7), an MD Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant (CA016672), the Ovarian Cancer Moon Shots Program, the Emerson Collective Fund, and a T32 training grant (CA101642).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne Knisely
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Emily Hinchcliff
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Bryan Fellman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ann Mosley
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Kathryn Lito
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sara Hull
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Anil K Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Kathleen M Schmeler
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jolyn S Taylor
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Steven Y Huang
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Rahul A Sheth
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Karen H Lu
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Amir A Jazaeri
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Flores Legarreta A, Saab R, Gonzales NR, Chisholm GB, Westin SN, Hillman RT, Frumovitz M. Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the ovary: a review of 63 cases. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2024; 34:566-573. [PMID: 38290783 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-005063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To describe the clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes of ovarian neuroendocrine neoplasms from a curated registry. METHODS This is a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients in our registry with confirmed ovarian neuroendocrine neoplasms. We excluded patients with small cell carcinoma not otherwise specified, small cell hypercalcemic type, and those with neuroendocrine 'features' or 'differentiation.' Clinicopathological characteristics were described in two separate groups: patients with carcinoid tumors and patients with neuroendocrine carcinomas. Progression-free and overall survival were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator in these two groups, and multivariable analysis was done to identify predictors of survival for neuroendocrine carcinomas only. RESULTS A total of 63 patients met inclusion criteria, 13 (21%) with carcinoid tumors and 50 (79%) with neuroendocrine carcinomas. In the carcinoid tumor group, one patient (8%) was misdiagnosed. Two patients (15%) had a recurrence and the 5-year overall survival rate was 80% (95% CI 45% to 100%), with a lower bound of the median survival of 4.8 years (95% CI). In the neuroendocrine carcinoma group, 23 patients (46%) were misdiagnosed, 16 of whom (69%) received therapy with the presumption of a non-neuroendocrine carcinoma diagnosis. Thirty patients (60%) had a recurrence, and the 5-year overall survival rate was 24% (10%, 38%), with a median survival of 1.6 years (1.3, 3.3). Patients with carcinomas stage III or IV had an increased risk of progression/recurrence (HR=5.6; 95% CI 1.9 to 17.0) and death (HR=8.1; 95% CI 2.2 to 29.7) compared with those with stage I or II. Pure histology was associated with an increased risk of progression/recurrence (HR=2.3; 95% CI 1.0 to 5.2) compared with admixed histology. CONCLUSION Most patients had neuroendocrine carcinomas, which were associated with a higher recurrence rate and worse survival than carcinoid tumors. A high proportion of patients in both groups were initially misdiagnosed, and a new association with endometrial hyperplasia was observed. Neuroendocrine admixed histology is associated with a higher risk of progression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alejandra Flores Legarreta
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Reem Saab
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Naomi R Gonzales
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Gary B Chisholm
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - R Tyler Hillman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Michael Frumovitz
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hinchcliff EM, Knisely A, Adjei N, Fellman B, Yuan Y, Patel A, Xu C, Westin SN, Sood AK, Soliman PT, Shafer A, Fleming ND, Gershenson DM, Vikram R, Bathala T, Vining D, Ganeshan DM, Lu KH, Sun CC, Meyer LA, Jazaeri AA. Randomized phase 2 trial of tremelimumab and durvalumab in combination versus sequentially in recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Cancer 2024; 130:1061-1071. [PMID: 38009662 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.35126] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2023] [Revised: 10/17/2023] [Accepted: 10/19/2023] [Indexed: 11/29/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated limited responses in recurrent ovarian cancer; however, 30%-40% of patients achieve stable disease. The primary objective was to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) after sequential versus combination cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 and programmed death ligand 1 ICIs in patients with platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). METHODS Patients were randomized to a sequential arm (tremelimumab followed by durvalumab on progression) or a combination arm (tremelimumab plus durvalumab, followed by durvalumab) via a Bayesian adaptive design that made it more likely for patients to be randomized to the more effective arm. The primary end point was immune-related PFS (irPFS). RESULTS Sixty-one subjects were randomized to sequential (n = 38) or combination therapy (n = 23). Thirteen patients (34.2%) in the sequential arm received durvalumab. There was no difference in PFS in the sequential arm (1.84 months; 95% CI, 1.77-2.17 months) compared with the combination arm (1.87 months; 95% CI, 1.77-2.43 months) (p = .402). In the sequential arm, no responses were observed, although 12 patients (31.6%) demonstrated stable disease. In the combination arm, two patients (8.7%) had partial response, whereas one patient (4.4%) had stable disease. Adverse events were consistent with those previously reported for ICIs. Patient-reported outcomes were similar in both arms. CONCLUSIONS There was no difference in irPFS for combination tremelimumab plus durvalumab compared to tremelimumab alone (administered as part of a sequential treatment strategy) in a heavily pretreated population of patients with platinum-resistant HGSOC. Response rates were comparable to prior reports, although the combination regimen did not add significant benefit, as has been previously described.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily M Hinchcliff
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Anne Knisely
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Naomi Adjei
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Bryan Fellman
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ying Yuan
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ami Patel
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Cai Xu
- Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Anil K Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Pamela T Soliman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Aaron Shafer
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Nicole D Fleming
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - David M Gershenson
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Raghunandan Vikram
- Department of Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Tharakeswara Bathala
- Department of Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - David Vining
- Department of Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Dhakshina M Ganeshan
- Department of Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Karen H Lu
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Charlotte C Sun
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Larissa A Meyer
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Amir A Jazaeri
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Bogani G, Monk BJ, Powell MA, Westin SN, Slomovitz B, Moore KN, Eskander RN, Raspagliesi F, Barretina-Ginesta MP, Colombo N, Mirza MR. Adding immunotherapy to first-line treatment of advanced and metastatic endometrial cancer. Ann Oncol 2024:S0923-7534(24)00056-5. [PMID: 38431043 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2024.02.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2024] [Revised: 02/12/2024] [Accepted: 02/13/2024] [Indexed: 03/05/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Immunotherapy has transformed the endometrial cancer treatment landscape, particularly for those exhibiting mismatch repair deficiency [MMRd/microsatellite instability-hypermutated (MSI-H)]. A growing body of evidence supports the integration of immunotherapy with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment strategy. Recently, findings from ongoing trials such as RUBY (NCT03981796), NRG-GY018 (NCT03914612), AtTEnd (NCT03603184), and DUO-E (NCT04269200) have been disclosed. MATERIALS AND METHODS This paper constitutes a review and meta-analysis of phase III trials investigating the role of immunotherapy in the first-line setting for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. RESULTS The pooled data from 2320 patients across these trials substantiate the adoption of chemotherapy alongside immunotherapy, revealing a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-0.79] across all patient groups. Progression-free survival benefits are more pronounced in MMRd/MSI-H tumors (n = 563; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23-0.43). This benefit, albeit less robust, persists in the MMR-proficient/microsatellite stable group (n = 1757; HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.91). Pooled data further indicate that chemotherapy plus immunotherapy enhances overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone in all patients (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89). However, overall survival data maturity remains low. CONCLUSIONS The incorporation of immunotherapy into the initial treatment for advanced and metastatic endometrial cancer brings about a substantial improvement in oncologic outcomes, especially within the MMRd/MSI-H subset. This specific subgroup is currently a focal point of investigation for evaluating the potential of chemotherapy-free regimens. Ongoing exploratory analyses aim to identify non-responding patients eligible for inclusion in clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Bogani
- Gynecological Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Milan, Italy.
| | - B J Monk
- GOG Foundation, Florida Cancer Specialists and Research Institute, West Palm Beach
| | - M A Powell
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis
| | - S N Westin
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - B Slomovitz
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach
| | - K N Moore
- Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma Medical Center, Oklahoma
| | - R N Eskander
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Diego, Rebecca and John Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, USA
| | - F Raspagliesi
- Gynecological Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - M-P Barretina-Ginesta
- Medical Oncology, Catalan Institute of Oncology, Hospital Universitari Dr. Josep Trueta, Girona; Precision Oncology Group (OncoGIR-Pro), Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Girona (IDIBGI), Girona; Department of Medical Sciences, Girona University, Girona, Spain
| | - N Colombo
- Gynecologic Oncology Program, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan; Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - M R Mirza
- Nordic Society of Gynecological Oncology and Rigshospitalet-Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Westin SN, Moore K, Chon HS, Lee JY, Thomes Pepin J, Sundborg M, Shai A, de la Garza J, Nishio S, Gold MA, Wang K, McIntyre K, Tillmanns TD, Blank SV, Liu JH, McCollum M, Contreras Mejia F, Nishikawa T, Pennington K, Novak Z, De Melo AC, Sehouli J, Klasa-Mazurkiewicz D, Papadimitriou C, Gil-Martin M, Brasiuniene B, Donnelly C, del Rosario PM, Liu X, Van Nieuwenhuysen E. Durvalumab Plus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel Followed by Maintenance Durvalumab With or Without Olaparib as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Endometrial Cancer: The Phase III DUO-E Trial. J Clin Oncol 2024; 42:283-299. [PMID: 37864337 PMCID: PMC10824389 DOI: 10.1200/jco.23.02132] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2023] [Revised: 10/13/2023] [Accepted: 10/14/2023] [Indexed: 10/22/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Immunotherapy and chemotherapy combinations have shown activity in endometrial cancer, with greater benefit in mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient (dMMR) than MMR-proficient (pMMR) disease. Adding a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor may improve outcomes, especially in pMMR disease. METHODS This phase III, global, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned eligible patients with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer 1:1:1 to: carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control arm); carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib placebo (durvalumab arm); or carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib (durvalumab + olaparib arm). The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) in the durvalumab arm versus control and the durvalumab + olaparib arm versus control. RESULTS Seven hundred eighteen patients were randomly assigned. In the intention-to-treat population, statistically significant PFS benefit was observed in the durvalumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.89]; P = .003) and durvalumab + olaparib arms (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.69]; P < .0001) versus control. Prespecified, exploratory subgroup analyses showed PFS benefit in dMMR (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.80]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control], 0.41 [95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75]) and pMMR subgroups (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.97]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control] 0.57; [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.73]); and in PD-L1-positive subgroups (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.83]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.57]). Interim overall survival results (maturity approximately 28%) were supportive of the primary outcomes (durvalumab v control: HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.56 to 1.07]; P = .120; durvalumab + olaparib v control: HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.83]; P = .003). The safety profiles of the experimental arms were generally consistent with individual agents. CONCLUSION Carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab with or without olaparib demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful PFS benefit in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Kathleen Moore
- Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma Medical Center, Oklahoma, OK
| | | | - Jung-Yun Lee
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | | | | | - Ayelet Shai
- RAMBAM Health Care Campus, Haifa, and Israeli Society of Gynecologic Oncology (ISGO), Israel
| | | | - Shin Nishio
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurume, Fukuoka, Japan
| | - Michael A. Gold
- Oklahoma Cancer Specialists and Research Institute, Tulsa, OK
| | - Ke Wang
- Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, China
| | | | - Todd D. Tillmanns
- West Cancer Center Research Institute & University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN
| | - Stephanie V. Blank
- Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, and GOG Foundation (GOG-F), USA
| | - Ji-Hong Liu
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Michael McCollum
- Virginia Oncology Associates, Brock Cancer Center, Norfolk, VA, and GOG Foundation (GOG-F), USA
| | | | - Tadaaki Nishikawa
- Department of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kathryn Pennington
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA
| | - Zoltan Novak
- National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, and Central and Eastern European Gynecologic Oncology Group (CEEGOG), Hungary
| | - Andreia Cristina De Melo
- Clinical Research and Technological Development Division, Brazilian National Cancer Institute, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Jalid Sehouli
- Charité—Department of Gynecology with Center of Oncological Surgery, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, and North Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology (NOGGO), Germany
| | - Dagmara Klasa-Mazurkiewicz
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gynecological Oncology and Gynecological Endocrinology, Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, and Polish Gynecologic Oncology Group (PGOG), Poland
| | - Christos Papadimitriou
- Aretaieion University Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, and Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG), Greece
| | - Marta Gil-Martin
- Medical Oncology Department, Catalan Institute of Oncology-Institut d'Investigació Biomédica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL), Hospital Duran i Reynals, L'Hospitalet-Barcelona, Barcelona, and Grupo Español de Investigación en Cáncer de Ovario (GEICO), Spain
| | - Birute Brasiuniene
- Department of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Institute of Lithuania, Faculty of Medicine of Vilnius University, Vilnius, and Nordic Society of Gynaecological Oncology (NSGO), Lithuania
| | - Conor Donnelly
- Oncology Biometrics, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | | | - Xiaochun Liu
- Oncology R&D, Late-stage Development, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD
| | - Els Van Nieuwenhuysen
- University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, and Luxembourg Gynaecological Oncology Group (BGOG), Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Joseph R, Dasari SK, Umamaheswaran S, Mangala LS, Bayraktar E, Rodriguez-Aguayo C, Wu Y, Nguyen N, Powell RT, Sobieski M, Liu Y, Kim MS, Corvigno S, Foster K, Hanjra P, Vu TC, Chowdhury MA, Amero P, Stephan C, Lopez-Berestein G, Westin SN, Sood AK. EphA2- and HDAC-Targeted Combination Therapy in Endometrial Cancer. Int J Mol Sci 2024; 25:1278. [PMID: 38279277 PMCID: PMC10816153 DOI: 10.3390/ijms25021278] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2023] [Revised: 01/05/2024] [Accepted: 01/14/2024] [Indexed: 01/28/2024] Open
Abstract
Endometrial cancer is the most frequent malignant tumor of the female reproductive tract but lacks effective therapy. EphA2, a receptor tyrosine kinase, is overexpressed by various cancers including endometrial cancer and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. In preclinical models, EphA2-targeted drugs had modest efficacy. To discover potential synergistic partners for EphA2-targeted drugs, we performed a high-throughput drug screen and identified panobinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, as a candidate. We hypothesized that combination therapy with an EphA2 inhibitor and panobinostat leads to synergistic cell death. Indeed, we found that the combination enhanced DNA damage, increased apoptosis, and decreased clonogenic survival in Ishikawa and Hec1A endometrial cancer cells and significantly reduced tumor burden in mouse models of endometrial carcinoma. Upon RNA sequencing, the combination was associated with downregulation of cell survival pathways, including senescence, cyclins, and cell cycle regulators. The Axl-PI3K-Akt-mTOR pathway was also decreased by combination therapy. Together, our results highlight EphA2 and histone deacetylase as promising therapeutic targets for endometrial cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robiya Joseph
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (R.J.); (S.K.D.); (S.U.); (L.S.M.); (E.B.); (Y.W.); (Y.L.); (M.S.K.); (S.C.); (K.F.); (P.H.); (T.C.V.); (M.A.C.); (S.N.W.)
| | - Santosh K. Dasari
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (R.J.); (S.K.D.); (S.U.); (L.S.M.); (E.B.); (Y.W.); (Y.L.); (M.S.K.); (S.C.); (K.F.); (P.H.); (T.C.V.); (M.A.C.); (S.N.W.)
| | - Sujanitha Umamaheswaran
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (R.J.); (S.K.D.); (S.U.); (L.S.M.); (E.B.); (Y.W.); (Y.L.); (M.S.K.); (S.C.); (K.F.); (P.H.); (T.C.V.); (M.A.C.); (S.N.W.)
- UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Lingegowda S. Mangala
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (R.J.); (S.K.D.); (S.U.); (L.S.M.); (E.B.); (Y.W.); (Y.L.); (M.S.K.); (S.C.); (K.F.); (P.H.); (T.C.V.); (M.A.C.); (S.N.W.)
| | - Emine Bayraktar
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (R.J.); (S.K.D.); (S.U.); (L.S.M.); (E.B.); (Y.W.); (Y.L.); (M.S.K.); (S.C.); (K.F.); (P.H.); (T.C.V.); (M.A.C.); (S.N.W.)
| | - Cristian Rodriguez-Aguayo
- Department of Experimental Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (C.R.-A.); (P.A.); (G.L.-B.)
| | - Yutuan Wu
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (R.J.); (S.K.D.); (S.U.); (L.S.M.); (E.B.); (Y.W.); (Y.L.); (M.S.K.); (S.C.); (K.F.); (P.H.); (T.C.V.); (M.A.C.); (S.N.W.)
| | - Nghi Nguyen
- High-Throughput Research and Screening Center, Center for Translational Cancer Research, Texas A&M Health Science Center, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (N.N.); (R.T.P.); (M.S.); (C.S.)
| | - Reid T. Powell
- High-Throughput Research and Screening Center, Center for Translational Cancer Research, Texas A&M Health Science Center, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (N.N.); (R.T.P.); (M.S.); (C.S.)
| | - Mary Sobieski
- High-Throughput Research and Screening Center, Center for Translational Cancer Research, Texas A&M Health Science Center, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (N.N.); (R.T.P.); (M.S.); (C.S.)
| | - Yuan Liu
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (R.J.); (S.K.D.); (S.U.); (L.S.M.); (E.B.); (Y.W.); (Y.L.); (M.S.K.); (S.C.); (K.F.); (P.H.); (T.C.V.); (M.A.C.); (S.N.W.)
| | - Mark Seungwook Kim
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (R.J.); (S.K.D.); (S.U.); (L.S.M.); (E.B.); (Y.W.); (Y.L.); (M.S.K.); (S.C.); (K.F.); (P.H.); (T.C.V.); (M.A.C.); (S.N.W.)
| | - Sara Corvigno
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (R.J.); (S.K.D.); (S.U.); (L.S.M.); (E.B.); (Y.W.); (Y.L.); (M.S.K.); (S.C.); (K.F.); (P.H.); (T.C.V.); (M.A.C.); (S.N.W.)
| | - Katherine Foster
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (R.J.); (S.K.D.); (S.U.); (L.S.M.); (E.B.); (Y.W.); (Y.L.); (M.S.K.); (S.C.); (K.F.); (P.H.); (T.C.V.); (M.A.C.); (S.N.W.)
| | - Pahul Hanjra
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (R.J.); (S.K.D.); (S.U.); (L.S.M.); (E.B.); (Y.W.); (Y.L.); (M.S.K.); (S.C.); (K.F.); (P.H.); (T.C.V.); (M.A.C.); (S.N.W.)
- UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Thanh Chung Vu
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (R.J.); (S.K.D.); (S.U.); (L.S.M.); (E.B.); (Y.W.); (Y.L.); (M.S.K.); (S.C.); (K.F.); (P.H.); (T.C.V.); (M.A.C.); (S.N.W.)
| | - Mamur A. Chowdhury
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (R.J.); (S.K.D.); (S.U.); (L.S.M.); (E.B.); (Y.W.); (Y.L.); (M.S.K.); (S.C.); (K.F.); (P.H.); (T.C.V.); (M.A.C.); (S.N.W.)
| | - Paola Amero
- Department of Experimental Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (C.R.-A.); (P.A.); (G.L.-B.)
| | - Clifford Stephan
- High-Throughput Research and Screening Center, Center for Translational Cancer Research, Texas A&M Health Science Center, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (N.N.); (R.T.P.); (M.S.); (C.S.)
| | - Gabriel Lopez-Berestein
- Department of Experimental Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (C.R.-A.); (P.A.); (G.L.-B.)
| | - Shannon N. Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (R.J.); (S.K.D.); (S.U.); (L.S.M.); (E.B.); (Y.W.); (Y.L.); (M.S.K.); (S.C.); (K.F.); (P.H.); (T.C.V.); (M.A.C.); (S.N.W.)
| | - Anil K. Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (R.J.); (S.K.D.); (S.U.); (L.S.M.); (E.B.); (Y.W.); (Y.L.); (M.S.K.); (S.C.); (K.F.); (P.H.); (T.C.V.); (M.A.C.); (S.N.W.)
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
How JA, Legarreta AF, Handley KF, Fellman B, Foster KI, Glassman D, Vuttaradhi VK, Brodsky AL, Lawson B, Frumovitz M, Westin SN, Ramondetta LM, Gershenson DM, Sood AK, Hillman RT. Serial cytoreductive surgery and survival outcomes in recurrent adult-type ovarian granulosa cell tumors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2024:S0002-9378(24)00009-7. [PMID: 38191019 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.01.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/09/2023] [Revised: 12/20/2023] [Accepted: 01/02/2024] [Indexed: 01/10/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Few studies have evaluated the role of cytoreductive surgery in patients with recurrent adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary. Despite a multitude of treatment modalities in the recurrent setting, the optimal management strategy is not known. Cytoreductive surgery offers an attractive option for disease confined to the abdomen/pelvis. However, few studies have evaluated the role of surgery compared with systemic therapy alone following the first recurrence and subsequent disease progressions. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to determine the impact of secondary, tertiary, and quaternary cytoreductive surgery on survival outcomes in recurrent adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary. STUDY DESIGN This is a multicenter, retrospective cohort study evaluating patients with recurrent adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary enrolled in the MD Anderson Rare Gynecologic Malignancy Registry from 1970 to 2022. Study inclusion criteria consisted of histology-proven recurrent disease, at least 1 documented recurrence, and treatment/treatment planning at the MD Anderson Cancer Center or Lyndon B. Johnson General Hospital. The primary exposure was cytoreductive surgery, and the outcomes of interest were progression-free survival and overall survival. Survival analyses were restricted to eligible patients with resectable disease without medical barriers to surgery at each progression episode. Demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Progression-free survival (after first, second, and third progression) and overall survival were estimated with methods of Kaplan and Meier, and were modeled via Cox proportional hazards regression. Multivariable analyses were performed for progression-free survival after first progression and overall survival. RESULTS Among the 369 patients with adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary in the registry, 149 patients met the study inclusion criteria. Secondary cytoreductive surgery was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival on univariable (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.81, P=.01) and multivariable analyses (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.92; P=.03). Those who underwent secondary cytoreductive surgery had a significantly improved median overall survival compared with those who did not undergo cytoreductive surgery (181.92 vs 61.56 months, respectively; P=.002). Overall survival benefit remained statistically significant on multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.67; P=.004). Tertiary cytoreductive surgery was similarly associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.70; P=.001). Despite a similar trend, quaternary cytoreductive surgery was not associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.26; P=.27). CONCLUSION Among those with resectable disease and no medical contraindications to surgery, cytoreductive surgery may have a beneficial impact on progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with recurrent adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeffrey A How
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Alejandra Flores Legarreta
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Katelyn F Handley
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
| | - Bryan Fellman
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Katherine I Foster
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Deanna Glassman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Veena K Vuttaradhi
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Allison L Brodsky
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Barrett Lawson
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Michael Frumovitz
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Lois M Ramondetta
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - David M Gershenson
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Anil K Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - R Tyler Hillman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; CPRIT Scholar in Cancer Research.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Li Y, Dobrolecki LE, Sallas C, Zhang X, Kerr TD, Bisht D, Wang Y, Awasthi S, Kaundal B, Wu S, Peng W, Mendillo ML, Lu Y, Jeter CR, Peng G, Liu J, Westin SN, Sood AK, Lewis MT, Das J, Yi SS, Bedford MT, McGrail DJ, Sahni N. PRMT blockade induces defective DNA replication stress response and synergizes with PARP inhibition. Cell Rep Med 2023; 4:101326. [PMID: 38118413 PMCID: PMC10772459 DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2023.101326] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2023] [Revised: 09/07/2023] [Accepted: 11/17/2023] [Indexed: 12/22/2023]
Abstract
Multiple cancers exhibit aberrant protein arginine methylation by both type I arginine methyltransferases, predominately protein arginine methyltransferase 1 (PRMT1) and to a lesser extent PRMT4, and by type II PRMTs, predominately PRMT5. Here, we perform targeted proteomics following inhibition of PRMT1, PRMT4, and PRMT5 across 12 cancer cell lines. We find that inhibition of type I and II PRMTs suppresses phosphorylated and total ATR in cancer cells. Loss of ATR from PRMT inhibition results in defective DNA replication stress response activation, including from PARP inhibitors. Inhibition of type I and II PRMTs is synergistic with PARP inhibition regardless of homologous recombination function, but type I PRMT inhibition is more toxic to non-malignant cells. Finally, we demonstrate that the combination of PARP and PRMT5 inhibition improves survival in both BRCA-mutant and wild-type patient-derived xenografts without toxicity. Taken together, these results demonstrate that PRMT5 inhibition may be a well-tolerated approach to sensitize tumors to PARP inhibition.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yang Li
- Department of Epigenetics and Molecular Carcinogenesis, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lacey E Dobrolecki
- Lester and Sue Smith Breast Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Christina Sallas
- Lester and Sue Smith Breast Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Xudong Zhang
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Travis D Kerr
- Center for Immunotherapy and Precision Immuno-Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Deepa Bisht
- Department of Epigenetics and Molecular Carcinogenesis, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Yalong Wang
- Department of Epigenetics and Molecular Carcinogenesis, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sharad Awasthi
- Department of Epigenetics and Molecular Carcinogenesis, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Babita Kaundal
- Department of Epigenetics and Molecular Carcinogenesis, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Siqi Wu
- Department of Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Weiyi Peng
- Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Marc L Mendillo
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA; Simpson Querrey Center for Epigenetics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Yiling Lu
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Collene R Jeter
- Department of Epigenetics and Molecular Carcinogenesis, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Guang Peng
- Department of Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jinsong Liu
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Anil K Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Michael T Lewis
- Lester and Sue Smith Breast Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jishnu Das
- Center for Systems Immunology, Department of Immunology, and Department of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - S Stephen Yi
- Livestrong Cancer Institutes, Department of Oncology, Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA; Interdisciplinary Life Sciences Graduate Programs (ILSGP), College of Natural Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA; Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences (ICES), The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cockrell School of Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
| | - Mark T Bedford
- Department of Epigenetics and Molecular Carcinogenesis, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Daniel J McGrail
- Center for Immunotherapy and Precision Immuno-Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
| | - Nidhi Sahni
- Department of Epigenetics and Molecular Carcinogenesis, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; Department of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; Quantitative and Computational Biosciences Program, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Jazaeri AA, Grisham R, Knisely A, Spranger S, Zamarin D, Hillman RT, Lawson BC, Burns KH, Lee S, Westin SN, Moiso E, Williams MJ, Bardhan NM, Pisanic T, Matulonis U, Weigelt B, Shih I, Konstantinopoulos PA, Gaillard S, Wang L, Aghajanian C, D'Andrea AD, Hammond P, Shah S, Wucherpfennig KW, Lu KH. Transforming ovarian cancer care by targeting minimal residual disease. Med 2023; 4:755-760. [PMID: 37951209 DOI: 10.1016/j.medj.2023.08.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2023] [Revised: 08/09/2023] [Accepted: 08/22/2023] [Indexed: 11/13/2023]
Abstract
Frontline treatment and resultant cure rates in patients with advanced ovarian cancer have changed little over the past several decades. Here, we outline a multidisciplinary approach aimed at gaining novel therapeutic insights by focusing on the poorly understood minimal residual disease phase of ovarian cancer that leads to eventual incurable recurrences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amir A Jazaeri
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Rachel Grisham
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Anne Knisely
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Stefani Spranger
- David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | | | - R Tyler Hillman
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | | | - Sanghoon Lee
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Enrico Moiso
- David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | | | - Neelkanth M Bardhan
- David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA; Break Through Cancer, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | | | | | - Britta Weigelt
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - IeMing Shih
- The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | - Stephanie Gaillard
- The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Linghua Wang
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | | | - Paula Hammond
- David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Sohrab Shah
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Karen H Lu
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Grisham RN, Slomovitz BM, Andrews N, Banerjee S, Brown J, Carey MS, Chui H, Coleman RL, Fader AN, Gaillard S, Gourley C, Sood AK, Monk BJ, Moore KN, Ray-Coquard I, Shih IM, Westin SN, Wong KK, Gershenson DM. Low-grade serous ovarian cancer: expert consensus report on the state of the science. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023; 33:1331-1344. [PMID: 37591609 PMCID: PMC10511962 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004610] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/24/2023] [Indexed: 08/19/2023] Open
Abstract
Compared with high-grade serous carcinoma, low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum is a less frequent epithelial ovarian cancer type that is poorly sensitive to chemotherapy and affects younger women, many of whom endure years of ineffective treatments and poor quality of life. The pathogenesis of this disease and its management remain incompletely understood. However, recent advances in the molecular characterization of the disease and identification of novel targeted therapies with activity in low-grade serous carcinoma offer the promise of improved outcomes. To update clinicians regarding recent scientific and clinical trial advancements and discuss unanswered questions related to low-grade serous carcinoma diagnosis and treatment, a panel of experts convened for a workshop in October 2022 to develop a consensus document addressing pathology, translational research, epidemiology and risk, clinical management, and ongoing research. In addition, the patient perspective was discussed. The recommendations developed by this expert panel-presented in this consensus document-will guide practitioners in all settings regarding the clinical management of women with low-grade serous carcinoma and discuss future opportunities to improve research and patient care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel N Grisham
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
| | - Brian M Slomovitz
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, Florida, USA
- Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA
| | - Nicole Andrews
- STAAR Ovarian Cancer Foundation, Western Springs, Illinois, USA
| | | | - Jubilee Brown
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Levine Cancer Institute at Atrium Health, Wake Forest University, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
| | - Mark S Carey
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Vancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Herman Chui
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Robert L Coleman
- Sarah Cannon Research Institute (SCRI), Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Amanda N Fader
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Stephanie Gaillard
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Charlie Gourley
- Cancer Research UK Scotland Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Anil K Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Bradley J Monk
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Honor Health, University of Arizona, Creighton University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Kathleen N Moore
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
| | - Isabelle Ray-Coquard
- Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
- Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France
| | - Ie-Ming Shih
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Kwong-Kwok Wong
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - David M Gershenson
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Konski A, Deshmukh S, Klopp AH, Yeung AR, Westin SN, Thompson JS, Doncals DE, Cantuaria GHC, D'Souza DP, Chang A, Kundapur V, Mohan DS, Haas ML, Kim YB, Ferguson CL, Pugh SL, Kachnic LA, Bruner DW. Quality-adjusted survival in women with gynecologic malignancies receiving IMRT after surgery: A Ppatient Rreported Ooutcome study of NRG oncology's RTOG 1203. Gynecol Oncol 2023; 175:176-181. [PMID: 37393743 PMCID: PMC10527270 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.05.074] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2023] [Revised: 05/21/2023] [Accepted: 05/31/2023] [Indexed: 07/04/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION NRG/RTOG 1203 compared 3-D conformal radiotherapy (3D CRT) to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in patients with endometrial or cervical cancer requiring post-operative radiotherapy after hysterectomy. The purpose of this study was to report the first quality-adjusted survival analysis comparing the two treatments. METHODS NRG/RTOG 1203 randomized patients having undergone hysterectomy to either 3DCRT or IMRT. Stratification factors included RT dose, chemotherapy, and disease site. The EQ-5D, both index and visual analog scale (VAS), were obtained at baseline, 5 weeks after the start of RT, 4-6 weeks post RT and 1 and 3-years post RT. EQ-5D index and VAS scores along with quality-adjusted survival (QAS) were compared between treatment arms using the t-test at a two-sided significance level of 0.05. RESULTS NRG/RTOG 1203 enrolled 289 patients of which 236 consented to participate in the patient reported outcome (PRO) assessments. QAS was higher in women treated with IMRT, 1374 vs 1333 days (p = 0.5) compared to patients treated with 3DCRT, but this difference was not statistically different. Patients treated with IMRT had less of a decline in VAS score 5 weeks post RT, -5.04, compared to patients treated with 3DCRT, -7.48, although not statistically significant (p = 0.38). CONCLUSION This is the first report of the use of the EQ-5D comparing two radiotherapy techniques in the treatment of gynecologic malignancies after surgery. While there were no significant differences in QAS and VAS scores between patients who received IMRT vs. 3DCRT, RTOG 1203 was not powered to show statistical differences in these secondary endpoints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andre Konski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Senior Fellow Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, The Chester County Hospital, 701 E. Marshall Ave, West Chester, PA 19380, USA; Senior Fellow, Leonard Davis Institute for Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, The Chester County Hospital, 701 E. Marshall Ave, West Chester, PA 19380, USA.
| | - Snehal Deshmukh
- American College of Radiology, NRG Statistical and Data Management Center, NRG Oncology, 50 South 16th Street, Suite 2800, Philadelphia, PA 19102, USA
| | - Ann H Klopp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Division of Radiation Oncology, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, The University of Texas, Unit 1422, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Anamaria R Yeung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, 2000 Southwest Archer Road PO Box 100385 Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Division of Radiation Oncology, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, The University of Texas, Unit 1422, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - J Spencer Thompson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, 800 Northeast Tenth Street, Fifth Floor, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA
| | - Desiree E Doncals
- SUMMA Akron City Hospital/ Cooper Cancer Center, 161 North Forge Street, Suite G90, Akron, OH 44304, USA
| | - Guilherme H C Cantuaria
- Northside Hospital, University Gynecologic Oncology 960 Johnson Ferry Road Northeast Suite 130 Atlanta, GA 30342, USA
| | - David P D'Souza
- London Regional Cancer Program, London Health Sciences Centre, 339 Windermere Road, P.O. Box 5339, Stn Z, London, Ontario N6A 5A5, Canada
| | - Amy Chang
- Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Main Block, Lok Man Rd, Chai Wan, Hong Kong
| | - Vijayananda Kundapur
- Saskatoon Cancer Center, University of Saskatchewan, 20 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK S7N 4H4, Canada
| | - Dasarahally S Mohan
- Kaiser Permanente Cancer Treatment Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, 220 Oyster Point Boulevard South, San Francisco, CA 94080, USA
| | - Michael L Haas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, McGlinn Cancer Institute Reading, Reading Hospital Radiation Oncology Department, 420 South Fifth Avenue West Reading, PA 19611, USA
| | - Yong Bae Kim
- Yonsei University Health System, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, South Korea
| | - Catherine L Ferguson
- Georgia Regents University, Augusta University Medical Center, Section of Hematology and Oncology, 1120 15th Street, BAA-5407 Augusta, GA 30912, USA
| | - Stephanie L Pugh
- American College of Radiology, NRG Statistical and Data Management Center, NRG Oncology, 50 South 16th Street, Suite 2800, Philadelphia, PA 19102, USA
| | - Lisa A Kachnic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University, Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, NYP/Columbia University Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, 622 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA
| | - Deborah W Bruner
- Emory University Hospital/Winship Cancer Institute, 1599, Clifton Road, Northeast, Fourth Floor, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Foster KI, Shaw KRM, Jin J, Westin SN, Yap TA, Glassman DM, Jazaeri AA, Rauh-Hain JA, Lee S, Fellman BM, Ju Z, Liu Y, Fleming ND, Sood AK. Clinical implications of tumor-based next-generation sequencing in high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer. Cancer 2023; 129:1672-1680. [PMID: 36930815 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34724] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2022] [Revised: 01/04/2023] [Accepted: 01/11/2023] [Indexed: 03/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Tumor-based next-generation sequencing is used inconsistently as a tool to tailor treatment of ovarian cancer, yet beyond detection of somatic BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, the clinical benefit is not well established. This study aimed to assess the clinical relevance of tumor-based next-generation sequencing (tbNGS) in patients with ovarian cancer. METHODS This retrospective study included patients with high-grade epithelial ovarian carcinoma. tbNGS results were identified in the electronic medical record using optical character recognition and natural language processing. Genetic, clinical, and demographic information was collected. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were calculated and compared using log-rank tests. Multivariate Cox regression and clustering analyses were used to identify patterns of genetic alterations associated with survival. RESULTS Of 1092 patients in the described population, 409 (37.5%) had tbNGS results. Nearly all (96.1% [393/409]) had one or more genetic alterations. In 25.9% (106/409) of patients, an alteration that aligned with a targeted treatment was identified, and in an additional 48.7% (199/409), tbNGS results suggested eligibility for an investigational agent or clinical trial. The most frequent alterations were TP53, PIK3CA, and NF1 mutations, and CCNE1 amplification. Together, BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were associated with longer PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-0.92; p = .02), whereas AKT2 amplification was associated with shorter PFS (HR, 3.86; 95% CI, 1.002-14.88; p < .05). Multivariate Cox regression and clustering analyses identified several combinations of genetic alterations that corresponded to outcomes in patients with high-grade serous carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS tbNGS often yields clinically relevant information. Detailed analysis of population-level tumor genomics may help to identify therapeutic targets and guide development of clinical decision support tools. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY Although more and more patients with ovarian cancer are undergoing tumor-based next-generation sequencing to identify genetic mutations in their tumors, the benefits of such testing are not well established. In a group of over 400 patients with ovarian cancer who underwent tumor-based next-generation sequencing in the course of their treatment, nearly all patients had one or more genetic alterations detected, and one out of four patients had a mutation that qualified them for a personalized treatment option.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Kenna R M Shaw
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jeff Jin
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Shannon N Westin
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Timothy A Yap
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Deanna M Glassman
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Amir A Jazaeri
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jose A Rauh-Hain
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Sanghoon Lee
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Bryan M Fellman
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Zhenlin Ju
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Yuexin Liu
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Nicole D Fleming
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Anil K Sood
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Morris VK, Jazaeri A, Westin SN, Pettaway C, George S, Huey RW, Grinsfelder M, Shafer A, Johnson B, Vining D, Guo M, Fellman B, Frumovitz M. Phase II Trial of MEDI0457 and Durvalumab for Patients With Recurrent/Metastatic Human Papillomavirus-Associated Cancers. Oncologist 2023:7146114. [PMID: 37104874 DOI: 10.1093/oncolo/oyad085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2022] [Accepted: 03/09/2023] [Indexed: 04/29/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16/18 drive oncogenesis for most patients with cervical, anal, and penile cancers. MEDI0457, a therapeutic DNA vaccine containing plasmids for E6 and E7 HPV-16/18 viral oncogenes and IL-12 adjuvant, is safe and provokes an immune response against E6/E7. We tested MEDI0457 with the anti-PD-L1 antibody durvalumab for patients with HPV-associated cancers. METHODS Patients with recurrent/metastatic, treatment-refractory HPV-16/18 cervical cancer, or rare HPV-associated (anal and penile) cancers were eligible. Prior immune checkpoint inhibition was not permitted. Patients received MEDI0457 7 mg intramuscularly (weeks 1, 3, 7, 12, and every 8 weeks thereafter) and durvalumab 1500 mg intravenously every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall response (RECIST 1.1). In this Simon two-stage phase 2 trial (Ho: p < 0.15; Ha: p ≥ 0.35), ≥2 responses were needed in both cervical and non-cervical cohorts during the first stage for the trial to proceed to stage 2 with an additional 25 patients (34 total) enrolled. RESULTS Twenty-one patients (12 cervical, 7 anal, and 2 penile) were evaluable for toxicity and 19 for response Overall response rate was 21% (95% CI, 6%-46%) among evaluable patients. Disease control rate was 37% (95% CI, 16%-62%). Median duration of response among responders was 21.8 months (95% CI, 9.7%-not estimable). Median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI, 2.8%-7.2%). Median overall survival was 17.7 months (95% CI, 7.6%-not estimable). Grades 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 6 (23%) participants. CONCLUSIONS The combination of MEDI0457 and durvalumab demonstrated acceptable safety and tolerability in patients with advanced HPV-16/18 cancers. The low ORR among patients with cervical cancer led to study discontinuation despite a clinically meaningful disease control rate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Van K Morris
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Amir Jazaeri
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, The University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, The University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Curtis Pettaway
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Solly George
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, The University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ryan W Huey
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Michaela Grinsfelder
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, The University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Aaron Shafer
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, The University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Benny Johnson
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - David Vining
- Department of Radiology, The University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ming Guo
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Bryan Fellman
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Michael Frumovitz
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, The University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Leo J, Dondossola E, Basham KJ, Wilson NR, Alhalabi O, Gao J, Kurnit KC, White MG, McQuade JL, Westin SN, Wellberg EA, Frigo DE. Stranger Things: New Roles and Opportunities for Androgen Receptor in Oncology Beyond Prostate Cancer. Endocrinology 2023; 164:bqad071. [PMID: 37154098 PMCID: PMC10413436 DOI: 10.1210/endocr/bqad071] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2023] [Revised: 04/25/2023] [Accepted: 05/05/2023] [Indexed: 05/10/2023]
Abstract
The androgen receptor (AR) is one of the oldest therapeutic targets in oncology and continues to dominate the treatment landscape for advanced prostate cancer, where nearly all treatment regimens include some form of AR modulation. In this regard, AR remains the central driver of prostate cancer cell biology. Emerging preclinical and clinical data implicate key roles for AR in additional cancer types, thereby expanding the importance of this drug target beyond prostate cancer. In this mini-review, new roles for AR in other cancer types are discussed as well as their potential for treatment with AR-targeted agents. Our understanding of these additional functions for AR in oncology expand this receptor's potential as a therapeutic target and will help guide the development of new treatment approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Javier Leo
- Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77054, USA
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Eleonora Dondossola
- Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology and the David H. Koch Center for Applied Research of Genitourinary Cancers, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Kaitlin J Basham
- Department of Oncological Sciences, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
| | - Nathaniel R Wilson
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Omar Alhalabi
- Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology and the David H. Koch Center for Applied Research of Genitourinary Cancers, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Jianjun Gao
- Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology and the David H. Koch Center for Applied Research of Genitourinary Cancers, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Katherine C Kurnit
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Section of Gynecologic Oncology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
| | - Michael G White
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Jennifer L McQuade
- Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Elizabeth A Wellberg
- Department of Pathology, Harold Hamm Diabetes Center, and Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA
| | - Daniel E Frigo
- Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77054, USA
- Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology and the David H. Koch Center for Applied Research of Genitourinary Cancers, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
- Center for Nuclear Receptors and Cell Signaling, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204, USA
- Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Almanza-Huante E, Bataller A, Urrutia S, Gener-Ricos G, Briski RE, Kanagal-Shamanna R, Lu KH, Westin SN, Yap TA, Takahashi K, Ravandi F, Alvarado Y, Kadia T, Sasaki K, Kantarjian HM, Garcia-Manero G. Outcomes of patients with therapy-related myeloid neoplasms after treatment with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase proteins inhibitors for solid tumours. Br J Haematol 2023; 201:e25-e29. [PMID: 36951293 DOI: 10.1111/bjh.18766] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Grants] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2023] [Revised: 02/16/2023] [Accepted: 03/11/2023] [Indexed: 03/24/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Emmanuel Almanza-Huante
- Department of Leukemia, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Alex Bataller
- Department of Leukemia, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Samuel Urrutia
- Cancer Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Georgina Gener-Ricos
- Department of Leukemia, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Robert Edward Briski
- Department of Leukemia, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Rashmi Kanagal-Shamanna
- Department of Hematopathology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Karen H Lu
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Timothy A Yap
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics (Phase I Program), MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Koichi Takahashi
- Department of Leukemia, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Farhad Ravandi
- Department of Leukemia, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Yesid Alvarado
- Department of Leukemia, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Tapan Kadia
- Department of Leukemia, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Koiji Sasaki
- Department of Leukemia, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Hagop M Kantarjian
- Department of Leukemia, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Guillermo Garcia-Manero
- Department of Leukemia, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Fu S, Yao S, Yuan Y, Previs RA, Elias AD, Carvajal RD, George TJ, Yuan Y, Yu L, Westin SN, Xing Y, Dumbrava EE, Karp DD, Piha-Paul SA, Tsimberidou AM, Ahnert JR, Takebe N, Lu K, Keyomarsi K, Meric-Bernstam F. Multicenter Phase II Trial of the WEE1 Inhibitor Adavosertib in Refractory Solid Tumors Harboring CCNE1 Amplification. J Clin Oncol 2023; 41:1725-1734. [PMID: 36469840 PMCID: PMC10489509 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.00830] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2022] [Revised: 08/02/2022] [Accepted: 10/20/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Preclinical cancer models harboring CCNE1 amplification were more sensitive to adavosertib treatment, a WEE1 kinase inhibitor, than models without amplification. Thus, we conducted this phase II study to assess the antitumor activity of adavosertib in patients with CCNE1-amplified, advanced refractory solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients aged ≥ 18 years with measurable disease and refractory solid tumors harboring CCNE1 amplification, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and adequate organ function were studied. Patients received 300 mg of adavosertib once daily on days 1 through 5 and 8 through 12 of a 21-day cycle. The trial followed Bayesian optimal phase II design. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS Thirty patients were enrolled. The median follow-up duration was 9.9 months. Eight patients had partial responses (PRs), and three had stable disease (SD) ≥ 6 months, with an ORR of 27% (95% CI, 12 to 46), a SD ≥ 6 months/PR rate of 37% (95% CI, 20 to 56), a median progression-free survival duration of 4.1 months (95% CI, 1.8 to 6.4), and a median overall survival duration of 9.9 months (95% CI, 4.8 to 15). Fourteen patients with epithelial ovarian cancer showed an ORR of 36% (95% CI, 13 to 65) and SD ≥ 6 months/PR of 57% (95% CI, 29 to 82), a median progression-free survival duration of 6.3 months (95% CI, 2.4 to 10.2), and a median overall survival duration of 14.9 months (95% CI, 8.9 to 20.9). Common treatment-related toxicities were GI, hematologic toxicities, and fatigue. CONCLUSION Adavosertib monotherapy demonstrates a manageable toxicity profile and promising clinical activity in refractory solid tumors harboring CCNE1 amplification, especially in epithelial ovarian cancer. Further study of adavosertib, alone or in combination with other therapeutic agents, in CCNE1-amplified epithelial ovarian cancer is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Siqing Fu
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Shuyang Yao
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Yuan Yuan
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA
| | | | | | | | | | - Ying Yuan
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Lihou Yu
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Yan Xing
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA
| | | | - Daniel D. Karp
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | | | - Naoko Takebe
- Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
| | - Karen Lu
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Foster KI, Flores Legarreta A, Kamat R, Handley KF, Glassman D, How JA, Lawson BC, Westin SN, Ramondetta LM, Frumovitz M, Gershenson DM, Sood AK, Hillman RT. Clinical outcomes of leuprolide acetate in the treatment of recurrent ovarian granulosa cell tumors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2023:S0002-9378(23)00148-5. [PMID: 36907533 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.02.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2022] [Revised: 02/23/2023] [Accepted: 02/27/2023] [Indexed: 03/14/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The optimal treatment of recurrent ovarian granulosa cell tumors is not known. Pre-clinical studies and small case series have suggested direct anti-tumor activity of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists in the treatment of this disease, but little is known about the efficacy and safety of this approach. OBJECTIVE To describe patterns of use and clinical outcomes of leuprolide acetate in a cohort of patients with recurrent granulosa cell tumors. STUDY DESIGN This was a retrospective cohort study of patients enrolled in the Rare Gynecologic Malignancy Registry at a large cancer referral center and affiliated county hospital. Patients meeting inclusion criteria had a diagnosis of recurrent granulosa cell tumor and received either leuprolide acetate or traditional chemotherapy as cancer treatment. Outcomes were separately examined for leuprolide acetate used as adjuvant treatment, maintenance therapy, and the treatment of gross disease. Demographic and clinical data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Progression-free survival was calculated from the initiation of treatment to the date of disease progression or death, and compared between groups with the log-rank test. The 6-month clinical benefit rate was defined as the percentage of patients without disease progression 6 months after starting therapy. RESULTS Sixty-two patients received a total of 78 leuprolide acetate-containing therapy courses, owing to 16 instances of retreatment. Of these 78 courses, 57 (73%) were for treatment of gross disease, 10 (13%) were adjuvant to tumor reductive surgery, and 11 (14%) were for maintenance therapy. Patients had received a median of two (IQR, 1-3) systemic therapy regimens prior to their first leuprolide acetate treatment. Tumor reductive surgery (100% [62/62]) and platinum-based chemotherapy (81% [50/62]) were common prior to first leuprolide acetate exposure. The median duration of leuprolide acetate therapy was 9.6 months (IQR, 4.8-16.5 months). Nearly half of the therapy courses were single-agent leuprolide acetate (49% [38/78]). Combination regimens most often included an aromatase inhibitor (23% [18/78]). Disease progression was the most common cause of discontinuation (77% [60/78]); only one patient (1%) discontinued leuprolide acetate because of adverse events. In the treatment of gross disease, the 6-month clinical benefit rate for first use of leuprolide acetate was 66% (95% CI, 54-82%). Median progression-free survival was not statistically different compared to that which followed chemotherapy (10.3 months [95% CI, 8.0-16.0 months] vs. 8.0 months [95% CI, 5.0-15.3 months], p=0.3). CONCLUSION In a large cohort of patients with recurrent granulosa cell tumors, the 6-month clinical benefit rate of first-time leuprolide acetate treatment of gross disease was 66% and progression-free survival was comparable to patients treated with chemotherapy. Leuprolide acetate regimens were heterogeneous, but significant toxicity was rare. These results support leuprolide acetate as safe and effective for the treatment of relapsed adult granulosa cell tumors in the second line and beyond.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katherine I Foster
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Alejandra Flores Legarreta
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Rhea Kamat
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Katelyn F Handley
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida; Tampa, FL, 33612, USA; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute; Tampa, FL, 33612, USA
| | - Deanna Glassman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jeffrey A How
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Barrett C Lawson
- Department of Anatomical Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lois M Ramondetta
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Michael Frumovitz
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - David M Gershenson
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Anil K Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - R Tyler Hillman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; CPRIT Scholar in Cancer Research.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Glassman D, Kim MS, Spradlin M, Badal S, Taki M, Bhattacharya P, Dutta P, Kingsley CV, Foster KI, Animasahun O, Jeon JH, Achreja A, Jayaraman A, Kumar P, Nenwani M, Wuchu F, Bayraktar E, Wu Y, Stur E, Mangala L, Lee S, Yap TA, Westin SN, Eberlin LS, Nagrath D, Sood AK. Exploiting metabolic vulnerabilities after anti-VEGF antibody therapy in ovarian cancer. iScience 2023; 26:106020. [PMID: 36824283 PMCID: PMC9941132 DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.106020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2022] [Revised: 09/19/2022] [Accepted: 01/16/2023] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
Despite modest clinical improvement with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibody (AVA) therapy in ovarian cancer, adaptive resistance is ubiquitous and additional options are limited. A dependence on glutamine metabolism, via the enzyme glutaminase (GLS), is a known mechanism of adaptive resistance and we aimed to investigate the utility of a GLS inhibitor (GLSi). Our in vitro findings demonstrated increased glutamine abundance and a significant cytotoxic effect in AVA-resistant tumors when GLSi was administered in combination with bevacizumab. In vivo, GLSi led to a reduction in tumor growth as monotherapy and when combined with AVA. Furthermore, GLSi initiated after the emergence of resistance to AVA therapy resulted in a decreased metabolic conversion of pyruvate to lactate as assessed by hyperpolarized magnetic resonance spectroscopy and demonstrated robust antitumor effects with a survival advantage. Given the increasing population of patients receiving AVA therapy, these findings justify further development of GLSi in AVA resistance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Deanna Glassman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1362, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Mark S. Kim
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1362, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Meredith Spradlin
- Department of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
- Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sunil Badal
- Department of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
| | - Mana Taki
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1362, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Pratip Bhattacharya
- Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Prasanta Dutta
- Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Charles V. Kingsley
- Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Katherine I. Foster
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1362, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Olamide Animasahun
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Jin Heon Jeon
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Abhinav Achreja
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Anusha Jayaraman
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Praveen Kumar
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Minal Nenwani
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Fulei Wuchu
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Emine Bayraktar
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1362, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Yutuan Wu
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1362, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Elaine Stur
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1362, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Lingegowda Mangala
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1362, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Sanghoon Lee
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1362, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA
- Department of Systems Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Timothy A. Yap
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- The Institute for Applied Cancer Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shannon N. Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1362, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Livia S. Eberlin
- Department of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
- Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Deepak Nagrath
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Anil K. Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1362, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Dasari SK, Joseph R, Umamaheswaran S, Mangala LS, Bayraktar E, Rodriguez-Aguayo C, Wu Y, Nguyen N, Powell RT, Sobieski M, Liu Y, Chowdhury MA, Amero P, Stephan C, Lopez-Berestein G, Westin SN, Sood AK. Combination of EphA2- and Wee1-Targeted Therapies in Endometrial Cancer. Int J Mol Sci 2023; 24:3915. [PMID: 36835335 PMCID: PMC9962847 DOI: 10.3390/ijms24043915] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2022] [Revised: 02/07/2023] [Accepted: 02/08/2023] [Indexed: 02/17/2023] Open
Abstract
EphA2 tyrosine kinase is upregulated in many cancers and correlated with poor survival of patients, including those with endometrial cancer. EphA2-targeted drugs have shown modest clinical benefit. To improve the therapeutic response to such drugs, we performed a high-throughput chemical screen to discover novel synergistic partners for EphA2-targeted therapeutics. Our screen identified the Wee1 kinase inhibitor, MK1775, as a synergistic partner to EphA2, and this finding was confirmed using both in vitro and in vivo experiments. We hypothesized that Wee1 inhibition would sensitize cells to EphA2-targeted therapy. Combination treatment decreased cell viability, induced apoptosis, and reduced clonogenic potential in endometrial cancer cell lines. In vivo Hec1A and Ishikawa-Luc orthotopic mouse models of endometrial cancer showed greater anti-tumor responses to combination treatment than to either monotherapy. RNASeq analysis highlighted reduced cell proliferation and defective DNA damage response pathways as potential mediators of the combination's effects. In conclusion, our preclinical findings indicate that Wee1 inhibition can enhance the response to EphA2-targeted therapeutics in endometrial cancer; this strategy thus warrants further development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Santosh K. Dasari
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
- National Institute of Animal Biotechnology, Hyderabad 500029, India
| | - Robiya Joseph
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Sujanitha Umamaheswaran
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
- UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Lingegowda S. Mangala
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Emine Bayraktar
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Cristian Rodriguez-Aguayo
- Department of Experimental Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Yutuan Wu
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Nghi Nguyen
- High-Throughput Research and Screening Center, Center for Translational Cancer Research, Texas A&M Health Science Center, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Reid T. Powell
- High-Throughput Research and Screening Center, Center for Translational Cancer Research, Texas A&M Health Science Center, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Mary Sobieski
- High-Throughput Research and Screening Center, Center for Translational Cancer Research, Texas A&M Health Science Center, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Yuan Liu
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Mamur A. Chowdhury
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Paola Amero
- Department of Experimental Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Clifford Stephan
- High-Throughput Research and Screening Center, Center for Translational Cancer Research, Texas A&M Health Science Center, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Gabriel Lopez-Berestein
- Department of Experimental Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Shannon N. Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Anil K. Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Son J, Lin HY, Fu S, Biter AB, Dumbrava EE, Karp DD, Naing A, Pant S, Piha-Paul SA, Rodon J, Subbiah V, Tsimberidou AM, Yap TA, Frumovitz MM, Jazaeri AA, Ramirez PT, Westin SN, Yuan Y, Meric-Bernstam F, Hong DS. Predictors of Oncologic Outcome in Patients Receiving Phase I Investigational Therapy for Recurrent or Metastatic Cervical Cancer. J Immunother Precis Oncol 2023; 6:10-18. [PMID: 36751659 PMCID: PMC9888522 DOI: 10.36401/jipo-22-23] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2022] [Revised: 11/04/2022] [Accepted: 11/21/2022] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
Introduction We aimed to identify clinical, pathologic, and treatment factors that are predictive of response and survival in patients with cervical cancer referred to phase I clinical trials. Methods Patients with cervical cancer who received at least one dose of a phase I investigational agent at our institution between 2014 and 2022 were included. The log-rank test was used to analyze differences in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and multivariable regression analysis was performed. Results We included 65 patients with a median age of 41 years (range, 20-74), 3 prior therapies (range, 1-7), and 67.7% squamous carcinoma. The rate of distant metastasis at trial entry was 84.6%. The most common molecular alterations included PIK3CA (46.5%), PD-L1+ (46.2%), EPH (30.0%), and CREBBP (23.1%); 23.1% had received a prior checkpoint inhibitor. Phase I trials were for immunotherapy (58.5%) or targeted therapy (41.5%). The rate of biomarker matching was 21.5%. For all patients, median PFS was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.0-5.2) and OS was 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.0-10.6). Factors at study entry associated with worse survival were presence of bone metastasis (PFS 1.6 vs 4.4 months: hazard ratio [HR], 2.8; p = 0.001; OS 3.8 vs 10.0 months: HR, 3.9; p < 0.0001) and absolute lymphocyte count below 1000/μL (PFS 1.8 vs 5.2 months: HR, 2.9; p = 0.0004; OS 7.0 vs 10.6 months: HR, 3.2; p = 0.0009). Factors associated only with worse OS were absolute neutrophil count above 4700/μL, hemoglobin below 10.5 g/dL, and smoking status. Grade 3+ treatment-related adverse events were seen in 16.9% of cases. Conclusion Bone metastasis and absolute lymphocyte count below normal range at phase I study entry portend poor survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ji Son
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Heather Y. Lin
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Siqing Fu
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Amadeo B. Biter
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ecaterina E. Dumbrava
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Daniel D. Karp
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Aung Naing
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Shubham Pant
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Sarina A. Piha-Paul
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jordi Rodon
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Vivek Subbiah
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Apostolia M. Tsimberidou
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Timothy A. Yap
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Michael M. Frumovitz
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Amir A. Jazaeri
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Pedro T. Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Shannon N. Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ying Yuan
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Funda Meric-Bernstam
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - David S. Hong
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Westin SN, Fu S, Tsimberidou A, Piha-Paul S, Akhmedzhanov F, Yilmaz B, McQuinn L, Brink AL, Gong J, Leung CH, Lin H, Hong DS, Pant S, Carter B, Jazaeri A, Gershenson D, Sood AK, Coleman RL, Shah J, Meric-Bernstam F, Naing A. Selinexor in combination with weekly paclitaxel in patients with metastatic solid tumors: Results of an open label, single-center, multi-arm phase 1b study with expansion phase in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2023; 168:76-82. [PMID: 36423446 PMCID: PMC9797438 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.11.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/24/2022] [Revised: 10/29/2022] [Accepted: 11/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Selinexor is a first-in-class, oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound which blocks Exportin-1 (XPO1). Our objective was to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of selinexor and weekly paclitaxel. METHODS This was an open label, single-center, multi-arm phase 1b study utilizing a "3 + 3" design and a "basket-type" expansion in recurrent solid tumors. Selinexor (60 mg or 80 mg twice weekly orally) and weekly paclitaxel (80 mg IV 2 week on, 1 week off) were one of 13 parallel arms. Efficacy was evaluated using RECIST version 1.1. RESULTS All 35 patients treated were evaluable for toxicity and 31 (88%) were evaluable for response. Patient diagnoses included platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian (n = 28), breast (n = 4), prostate (n = 2), and cervical (n = 1) cancer. Patients had a median of four prior therapies (range 1-10), and 47% had a prior taxane in the recurrent setting. There were no DLTs and 60 mg was chosen as the RP2D due to long-term tolerability. Ninety-seven percent of patients had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), and the most common grade ≥ 3 TEAE were neutropenia (46%), anemia (31%), and nausea (21%). Among 24 evaluable patients with ovarian cancer, response rate was 17%, CBR was 58%, and median PFS was 6.8 months (95% CI 3.7, not reached (NR)). CONCLUSIONS Oral selinexor in combination with weekly paclitaxel demonstrated promising clinical activity with manageable toxicity. This combination should be considered for further exploration in a randomized study, especially in ovarian malignancies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Siqing Fu
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Apostolia Tsimberidou
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sarina Piha-Paul
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Fechukwu Akhmedzhanov
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Bulent Yilmaz
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lacey McQuinn
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Amanda L Brink
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jing Gong
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Cheuk Hong Leung
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Heather Lin
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - David S Hong
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shubham Pant
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Brett Carter
- Department of Thoracic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Amir Jazaeri
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - David Gershenson
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Anil K Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Jatin Shah
- Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc, Newton, MA, USA
| | - Funda Meric-Bernstam
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Aung Naing
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Pham MM, Avila M, Hinchcliff E, Westin SN. Clinical Application of Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase (PARP) Inhibitors in Ovarian Cancer. Cancer Treat Res 2023; 186:71-89. [PMID: 37978131 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-30065-3_5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2023]
Abstract
The treatment of ovarian cancer has remained a clinical challenge despite high rates of initial response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients are generally diagnosed at an advanced stage with significant disease burden, which portends to worse survival outcomes. Deficiencies in the homologous recombination (HRD) DNA damage repair (DDR) pathway and mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes have been found in ovarian carcinomas. Moreover, patients with these specific molecular aberrations have demonstrated sensitivity and thus improved response to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) treatment. The results of various clinical trials exploring the use of PARPi in different populations of ovarian cancer patients have shown impressive survival and response outcomes. With expanding indications, the use of PARPi has thus changed the landscape of ovarian cancer treatment. In this chapter, we will describe the different settings of PARPi treatment-frontline maintenance therapy, maintenance therapy for patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive disease, and treatment in the recurrent setting-and discuss treatment considerations and management of toxicities, as well as offer thoughts on future directions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melissa M Pham
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1155 Herman Pressler Dr. CPB 6.3279, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Monica Avila
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1155 Herman Pressler Dr. CPB 6.3279, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Center and Research Institute, Tampa, USA
| | - Emily Hinchcliff
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1155 Herman Pressler Dr. CPB 6.3279, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Kurnit KC, Nobre SP, Fellman BM, Iglesias DA, Lindemann K, Jhingran A, Eriksson AGZ, Ataseven B, Glaser GE, Mueller JJ, Westin SN, Soliman PT. Adjuvant therapy in women with early stage uterine serous carcinoma: A multi-institutional study. Gynecol Oncol 2022; 167:452-457. [PMID: 36243601 PMCID: PMC10278585 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.09.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2022] [Revised: 09/25/2022] [Accepted: 09/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Uterine serous carcinoma is a rare but aggressive subtype of endometrial adenocarcinoma. Our objective was to compare adjuvant treatment strategies for patients with early stage uterine serous carcinoma. METHODS This multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study evaluated patients with early stage uterine serous carcinoma. Patients with FIGO Stage IA-II disease after surgery, whose tumors had serous or any mixed serous/non-serous histology were included. Patients with carcinosarcoma were excluded. Clinical data were abstracted from local medical records. Summary statistics, Fisher's exact, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze demographic and clinical characteristics. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed for recurrence-free and overall survival. RESULTS There were 737 patients included. Most patients had Stage IA disease (75%), 49% of which had no myometrial invasion. Only 164 (24%) tumors had lymphatic/vascular space invasion. Adjuvant treatment varied: 22% received no adjuvant therapy, 17% had chemotherapy alone, 19% had cuff brachytherapy, 35% had cuff brachytherapy with chemotherapy, and 6% underwent pelvic radiation. Adjuvant treatment was significantly associated with a decreased risk of recurrence (p = 0.04). Compared with no adjuvant therapy, patients who received brachytherapy or brachytherapy/chemotherapy had improved recurrence-free survival (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.86; HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49-0.88, respectively) and overall survival (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.79; HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.35-0.69, respectively). Improved survival with brachytherapy and brachytherapy/chemotherapy persisted on multivariable analyses. Chemotherapy alone was also associated with improved overall survival compared with no adjuvant treatment (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.81). CONCLUSIONS Adjuvant therapy was associated with a decreased risk of recurrence relative to observation alone. Adjuvant cuff brachytherapy with and without chemotherapy was associated with improved survival outcomes in patients with early stage uterine serous carcinoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Bryan M Fellman
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Kristina Lindemann
- The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.; Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway
| | - Anuja Jhingran
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Beyhan Ataseven
- Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany
| | | | | | | | - Pamela T Soliman
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA..
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Monk BJ, Parkinson C, Lim MC, O'Malley DM, Oaknin A, Wilson MK, Coleman RL, Lorusso D, Bessette P, Ghamande S, Christopoulou A, Provencher D, Prendergast E, Demirkiran F, Mikheeva O, Yeku O, Chudecka-Glaz A, Schenker M, Littell RD, Safra T, Chou HH, Morgan MA, Drochýtek V, Barlin JN, Van Gorp T, Ueland F, Lindahl G, Anderson C, Collins DC, Moore K, Marme F, Westin SN, McNeish IA, Shih D, Lin KK, Goble S, Hume S, Fujiwara K, Kristeleit RS. A Randomized, Phase III Trial to Evaluate Rucaparib Monotherapy as Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Ovarian Cancer (ATHENA-MONO/GOG-3020/ENGOT-ov45). J Clin Oncol 2022; 40:3952-3964. [PMID: 35658487 PMCID: PMC9746782 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.01003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 106] [Impact Index Per Article: 53.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/26/2022] [Revised: 05/05/2022] [Accepted: 05/09/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE ATHENA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03522246) was designed to evaluate rucaparib first-line maintenance treatment in a broad patient population, including those without BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutations or other evidence of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), or high-risk clinical characteristics such as residual disease. We report the results from the ATHENA-MONO comparison of rucaparib versus placebo. METHODS Patients with stage III-IV high-grade ovarian cancer undergoing surgical cytoreduction (R0/complete resection permitted) and responding to first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy were randomly assigned 4:1 to oral rucaparib 600 mg twice a day or placebo. Stratification factors were HRD test status, residual disease after chemotherapy, and timing of surgery. The primary end point of investigator-assessed progression-free survival was assessed in a step-down procedure, first in the HRD population (BRCA-mutant or BRCA wild-type/loss of heterozygosity high tumor), and then in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS As of March 23, 2022 (data cutoff), 427 and 111 patients were randomly assigned to rucaparib or placebo, respectively (HRD population: 185 v 49). Median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 28.7 months (23.0 to not reached) with rucaparib versus 11.3 months (9.1 to 22.1) with placebo in the HRD population (log-rank P = .0004; hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.72); 20.2 months (15.2 to 24.7) versus 9.2 months (8.3 to 12.2) in the intent-to-treat population (log-rank P < .0001; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68); and 12.1 months (11.1 to 17.7) versus 9.1 months (4.0 to 12.2) in the HRD-negative population (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.95). The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were anemia (rucaparib, 28.7% v placebo, 0%) and neutropenia (14.6% v 0.9%). CONCLUSION Rucaparib monotherapy is effective as first-line maintenance, conferring significant benefit versus placebo in patients with advanced ovarian cancer with and without HRD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bradley J. Monk
- GOG Foundation, HonorHealth Research Institute, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ
| | | | - Myong Cheol Lim
- Gynecologic Oncology, National Cancer Center Korea, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea
| | - David M. O'Malley
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, The Ohio State University, James Cancer Center, Columbus, OH
| | - Ana Oaknin
- Gynaecologic Cancer Programme, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Michelle K. Wilson
- Department of Cancer and Blood, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | | - Domenica Lorusso
- MITO and Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS and Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | - Paul Bessette
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
| | - Sharad Ghamande
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Augusta University, Augusta, GA
| | | | - Diane Provencher
- Princess Margaret Consortium and Department of Obstetrics-Gynaecology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Institut du Cancer de Montréal, Montréal, Canada
| | - Emily Prendergast
- Gynecologic Oncology, Minnesota Oncology and Metro-Minnesota Community Oncology Research Consortium, Minneapolis, MN
| | - Fuat Demirkiran
- Gynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, Cerrahpaşa, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Olga Mikheeva
- Limited Liability Company MedPomosch, Saint Petersburg, Russia
| | - Oladapo Yeku
- Gynecologic Cancers Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Anita Chudecka-Glaz
- Department of Gynecological Surgery and Gynecological Oncology of Adults and Adolescents, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Michael Schenker
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sfantul Nectarie Oncology Center, Dolj, Romania
| | - Ramey D. Littell
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California Gynecologic Cancer Program, San Francisco, CA
| | - Tamar Safra
- Oncology Department, Tel Aviv Medical Center, and Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Hung-Hsueh Chou
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (Linkou), Tao-Yuan, Taiwan
- College of Life Science, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
| | - Mark A. Morgan
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Vít Drochýtek
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, 3rd Medical Faculty, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Joyce N. Barlin
- Women's Cancer Care Associates, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY
| | - Toon Van Gorp
- Division of Gynaecological Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Fred Ueland
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
| | - Gabriel Lindahl
- Nordic Society of Gynaecological Oncology, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Oncology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
| | - Charles Anderson
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Willamette Valley Cancer Institute and Research Center, Eugene, OR
| | - Dearbhaile C. Collins
- Cancer Trials Ireland and Department of Medical Oncology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
| | - Kathleen Moore
- Stevenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK
| | - Frederik Marme
- AGO and Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Shannon N. Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Iain A. McNeish
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Danny Shih
- Clinical Operations, Clovis Oncology Inc, Boulder, CO
| | - Kevin K. Lin
- Molecular Diagnostics, Clovis Oncology Inc, Boulder, CO
| | | | | | - Keiichi Fujiwara
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Hidaka, Saitama, Japan
| | - Rebecca S. Kristeleit
- Department of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Avila M, Grinsfelder MO, Pham M, Westin SN. Targeting the PI3K Pathway in Gynecologic Malignancies. Curr Oncol Rep 2022; 24:1669-1676. [PMID: 36401704 PMCID: PMC10862662 DOI: 10.1007/s11912-022-01326-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW This review explores the PI3K pathway aberrations common in gynecologic malignancies, the relevant therapeutic targets that have been explored to date particularly given their success in endometrial cancers, and predictive biomarkers of response to therapy. RECENT FINDINGS Landmark trials have been noted involving this pathway, particularly in endometrial cancers. One phase II trial of the potent orally bioavailable mTOR inhibitor, everolimus, in combination with letrozole demonstrated an unprecedented clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 40% and high objective response rate (RR) of 32% in hormone agnostic endometrial cancers. This was followed by GOG 3007 that compared everolimus and letrozole to hormonal therapy yielding similar response rates but double progression-free survival rates. The phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) signaling pathway is implicated in tumorigenesis given its regulation over cell growth, cellular trafficking, and angiogenesis. In gynecologic malignancies, alterations in PI3K signaling are common. Therefore, developing modulators of the PI3K pathway and identifying molecular markers to predict response are of great interest for these cancer types.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Monica Avila
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1155 Herman Pressler Dr. CPB 6.3279, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Michaela Onstad Grinsfelder
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1155 Herman Pressler Dr. CPB 6.3279, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Melissa Pham
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1155 Herman Pressler Dr. CPB 6.3279, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1155 Herman Pressler Dr. CPB 6.3279, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Gershenson DM, Cobb LP, Westin SN, Zhang Y, Jazaeri A, Malpica A, Sun CC. Contemporary primary treatment of women with stage II-IV low-grade serous ovarian/peritoneal cancer (LGSOC): Determinants of relapse and disease-free survival. Gynecol Oncol 2022; 167:139-145. [PMID: 36137845 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.09.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2022] [Revised: 08/31/2022] [Accepted: 09/05/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The purpose of the present study is to describe a cohort who received contemporary primary treatment for stage II-IV low-grade serous ovarian/peritoneal cancer (LGSOC), including patient characteristics and determinants of relapse and disease-free survival. METHODS The study included 99 patients: 1) with pathologically confirmed stage II-IV LGSOC of the ovary or peritoneum, 2) who underwent primary treatment consisting of cytoreductive surgery and either a) platinum/taxane chemotherapy followed by aromatase inhibitor maintenance therapy or b) aromatase inhibitor monotherapy, and 3) for whom there was availability of clinical data. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize clinicodemographic features. Subgroups were compared for PFS and OS. Multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed. RESULTS Median PFS for the entire cohort was 56.8 months (95% CI, 41.3-NE), and median OS was 130.7 months (95% CI, 115.0-146.4). Forty-nine of 99 (49.5%) patients have relapsed to date. For these 49 patients, median time from diagnosis to relapse was 29.6 months (95% CI, 24.6-33.1) (range, 5.4-69.1 months). Only 1/49 (2%) patients who relapsed did so >5 years from diagnosis. Fifty (50.0%) patients have not experienced disease progression or relapse. Median follow-up time for these 50 patients is 86.2 months (range, 25.3-169.0). Thirty-three of the 50 (66.0%) have been followed for >5 years from diagnosis. On regression analyses, factors associated with improved patient outcomes-either PFS, OS, or both-included no gross residual disease, normal serum CA 125 at diagnosis, primary peritoneal site, and presence of extensive psammomatous calcifications. CONCLUSIONS This is the first report to describe the clinicopathologic features and outcomes of women with stage II-IV LGSOC who received contemporary primary therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David M Gershenson
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301439, Houston, TX 77230-1429, USA.
| | - Lauren P Cobb
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301439, Houston, TX 77230-1429, USA.
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301439, Houston, TX 77230-1429, USA.
| | - Yingao Zhang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
| | - Amir Jazaeri
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301439, Houston, TX 77230-1429, USA
| | - Anais Malpica
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301439, Houston, TX 77230-1429, USA.
| | - Charlotte C Sun
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301439, Houston, TX 77230-1429, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Handley KF, Sims TT, Bateman NW, Glassman D, Foster KI, Lee S, Yao J, Yao H, Fellman BM, Liu J, Lu Z, Conrads KA, Hood BL, Barakat W, Zhao L, Zhang J, Westin SN, Celestino J, Rangel KM, Badal S, Pereira I, Ram PT, Maxwell GL, Eberlin LS, Futreal PA, Bast RC, Fleming ND, Conrads TP, Sood AK. Classification of High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer Using Tumor Morphologic Characteristics. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5:e2236626. [PMID: 36239936 PMCID: PMC9568802 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.36626] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Despite similar histologic appearance among high-grade serous ovarian cancers (HGSOCs), clinical observations suggest vast differences in gross appearance. There is currently no systematic framework by which to classify HGSOCs according to their gross morphologic characteristics. OBJECTIVE To develop and characterize a gross morphologic classification system for HGSOC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study included patients with suspected advanced-stage ovarian cancer who presented between April 1, 2013, and August 5, 2016, to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, a large referral center. Patients underwent laparoscopic assessment of disease burden before treatment and received a histopathologic diagnosis of HGSOC. Researchers assigning morphologic subtype and performing molecular analyses were blinded to clinical outcomes. Data analysis was performed between April 2020 and November 2021. EXPOSURES Gross tumor morphologic characteristics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Clinical outcomes and multiomic profiles of representative tumor samples of type I or type II morphologic subtypes were compared. RESULTS Of 112 women (mean [SD] age 62.7 [9.7] years) included in the study, most patients (84% [94]) exhibited a predominant morphologic subtype and many (63% [71]) had a uniform morphologic subtype at all involved sites. Compared with those with uniform type I morphologic subtype, patients with uniform type II morphologic subtype were more likely to have a favorable Fagotti score (83% [19 of 23] vs 46% [22 of 48]; P = .004) and thus to be triaged to primary tumor reductive surgery. Similarly, patients with uniform type II morphologic subtype also had significantly higher mean (SD) estimated blood loss (639 [559; 95% CI, 391-887] mL vs 415 [527; 95% CI, 253-577] mL; P = .006) and longer mean (SD) operative time (408 [130; 95% CI, 350-466] minutes vs 333 [113; 95% CI, 298-367] minutes; P = .03) during tumor reductive surgery. Type I tumors had enrichment of epithelial-mesenchymal transition (false discovery rate [FDR] q-value, 3.10 × 10-24), hypoxia (FDR q-value, 1.52 × 10-5), and angiogenesis pathways (FDR q-value, 2.11 × 10-2), whereas type II tumors had enrichment of pathways related to MYC signaling (FDR q-value, 2.04 × 10-9) and cell cycle progression (FDR q-value, 1.10 × 10-5) by integrated proteomic and transcriptomic analysis. Abundances of metabolites and lipids also differed between the 2 morphologic subtypes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study identified 2 novel, gross morphologic subtypes of HGSOC, each with unique clinical features and molecular signatures. The findings may have implications for triaging patients to surgery or chemotherapy, identifying outcomes, and developing tailored therapeutic strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katelyn F. Handley
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida
| | - Travis T. Sims
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Nicholas W. Bateman
- Women’s Health Integrated Research Center at Inova Health System, Women's Service Line, Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia
- Gynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Henry M. Jackson Foundation, Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Deanna Glassman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Katherine I. Foster
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Sanghoon Lee
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
- Department of Systems Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Jun Yao
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Hui Yao
- Department of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Bryan M. Fellman
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Jinsong Liu
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Zhen Lu
- Department of Experimental Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Kelly A. Conrads
- Women’s Health Integrated Research Center at Inova Health System, Women's Service Line, Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia
- Gynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Henry M. Jackson Foundation, Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Brian L. Hood
- Women’s Health Integrated Research Center at Inova Health System, Women's Service Line, Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia
- Gynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Henry M. Jackson Foundation, Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Waleed Barakat
- Women’s Health Integrated Research Center at Inova Health System, Women's Service Line, Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia
- Gynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Henry M. Jackson Foundation, Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Li Zhao
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Jianhua Zhang
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Shannon N. Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Joseph Celestino
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Kelly M. Rangel
- Department of Systems Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Sunil Badal
- Department of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin
| | - Igor Pereira
- Department of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin
| | - Prahlad T. Ram
- Department of Systems Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - George L. Maxwell
- Women’s Health Integrated Research Center at Inova Health System, Women's Service Line, Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia
- Gynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Henry M. Jackson Foundation, Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Livia S. Eberlin
- Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | - P. Andrew Futreal
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Robert C. Bast
- Department of Experimental Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Nicole D. Fleming
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Thomas P. Conrads
- Women’s Health Integrated Research Center at Inova Health System, Women's Service Line, Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia
- Gynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Henry M. Jackson Foundation, Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Anil K. Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Chu YY, Chen MK, Wei Y, Lee HH, Xia W, Wang YN, Yam C, Hsu JL, Wang HL, Chang WC, Yamaguchi H, Jiang Z, Liu C, Li CF, Nie L, Chan LC, Gao Y, Wang SC, Liu J, Westin SN, Lee S, Sood AK, Yang L, Hortobagyi GN, Yu D, Hung MC. Targeting the ALK-CDK9-Tyr19 kinase cascade sensitizes ovarian and breast tumors to PARP inhibition via destabilization of the P-TEFb complex. Nat Cancer 2022; 3:1211-1227. [PMID: 36253486 PMCID: PMC9586872 DOI: 10.1038/s43018-022-00438-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2021] [Accepted: 08/24/2022] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have demonstrated promising clinical activity in multiple cancers. However, resistance to PARP inhibitors remains a substantial clinical challenge. In the present study, we report that anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) directly phosphorylates CDK9 at tyrosine-19 to promote homologous recombination (HR) repair and PARP inhibitor resistance. Phospho-CDK9-Tyr19 increases its kinase activity and nuclear localization to stabilize positive transcriptional elongation factor b and activate polymerase II-dependent transcription of HR-repair genes. Conversely, ALK inhibition increases ubiquitination and degradation of CDK9 by Skp2, an E3 ligase. Notably, combination of US Food and Drug Administration-approved ALK and PARP inhibitors markedly reduce tumor growth and improve survival of mice in PARP inhibitor-/platinum-resistant tumor xenograft models. Using human tumor biospecimens, we further demonstrate that phosphorylated ALK (p-ALK) expression is associated with resistance to PARP inhibitors and positively correlated with p-Tyr19-CDK9 expression. Together, our findings support a biomarker-driven, combinatorial treatment strategy involving ALK and PARP inhibitors to induce synthetic lethality in PARP inhibitor-/platinum-resistant tumors with high p-ALK-p-Tyr19-CDK9 expression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu-Yi Chu
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Mei-Kuang Chen
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- UT Health Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Yongkun Wei
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Heng-Huan Lee
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Weiya Xia
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Graduate Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Research Center for Cancer Biology, and Center for Molecular Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
| | - Ying-Nai Wang
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Clinton Yam
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- UT Health Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jennifer L Hsu
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Hung-Ling Wang
- Graduate Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Research Center for Cancer Biology, and Center for Molecular Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
| | - Wei-Chao Chang
- Graduate Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Research Center for Cancer Biology, and Center for Molecular Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
| | - Hirohito Yamaguchi
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Graduate Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Research Center for Cancer Biology, and Center for Molecular Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
| | - Zhou Jiang
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Chunxiao Liu
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ching-Fei Li
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lei Nie
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Li-Chuan Chan
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Yuan Gao
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Department of General Surgery, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Shao-Chun Wang
- Graduate Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Research Center for Cancer Biology, and Center for Molecular Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
| | - Jinsong Liu
- Department of Anatomic Pathology, Division of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sanghoon Lee
- Department of Systems Biology, Division of Basic Science Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Anil K Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Center for RNA Interference and Non-Coding RNA, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Liuqing Yang
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Gabriel N Hortobagyi
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Dihua Yu
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Mien-Chie Hung
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
- Graduate Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Research Center for Cancer Biology, and Center for Molecular Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
- Department of Biotechnology, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan.
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Yeung AR, Deshmukh S, Klopp AH, Gil KM, Wenzel L, Westin SN, Konski AA, Gaffney DK, Small W, Thompson JS, Doncals DE, Cantuaria GH, D'Souza DP, Chang A, Kundapur V, Mohan DS, Haas ML, Kim YB, Ferguson CL, Pugh SL, Kachnic LA, Bruner DW. Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Reduces Patient-Reported Chronic Toxicity Compared With Conventional Pelvic Radiation Therapy: Updated Results of a Phase III Trial. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40:3115-3119. [PMID: 35960897 PMCID: PMC9851703 DOI: 10.1200/jco.21.02831] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2021] [Revised: 05/18/2022] [Accepted: 06/28/2022] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.The purpose of this update was to determine differences in patient-reported chronic toxicity and disease outcomes with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) compared with conventional pelvic radiation. Patients with cervical and endometrial cancers who received postoperative pelvic radiation were randomly assigned to conventional radiation therapy (CRT) or IMRT. Toxicity and quality of life were assessed using Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) bowel and urinary domains, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General. Between 2012 and 2015, 279 eligible patients were enrolled to the study with a median follow-up of 37.8 months. There were no differences in overall survival (P = .53), disease-free survival (P = .21), or locoregional failure (P = .81). One year after RT, patients in the CRT arm experienced more high-level diarrhea frequency (5.8% IMRT v 15.1% CRT, P = .042) and a greater number had to take antidiarrheal medication two or more times a day (1.2% IMRT v 8.6% CRT, P = .036). At 3 years, women in the CRT arm reported a decline in urinary function, whereas the IMRT arm continued to improve (mean change in EPIC urinary score = 0.5, standard deviation = 13.0, IMRT v -6.0, standard deviation = 14.3, CRT, P = .005). In conclusion, IMRT reduces patient-reported chronic GI and urinary toxicity with no difference in treatment efficacy at 3 years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Snehal Deshmukh
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | | | - Karen M. Gil
- Summa Akron City Hospital/Cooper Cancer Center, Akron, OH
| | - Lari Wenzel
- UC Irvine Health/Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, Irvine, CA
| | | | - Andre A. Konski
- Chester County Hospital/University of Pennsylvania, West Chester, PA
| | - David K. Gaffney
- Huntsman Cancer Institute/University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Amy Chang
- Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Chai Wan, Hong Kong, China
| | | | | | | | - Yong Bae Kim
- Yonsei University Health System ACCRUALS UNDER MD Anderson Cancer Center, Yonsei-ro Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, South Korea
| | | | - Stephanie L. Pugh
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Lisa A. Kachnic
- NYP/Columbia University/Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have transformed treatment paradigms in multiple cancer types defined by homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and have become the archetypal example of synthetic lethal targeting within the DNA damage response (DDR). Despite this success, primary and acquired resistance to PARP inhibition inevitability threaten the efficacy and durability of response to these drugs. Beyond PARP inhibitors, recent advances in large-scale functional genomic screens have led to the identification of a steadily growing list of genetic dependencies across the DDR landscape. This has led to a wide array of novel synthetic lethal targets and corresponding inhibitors, which hold promise to widen the application of DDR inhibitors beyond HRD and potentially address PARP inhibitor resistance. RECENT FINDINGS In this review, we describe key synthetic lethal interactions that have been identified across the DDR landscape, summarize the early phase clinical development of the most promising DDR inhibitors, and highlight relevant combinations of DDR inhibitors with chemotherapy and other novel cancer therapies, which are anticipated to make an impact in rationally selected patient populations. SUMMARY The DDR landscape holds multiple opportunities for synthetic lethal targeting with multiple novel DDR inhibitors being evaluated on early phase clinical trials. Key challenges remain in optimizing the therapeutic window of ATR and WEE1 inhibitors as monotherapy and in combination approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalie Y L Ngoi
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, Division of Cancer Medicine
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, Division of Surgery
| | - Timothy A Yap
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, Division of Cancer Medicine
- The Institute for Applied Cancer Science
- Khalifa Institute for Personalized Cancer Therapy, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Zhao L, Corvigno S, Ma S, Celestino J, Fleming ND, Hajek RA, Lankenau Ahumada A, Jennings NB, Thompson EJ, Tang H, Westin SN, Jazaeri AA, Zhang J, Futreal PA, Sood AK, Lee S. Molecular Profiles of Serum-Derived Extracellular Vesicles in High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14153589. [PMID: 35892848 PMCID: PMC9330879 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14153589] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2022] [Revised: 07/18/2022] [Accepted: 07/20/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSC) who have no visible residual disease (R0) after primary surgery have the best clinical outcomes, followed by patients who undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and have a response enabling interval cytoreductive surgery. Clinically useful biomarkers for predicting these outcomes are still lacking. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) have been recognized as liquid biopsy-based biomarkers for early cancer detection and disease surveillance in other disease settings. In this study, we performed extensive molecular characterization of serum-derived EVs and correlated the findings with therapeutic outcomes in patients with HGSC. Using EV-DNA whole-genome sequencing and EV-RNA sequencing, we identified distinct somatic EV-DNA alterations in cancer-hallmark genes and in ovarian cancer genes, as well as significantly altered oncogenic pathways between the R0 group and NACT groups. We also found significantly altered EV-RNA transcriptomic variations and enriched pathways between the groups. Taken together, our data suggest that the molecular characteristics of EVs could enable prediction of patients with HGSC who could undergo R0 surgery or respond to chemotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Li Zhao
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (L.Z.); (J.Z.); (P.A.F.)
| | - Sara Corvigno
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.C.); (S.M.); (J.C.); (N.D.F.); (R.A.H.); (A.L.A.); (N.B.J.); (S.N.W.); (A.A.J.)
| | - Shaolin Ma
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.C.); (S.M.); (J.C.); (N.D.F.); (R.A.H.); (A.L.A.); (N.B.J.); (S.N.W.); (A.A.J.)
| | - Joseph Celestino
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.C.); (S.M.); (J.C.); (N.D.F.); (R.A.H.); (A.L.A.); (N.B.J.); (S.N.W.); (A.A.J.)
| | - Nicole D. Fleming
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.C.); (S.M.); (J.C.); (N.D.F.); (R.A.H.); (A.L.A.); (N.B.J.); (S.N.W.); (A.A.J.)
| | - Richard A. Hajek
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.C.); (S.M.); (J.C.); (N.D.F.); (R.A.H.); (A.L.A.); (N.B.J.); (S.N.W.); (A.A.J.)
| | - Adrian Lankenau Ahumada
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.C.); (S.M.); (J.C.); (N.D.F.); (R.A.H.); (A.L.A.); (N.B.J.); (S.N.W.); (A.A.J.)
| | - Nicholas B. Jennings
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.C.); (S.M.); (J.C.); (N.D.F.); (R.A.H.); (A.L.A.); (N.B.J.); (S.N.W.); (A.A.J.)
| | - Erika J. Thompson
- Department of Genetics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (E.J.T.); (H.T.)
| | - Hongli Tang
- Department of Genetics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (E.J.T.); (H.T.)
| | - Shannon N. Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.C.); (S.M.); (J.C.); (N.D.F.); (R.A.H.); (A.L.A.); (N.B.J.); (S.N.W.); (A.A.J.)
| | - Amir A. Jazaeri
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.C.); (S.M.); (J.C.); (N.D.F.); (R.A.H.); (A.L.A.); (N.B.J.); (S.N.W.); (A.A.J.)
| | - Jianhua Zhang
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (L.Z.); (J.Z.); (P.A.F.)
| | - P. Andrew Futreal
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (L.Z.); (J.Z.); (P.A.F.)
| | - Anil K. Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.C.); (S.M.); (J.C.); (N.D.F.); (R.A.H.); (A.L.A.); (N.B.J.); (S.N.W.); (A.A.J.)
- Correspondence: (A.K.S.); (S.L.)
| | - Sanghoon Lee
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.C.); (S.M.); (J.C.); (N.D.F.); (R.A.H.); (A.L.A.); (N.B.J.); (S.N.W.); (A.A.J.)
- Correspondence: (A.K.S.); (S.L.)
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Glassman D, Kim MS, Dutta P, Kingsley CV, Bayraktar E, Wu Y, Stur E, Mangala LS, Foster K, Lee S, Yap TA, Westin SN, Bhattacharya P, Sood AK. Abstract 2484: Hyperpolarized magnetic resonance spectroscopy assessment of the metabolic effects of glutaminase inhibitor therapy in an ovarian cancer model. Cancer Res 2022. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2022-2484] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction: Ovarian cancer accounts for more deaths than any other cancer of the female reproductive system despite advances in targeted drugs such as anti-VEGF antibody (AVA). Additionally, resistance to AVA therapy is nearly ubiquitous given the occurrence of metabolic adaptations such as a dependence on glutamine metabolism via the enzyme glutaminase.
Objectives: To examine the metabolic vulnerability of AVA-resistant cancer with glutaminase inhibitor (GLSi) therapy and to test the utility of hyperpolarized magnetic resonance spectroscopy (HP-MRS) for assessing changes in lactate metabolism associated with GLSi treatment following injection of hyperpolarized [1-13C] pyruvate.
Methods: We used a well-characterized SKOV3ip1 orthotopic mouse model of high-grade serous ovarian cancer with adaptive resistance to AVA (bevacizumab) treatment. Following three weeks of GLSi and bevacizumab treatment, we performed HP-MRS imaging to directly and non-invasively compare metabolic changes between the treatment groups of bevacizumab monotherapy versus a combined treatment of bevacizumab plus GLSi therapy. Upon injection of hyperpolarized [1-13C] pyruvate, we quantitatively assessed a normalized lactate ratio (nLac), defined as the 13C resonance signal of lactate divided by the sum of the pyruvate and lactate signals, sixty seconds after injection. GLSi treatment effect was subsequently compared between GLSi monotherapy, bevacizumab monotherapy and control mice receiving no therapy. This was performed via gross necropsy to assess disease burden and quantification of tumor weight and nodule number.
Results: Significance analysis microarrays (SAM) of bevacizumab treated tumors from the mouse models revealed greater glutamine and glutamate abundance in all tissues suggestive of a glutamine dependence in AVA resistant tumors that could be susceptible to glutaminase inhibition. The in vivo HP-MRS provided a direct and non-invasive investigation of pyruvate metabolism of tumors in situ. Our analysis indicated that the pyruvate-to-lactate conversion was significantly reduced in vivo by GLSi treatment (0.337 vs 0.178, p=0.0002), suggestive of therapeutic efficacy of GLSi in the setting of AVA-resistant tumors. Consistent with this, we observed a statistically significant reduction in tumor weight (0.05g vs 0.62g and 0.64g, p<0.01) and tumor nodule number (n=3.3 vs n=12.8 and n=13.9, p<0.05) in mice treated with a combination of bevacizumab and GLSi compared to the control group, or GLSi monotherapy, respectively.
Conclusions: Using HP-MRS in vivo, we directly monitored metabolic changes occurring after GLSi treatment. These findings are consistent with the notion of glutamine dependence being an important resistance mechanism to AVA therapy and imply potential future use of HP-MRS in monitoring therapeutic efficacy in a clinical realm.
Citation Format: Deanna Glassman, Mark S. Kim, Prasanta Dutta, Charles V. Kingsley, Emine Bayraktar, Yutuan Wu, Elaine Stur, Lingegowda S. Mangala, Katherine Foster, Sanghoon Lee, Timothy A. Yap, Shannon N. Westin, Pratip Bhattacharya, Anil K. Sood. Hyperpolarized magnetic resonance spectroscopy assessment of the metabolic effects of glutaminase inhibitor therapy in an ovarian cancer model [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 2484.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Yutuan Wu
- 1MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
34
|
Zhao L, Ma S, Fleming ND, Celestino J, Kim MS, Hajek RA, Jennings NB, Thompson EJ, Tang H, Westin SN, Jazaeri AA, Zhang J, Futreal PA, Sood AK, Lee S. Abstract 5106: Distinct molecular profiles of serum-derived extracellular vesicles in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Cancer Res 2022. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2022-5106] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSC) who have no visible residual disease (CGR) after primary surgery have the best clinical outcomes, followed by patients who undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and have response enabling interval cytoreductive surgery. Through comprehensive omics analyses, we previously characterized molecular and cellular profiles of highly clinically defined HGSC from patients who had CGR versus those triaged to NACT. However, clinically useful predictive biomarkers for such distinctions are still lacking. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) have been recognized as liquid biopsy-based biomarkers for early cancer detection and disease surveillance in other disease settings. Here, we performed extensive molecular characterization of serum-derived EVs and correlated them with therapeutic outcomes in patients with HGSC.
Methods: Serum-derived medium/large size EVs from patients with HGSC treated under a systematic surgical algorithm were isolated following standard methods of the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles. Patients had either complete gross resection after primary surgery (R0, n=3); poor response to NACT (NACT-PR, n=4), or excellent response to NACT with carboplatin and paclitaxel (NACT-ER, n=3); tissue and matched germline blood samples have already been comprehensively analyzed (Lee et al, Cell Reports, 2020). The isolated EV-DNA and EV-RNA were subjected to whole-genome sequencing and RNA sequencing, respectively.
Results: We identified somatic EV-DNA alterations in cancer hallmark genes, including FAT1 and KMT2D as the most frequent mutated genes. Interestingly, we found alterations in ovarian cancer-related genes, including BRCA2 and RAD51 in R0; BRCA2 in NACT-ER; TP53, CDK13, CDK12, BRAF, AKT2, and ARID1A in NACT-PR patients. We also identified 26,338 genes expressed in the EV-RNA transcriptomic profiles. The analysis of the enrichment of cancer hallmark pathways showed that the R0 group was more enriched in the interferon α/γ, PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling, and DNA repair pathways. Interestingly, we also identified 6,757 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in the CGR versus the NACT groups (absolute log2-fold change ≥2 and adjusted p-value <0.05). Among the DEGs, we identified 67 genes that were cancer hallmark genes, and 21 of them were overexpressed in the NACT group and 46 were overexpressed in the R0 group. Noticeably, 11 DEGs were directly related to ovarian cancer: TP53, PTEN, CCND1, BARD1, PMS2, and MLH3 were significantly overexpressed in the NACT group, while BRCA2, CSMD3, and GABRA6 were overexpressed in the R0 group.
Conclusions: Taken together, our preliminary data suggest that molecular characteristics of EVs could provide an accurate prediction of patients with HGSC who can undergo CGR with surgery and respond to chemotherapy.
Citation Format: Li Zhao, Shaolin Ma, Nicole D. Fleming, Joseph Celestino, Mark S. Kim, Richard A. Hajek, Nicholas B. Jennings, Erika J. Thompson, Hongli Tang, Shannon N. Westin, Amir A. Jazaeri, Jianhua Zhang, P Andrew Futreal, Anil K. Sood, Sanghoon Lee. Distinct molecular profiles of serum-derived extracellular vesicles in high-grade serous ovarian cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 5106.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Li Zhao
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Shaolin Ma
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | - Mark S. Kim
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | | | - Hongli Tang
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Amir A. Jazaeri
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jianhua Zhang
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Anil K. Sood
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Sanghoon Lee
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Lee S, Zhao L, Fleming ND, Celestino J, Hajek RA, Morgan MB, Liu Y, Westin SN, Jazaeri AA, Liu J, Zhang J, Futreal PA, Sood AK. Abstract 5738: Transcriptomic profiles of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Cancer Res 2022. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2022-5738] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: High-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSC) is the most aggressive epithelial ovarian cancer, exhibiting tumor heterogeneity, molecular abnormality, and variable clinical outcomes. The heterogeneity and apparent adaptability of the HGSC genome under selective pressure by chemotherapy likely explain the high rates of drug resistance in HGSC. However, the underlying mechanisms of drug resistance are not well understood. Following our previous findings of significant distinct molecular and cellular characteristics in pre-treatment tumor samples from highly clinically annotated HGSC patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), we examined post-treatment transcriptomic changes associated with excellent or poor responders to NACT in HGSC patients.
Methods: Thirty tumor tissues (pre- and post-treatment) after 3 to 4 cycles of NACT were collected from HGSC patients at interval cytoreductive debulking surgery from the following groups: excellent response to NACT with carboplatin/paclitaxel (post-ER, n=8); poor response to NACT (post-PR, n=8). Primary or metastatic sites for each patient were obtained (n=13, post-ER; n=17, post-PR) and subjected to RNA sequencing. The downstream bioinformatics analysis was then performed and compared with the data from the matched pre-NACT samples from the same patients (Lee et al., Cell Reports, 2020).
Results: We identified a total of 9,764 upregulated and 2,762 downregulated differentially expressed genes (DEGs, absolute log2FC >=2, adj-p<0.05) in the post-NACT samples vs the pre-NACT samples in the ER group. In contrast, 11,246 upregulated and 1,320 downregulated DEGs were found in the NACT-PR group. Ovarian cancer-related genes, including KRAS, NRAS, BRCA1/2, RB1, NF1, MLH1, PIK3CA, MSH2, AKT1, and NOTCH3 were differentially expressed in post-NACT vs pre-NACT in both ER and PR groups. TP53 was exclusively upregulated in post-ER vs pre-ER, and GABRA6 was exclusively upregulated in post-PR vs pre-PR. In signaling pathway analysis, apoptosis and DNA repair-related pathways were exclusively downregulated in post-ER vs pre-ER. Interestingly, the percentage of immune cells − CD8 and macrophages M0 were significantly elevated in post-ER (p<0.05), while γδ T cells and activated dendritic cells were significantly decreased in the post-ER (p<0.05), not in the PR. Neutrophil cells were significantly lower in post-PR vs pre-PR, but not in ER group. We also found that the level of ESR1 decreased significantly in post-ER vs post-PR (p<0.05). The level of PAX8 significantly increased in post-PR vs post-ER (p<0.05).
Conclusions: Our transcriptomic analysis revealed distinct transcripts changes in post-NACT vs pre-NACT tumor tissues from HGSC patients with excellent or poor response to the NACT. These findings could enhance treatment decision-making and rationale for developing alternative therapies for patients with HGSC.
Citation Format: Sanghoon Lee, Li Zhao, Nicole D. Fleming, Joseph Celestino, Richard A. Hajek, Margaret B. Morgan, Yan Liu, Shannon N. Westin, Amir A. Jazaeri, Jinsong Liu, Jianhua Zhang, P Andrew Futreal, Anil K. Sood. Transcriptomic profiles of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 5738.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sanghoon Lee
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Li Zhao
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | | | | | - Yan Liu
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Amir A. Jazaeri
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jinsong Liu
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jianhua Zhang
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Anil K. Sood
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Nitecki R, Dang M, Lee S, Fellman B, Rauh-hain JA, Taylor J, Ramondetta L, Grinsfelder M, Cobb L, Boruta DM, Soliman PT, Shafer A, Fleming ND, Westin SN, Sood AK, Tanguma C, Ramrez PT, Lu KH, Wang L, Jazaeri AA. Abstract 4135: Initial clinicopathologic and molecular characterization of minimal residual disease detected by second look laparoscopy after completion of frontline surgery and chemotherapy in patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer. Cancer Res 2022. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2022-4135] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Despite high rates of remission after frontline management, most patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer recur. Second look laparoscopy (SLL) can provide more sensitive detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) allowing for more individualized prognostication and possible therapeutic intervention. It may also assess tumor biology and microenvironment associated with undetectable chemoresistant MRD phase of ovarian cancer. The objective of this study was to determine SLL feasibility, and clinicopathologic and molecular characteristics of MRD after frontline therapy in ovarian cancer.
Methods: SLL was offered to patients with stage III-IV high grade epithelial ovarian cancer who achieved complete response after frontline surgery and 6 cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy. Patients were offered standard of care or investigational management options based on homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and MRD status at SLL. Preliminary translational studies included RNAseq for comparison of serial, matched tumor from primary or interval TRS and SLL derived MRD+ biopsies at the time of SLL. In addition, Nanostring analyses of SLL surgical biopsies both with and without residual tumor were performed. Molecular profiling employed hierarchical clustering, principle component analysis, non-parametric testing, and pathway analyses.
Results: Between 4/2017- 7/2021, 39 patients underwent SLL. The majority had stage III disease (74%), high grade serous histology (90%) and underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy with interval tumor reductive surgery (TRS; 54%). MRD was present in 49% (n=19) of patients and was more frequent among neoadjuvant chemotherapy recipients (73% vs 26%, P=0.015) and patients with homologous recombination proficient tumors (81% vs 25%, P=0.01). Most patients without MRD were dispositioned to observation; 4 patients with HRD received a PARP inhibitor per standard of care. All other patients with MRD received bevacizumab as part of a clinical trial, except for one patient who received a PARP inhibitor. Median follow-up was 6.74 months (range 0.66 - 28.62). Presence of MRD was associated with worse PFS (HR 3.7, 95% CI 1.3- 10.9; 5.5 vs 24.6 months; P= 0.02). Based on transcriptional signature, MRD are immunologically distinct from untreated tumors or those collected at interval TRS (after 3 cycles of chemo) but also displayed heterogeneity with two distinct subclusters.
Conclusions: SLL to assess for MRD has potential to further individualize post-frontline therapy, and identify patients at high risk for progression for early intervention clinical trials. Transcriptional profiling suggests that MRD phase of ovarian cancer is characterized by a distinct, heterogeneous, and evolving tumor and immune microenvironment.
Citation Format: Roni Nitecki, Minghao Dang, Sanghoon Lee, Bryan Fellman, J Alejandro Rauh-hain, Jolyn Taylor, Lois Ramondetta, Michaela Grinsfelder, Lauren Cobb, David M. Boruta, Pamela T. Soliman, Aaron Shafer, Nicole D. Fleming, Shannon N. Westin, Anil K. Sood, Chris Tanguma, Pedro T. Ramrez, Karen H. Lu, Linghua Wang, Amir A. Jazaeri. Initial clinicopathologic and molecular characterization of minimal residual disease detected by second look laparoscopy after completion of frontline surgery and chemotherapy in patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 4135.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roni Nitecki
- 1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Minghao Dang
- 1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Sanghoon Lee
- 1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Bryan Fellman
- 1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Jolyn Taylor
- 1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | - Lauren Cobb
- 1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | - Aaron Shafer
- 1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | - Anil K. Sood
- 1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Chris Tanguma
- 1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Karen H. Lu
- 1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Linghua Wang
- 1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Vellano CP, White MG, Andrews MC, Chelvanambi M, Witt RG, Daniele JR, Titus M, McQuade JL, Conforti F, Burton EM, Lastrapes MJ, Ologun G, Cogdill AP, Morad G, Prieto P, Lazar AJ, Chu Y, Han G, Khan MAW, Helmink B, Davies MA, Amaria RN, Kovacs JJ, Woodman SE, Patel S, Hwu P, Peoples M, Lee JE, Cooper ZA, Zhu H, Gao G, Banerjee H, Lau M, Gershenwald JE, Lucci A, Keung EZ, Ross MI, Pala L, Pagan E, Segura RL, Liu Q, Borthwick MS, Lau E, Yates MS, Westin SN, Wani K, Tetzlaff MT, Haydu LE, Mahendra M, Ma X, Logothetis C, Kulstad Z, Johnson S, Hudgens CW, Feng N, Federico L, Long GV, Futreal PA, Arur S, Tawbi HA, Moran AE, Wang L, Heffernan TP, Marszalek JR, Wargo JA. Androgen receptor blockade promotes response to BRAF/MEK-targeted therapy. Nature 2022; 606:797-803. [PMID: 35705814 PMCID: PMC10071594 DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-04833-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2020] [Accepted: 05/05/2022] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
Treatment with therapy targeting BRAF and MEK (BRAF/MEK) has revolutionized care in melanoma and other cancers; however, therapeutic resistance is common and innovative treatment strategies are needed1,2. Here we studied a group of patients with melanoma who were treated with neoadjuvant BRAF/MEK-targeted therapy ( NCT02231775 , n = 51) and observed significantly higher rates of major pathological response (MPR; ≤10% viable tumour at resection) and improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) in female versus male patients (MPR, 66% versus 14%, P = 0.001; RFS, 64% versus 32% at 2 years, P = 0.021). The findings were validated in several additional cohorts2-4 of patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma who were treated with BRAF- and/or MEK-targeted therapy (n = 664 patients in total), demonstrating improved progression-free survival and overall survival in female versus male patients in several of these studies. Studies in preclinical models demonstrated significantly impaired anti-tumour activity in male versus female mice after BRAF/MEK-targeted therapy (P = 0.006), with significantly higher expression of the androgen receptor in tumours of male and female BRAF/MEK-treated mice versus the control (P = 0.0006 and P = 0.0025). Pharmacological inhibition of androgen receptor signalling improved responses to BRAF/MEK-targeted therapy in male and female mice (P = 0.018 and P = 0.003), whereas induction of androgen receptor signalling (through testosterone administration) was associated with a significantly impaired response to BRAF/MEK-targeted therapy in male and female patients (P = 0.021 and P < 0.0001). Together, these results have important implications for therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher P Vellano
- TRACTION Platform, Therapeutics Discovery Division, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Michael G White
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Miles C Andrews
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Department of Medicine, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Manoj Chelvanambi
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Russell G Witt
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Joseph R Daniele
- TRACTION Platform, Therapeutics Discovery Division, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Mark Titus
- Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jennifer L McQuade
- Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Fabio Conforti
- Division of Melanoma, Sarcomas, and Rare Tumors, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Elizabeth M Burton
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Matthew J Lastrapes
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Gabriel Ologun
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Department of Surgery, Guthrie Courtland Medical Center, Courtland, NY, USA
| | - Alexandria P Cogdill
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Immunai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Golnaz Morad
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Peter Prieto
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Department of Surgery, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Alexander J Lazar
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Department of Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Yanshuo Chu
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Guangchun Han
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - M A Wadud Khan
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Beth Helmink
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Department of Surgery, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, USA
| | - Michael A Davies
- Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Rodabe N Amaria
- Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jeffrey J Kovacs
- TRACTION Platform, Therapeutics Discovery Division, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Scott E Woodman
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sapna Patel
- Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Patrick Hwu
- Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Michael Peoples
- TRACTION Platform, Therapeutics Discovery Division, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jeffrey E Lee
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Zachary A Cooper
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA
| | - Haifeng Zhu
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Guang Gao
- TRACTION Platform, Therapeutics Discovery Division, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Hiya Banerjee
- Clinical Development and Analytics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, NJ, USA
| | - Mike Lau
- Novartis Pharma, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Jeffrey E Gershenwald
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Anthony Lucci
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Emily Z Keung
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Merrick I Ross
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Laura Pala
- Division of Melanoma, Sarcomas, and Rare Tumors, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Eleonora Pagan
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Rossana Lazcano Segura
- Department of Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Qian Liu
- Department of Tumor Biology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Mikayla S Borthwick
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Eric Lau
- Department of Tumor Biology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Melinda S Yates
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Khalida Wani
- Department of Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Michael T Tetzlaff
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Department of Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Lauren E Haydu
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Mikhila Mahendra
- TRACTION Platform, Therapeutics Discovery Division, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - XiaoYan Ma
- TRACTION Platform, Therapeutics Discovery Division, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Christopher Logothetis
- Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Zachary Kulstad
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sarah Johnson
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Courtney W Hudgens
- Department of Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ningping Feng
- TRACTION Platform, Therapeutics Discovery Division, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lorenzo Federico
- TRACTION Platform, Therapeutics Discovery Division, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Georgina V Long
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, and Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - P Andrew Futreal
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Swathi Arur
- Department of Genetics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Hussein A Tawbi
- Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Amy E Moran
- Cell, Development & Cancer Biology, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Linghua Wang
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Timothy P Heffernan
- TRACTION Platform, Therapeutics Discovery Division, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Joseph R Marszalek
- TRACTION Platform, Therapeutics Discovery Division, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Jennifer A Wargo
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. .,Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Handley K, Sood AK, Molin GZD, Westin SN, Meyer LA, Fellman B, Soliman PT, Coleman RL, Fleming ND. Frailty repels the knife: The impact of frailty index on surgical intervention and outcomes. Gynecol Oncol 2022; 166:50-56. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.05.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2022] [Revised: 05/02/2022] [Accepted: 05/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
39
|
Westin SN. Should secondary cytoreduction be used in recurrent ovarian cancer? Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 2022; 20:215-217. [PMID: 35389385] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Stover EH, Xiong N, Myers AP, Tayob N, Engvold V, Polak M, Broaddus RR, Makker V, Drapkin R, Liu JF, Horowitz NS, Meric-Bernstam F, Aghajanian C, Coleman RL, Mills GB, Cantley LC, Matulonis UA, Westin SN, Konstantinopoulos PA. A phase II study of MK-2206, an AKT inhibitor, in uterine serous carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol Rep 2022; 40:100974. [PMID: 35434236 PMCID: PMC9011027 DOI: 10.1016/j.gore.2022.100974] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2022] [Revised: 03/24/2022] [Accepted: 03/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
|
41
|
LaFargue CJ, Handley KF, Fleming ND, Nick AM, Chelariu-Raicu A, Fellman B, Castellano T, Ogasawara A, Hom-Tedla M, Blake EA, da Costa AABA, Crim AK, Rauh-Hain A, Westin SN, Coleman RL, Matsuo K, Baiocchi G, Hasegawa K, Moore K, Sood AK. Clinical analysis of pathologic complete responders in advanced-stage ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2022; 165:82-89. [PMID: 35216808 PMCID: PMC8969169 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.02.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2021] [Revised: 01/30/2022] [Accepted: 02/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the clinical characteristics of patients who attained pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and to identify specific predictive or prognostic factors associated with pCR. METHODS Two distinct populations of patients who underwent NACT followed by interval tumor reductive surgery (TRS) were used in this retrospective study. The first contained 472 patients from a single institution. The second contained only pCR patients (67); those identified from population one, plus 44 obtained through collaborative institutions. Cox analysis and log-rank tests were performed to assess associations between clinical characteristics and pCR outcome, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS The median RFS and OS in our pCR-only population was 24.2 and 80.8 months, respectively, with a median follow-up time of 32.4 months. In our single institution population, 23 patients attained pCR (4.9%) and had longer RFS compared to non-pCR patients with viable microscopic, optimal, or suboptimal residual disease (24.3 vs. 12.1 vs. 11.6 vs. 9.6 months, p = 0.025, 0.012, 0.008, respectively), and longer OS compared to those with optimal or suboptimal residual disease (54.5 vs. 29.4 vs. 25.7 months, p = 0.027, 0.007, respectively). Patients were more than three-fold likely to attain pCR if their CA125 value was normal at the time of surgery (OR 3.54, 95% CI: 1.14-11.05, p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS Women with pCR after NACT have significantly longer RFS compared to those with residual viable tumor at the time of interval tumor-reductive surgery, and CA125 is plausible biomarker for identifying these extreme responders preoperatively.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J LaFargue
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States of America
| | - Katelyn F Handley
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States of America
| | - Nicole D Fleming
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States of America
| | - Alpa M Nick
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States of America
| | - Anca Chelariu-Raicu
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States of America
| | - Bryan Fellman
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States of America
| | - Tara Castellano
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States of America
| | - Aiko Ogasawara
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Saitama, Japan
| | - Marianne Hom-Tedla
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
| | - Erin A Blake
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
| | | | - Aleia K Crim
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States of America
| | - Alejandro Rauh-Hain
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States of America
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States of America
| | - Robert L Coleman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States of America
| | - Koji Matsuo
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
| | - Glauco Baiocchi
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, A.C. Camargo Cancer Center, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Kosei Hasegawa
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Saitama, Japan
| | - Kathleen Moore
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States of America
| | - Anil K Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States of America.
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Westin SN, Labrie M, Litton JK, Blucher A, Fang Y, Vellano CP, Marszalek JR, Feng N, Ma X, Creason A, Fellman B, Yuan Y, Lee S, Kim TB, Liu J, Chelariu-Raicu A, Chen TH, Kabil N, Soliman PT, Frumovitz M, Schmeler KM, Jazaeri A, Lu KH, Murthy R, Meyer LA, Sun CC, Sood AK, Coleman RL, Mills GB. Phase Ib Dose Expansion and Translational Analyses of Olaparib in Combination with Capivasertib in Recurrent Endometrial, Triple-Negative Breast, and Ovarian Cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2021; 27:6354-6365. [PMID: 34518313 PMCID: PMC8639651 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-21-1656] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2021] [Revised: 07/07/2021] [Accepted: 09/03/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE On the basis of strong preclinical rationale, we sought to confirm recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, combined with the AKT inhibitor capivasertib and assess molecular markers of response and resistance. PATIENTS AND METHODS We performed a safety lead-in followed by expansion in endometrial, triple-negative breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer. Olaparib 300 mg orally twice daily and capivasertib orally twice daily on a 4-day on 3-day off schedule was evaluated. Two dose levels (DL) of capivasertib were planned: 400 mg (DL1) and 320 mg (DL-1). Patients underwent biopsies at baseline and 28 days. RESULTS A total of 38 patients were enrolled. Seven (18%) had germline BRCA1/2 mutations. The first 2 patients on DL1 experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) of diarrhea and vomiting. No DLTs were observed on DL-1 (n = 6); therefore, DL1 was reexplored (n = 6) with no DLTs, confirming DL1 as RP2D. Most common treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events were anemia (23.7%) and leukopenia (10.5%). Of 32 evaluable subjects, 6 (19%) had partial response (PR); PR rate was 44.4% in endometrial cancer. Seven (22%) additional patients had stable disease greater than 4 months. Tumor analysis demonstrated strong correlations between response and immune activity, cell-cycle alterations, and DNA damage response. Therapy resistance was associated with receptor tyrosine kinase and RAS-MAPK pathway activity, metabolism, and epigenetics. CONCLUSIONS The combination of olaparib and capivasertib is associated to no serious adverse events and demonstrates durable activity in ovarian, endometrial, and breast cancers, with promising responses in endometrial cancer. Importantly, tumor samples acquired pre- and on-therapy can help predict patient benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| | - Marilyne Labrie
- Knight Cancer Institute and Cell, Developmental and Cancer Biology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | - Jennifer K Litton
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Aurora Blucher
- Knight Cancer Institute and Cell, Developmental and Cancer Biology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | - Yong Fang
- Knight Cancer Institute and Cell, Developmental and Cancer Biology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | | | | | - Ningping Feng
- TRACTION, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - XiaoYan Ma
- TRACTION, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Allison Creason
- Knight Cancer Institute and Cell, Developmental and Cancer Biology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | - Bryan Fellman
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ying Yuan
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Sanghoon Lee
- Department of Systems Biology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Tae-Beom Kim
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jinsong Liu
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Anca Chelariu-Raicu
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Tsun Hsuan Chen
- Department of Symptom Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | - Pamela T Soliman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Michael Frumovitz
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Katheleen M Schmeler
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Amir Jazaeri
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Karen H Lu
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Rashmi Murthy
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Larissa A Meyer
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Charlotte C Sun
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Anil K Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | - Gordon B Mills
- Knight Cancer Institute and Cell, Developmental and Cancer Biology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Affiliation(s)
- Emily M Hinchcliff
- Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chicago, IL, United States; Robert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Monk BJ, Coleman RL, Fujiwara K, Wilson MK, Oza AM, Oaknin A, O'Malley DM, Lorusso D, Westin SN, Safra T, Herzog TJ, Marmé F, N Eskander R, Lin KK, Shih D, Goble S, Grechko N, Hume S, Maloney L, McNeish IA, Kristeleit RS. ATHENA (GOG-3020/ENGOT-ov45): a randomized, phase III trial to evaluate rucaparib as monotherapy (ATHENA-MONO) and rucaparib in combination with nivolumab (ATHENA-COMBO) as maintenance treatment following frontline platinum-based chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2021; 31:1589-1594. [PMID: 34593565 PMCID: PMC8666815 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-002933] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/11/2021] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The optimal treatment strategy for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer has yet to be determined. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have demonstrated substantial improvement in progression-free survival as monotherapy maintenance treatment in the frontline setting versus active surveillance. Furthermore, preclinical and early clinical studies have shown that PARP inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors have synergistic antitumor activity and may provide an additional therapeutic option for patients in this population. Primary Objectives In women with newly diagnosed ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer, we wish to assess the efficacy of frontline maintenance treatment with the PARP inhibitor rucaparib versus placebo following response to platinum-based chemotherapy (ATHENA–MONO), and to assess the combination of rucaparib plus nivolumab (a programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1)–blocking monoclonal antibody) versus rucaparib alone (ATHENA–COMBO). Study Hypothesis (1) Maintenance therapy with rucaparib monotherapy may extend progression-free survival following standard treatment for ovarian cancer in the frontline setting. (2) The combination of nivolumab plus rucaparib may extend progression-free survival following standard treatment for ovarian cancer in the frontline setting compared with rucaparib alone. Trial Design ATHENA is an international, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial consisting of two independent comparisons (ATHENA–MONO and ATHENA–COMBO) in patients with newly diagnosed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Patients are randomized 4:4:1:1 to the following: oral rucaparib+ intravenous nivolumab (arm A); oral rucaparib + intravenous placebo (arm B); oral placebo+ intravenous nivolumab (arm C); and oral placebo + intravenous placebo (arm D). The starting dose of rucaparib is 600 mg orally twice a day and nivolumab 480 mg intravenously every 4 weeks. ATHENA–MONO compares arm B with arm D to evaluate rucaparib monotherapy versus placebo, and ATHENA–COMBO evaluates arm A versus arm B to investigate the effects of rucaparib and nivolumab in combination versus rucaparib monotherapy. ATHENA–MONO and ATHENA–COMBO share a common treatment arm (arm B) but each comparison is independently powered. Major Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria Patients ≥18 years of age with newly diagnosed advanced, high-grade epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have achieved a response after completion of cytoreductive surgery and initial platinum-based chemotherapy are enrolled. No other prior treatment for ovarian cancer, other than the frontline platinum regimen, is permitted. Primary Endpoint The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Sample Size Approximately 1000 patients have been enrolled and randomized. Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting Results The trial completed accrual in 2020. While dependent on event rates, primary results of ATHENA–MONO are anticipated in early 2022 and results of ATHENA–COMBO are anticipated to mature at a later date. Trial Registration This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03522246).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bradley J Monk
- Arizona Oncology (US Oncology Network), University of Arizona College of Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | | | - Keiichi Fujiwara
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Hidaka, Saitama, Japan
| | - Michelle K Wilson
- Department of Cancer and Blood, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Amit M Oza
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ana Oaknin
- Medical Oncology Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain
| | - David M O'Malley
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, The Ohio State University, James Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Domenica Lorusso
- Unità di Ginecologia Oncologica, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori and MITO, MIlan, Italy
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Tamar Safra
- Oncology Department, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Thomas J Herzog
- Department of Ob/Gyn, University of Cincinnati Cancer Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
| | - Frederik Marmé
- Gynecological Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Ramez N Eskander
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Rebecca and John Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA
| | - Kevin K Lin
- Molecular Diagnostics, Clovis Oncology, Inc, Boulder, Colorado, USA
| | - Danny Shih
- Clinical Operations, Clovis Oncology, Inc, Boulder, Colorado, USA
| | - Sandra Goble
- Biostatistics, Clovis Oncology, Inc, Boulder, Colorado, USA
| | - Nikolay Grechko
- Clinical Development, Clovis Oncology, Ltd, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK
| | - Stephanie Hume
- Clinical Development, Clovis Oncology, Inc, Boulder, Colorado, USA
| | - Lara Maloney
- Clinical Development, Clovis Oncology, Inc, Boulder, Colorado, USA
| | - Iain A McNeish
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Handley KF, Rodriguez-Aguayo C, Ma S, Stur E, Joseph R, Bayraktar E, Dasari SK, Nguyen N, Powell RT, Sobieski M, Ivan C, Kim M, Umamaheswaran S, Glassman D, Wen Y, Amero P, Stephan C, Coleman RL, Landesman Y, Westin SN, Ram PT, Sood AK. Rational Combination of CRM1 Inhibitor Selinexor and Olaparib Shows Synergy in Ovarian Cancer Cell Lines and Mouse Models. Mol Cancer Ther 2021; 20:2352-2361. [PMID: 34583979 DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.mct-21-0370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2021] [Revised: 08/06/2021] [Accepted: 09/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
CRM1 inhibitors have demonstrated antitumor effects in ovarian and other cancers; however, rational combinations are largely unexplored. We performed a high-throughput drug library screen to identify drugs that might combine well with selinexor in ovarian cancer. Next, we tested the combination of selinexor with the top hit from the drug screen in vitro and in vivo Finally, we assessed for mechanisms underlying the identified synergy using reverse phase protein arrays (RPPA). The drug library screen assessing 688 drugs identified olaparib (a PARP inhibitor) as the most synergistic combination with selinexor. Synergy was further demonstrated by MTT assays. In the A2780luc ip1 mouse model, the combination of selinexor and olaparib yielded significantly lower tumor weight and fewer tumor nodules compared with the control group (P < 0.04 and P < 0.03). In the OVCAR5 mouse model, the combination yielded significantly fewer nodules (P = 0.006) and markedly lower tumor weight compared with the control group (P = 0.059). RPPA analysis indicated decreased expression of DNA damage repair proteins and increased expression of tumor suppressor proteins in the combination treatment group. Collectively, our preclinical findings indicate that combination with selinexor to expand the utility and efficacy of PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer warrants further exploration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katelyn F Handley
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.,Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.,H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida
| | - Cristian Rodriguez-Aguayo
- Department of Experimental Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Shaolin Ma
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Elaine Stur
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Robiya Joseph
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Emine Bayraktar
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Santosh K Dasari
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Nghi Nguyen
- HTS Screening Core, Center for Translational Cancer Research, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, College of Medicine, Texas A&M University, Houston, Texas
| | - Reid T Powell
- HTS Screening Core, Center for Translational Cancer Research, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, College of Medicine, Texas A&M University, Houston, Texas
| | - Mary Sobieski
- HTS Screening Core, Center for Translational Cancer Research, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, College of Medicine, Texas A&M University, Houston, Texas
| | - Cristina Ivan
- Department of Experimental Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mark Kim
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Sujanitha Umamaheswaran
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Deanna Glassman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Yunfei Wen
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Paola Amero
- Department of Experimental Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Clifford Stephan
- HTS Screening Core, Center for Translational Cancer Research, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, College of Medicine, Texas A&M University, Houston, Texas
| | | | | | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Prahlad T Ram
- Department of Systems Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Anil K Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Corvigno S, Burks JK, Hu W, Zhong Y, Jennings NB, Fleming ND, Westin SN, Fellman B, Liu J, Sood AK. Immune microenvironment composition in high-grade serous ovarian cancers based on BRCA mutational status. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2021; 147:3545-3555. [PMID: 34476576 DOI: 10.1007/s00432-021-03778-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2021] [Accepted: 08/22/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE An in-depth analysis of the tumor microenvironment of ovarian cancer is needed. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the architecture of the immune microenvironment of high-grade serous ovarian cancers (HGSCs) with or without BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. METHODS A cohort of highly annotated HGSC patients with known germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 status was selected, and pretreatment tumor tissue specimens were analyzed with a multiplexed staining technique aimed at detecting lymphocytes, macrophages, and fibroblasts in the whole tumor area and in specific regions including epithelium, stroma, and perivascular areas. RESULTS BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated tumors showed a more immunogenic microenvironment, characterized by a higher abundance of CD8+ and PD-L1+ cells, than did tumors with wild-type BRCA1 and BRCA2. High numbers of PD-L1+ and PD-L1+CD8+ cells were prognostic for event-free survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.41, 95% CI 0.21-0.79, p = 0.008 and HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26-0.91, p = 0.025, respectively), as were high numbers of epithelial PD-L1+ and FAP+PD-L1+ cells (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.96, p = 0.037 and HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08-0.87, p = 0.029) and CD8+ cells (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.93, p = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS This study reveals substantial differences between the immune microenvironment composition of germline BRCA-mutated and BRCA wild-type HGSC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Corvigno
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77054, USA
| | - Jared K Burks
- Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Wei Hu
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77054, USA
| | - Yanping Zhong
- Department of Anatomic Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Department of Pathology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130021, Jilin, China
| | - Nicholas B Jennings
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77054, USA
| | - Nicole D Fleming
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77054, USA
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77054, USA
| | - Bryan Fellman
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jinsong Liu
- Department of Anatomic Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Anil K Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77054, USA. .,Center for RNA Interference and Non-Coding RNA, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Westin SN, Louie-Gao M, Gupta D, Thaker PH. Risk factors for progression or death after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in real-world patients in the USA with ovarian cancer from 2011 to 2018. Future Oncol 2021; 17:4263-4274. [PMID: 34378405 DOI: 10.2217/fon-2021-0018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim: Patient chart data from the USA during the period of January 2011 through October 2018 were used to assess risk factors for progression in advanced ovarian cancer after response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients & methods: Patients with stage III/IV ovarian cancer who completed first-line platinum-based chemotherapy after primary or interval debulking surgery were identified from the Flatiron Health database. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to assess associations between baseline factors and time to next treatment (TTNT) or overall survival (OS). Results: Patients at stage IV or who received interval debulking surgery had shorter TTNT and OS than patients at stage III or who received primary debulking surgery, respectively. OS was worse in patients with residual disease and in BRCA wild-type. Conclusion: Multiple factors were associated with shorter TTNT or OS in this retrospective real-world analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77230, USA
| | | | - Divya Gupta
- Department of Clinical Development, GlaxoSmithKline, Waltham, MA 02451, USA
| | - Premal H Thaker
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO 63110, USA
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Abstract
The use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the front-line management of advanced ovarian cancer has recently emerged as an exciting strategy with the potential to improve outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. In this article, we review the results of four recently published Phase III randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of PARP inhibitors in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer (SOLO1, PRIMA, PAOLA-1, and VELIA). Collectively, the studies suggest that PARP maintenance in the upfront setting is most beneficial among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers (hazard ratios range from 0.31 to 0.44), followed by patients with tumours that harbour homologous recombination deficiencies (hazard ratios range from 0.33 to 0.57). All three studies that included an all-comer population were able to demonstrate benefit of PARP inhibitors, regardless of biomarker status. The FDA has approved olaparib for front-line maintenance therapy among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers, and niraparib for all patients, regardless of biomarker status. In determining which patients should be offered front-line maintenance PARP inhibitors, and which agent to use, there are multiple factors to consider, including FDA indication, dosing preference, toxicity, risks versus benefits for each patient population, and cost. There are ongoing studies further exploring the front-line use of PARP inhibitors, including the potential downstream effects of PARP-inhibitor resistance in the recurrent setting, combining PARP-inhibitors with other anti-angiogenic drugs, immunotherapeutic agents, and inhibitors of pathways implicated in PARP inhibitor resistance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michaela Onstad
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1155 Herman Pressler Dr. CPB 6.3279, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | | | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1155 Herman Pressler Dr. CPB 6.3279, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Fleming ND, Westin SN, Rauh-Hain JA, Soliman PT, Fellman BM, Coleman RL, Meyer LA, Shafer A, Cobb LP, Jazaeri A, Lu KH, Sood AK. Factors associated with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced stage ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2021; 162:65-71. [PMID: 33838925 PMCID: PMC8287765 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.04.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2020] [Accepted: 04/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the factors associated with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and the ability to undergo interval tumor reductive surgery (iTRS) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS We performed a retrospective review from April 2013 to March 2019 of patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer triaged to NACT based on our standard triage algorithm. Clinicopathologic and treatment data were analyzed for factors associated with response to NACT, outcomes at iTRS, and their impact on progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS 562 patients met inclusion criteria and triaged to NACT following laparoscopy (n = 132) or without laparoscopy (n = 430). 413 patients underwent iTRS (74%). Factors that correlated with a patient reaching iTRS included increasing age (p < 0.001), higher Charlson comorbidity index (p < 0.001), ECOG status 2 or 3 (<0.001), and laparoscopic assessment (<0.001). Patients with CA-125 ≤ 35 U/mL at iTRS had higher rates of complete gross resection (88% vs. 65%, p < 0.001) and improved PFS (16.8 vs. 12.7 months, p < 0.001). Patients receiving dose-dense paclitaxel (76% vs. 60%, p = 0.004) and CA-125 ≤ 35 U/mL at iTRS (85% vs. 66%, p < 0.001) had higher rates of complete radiographic response. On multivariate analysis, germline BRCA 1/2 mutation (p = 0.001), iTRS vs. no surgery (R0, p < 0.001; ≤1 cm, p < 0.001; >1 cm, p < 0.001), dose-dense chemotherapy (p = 0.01), and CA-125 ≤ 35 U/mL at iTRS (p = 0.001) were independent significant factors affecting PFS. CONCLUSIONS Normalization of CA-125 at the time of iTRS following NACT may serve as a surrogate marker for prognosis in this high-risk population. Our NACT cohort experienced improved response rates and PFS with dose-dense therapy compared to conventional dosing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole D Fleming
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America.
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America
| | - J Alejandro Rauh-Hain
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America
| | - Pamela T Soliman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America
| | - Bryan M Fellman
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America
| | - Robert L Coleman
- US Oncology Research, The Woodlands, TX. 77380, United States of America
| | - Larissa A Meyer
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America
| | - Aaron Shafer
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America
| | - Lauren P Cobb
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America
| | - Amir Jazaeri
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America
| | - Karen H Lu
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America
| | - Anil K Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Alvarez Secord A, O'Malley DM, Sood AK, Westin SN, Liu JF. Rationale for combination PARP inhibitor and antiangiogenic treatment in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: A review. Gynecol Oncol 2021; 162:482-495. [PMID: 34090705 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.05.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2021] [Accepted: 05/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
Inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) and angiogenesis have demonstrated single-agent activity in women with advanced ovarian cancer. Recent studies have aimed to establish whether combination therapy can augment the response seen with PARP inhibitors or antiangiogenic agents alone. This review provides an overview of PARP inhibitors and antiangiogenics as monotherapy in women with advanced ovarian cancer, explores potential mechanisms of action of PARP inhibitor and antiangiogenic combination treatments, reviews efficacy and safety data from trials evaluating this combination, and outlines ongoing and future trials evaluating this combination, discussing these in the context of the current and future treatment landscape for women with advanced ovarian cancer. Sentinel studies evaluating PARP inhibitor (n = 8), antiangiogenic (n = 4), and combination (n = 7) therapy were identified in women with newly diagnosed (n = 7) and recurrent (n = 12) ovarian cancer. PARP inhibitors included olaparib (n = 9), niraparib (n = 4), rucaparib (n = 1), and veliparib (n = 1). Antiangiogenic agents included bevacizumab (n = 7) and cediranib (n = 4). PARP inhibitors combined with antiangiogenics demonstrated efficacy based on objective response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) in the relapsed disease setting. Maintenance therapy with the PARP inhibitor, olaparib, plus antiangiogenic therapy offered a significant PFS benefit versus the antiangiogenic alone in women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who tested positive for homologous recombination deficiency. Combination therapy was tolerated, with no new safety signals reported compared with monotherapy trials. PARP inhibitors and antiangiogenics have changed the landscape of ovarian cancer treatment. The PARP inhibitor plus antiangiogenic combination is a novel treatment option that appears promising in the first-line advanced and recurrent ovarian cancer settings, although the role of this combination in recurrent disease requires further elucidation. Defining which patients are candidates for monotherapy or combination therapy is critical, taking into consideration safety profiles of therapies alone or in combination, and how these treatments should be sequenced in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angeles Alvarez Secord
- Division of Gynecology Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.
| | - David M O'Malley
- Division of Gynecology Oncology, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, Columbus, OH, United States
| | - Anil K Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Joyce F Liu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States
| |
Collapse
|