Investigational drugs for recurrent or primary advanced metastatic cervical cancer: what is in the clinical development pipeline?

Recurrent cervical cancer; Combination therapy; ImmunotherapyCáncer cervical recurrente; Terapia de combinación; InmunoterapiaCàncer cervical recurrent; Teràpia combinada; ImmunoteràpiaIntroduction: Recurrent or primary advanced metastatic cervical cancer (R/M CC) has a poor prognosis with a 5-year-survival rate of 16.5%, demanding novel and improved therapies for the treatment of these patients. The first-line standard of care for R/M CC now benefits from the addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor, pembrolizumab, to platinum-based chemotherapy with paclitaxel and bevacizumab. Additionally, new options for second-line treatment have become available in recent years. Areas covered: Here, we review current investigational drugs and discuss their relative targets, efficacies, and potential within the R/M CC treatment landscape. This review will focus on recently published data and key ongoing clinical trials in patients with R/M CC, covering multiple modes of action, including immunotherapies, antibody-drug conjugates, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We searched clinicaltrials.gov for ongoing trials and pubmed.ncbi.nih.gov for recently published trial data, as well as recent years' proceedings from the annual conferences of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), and the International Gynecologic Cancer Society (IGCS). Expert opinion: Therapeutics currently attracting attention include novel immune checkpoint inhibitors, therapeutic vaccinations, antibody-drug conjugates, such as tisotumab vedotin, tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting HER2, and multitarget synergistic combinations

Prediction of Surgical Outcome in Advanced Ovarian Cancer by Imaging and Laparoscopy: A Narrative Review

Maximal-effort upfront or interval debulking surgery is the recommended approach for advanced-stage ovarian cancer. The role of diagnostic imaging is to provide a systematic and structured report on tumour dissemination with emphasis on key sites for resectability. Imaging methods, such as pelvic and abdominal ultrasound, contrast-enhanced computed tomography, whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography, yield high diagnostic performance for diagnosing bulky disease, but they are less accurate for depicting small-volume carcinomatosis, which may lead to unnecessary explorative laparotomies. Diagnostic laparoscopy, on the other hand, may directly visualize intraperitoneal involvement but has limitations in detecting tumours beyond the gastrosplenic ligament, in the lesser sac, mesenteric root or in the retroperitoneum. Laparoscopy has its place in combination with imaging in cases where ima-ging results regarding resectability are unclear. Different imaging models predicting tumour resectability have been developed as an adjunctional objective tool. Incorporating results from tumour quantitative analyses (e.g., radiomics), preoperative biopsies and biomarkers into predictive models may allow for more precise selection of patients eligible for extensive surgery. This review will discuss the ability of imaging and laparoscopy to predict non-resectable disease in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.publishedVersio

Atezolizumab Combined With Bevacizumab and Platinum-Based Therapy for Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian Cancer: Placebo-Controlled Randomized Phase III ATALANTE/ENGOT-ov29 Trial

Atezolizumab; Ovarian cancer; PlatinumAtezolizumab; Càncer d'ovari; PlatíAtezolizumab; Cáncer de ovario; PlatinoPURPOSE Platinum-based doublets with concurrent and maintenance bevacizumab are standard therapy for ovarian cancer (OC) relapsing after a platinum-free interval (PFI) >6 months. Immunotherapy may be synergistic with bevacizumab and chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS ATALANTE/ENGOT-ov29 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02891824), a placebo-controlled double-blinded randomized phase III trial, enrolled patients with recurrent epithelial OC, one to two previous chemotherapy lines, and PFI >6 months. Eligible patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to atezolizumab (1,200 mg once every 3 weeks or equivalent) or placebo for up to 24 months, combined with bevacizumab and six cycles of chemotherapy doublet, stratified by PFI, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen. Coprimary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1–positive populations (alpha .025 for each population). RESULTS Between September 2016 and October 2019, 614 patients were randomly assigned: 410 to atezolizumab and 204 to placebo. Only 38% had PD-L1–positive tumors. After 3 years' median follow-up, the PFS difference between atezolizumab and placebo did not reach statistical significance in the ITT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99; P = .041; median 13.5 v 11.3 months, respectively) or PD-L1–positive (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.16; P = .30; median 15.2 v 13.1 months, respectively) populations. The immature overall survival (OS) HR was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.01; median 35.5 v 30.6 months with atezolizumab v placebo, respectively). Global health-related quality of life did not differ between treatment arms. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 88% of atezolizumab-treated and 87% of placebo-treated patients; grade ≥3 AEs typical of immunotherapy were more common with atezolizumab (13% v 8%, respectively). CONCLUSION ATALANTE/ENGOT-ov29 did not meet its coprimary PFS objectives in the ITT or PD-L1–positive populations. OS follow-up continues. Further research on biopsy samples is warranted to decipher the immunologic landscape of late-relapsing OC

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer – Update 2023

Cervical cancer; Pathology; RadiationCàncer de coll uterí; Patologia; RadiacióCáncer de cuello uterino; Patología; RadiaciónIn 2018, the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Given the large body of new evidence addressing the management of cervical cancer, the three sister societies jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines. The update includes new topics to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in cervical cancer.To serve on the expert panel (27 experts across Europe) ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in managing patients with cervical cancer and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, national and international engagement, profile, and dedication to the topics addressed. To ensure the statements were evidence based, new data identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 155 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives.These updated guidelines are comprehensive and cover staging, management, follow-up, long-term survivorship, quality of life and palliative care. Management includes fertility sparing treatment, early and locally advanced cervical cancer, invasive cervical cancer diagnosed on a simple hysterectomy specimen, cervical cancer in pregnancy, rare tumors, recurrent and metastatic diseases. The management algorithms and the principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.All costs relating to the development process were covered from ESGO and ESP funds

Olaparib maintenance monotherapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer patients without a germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation: OPINION primary analysis

Maintenance; Olaparib; Ovarian cancerManteniment; Olaparib; Càncer d'ovarisMantenimiento; Olaparib; Cáncer de ovariosObjective The phase IIIb OPINION trial (NCT03402841) investigated olaparib maintenance monotherapy in patients without a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm) who had platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) and had received ≥2 previous lines of platinum-based chemotherapy. Methods In this single-arm, open-label, international study, patients who had responded to platinum-based chemotherapy received maintenance olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) (modified RECIST version 1.1). A key secondary endpoint was PFS by homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and somatic BRCAm (sBRCAm) status. The primary analysis of PFS was planned for 18 months after the last patient received their first dose. Results Two hundred and seventy-nine patients were enrolled and received olaparib. At data cutoff (October 2, 2020), 210 PFS events had occurred (75.3% maturity) and median PFS was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.6–10.9) in the overall population. At 12 and 18 months, 38.5% and 24.3% of patients were progression-free, respectively. In the predefined biomarker subgroups, median PFS was 16.4, 11.1, 9.7, and 7.3 months in sBRCAm, HRD-positive including sBRCAm, HRD-positive excluding sBRCAm, and HRD-negative patients, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were nausea (48.4%) and fatigue/asthenia (44.1%). TEAEs led to dose interruption, dose reduction, and treatment discontinuation in 47.0%, 22.6%, and 7.5% of patients, respectively. Conclusion Maintenance olaparib demonstrated clinical benefit in patients without a gBRCAm, and across all subgroups, compared with historical placebo controls. There were no new safety signals.This study was funded by AstraZeneca and is part of an alliance between AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA

Determining post-operative morbidity and mortality following gynecological oncology surgery : protocol for a multicenter, international, prospective cohort study (Global Gynaecological Oncology Surgical Outcomes Collaborative—GO SOAR)

Funding: The NHS Grampian Endowment Fund; Medtronic; Karl Storz.Peer reviewedPostprintsupplementary_dat

DNA methylation at quantitative trait loci (mQTLs) varies with cell type and nonheritable factors and may improve breast cancer risk assessment

To individualise breast cancer (BC) prevention, markers to follow a person’s changing environment and health extending beyond static genetic risk scores are required. Here, we analysed cervical and breast DNA methylation (n = 1848) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (n = 1442) and demonstrate that a linear combination of methylation levels at 104 BC-associated methylation quantitative trait loci (mQTL) CpGs, termed the WID™-qtBC index, can identify women with breast cancer in hormone-sensitive tissues (AUC = 0.71 [95% CI: 0.65–0.77] in cervical samples). Women in the highest combined risk group (high polygenic risk score and WID™-qtBC) had a 9.6-fold increased risk for BC [95% CI: 4.7–21] compared to the low-risk group and tended to present at more advanced stages. Importantly, the WID™-qtBC is influenced by non-genetic BC risk factors, including age and body mass index, and can be modified by a preventive pharmacological intervention, indicating an interaction between genome and environment recorded at the level of the epigenome. Our findings indicate that methylation levels at mQTLs in relevant surrogate tissues could enable integration of heritable and non-heritable factors for improved disease risk stratification

International expert consensus on the surgical anatomic classification of radical hysterectomies

Background: The anatomic descriptions and extents of radical hysterectomy often vary across the literature and operative reports worldwide. The same nomenclature is often used to describe varying procedures, and different nomenclature is often used to describe the same procedure despite the availability of guideline and classification systems. This makes it difficult to interpret retrospective surgical reports, analyze surgical databases, understand technique descriptions, and interpret the findings of surgical studies. Objective: In collaboration with international experts in gynecologic oncology, the purpose of this study was to establish a consensus in defining and interpreting the 2017 updated Querleu-Morrow classification of radical hysterectomies. Study design: The anatomic templates of type A, B, and C radical hysterectomy were documented through a set of 13 images taken at the time of cadaver dissection. An online survey related to radical hysterectomy nomenclature and definitions or descriptions of the associated procedures was circulated among international experts in radical hysterectomy. A 3-step modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. Image legends were amended according to the experts' responses and then redistributed as part of a second round of the survey. Consensus was defined by a yes response to a question concerning a specific image. Anyone who responded no to a question was welcome to comment and provide justification. A final set of images and legends were compiled to anatomically illustrate and define or describe a lateral, ventral, and dorsal excision of the tissues surrounding the cervix. Results: In total, there were 13 questions to review, and 29 experts completed the whole process. Final consensus exceeded 90% for all questions except 1 (86%). Questions with relatively lower consensus rates concerned the definitions of types A and B2 radical hysterectomy, which were the main innovations of the 2017 updated version of the 2008 Querleu-Morrow classification. Questions with the highest consensus rates concerned the definitions of types B1 and C, which are the most frequently performed radical hysterectomies. Conclusion: The 2017 version of the Querleu-Morrow classification proved to be a robust tool for defining and describing the extent of radical hysterectomies with a high level of consensus among international experts in gynecologic oncology. Knowledge and implementation of the exact definitions of hysterectomy radicality are imperative in clinical practice and clinical research

What do European women know about their female cancer risks and cancer screening? A cross-sectional online intervention survey in five European countries.

OBJECTIVES: Informed decisions about cancer screening require accurate knowledge regarding cancer risks and screening. This study investigates: (1) European women's knowledge of their risk of developing breast, ovarian, cervical or endometrial cancer, (2) their knowledge about mammography screening and (3) whether an evidence-based leaflet improves their knowledge. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online intervention survey. SETTING: National samples from five European countries (Czech Republic, Germany, UK, Italy and Sweden)-drawn from the Harris Interactive and the Toluna panel, respectively, in January 2017-were queried on their knowledge of age-specific risks of developing breast, cervical, ovarian or endometrial cancer within the next 10 years and of mammography screening before and after intervention. PARTICIPANTS: Of 3629 women (inclusion criteria: age 40-75 years) invited, 2092 responded and 1675 completed the survey (response rate: 61.4%). INTERVENTION: Evidence-based leaflet summarising information on age-adjusted female cancer risks, mammography and aspects of cancer prevention. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of women (1) accurately estimating their risk of four female cancers, (2) holding correct assumptions of mammography screening and (3) changing their estimations and assumptions after exposure to leaflet. FINDINGS: Across countries, 59.2% (95% CI 56.8% to 61.6%) to 91.8% (95% CI 90.3% to 93.0%) overestimated their female cancer risks 7-33 fold (mediansacross tumours: 50.0 to 200.0). 26.5% (95% CI 24.4% to 28.7%) were aware that mammography screening has both benefits and harms. Women who accurately estimated their breast cancer risk were less likely to believe that mammography prevents cancer (p<0.001). After leaflet intervention, knowledge of cancer risks improved by 27.0 (95% CI 24.9 to 29.2) to 37.1 (95% CI 34.8 to 39.4) percentage points and of mammography by 23.0 (95% CI 21.0 to 25.1) percentage points. CONCLUSION: A considerable number of women in five European countries may not possess the prerequisites for an informed choice on cancer screening. Evidence-based information in patient leaflets can improve this situation