HER2 gene amplification and EGFR expression in a large cohort of surgically staged patients with nonendometrioid (type II) endometrial cancer

Type II endometrial cancers (uterine serous papillary and clear cell histologies) represent rare but highly aggressive variants of endometrial cancer (EC). HER2 and EGFR may be differentially expressed in type II EC. Here, we evaluate the clinical role of HER2 and EGFR in a large cohort of surgically staged patients with type II (nonendometrioid) EC and compare the findings with those seen in a representative cohort of type I (endometrioid) EC. In this study HER2 gene amplification was studied by fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) and EGFR expression by immunohistochemistry. Tissue microarrays were constructed from 279 patients with EC (145 patients with type I and 134 patients with type II EC). All patients were completely surgically staged and long-term clinical follow up was available for 258 patients. The rate of HER2 gene amplification was significantly higher in type II EC compared with type I EC (17 vs 1%, P<0.001). HER2 gene amplification was detected in 17 and 16% of the cases with uterine serous papillary and clear cell type histology, respectively. In contrast, EGFR expression was significantly lower in type II compared with type I EC (34 vs 46%, P=0.041). EGFR expression but not HER2 gene amplification was significantly associated with poor overall survival in patients with type II EC, (EGFR, median survival 20 vs 33 months, P=0.028; HER2, median survival 18 vs 29 months, P=0.113) and EGFR expression retained prognostic independence when adjusting for histology, stage, grade, and age (EGFR, P=0.0197; HER2, P=0.7855). We conclude that assessment of HER2 gene amplification and/or EGFR expression may help to select type II EC patients who could benefit from therapeutic strategies targeting both HER2 and EGFR

Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma after response to platinum therapy (ARIEL3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Rucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, has anticancer activity in recurrent ovarian carcinoma harbouring a BRCA mutation or high percentage of genome-wide loss of heterozygosity. In this trial we assessed rucaparib versus placebo after response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with high-grade, recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma. Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 87 hospitals and cancer centres across 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma, had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, had achieved complete or partial response to their last platinum-based regimen, had a cancer antigen 125 concentration of less than the upper limit of normal, had a performance status of 0–1, and had adequate organ function. Patients were ineligible if they had symptomatic or untreated central nervous system metastases, had received anticancer therapy 14 days or fewer before starting the study, or had received previous treatment with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. We randomly allocated patients 2:1 to receive oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo in 28 day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six, stratified by homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval after the penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to the most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival evaluated with use of an ordered step-down procedure for three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations (carcinoma associated with deleterious germline or somatic BRCA mutations), patients with homologous recombination deficiencies (BRCA mutant or BRCA wild-type and high loss of heterozygosity), and the intention-to-treat population, assessed at screening and every 12 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01968213; enrolment is complete. Findings: Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, we randomly allocated 564 patients: 375 (66%) to rucaparib and 189 (34%) to placebo. Median progression-free survival in patients with a BRCA-mutant carcinoma was 16·6 months (95% CI 13·4–22·9; 130 [35%] patients) in the rucaparib group versus 5·4 months (3·4–6·7; 66 [35%] patients) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·23 [95% CI 0·16–0·34]; p&lt;0·0001). In patients with a homologous recombination deficient carcinoma (236 [63%] vs 118 [62%]), it was 13·6 months (10·9–16·2) versus 5·4 months (5·1–5·6; 0·32 [0·24–0·42]; p&lt;0·0001). In the intention-to-treat population, it was 10·8 months (8·3–11·4) versus 5·4 months (5·3–5·5; 0·36 [0·30–0·45]; p&lt;0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in the safety population (372 [99%] patients in the rucaparib group vs 189 [100%] in the placebo group) were reported in 209 (56%) patients in the rucaparib group versus 28 (15%) in the placebo group, the most common of which were anaemia or decreased haemoglobin concentration (70 [19%] vs one [1%]) and increased alanine or aspartate aminotransferase concentration (39 [10%] vs none). Interpretation: Across all primary analysis groups, rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer who had achieved a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. ARIEL3 provides further evidence that use of a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the maintenance treatment setting versus placebo could be considered a new standard of care for women with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer following a complete or partial response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy. Funding: Clovis Oncology

Trametinib versus standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer (GOG 281/LOGS): an international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial

BACKGROUND: Low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum is characterised by MAPK pathway aberrations and its reduced sensitivity to chemotherapy relative to high-grade serous carcinoma. We compared the MEK inhibitor trametinib to physician's choice standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma. METHODS: This international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial was done at 84 hospitals in the USA and UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma and measurable disease, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, had received at least one platinum-based regimen, but not all five standard-of-care drugs, and had received an unlimited number of previous regimens. Patients with serous borderline tumours or tumours containing low-grade serous and high-grade serous carcinoma were excluded. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral trametinib 2 mg once daily (trametinib group) or one of five standard-of-care treatment options (standard-of-care group): intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; intravenous pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 40-50 mg/m2 by body surface area once every 4 weeks; intravenous topotecan 4 mg/m2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; oral letrozole 2·5 mg once daily; or oral tamoxifen 20 mg twice daily. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region (USA or UK), number of previous regimens (1, 2, or ≥3), performance status (0 or 1), and planned standard-of-care regimen. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival while receiving randomised therapy, as assessed by imaging at baseline, once every 8 weeks for 15 months, and then once every 3 months thereafter, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02101788, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Feb 27, 2014, and April 10, 2018, 260 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the trametinib group (n=130) or the standard-of-care group (n=130). At the primary analysis, there were 217 progression-free survival events (101 [78%] in the trametinib group and 116 [89%] in the standard-of-care group). Median progression-free survival in the trametinib group was 13·0 months (95% CI 9·9-15·0) compared with 7·2 months (5·6-9·9) in the standard-of-care group (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·36-0·64]; p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the trametinib group were skin rash (17 [13%] of 128), anaemia (16 [13%]), hypertension (15 [12%]), diarrhoea (13 [10%]), nausea (12 [9%]), and fatigue (ten [8%]). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the standard-of-care group were abdominal pain (22 [17%]), nausea (14 [11%]), anaemia (12 [10%]), and vomiting (ten [8%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Trametinib represents a new standard-of-care option for patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma. FUNDING: NRG Oncology, Cancer Research UK, Target Ovarian Cancer, and Novartis

Trametinib versus standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer (GOG 281/LOGS): a randomised, open-label phase 2/3 trial

BACKGROUND: Low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum is characterised by MAPK pathway aberrations and its reduced sensitivity to chemotherapy relative to high-grade serous carcinoma. We compared the MEK inhibitor trametinib to physician's choice standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma. METHODS: This international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial was done at 84 hospitals in the USA and UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma and measurable disease, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, had received at least one platinum-based regimen, but not all five standard-of-care drugs, and had received an unlimited number of previous regimens. Patients with serous borderline tumours or tumours containing low-grade serous and high-grade serous carcinoma were excluded. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral trametinib 2 mg once daily (trametinib group) or one of five standard-of-care treatment options (standard-of-care group): intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; intravenous pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 40–50 mg/m(2) by body surface area once every 4 weeks; intravenous topotecan 4 mg/m(2) by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; oral letrozole 2·5 mg once daily; or oral tamoxifen 20 mg twice daily. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region (USA or UK), number of previous regimens (1, 2, or ≥3), performance status (0 or 1), and planned standard-of-care regimen. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival while receiving randomised therapy, as assessed by imaging at baseline, once every 8 weeks for 15 months, and then once every 3 months thereafter, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02101788, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Feb 27, 2014, and April 10, 2018, 260 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the trametinib group (n=130) or the standard-of-care group (n=130). At the primary analysis, there were 217 progression-free survival events (101 [78%] in the trametinib group and 116 [89%] in the standard-of-care group). Median progression-free survival in the trametinib group was 13·0 months (95% CI 9·9–15·0) compared with 7·2 months (5·6–9·9) in the standard-of-care group (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·36–0·64]; p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the trametinib group were skin rash (17 [13%] of 128), anaemia (16 [13%]), hypertension (15 [12%]), diarrhoea (13 [10%]), nausea (12 [9%]), and fatigue (ten [8%]). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the standard-of-care group were abdominal pain (22 [17%]), nausea (14 [11%]), anaemia (12 [10%]), and vomiting (ten [8%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Trametinib represents a new standard-of-care option for patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma. FUNDING: NRG Oncology, Cancer Research UK, Target Ovarian Cancer, and Novartis

Drivers and barriers to acceptance of human-papillomavirus vaccination among young women: a qualitative and quantitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a necessary cause of cervical dysplasia and cancer, and of genital warts. Few studies have examined attitudes to HPV vaccination since the introduction of HPV vaccines. We aimed to investigate the reasons for young women's acceptance or rejection of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine after its general availability in Denmark.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>A literature review assessed attitudes towards HPV vaccination and the information was used to identify relevant questions for telephone and focus group interviews with women aged 16-26 who had decided to receive or reject HPV vaccination. 435 women across Denmark were interviewed by telephone. Qualitative interviews were undertaken in focus groups with 33 women living in Odense who had completed the telephone survey. Four focus groups were set up according to age (16-20 and 21-26 years of age) and acceptance/rejection of the vaccine.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 839 women initially contacted by telephone, 794 were included, 411 (49%) said they accepted vaccination but only 201 (24%) had actually received the vaccine and these latter were interviewed. 242 women said they refused vaccination of which 234 were interviewed. Women who were undecided were excluded from the study. Prevention of cervical cancer was the main driver for acceptance of the vaccine, followed by parental encouragement and financial support, personal experience of someone with cancer and recommendation by health-care professionals. The greatest barrier to vaccination was its cost. A lack of information about the benefits of vaccination for sexually active women was also an important barrier and the older participants in particular considered that they were too old to be vaccinated. Knowledge about HPV and its role in the development of cervical cancer and genital warts was poor.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The difference between intention to be vaccinated and starting vaccination was considerable, and a large proportion of women aged 16-26 did not wish to be vaccinated. If the most important barriers to vaccination were addressed (cost and a lack of information about vaccination benefits), it is likely that the uptake of vaccination in Denmark would increase substantially.</p

Radiotherapy Versus Inguinofemoral Lymphadenectomy as Treatment for Vulvar Cancer Patients With Micrometastases in the Sentinel Node: Results of GROINSS-V II

PURPOSE: The Groningen International Study on Sentinel nodes in Vulvar cancer (GROINSS-V)-II investigated whether inguinofemoral radiotherapy is a safe alternative to inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (IFL) in vulvar cancer patients with a metastatic sentinel node (SN). METHODS: GROINSS-V-II was a prospective multicenter phase-II single-arm treatment trial, including patients with early-stage vulvar cancer (diameter < 4 cm) without signs of lymph node involvement at imaging, who had primary surgical treatment (local excision with SN biopsy). Where the SN was involved (metastasis of any size), inguinofemoral radiotherapy was given (50 Gy). The primary end point was isolated groin recurrence rate at 24 months. Stopping rules were defined for the occurrence of groin recurrences. RESULTS: From December 2005 until October 2016, 1,535 eligible patients were registered. The SN showed metastasis in 322 (21.0%) patients. In June 2010, with 91 SN-positive patients included, the stopping rule was activated because the isolated groin recurrence rate in this group went above our predefined threshold. Among 10 patients with an isolated groin recurrence, nine had SN metastases > 2 mm and/or extracapsular spread. The protocol was amended so that those with SN macrometastases (> 2 mm) underwent standard of care (IFL), whereas patients with SN micrometastases (≤ 2 mm) continued to receive inguinofemoral radiotherapy. Among 160 patients with SN micrometastases, 126 received inguinofemoral radiotherapy, with an ipsilateral isolated groin recurrence rate at 2 years of 1.6%. Among 162 patients with SN macrometastases, the isolated groin recurrence rate at 2 years was 22% in those who underwent radiotherapy, and 6.9% in those who underwent IFL (P = .011). Treatment-related morbidity after radiotherapy was less frequent compared with IFL. CONCLUSION: Inguinofemoral radiotherapy is a safe alternative for IFL in patients with SN micrometastases, with minimal morbidity. For patients with SN macrometastasis, radiotherapy with a total dose of 50 Gy resulted in more isolated groin recurrences compared with IFL

Five endometrial cancer risk loci identified through genome-wide association analysis.

We conducted a meta-analysis of three endometrial cancer genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and two follow-up phases totaling 7,737 endometrial cancer cases and 37,144 controls of European ancestry. Genome-wide imputation and meta-analysis identified five new risk loci of genome-wide significance at likely regulatory regions on chromosomes 13q22.1 (rs11841589, near KLF5), 6q22.31 (rs13328298, in LOC643623 and near HEY2 and NCOA7), 8q24.21 (rs4733613, telomeric to MYC), 15q15.1 (rs937213, in EIF2AK4, near BMF) and 14q32.33 (rs2498796, in AKT1, near SIVA1). We also found a second independent 8q24.21 signal (rs17232730). Functional studies of the 13q22.1 locus showed that rs9600103 (pairwise r(2) = 0.98 with rs11841589) is located in a region of active chromatin that interacts with the KLF5 promoter region. The rs9600103[T] allele that is protective in endometrial cancer suppressed gene expression in vitro, suggesting that regulation of the expression of KLF5, a gene linked to uterine development, is implicated in tumorigenesis. These findings provide enhanced insight into the genetic and biological basis of endometrial cancer.I.T. is supported by Cancer Research UK and the Oxford Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre. T.H.T.C. is supported by the Rhodes Trust and the Nuffield Department of Medicine. Funding for iCOGS infrastructure came from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692 and C8197/A16565), the US National Institutes of Health (R01 CA128978, U19 CA148537, U19 CA148065 and U19 CA148112), the US Department of Defense (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer, the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. SEARCH recruitment was funded by a programme grant from Cancer Research UK (C490/A10124). Stage 1 and stage 2 case genotyping was supported by the NHMRC (552402 and 1031333). Control data were generated by the WTCCC, and a full list of the investigators who contributed to the generation of the data is available from the WTCCC website. We acknowledge use of DNA from the British 1958 Birth Cohort collection, funded by UK Medical Research Council grant G0000934 and Wellcome Trust grant 068545/Z/02; funding for this project was provided by the Wellcome Trust under award 085475. NSECG was supported by the European Union's Framework Programme 7 CHIBCHA grant and Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics Core Grant 090532/Z/09Z, and CORGI was funded by Cancer Research UK. BCAC is funded by Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118 and C1287/A12014). OCAC is supported by a grant from the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund thanks to donations by the family and friends of Kathryn Sladek Smith (PPD/RPCI.07) and the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres at the University of Cambridge.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Nature Publishing Group via http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ng.356

31st Annual Meeting and Associated Programs of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC 2016) : part two

Background The immunological escape of tumors represents one of the main ob- stacles to the treatment of malignancies. The blockade of PD-1 or CTLA-4 receptors represented a milestone in the history of immunotherapy. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to be effective in specific cohorts of patients. It has been proposed that their efficacy relies on the presence of an immunological response. Thus, we hypothesized that disruption of the PD-L1/PD-1 axis would synergize with our oncolytic vaccine platform PeptiCRAd. Methods We used murine B16OVA in vivo tumor models and flow cytometry analysis to investigate the immunological background. Results First, we found that high-burden B16OVA tumors were refractory to combination immunotherapy. However, with a more aggressive schedule, tumors with a lower burden were more susceptible to the combination of PeptiCRAd and PD-L1 blockade. The therapy signifi- cantly increased the median survival of mice (Fig. 7). Interestingly, the reduced growth of contralaterally injected B16F10 cells sug- gested the presence of a long lasting immunological memory also against non-targeted antigens. Concerning the functional state of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), we found that all the immune therapies would enhance the percentage of activated (PD-1pos TIM- 3neg) T lymphocytes and reduce the amount of exhausted (PD-1pos TIM-3pos) cells compared to placebo. As expected, we found that PeptiCRAd monotherapy could increase the number of antigen spe- cific CD8+ T cells compared to other treatments. However, only the combination with PD-L1 blockade could significantly increase the ra- tio between activated and exhausted pentamer positive cells (p= 0.0058), suggesting that by disrupting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis we could decrease the amount of dysfunctional antigen specific T cells. We ob- served that the anatomical location deeply influenced the state of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. In fact, TIM-3 expression was in- creased by 2 fold on TILs compared to splenic and lymphoid T cells. In the CD8+ compartment, the expression of PD-1 on the surface seemed to be restricted to the tumor micro-environment, while CD4 + T cells had a high expression of PD-1 also in lymphoid organs. Interestingly, we found that the levels of PD-1 were significantly higher on CD8+ T cells than on CD4+ T cells into the tumor micro- environment (p < 0.0001). Conclusions In conclusion, we demonstrated that the efficacy of immune check- point inhibitors might be strongly enhanced by their combination with cancer vaccines. PeptiCRAd was able to increase the number of antigen-specific T cells and PD-L1 blockade prevented their exhaus- tion, resulting in long-lasting immunological memory and increased median survival

The obese endometrial cancer patient: how do we effectively improve morbidity and mortality in this patient population?

The relationship between obesity, metabolic syndrome, and endometrial cancer has been established and accepted for decades. However, despite this understanding, endometrial cancer patients continue to die of their obesity-related comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Furthermore, studies show that gynecologic oncologists, general obstetrician/gynecologists, and bariatric specialists do not appropriately address obesity as a risk factor for cancer and also do not provide appropriate counseling on weight loss and lifestyle modification during screening, diagnosis, and follow-up for endometrial cancer. Given the increasing numbers of obese women both in the United States as well as globally, it is imperative that this risk be addressed and mitigated during patient interactions. Therefore, this article reviews the literature on obesity, metabolic syndrome, and endometrial cancer, as well as the literature on causes of death in endometrial cancer patients. Given the increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, we provide a number of methods to address obesity as a risk factor for cancer during patient visits. These methods include self-directed diet and exercise, supervised diet and exercise programs, medical management with insulin-sensitizing agents and statins, as well as bariatric surgery in extreme cases. Furthermore, we also encourage collaboration between general obstetrician/gynecologists, gynecologic oncologists, and bariatric specialists in the care of obese endometrial cancer patients to ensure that they not only survive their diagnosis, but also go on to live long, healthy lives