Wanna Get Away? Maintenance Treatments and Chemotherapy Holidays in Gynecologic Cancers.

Epithelial ovarian cancer has a very high rate of relapse after primary therapy; historically approximately 70% of patients with a complete clinical response to surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy will relapse and die of the disease. Although this number has slowly improved, cure rates remain less than 50%. As such, maintenance therapy with the aim of preventing or delaying disease relapse and the goal of improving overall survival has been the subject of intense study. Numerous earlier studies with agents ranging from radioactive phosphorus to extended frontline therapy or to monthly taxol administration demonstrated encouraging improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) only to find, disappointingly, no benefit in overall survival. In addition, the PFS advantage of maintenance therapy was associated with disconcerting side effects such that maintenance therapy was not adapted as standard of care. Studies with bevacizumab and PARP inhibitors have demonstrated a PFS advantage with a manageable side-effect profile. However, an overall survival advantage remains unclear, and the use of these approaches thus remains controversial. Furthermore, in recurrent disease, the length of chemotherapy and benefits of extended chemotherapy is unclear. Thus, additional trials assessing maintenance strategies in ovarian and other gynecologic malignancies are needed

Development of the measure of ovarian symptoms and treatment concerns: aiming for optimal measurement of patient-reported symptom benefit with chemotherapy for symptomatic ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the optimal patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for assessing symptom benefit in trials of palliative chemotherapy for women with symptomatic ovarian cancer. METHODS: Candidate PROMs were EORTC QLQ-C30 plus ovarian-specific QLQ-OV28, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian (FACT-O), FACT Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI), and gynecologic cancer-specific Symptom Representation Questionnaire. Predefined optimality criteria were inclusion of all symptoms necessary for the specified purpose, recall period covering typical length of palliative chemotherapy, numerical item rating scales, and all necessary symptoms included in a single symptom index. Qualitative and quantitative methods were applied to data from stage 1 of the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup Symptom Benefit Study to determine the set of necessary symptoms and to objectively assess candidate PROMs against the optimality criteria. RESULTS: Ten necessary symptoms were identified: pain, fatigue, abdominal bloating/discomfort, sleep disturbance, bowel disturbance, nausea and vomiting, shortness of breath, poor appetite, urinary symptoms, and weight changes. Although QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OV28 together cover all these symptoms, they split them into numerous scales, dissipating potential symptom-benefit signal. Conversely, FACT-O does not cover all necessary symptoms and contains many other HRQoL-related items and treatment side effects, diluting potential symptom-benefit signal when summed into scales. Item response scales and composite scoring of all candidate PROMs were suboptimal to our specific purpose. We therefore developed a new PROM, the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment (MOST) concerns, to provide optimal measurement for the specified purpose. CONCLUSIONS: This article documents the development of the MOST, a new PROM designed to assess patient-reported benefits and burden as end points in clinical trials of palliative chemotherapy for women with symptomatic ovarian cancer. The validity, reliability, and statistical efficiency of the MOST, relative to the best candidate scales of existing PROMs, will be assessed in the stage 2 of Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup Symptom Benefit Study

Endometrial Carcinoma: A Review of Chemotherapy, Drug Resistance, and the Search for New Agents

The article examines current treatment options in patients with endometrial carcinoma, the role of drug resistance, and the rationale for the use of epothilones in treating this disease

Chemotherapy with or without avelumab followed by avelumab maintenance versus chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated epithelial ovarian cancer (JAVELIN Ovarian 100): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Although most patients with epithelial ovarian cancer respond to frontline platinum-based chemotherapy, around 70% will relapse within 3 years. The phase 3 JAVELIN Ovarian 100 trial compared avelumab (anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) in combination with chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance, or chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance, versus chemotherapy alone in patients with treatment-naive epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: JAVELIN Ovarian 100 was a global, open-label, three-arm, parallel, randomised, phase 3 trial run at 159 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 25 countries. Eligible women were aged 18 years and older with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (following debulking surgery, or candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive chemotherapy (six cycles; carboplatin dosed at an area under the serum-concentration-time curve of 5 or 6 intravenously every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or 80 mg/m2 once a week [investigators' choice]) followed by avelumab maintenance (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks; avelumab maintenance group); chemotherapy plus avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks) followed by avelumab maintenance (avelumab combination group); or chemotherapy followed by observation (control group). Randomisation was in permuted blocks of size six and stratified by paclitaxel regimen and resection status. Patients and investigators were masked to assignment to the two chemotherapy groups without avelumab at the time of randomisation until completion of the chemotherapy phase. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review in all randomly assigned patients (analysed by intention to treat). Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02718417. The trial was fully enrolled and terminated at interim analysis due to futility, and efficacy is no longer being assessed. FINDINGS: Between May 19, 2016 and Jan 23, 2018, 998 patients were randomly assigned (avelumab maintenance n=332, avelumab combination n=331, and control n=335). At the planned interim analysis (data cutoff Sept 7, 2018), prespecified futility boundaries were crossed for the progression-free survival analysis, and the trial was stopped as recommended by the independent data monitoring committee and endorsed by the protocol steering committee. Median follow-up for progression-free survival for all patients was 10·8 months (IQR 7·1-14·9); 11·1 months (7·0-15·3) for the avelumab maintenance group, 11·0 months (7·4-14·5) for the avelumab combination group, and 10·2 months (6·7-14·0) for the control group. Median progression-free survival was 16·8 months (95% CI 13·5-not estimable [NE]) with avelumab maintenance, 18·1 months (14·8-NE) with avelumab combination treatment, and NE (18·2 months-NE) with control treatment. The stratified hazard ratio for progression-free survival was 1·43 (95% CI 1·05-1·95; one-sided p=0·99) with the avelumab maintenance regimen and 1·14 (0·83-1·56; one-sided p=0·79) with the avelumab combination regimen, versus control treatment. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were anaemia (69 [21%] patients in the avelumab maintenance group, 63 [19%] in the avelumab combination group, and 53 [16%] in the control group), neutropenia (91 [28%], 99 [30%], and 88 [26%]), and neutrophil count decrease (49 [15%], 45 [14%], and 59 [18%]). Serious adverse events of any grade occurred in 92 (28%) patients in the avelumab maintenance group, 118 (36%) in the avelumab combination group, and 64 (19%) in the control group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in one (<1%) patient in the avelumab maintenance group (due to atrial fibrillation) and one (<1%) patient in the avelumab combination group (due to disease progression). INTERPRETATION: Although no new safety signals were observed, results do not support the use of avelumab in the frontline treatment setting. Alternative treatment regimens are needed to improve outcomes in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany

Prognostic nomogram for progression-free survival in patients with BRCA mutations and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer on maintenance olaparib therapy following response to chemotherapy

Background: The impact of maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors (PARPi) on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with BRCA mutations and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) varies widely. Individual prognostic factors do not reliably distinguish patients who progress early from those who have durable benefit. We developed and validated a prognostic nomogram to predict PFS in these patients. / Methods: The nomogram was developed using data from a training patient cohort with BRCA mutations and high-grade serous PSROC on the placebo arm of two maintenance therapy trials, Study 19 and SOLO2/ENGOT-ov21. We performed multivariable Cox regression analysis based on pre-treatment characteristics to develop a nomogram that predicts PFS. We assessed the discrimination and validation of the nomogram in independent validation patient cohorts treated with maintenance olaparib. / Results: The nomogram includes four PFS predictors: CA-125 at randomisation, platinum-free interval, presence of measurable disease and number of prior lines of platinum therapy. In the training (placebo) cohort (internal validation C-index 0.64), median PFS in the model-predicted good, intermediate and poor-risk groups was: 7.7 (95% CI 5.3–11.3), 5.4 (4.8–5.8) and 2.9 (2.8–4.4) months, respectively. In the validation (olaparib) cohort (C-index 0.71), median PFS in the model-predicted good, intermediate and poor-risk groups was: not reached, 16.6 (13.1–22.4) and 8.3 (7.1–10.8) months, respectively. The nomogram showed good calibration in the validation cohort (calibration plot). / Conclusions: This nomogram can be used to predict PFS and counsel patients with BRCA mutations and PSROC prior to maintenance olaparib and for stratification of patients in trials of maintenance therapies

Avelumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer (JAVELIN Ovarian 200): an open-label, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND: Most patients with ovarian cancer will relapse after receiving frontline platinum-based chemotherapy and eventually develop platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory disease. We report results of avelumab alone or avelumab plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) compared with PLD alone in patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. METHODS: JAVELIN Ovarian 200 was an open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 trial, done at 149 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 24 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (maximum of three previous lines for platinum-sensitive disease, none for platinum-resistant disease) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks), avelumab plus PLD (40 mg/m2 intravenously every 4 weeks), or PLD and stratified by disease platinum status, number of previous anticancer regimens, and bulky disease. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival by blinded independent central review and overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, with the objective to show whether avelumab alone or avelumab plus PLD is superior to PLD. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02580058. The trial is no longer enrolling patients and this is the final analysis of both primary endpoints. FINDINGS: Between Jan 5, 2016, and May 16, 2017, 566 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (combination n=188; PLD n=190, avelumab n=188). At data cutoff (Sept 19, 2018), median duration of follow-up for overall survival was 18·4 months (IQR 15·6-21·9) for the combination group, 17·4 months (15·2-21·3) for the PLD group, and 18·2 months (15·8-21·2) for the avelumab group. Median progression-free survival by blinded independent central review was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·3-5·1) in the combination group, 3·5 months (2·1-4·0) in the PLD group, and 1·9 months (1·8-1·9) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·78 [repeated 93·1% CI 0·59-1·24], one-sided p=0·030; avelumab vs PLD: 1·68 [1·32-2·60], one-sided p>0·99). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 12·7-18·7) in the combination group, 13·1 months (11·8-15·5) in the PLD group, and 11·8 months (8·9-14·1) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·89 [repeated 88·85% CI 0·74-1·24], one-sided p=0·21; avelumab vs PLD: 1·14 [0·95-1·58], one-sided p=0·83]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (18 [10%] in the combination group vs nine [5%] in the PLD group vs none in the avelumab group), rash (11 [6%] vs three [2%] vs none), fatigue (ten [5%] vs three [2%] vs none), stomatitis (ten [5%] vs five [3%] vs none), anaemia (six [3%] vs nine [5%] vs three [2%]), neutropenia (nine [5%] vs nine [5%] vs none), and neutrophil count decreased (eight [5%] vs seven [4%] vs none). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32 (18%) patients in the combination group, 19 (11%) in the PLD group, and 14 (7%) in the avelumab group. Treatment-related adverse events resulted in death in one patient each in the PLD group (sepsis) and avelumab group (intestinal obstruction). INTERPRETATION: Neither avelumab plus PLD nor avelumab alone significantly improved progression-free survival or overall survival versus PLD. These results provide insights for patient selection in future studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany

Rucaparib for patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL3): post-progression outcomes and updated safety results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo. Here, we report prespecified, investigator-assessed, exploratory post-progression endpoints and updated safety data. METHODS: In this ongoing (enrolment complete) randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and responded to their last platinum-based regimen were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or placebo in 28-day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six with stratification based on homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval following penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival has been previously reported. Prespecified, exploratory outcomes of chemotherapy-free interval (CFI), time to start of first subsequent therapy (TFST), time to disease progression on subsequent therapy or death (PFS2), and time to start of second subsequent therapy (TSST) and updated safety were analysed (visit cutoff Dec 31, 2017). Efficacy analyses were done in all patients randomised to three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations, patients with homologous recombination deficiencies, and the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01968213. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, 564 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to rucaparib (n=375) or placebo (n=189). Median follow-up was 28·1 months (IQR 22·0-33·6). In the intention-to-treat population, median CFI was 14·3 months (95% CI 13·0-17·4) in the rucaparib group versus 8·8 months (8·0-10·3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·43 [95% CI 0·35-0·53]; p<0·0001), median TFST was 12·4 months (11·1-15·2) versus 7·2 months (6·4-8·6; HR 0·43 [0·35-0·52]; p<0·0001), median PFS2 was 21·0 months (18·9-23·6) versus 16·5 months (15·2-18·4; HR 0·66 [0·53-0·82]; p=0·0002), and median TSST was 22·4 months (19·1-24·5) versus 17·3 months (14·9-19·4; HR 0·68 [0·54-0·85]; p=0·0007). CFI, TFST, PFS2, and TSST were also significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination-deficient cohorts. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event of grade 3 or higher was anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (80 [22%] patients in the rucaparib group vs one [1%] patient in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 83 (22%) patients in the rucaparib group and 20 (11%) patients in the placebo group. Two treatment-related deaths have been previously reported in this trial; there were no new treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: In these exploratory analyses over a median follow-up of more than 2 years, rucaparib maintenance treatment led to a clinically meaningful delay in starting subsequent therapy and provided lasting clinical benefits versus placebo in all three analysis cohorts. Updated safety data were consistent with previous reports. FUNDING: Clovis Oncology

Future possibilities in the prevention of breast cancer: Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists

The cyclic production of estrogen and progesterone by the premenopausal ovary accounts for the steep rise in breast cancer risk in premenopausal women. These hormones are breast cell mitogens. By reducing exposure to these ovarian hormones, agonists of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) given to suppress ovarian function may prove useful in cancer prevention. To prevent deleterious effects of hypoestrogenemia, the addition of low-dose hormone replacement to the LHRH agonist appears necessary. Pilot data with such an approach indicates it is feasible and reduces mammographic densities