Hereditary predisposition to ovarian cancer, looking beyond BRCA1/BRCA2

AbstractObjectiveGenetic predisposition to ovarian cancer is well documented. With the advent of next generation sequencing, hereditary panel testing provides an efficient method for evaluating multiple genes simultaneously. Therefore, we sought to investigate the contribution of 19 genes identified in the literature as increasing the risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in a BRCA1 and BRCA2 negative population of patients with a personal history of breast and/or ovarian cancer by means of a hereditary cancer panel.MethodsSubjects were referred for multi-gene panel testing between February 2012 and March 2014. Clinical data was ascertained from requisition forms. The incidence of pathogenic mutations (including likely pathogenic), and variant of unknown significance were then calculated for each gene and/or patient cohort.ResultsIn this cohort of 911 subjects, panel testing identified 67 mutations. With 7.4% of subjects harboring a mutation on this multi-gene panel, the diagnostic yield was increased, compared to testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations alone. In the ovarian cancer probands, the most frequently mutated genes were BRIP1 (n=8; 1.72%) and MSH6 (n=6; 1.29%). In the breast cancer probands, mutations were most commonly observed in CHEK2 (n=9; 2.54%), ATM (n=3; 0.85%), and TP53 (n=3; 0.85%).ConclusionsAlthough further studies are needed to clarify the exact management of patients with a mutation in each gene, this study highlights information that can be captured with panel testing and provides support for incorporation of panel testing into clinical practice

Cervical cancer – State of the science: From angiogenesis blockade to checkpoint inhibition

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has emerged as a therapeutic target in several malignancies, including cervical cancer. Chemotherapy doublets combined with the fully humanized monoclonal antibody, bevacizumab, now constitute first-line therapy for women struggling with recurrent/metastatic cervical carcinoma. Regulatory approval for this indication was based on the phase III randomized trial, GOG 240, which demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival when bevacizumab was added to chemotherapy: 17.0 vs 13.3 months; HR 0.71; 98% CI, 0.54-0.95; p = .004. Incorporation of bevacizumab resulted in significant improvements in progression-free survival and response. These benefits were not accompanied by deterioration in quality of life. GOG 240 identified vaginal fistula as a new adverse event associated with bevacizumab use. All fistulas occurred in women who had received prior pelvic radiotherapy, and none resulted in emergency surgery, sepsis, or death. Final protocol-specified analysis demonstrated continued separation of the survival curves favoring VEGF inhibition: 16.8 vs 13.3 months; HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-9.95; p = .007. Post-progression survival was not significantly different between the arms in GOG 240. Moving forward, immunotherapy has now entered the clinical trial arena to address the high unmet clinical need for effective and tolerable second line therapies in this patient population. Targeting the programmed cell death 1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) pathway using checkpoint inhibitors to break immunologic tolerance is promising. The immunologic landscape involving human papillomavirus-positive head and neck carcinoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma can be informative when considering feasibility of checkpoint blockade in advanced cervical cancer. Phase II studies using anti-PD-1 molecules, nivolumab and pembrolizumab are ongoing, and GOG 3016, the first phase III randomized trial of a checkpoint inhibitor (cemiplimab) in cervical cancer, recently activated. Important considerations in attempts to inhibit the inhibitors include pseudoprogression and post-progression survival, abscopal effects, and immune-related adverse events, including endocrinopathies

The safety and efficacy of bevacizumab in the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.

IntroductionBevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). (Avastin; Genetech, Inc, San Francisco, CA) Angiogenesis is blocked by the binding of bevacizumab to VEGF, inhibiting the binding of this ligand to the VEGF receptor. On 14 August 2014 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved use of bevacizumab in persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. Areas covered: Herein we review pharmacodynamics and kinetics, clinical data and treatment-related toxicities of bevacizumab in the treatment of metastatic, recurrent or persistent cervical cancer. Additionally, future areas of development are reviewed. Expert commentary: Anti-angiogenesis therapy with bevacizumab is central to metastatic, persistent, and recurrent cervical cancer treatment. Additional anti-angiogenesis drugs are in development. Future studies will need to establish if the addition of multiple anti-angiogenesis agents or anti-angiogenesis in combination with immunotherapy is more effective than bevacizumab with chemotherapy

The safety and efficacy of bevacizumab in the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer

IntroductionBevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). (Avastin; Genetech, Inc, San Francisco, CA) Angiogenesis is blocked by the binding of bevacizumab to VEGF, inhibiting the binding of this ligand to the VEGF receptor. On 14 August 2014 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved use of bevacizumab in persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. Areas covered: Herein we review pharmacodynamics and kinetics, clinical data and treatment-related toxicities of bevacizumab in the treatment of metastatic, recurrent or persistent cervical cancer. Additionally, future areas of development are reviewed. Expert commentary: Anti-angiogenesis therapy with bevacizumab is central to metastatic, persistent, and recurrent cervical cancer treatment. Additional anti-angiogenesis drugs are in development. Future studies will need to establish if the addition of multiple anti-angiogenesis agents or anti-angiogenesis in combination with immunotherapy is more effective than bevacizumab with chemotherapy

A Markov model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of antiangiogenesis therapy using bevacizumab in advanced cervical cancer.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab in recurrent/persistent and metastatic cervical cancer using recently reported updated survival and toxicology data.MethodsA Markov decision tree based on the Gynecologic Oncology Group 240 randomized trial was created. The 2013 MediCare Services Drug Payment Table and Physician Fee Schedule provided costs. In the 5-year model subjects transitioned through the following states: response, progression, minor complications, severe complications, and death. Patients experiencing a health utility per month according to treatment effectiveness were calculated. Because cervical cancer survival is measured in months rather than years, results were reported in both quality adjusted cervical cancer life months and years (QALmonth, QALY), adjusted from a baseline of having advanced cervical cancer during a month.ResultsThe estimated total cost of therapy with bevacizumab is approximately 13.2 times that for chemotherapy alone, adding $73,791 per 3.5months (0.29year) of life gained, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of$21.083 per month of added life. The ICER increased to $5775 per month of added life and$24,597/QALmonth ($295,164/QALY) due to the smaller difference in QALmonths. With 75$6737/QALmonth ($80,844/QALY), which translates to$23,580 for the 3.5month (0.29year) gain in OS.ConclusionsIncreased costs are primarily related to the cost of drug and not the management of bevacizumab-induced complications. Cost reductions in bevacizumab result in dramatic declines in the ICER, suggesting that cost reconciliation in advanced cervical cancer may be possible through the availability of biosimilars, and/or less expensive, equally efficacious anti-angiogenesis agents