Adverse events and oncologic outcomes with combination lenvatinib and pembrolizumab for the treatment of recurrent endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate adverse events (AEs) of combination lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for the treatment of recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) and to assess outcomes by lenvatinib starting dose.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with recurrent EC treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab at our institution between 10/1/2019-11/30/2021. Starting dose of lenvatinib was defined as standard (20 mg) or reduced (10 mg/14 mg). AEs were manually extracted through chart review and graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0. PFS, overall survival (OS), and duration of response (DOR) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients were identified; median age was 67 years (range, 54-85). The most common histologies were serous (35%), endometrioid (23%), and carcinosarcoma (21%). Starting lenvatinib doses were 10 mg (n = 10), 14 mg (n = 10), and 20 mg (n = 23). Median number of cycles received was 8 (range, 1-42). Twenty-four patients (56%) required ≥1 lenvatinib dose reduction; 3 (7%) discontinued lenvatinib, and 1 (2%) discontinued pembrolizumab for intolerance or AE. Thirty-six patients (84%) experienced grade ≥ 3 AEs; hypertension, weight loss, anemia, fatigue, and thrombocytopenia were most common. The standard dose group experienced significantly shorter observed PFS vs the reduced dose group (P = .02). There was no difference in DOR (P = .09) or OS (P = .27) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

In clinical practice, AEs associated with combination lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab were common and comparable to Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 findings. AEs were similar regardless of starting lenvatinib dose. Further dose optimization studies of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may be indicated in recurrent EC. Clinical trial data remain the gold standard to guide starting lenvatinib dosing.

Current Evidence-Based Systemic Therapy for Advanced and Recurrent Endometrial Cancer

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy, with worldwide increasing incidence and disease-associated mortality. Although most patients with EC are diagnosed with early-stage disease, systemic treatment options for patients with advanced or recurrent EC have historically been limited. EC-focused clinical trials and the ensuing therapeutic landscape have expanded since The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) identified 4 distinct EC subgroups associated with differential survival. This endeavor revolutionized our understanding of the genomic characterization of EC as well as molecular drivers of this heterogeneous malignancy, leading to precision oncology approaches to therapeutics and advancement in treatment options. This review describes the current status of and recent advancements in therapeutic options for patients with advanced and recurrent EC. The NCCN Guidelines for Uterine Neoplasms provide detailed recommendations regarding the diagnosis, workup, and management of EC.

Outcomes and long-term follow-up by treatment type for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer managed at a tertiary cancer center: A Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Team Ovary study

OBJECTIVE

To assess long-term outcomes of patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer by treatment type.

METHODS

Patients with newly diagnosed stage III-IV ovarian cancer who underwent primary treatment at our tertiary cancer center from 01/01/2015-12/31/2015 were included. We reviewed electronic medical records for clinicopathological, treatment, and survival characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 153 patients, 88 (58%) had stage III and 65 (42%) stage IV disease. Median follow-up was 65.8 months (range, 3.6-75.3). Eighty-nine patients (58%) underwent primary debulking surgery (PDS), 50 (33%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS), and 14 (9%) received chemotherapy alone, without surgery (NSx). Median PFS to first recurrence was 26.2 months (range, 20.1-36.2), 13.5 months (range, 12-15.1), and 4.2 months (range, 1.1-5.8) in the PDS, IDS, and NSx groups, respectively (P < .001). At first recurrence/progression, 80 patients (72.7%) were treated with chemotherapy, 28 (25.5%) underwent secondary cytoreductive surgery (CRS) followed by chemotherapy, and 2 (1.8%) received no treatment. Seven patients (4.6%) underwent palliative surgery for malignant bowel obstruction. Overall, 62.7% received 1-3 lines of chemotherapy. The 5-year OS rates were 53.2% (95% CI: 44.7%-61%) for the entire cohort, 71.5% (95% CI: 60.2%-80%) for the PDS group, 35.2% (95% CI: 22.2-48.5%) for the IDS group, and 7.9% (95% CI: 0.5%-29.9%) for the NSx group.

CONCLUSION

The longitudinal treatment modalities and outcomes of patients with advanced ovarian cancer described here can be useful for patient counseling, long-term planning, and future comparison studies.

Risk Stratification of Stage I Grade 3 Endometrioid Endometrial Carcinoma in the Era of Molecular Classification

PURPOSE

The role of adjuvant therapy in stage I grade 3 endometrioid endometrial carcinoma (EEC) is debatable. We sought to define the agreement between Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma 1 (PORTEC-1) high-intermediate risk (HIR) and Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG)-99 HIR criteria, assess their concordance with The Cancer Genome Atlas molecular subtypes, and evaluate oncologic outcomes in this population.

METHODS

We identified patients with stage I grade 3 EECs who underwent surgical staging at our institution from January 2014 to January 2020. Patients were stratified into PORTEC-1 HIR, GOG-99 HIR, and The Cancer Genome Atlas molecular subtypes. Adjuvant treatment, and progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients were included. The agreement between PORTEC-1 and GOG-99 HIR classification was 68% (95% CI, 56.2 to 78.3), with a kappa of 0.36 (P = .001). There was no agreement between PORTEC-1 or GOG-99 HIR classification and a dichotomized molecular classification (copy number-high [CN-H] v other subtypes), with a kappa of 0.03 (P = .39) and -0.03 (P = .601), respectively. There was no difference in PFS between PORTEC-1 HIR and non-HIR (HR, 10.9; 95% CI, 0.28 to 4.21) or between GOG-99 HIR and non-HIR (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.32 to 4.6) stage I grade 3 EECs. Patients with CN-H compared with non-CN-H EEC had worse PFS (HR, 5.67; 95% CI, 1.73 to 18.63) and OS (HR, 5.05; 95% CI, 1.13 to 22.5).

CONCLUSION

In surgically staged patients with stage I grade 3 EEC, PORTEC-1 and GOG-99 HIR criteria were not prognostic and did not identify CN-H patients. Patients with CN-H EEC had worse PFS and OS compared with those with other molecular subtypes. The integration of the molecular classification with recognized clinicopathologic factors may identify patients with higher-risk stage I grade 3 EEC who benefit from additional therapy.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy alone compared to systematic lymphadenectomy in patients with uterine carcinosarcoma

OBJECTIVE

To assess survival among patients diagnosed with uterine carcinosarcoma (CS) who underwent sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy alone vs. systematic lymph node dissection (LND).

METHODS

We identified newly diagnosed CS patients who underwent primary surgical management from January 1996-December 2019. The SLN cohort underwent SLN biopsy alone with bilateral SLNs identified. The systematic LND cohort did not undergo SLN biopsy.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients underwent SLN biopsy, and 100 patients underwent systematic LND. There was no difference by age, stage, body mass index, myoinvasion (<50%, ≥50%), lymphovascular space invasion, or positive washings. Eighty-five SLN (85.9%) and 15 LND (15%) underwent minimally invasive surgery (P < 0.001). The median total node count was four (range, 1-13) for SLN and 19 (range, 2-50) for LND (P < 0.001). Nodal metastasis occurred in 23 (23.2%) SLN and in 22 (22%) LND (P = 0.4). Postoperative therapy was administered to 85 (85.9%) SLN and 71 (71%) LND (P = 0.02). Median follow-up was 33 months (range, 1-205) for SLN and 55.3 months (range, 1-269) for LND (P = 0.001). The three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 62.9% (SE 5.2%) for SLN and 52.3% (SE 5.3%) for LND (P = 0.13). The three-year overall survival (OS) was 72.1% (SE 5.1%) for SLN and 71.6% (SE 4.6%) for LND (P = 0.68). An isolated nodal recurrence occurred in two (2%) SLN and four (4%) LND (P = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference in PFS or OS among CS patients who undergo SLN biopsy vs. systematic LND. SLN biopsy detects nodal metastasis without compromising oncologic outcomes.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with endometrial cancer and an indocyanine green or iodinated contrast reaction - A proposed management algorithm

OBJECTIVE

To describe the incidence of adverse reactions to indocyanine green (ICG) administered during sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy for endometrial cancer, and to propose an ICG management algorithm for these patients.

METHODS

All patients who underwent surgery for endometrial cancer with SLN biopsy using ICG from 1/2017 to 8/2020 were identified using a single-institution prospective database. Surgical adverse events (SAEs) related to the procedure were identified. A review of the literature was performed.

RESULTS

In all, 1414 patients met inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Sixty-seven (4.7%) patients had a history of either an iodine or contrast allergy. No patients had a history of documented ICG allergy. Among patients with an iodine or contrast allergy, 65 (97%) received a corticosteroid with or without diphenhydramine prior to ICG administration. One hundred five patients (7.4%) experienced 116 SAEs. Among these patients, 3 experienced potentially allergic SAEs possibly related to ICG administration. After thorough chart review, however, the likelihood these SAEs were due to ICG appeared low. No patients experienced an anaphylactic response after ICG admission.

CONCLUSION

There were no anaphylactic reactions to ICG intracervical administration during 1414 consecutive SLN biopsies, including in patients with a documented iodine or contrast allergy. Intracervical injection of ICG is safe, and premedication using corticosteroids with or without diphenhydramine prior to SLN biopsy is a reasonable strategy in patients with iodinated contrast allergy.