Gene expression profiling of mucinous ovarian tumors and comparison with upper and lower gastrointestinal tumors identifies markers associated with adverse outcomes.

PURPOSE: Advanced-stage mucinous ovarian carcinoma (MOC) has poor chemotherapy response and prognosis and lacks biomarkers to aid stage I adjuvant treatment. Differentiating primary MOC from gastrointestinal (GI) metastases to the ovary is also challenging due to phenotypic similarities. Clinicopathologic and gene-expression data were analyzed to identify prognostic and diagnostic features. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Discovery analyses selected 19 genes with prognostic/diagnostic potential. Validation was performed through the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium and GI cancer biobanks comprising 604 patients with MOC (n = 333), mucinous borderline ovarian tumors (MBOT, n = 151), and upper GI (n = 65) and lower GI tumors (n = 55). RESULTS: Infiltrative pattern of invasion was associated with decreased overall survival (OS) within 2 years from diagnosis, compared with expansile pattern in stage I MOC [hazard ratio (HR), 2.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04–7.41, P = 0.042]. Increased expression of THBS2 and TAGLN was associated with shorter OS in MOC patients (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04–1.51, P = 0.016) and (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01–1.45, P = 0.043), respectively. ERBB2 (HER2) amplification or high mRNA expression was evident in 64 of 243 (26%) of MOCs, but only 8 of 243 (3%) were also infiltrative (4/39, 10%) or stage III/IV (4/31, 13%). CONCLUSIONS: An infiltrative growth pattern infers poor prognosis within 2 years from diagnosis and may help select stage I patients for adjuvant therapy. High expression of THBS2 and TAGLN in MOC confers an adverse prognosis and is upregulated in the infiltrative subtype, which warrants further investigation. Anti-HER2 therapy should be investigated in a subset of patients. MOC samples clustered with upper GI, yet markers to differentiate these entities remain elusive, suggesting similar underlying biology and shared treatment strategies

Pathological chemotherapy response score is prognostic in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma: A systematic review and meta- analysis of individual patient data

Objective: There is a need to develop and validate biomarkers for treatment response and survival in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC). The chemotherapy response score (CRS) stratifies patients into complete/near-complete (CRS3), partial (CRS2), and no/minimal (CRS1) response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Our aim was to review current evidence to determine whether the CRS is prognostic in women with tubo-ovarian HGSC treated with NACT. Methods: We established an international collaboration to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis, pooling individual patient data from 16 sites in 11 countries. Patients had stage IIIC/IV HGSC, 3–4 NACT cycles and N6-months follow-up. Random effects models were used to derive combined odds ratios in the pooled population to investigate associations between CRS and progression free and overall survival (PFS and OS). Results: 877 patients were included from published and unpublished studies. Median PFS and OS were 15 months (IQR 5–65) and 28 months (IQR 7–92) respectively. CRS3 was seen in 249 patients (28%). The pooled hazard ratios (HR) for PFS and OS for CRS3 versus CRS1/CRS2 were 0·55 (95% CI, 0·45–0·66; P b 0·001) and 0·65 (95% CI 0·50–0·85, P = 0·002) respectively; no heterogeneity was identified (PFS: Q = 6·42, P = 0·698, I2 = 0·0%; OS: Q = 6·89, P = 0·648, I2 = 0·0%). CRS was significantly associated with PFS and OS in multivariate models adjusting for age and stage. Of 306 patients with known germline BRCA1/2 status, those with BRCA1/2 mutations (n = 80) were more likely to achieve CRS3 (P = 0·027). Conclusions: CRS3 was significantly associated with improved PFS and OS compared to CRS1/2. This validation of CRS in a real-world setting demonstrates it to be a robust and reproducible biomarker with potential to be incorporated into therapeutic decision-making and clinical trial design