Showing papers by "Jonathan A. Ledermann published in 2021"

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.

Abstract: Summary 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.

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

Abstract: Summary 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 ( 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.

Preexisting TP53-Variant Clonal Hematopoiesis and Risk of Secondary Myeloid Neoplasms in Patients With High-grade Ovarian Cancer Treated With Rucaparib

Abstract: Importance A total of 1% to 3% of patients treated with a poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase inhibitor for high-grade ovarian cancer (HGOC) develop therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (t-MNs), which are rare but often fatal conditions. Although the cause of these t-MNs is unknown, clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) variants can increase the risk of primary myeloid malignant neoplasms and are more frequent among patients with solid tumors. Objectives To examine whether preexisting CHIP variants are associated with the development of t-MNs after rucaparib treatment and how these CHIP variants are affected by treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective genetic association study used peripheral blood cell (PBC) samples collected before rucaparib treatment from patients in the multicenter, single-arm ARIEL2 (Study of Rucaparib in Patients With Platinum-Sensitive, Relapsed, High-Grade Epithelial Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, or Primary Peritoneal Cancer) (n = 491; between October 30, 2013, and August 9, 2016) and the multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind ARIEL3 (Study of Rucaparib as Switch Maintenance Following Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Patients With Platinum-Sensitive, High-Grade Serous or Endometrioid Epithelial Ovarian, Primary Peritoneal or Fallopian Tube Cancer) (n = 561; between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016), which tested rucaparib as HGOC therapy in the treatment and maintenance settings, respectively. The follow-up data cutoff date was September 1, 2019. Of 1052 patients in ARIEL2 and ARIEL3, PBC samples from 20 patients who developed t-MNs (cases) and 44 randomly selected patients who did not (controls) were analyzed for the presence of CHIP variants using targeted next-generation sequencing. Additional longitudinal analysis was performed on available ARIEL2 samples collected during treatment and at the end of treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures Enrichment analysis of preexisting variants in 10 predefined CHIP-associated genes in cases relative to controls; association with clinical correlates. Results Among 1052 patients (mean [SE] age, 61.7 [0.3] years) enrolled and dosed in ARIEL2 and ARIEL3, 22 (2.1%) developed t-MNs. The t-MNs were associated with longer overall exposure to prior platinum therapies (13.2 vs 9.0 months in ARIEL2,P = .04; 12.4 vs 9.6 months in ARIEL3,P = .003). The presence of homologous recombination repair gene variants in the tumor, either germline or somatic, was associated with increased prevalence of t-MNs (15 [4.1%] of 369 patients with HGOC associated with an HRR gene variant vs 7 [1.0%] of 683 patients with wild-type HGOC,P = .002). The prevalence of preexisting CHIP variants inTP53but not other CHIP-associated genes at a variant allele frequency of 1% or greater was significantly higher in PBCs from cases vs controls (9 [45.0%] of 20 cases vs 6 [13.6%] of 44 controls,P = .009).TP53CHIP was associated with longer prior exposure to platinum (mean 14.0 months of 15TP53CHIP cases vs 11.1 months of 49 non-TP53CHIP cases;P = .02). Longitudinal analysis showed that preexistingTP53CHIP variants expanded in patients who developed t-MNs. Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this genetic association study suggest that preexistingTP53CHIP variants may be associated with t-MNs after rucaparib treatment.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in ovarian cancer: where do we stand?

Abstract: Numerous retrospective studies have demonstrated that the density of intra-tumoral immune cell infiltration is prognostic in epithelial ovarian cancer (OC). These observations together with reports of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression in advanced OC provided the rationale for investigating the benefit of programmed death-1 (PD1) or PD-L1 inhibition in OC. Unfortunately clinical trials to date evaluating PD1/PD-L1 inhibition in patients with relapsed OC have been disappointing. In this review we will discuss early results from single agent PD1/PD-L1 inhibitors and the strategies to enhance benefit from immune-oncology agents in OC, including proposing anti-PD-L1 in combination with other agents (cytotoxics, anti-angiogenics, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. (PARP) inhibitors, targeted therapies or other immunotherapies), as well as evaluating these agents earlier in the disease course, or in biomarker selected patients.

Objective responses to first-line neoadjuvant carboplatin–paclitaxel regimens for ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma (ICON8): post-hoc exploratory analysis of a randomised, phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by delayed primary surgery (DPS) is an established strategy for women with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Although this therapeutic approach has been validated in randomised, phase 3 trials, evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST), and cancer antigen 125 (CA125) has not been reported. We describe RECIST and Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) CA125 responses in patients receiving platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS in the ICON8 trial. Methods ICON8 was an international, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial done across 117 hospitals in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Ireland. The trial included women aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, life expectancy of more than 12 weeks, and newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO; 1988) stage IC–IIA high-grade serous, clear cell, or any poorly differentiated or grade 3 histological subtype, or any FIGO (1988) stage IIB–IV epithelial cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneum. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive intravenous carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6) and intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 by body surface area) on day 1 of every 21-day cycle (control group; group 1); intravenous carboplatin (AUC5 or AUC6) on day 1 and intravenous dose-fractionated paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 by body surface area) on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 21-day cycle (group 2); or intravenous dose-fractionated carboplatin (AUC2) and intravenous dose-fractionated paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 by body surface area) on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 21-day cycle (group 3). The maximum number of cycles of chemotherapy permitted was six. Randomisation was done with a minimisation method, and patients were stratified according to GCIG group, disease stage, and timing and outcome of cytoreductive surgery. Patients and clinicians were not masked to group allocation. The scheduling of surgery and use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were determined by local multidisciplinary case review. In this post-hoc exploratory analysis of ICON8, progression-free survival was analysed using the landmark method and defined as the time interval between the date of pre-surgical planning radiological tumour assessment to the date of investigator-assessed clinical or radiological progression or death, whichever occurred first. This definition is different from the intention-to-treat primary progression-free survival analysis of ICON8, which defined progression-free survival as the time from randomisation to the date of first clinical or radiological progression or death, whichever occurred first. We also compared the extent of surgical cytoreduction with RECIST and GCIG CA125 responses. This post-hoc exploratory analysis includes only women recruited to ICON8 who were planned for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS and had RECIST and/or GCIG CA125-evaluable disease. ICON8 is closed for enrolment and follow-up, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01654146 . Findings Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 women were enrolled in ICON8, of whom 779 (50%) were planned for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS. Median follow-up was 29·5 months (IQR 15·6–54·3) for the neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS population. Of 564 women who had RECIST-evaluable disease at trial entry, 348 (62%) had a complete or partial response. Of 727 women who were evaluable by GCIG CA125 criteria at the time of diagnosis, 610 (84%) had a CA125 response. Median progression-free survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 9·2–28·0; 297 events) for patients with a RECIST complete or partial response and 13·3 months (8·1–20·1; 171 events) for those with RECIST stable disease. Median progression-free survival for women with a GCIG CA125 response was 13·8 months (95% CI 8·8–23·4; 544 events) and 9·7 months (5·8–14·5; 111 events) for those without a GCIG CA125 response. Complete cytoreduction (R0) was achieved in 187 (56%) of 335 women with a RECIST complete or partial response and 73 (42%) of 172 women with RECIST stable disease. Complete cytoreduction was achieved in 290 (50%) of 576 women with a GCIG CA125 response and 30 (30%) of 101 women without a GCIG CA125 response. Interpretation The RECIST-defined radiological response rate was lower than that frequently quoted to patients in the clinic. RECIST and GCIG CA125 responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer should not be used as individual predictive markers to stratify patients who are likely to benefit from DPS, but instead used in conjunction with the patient's clinical capacity to undergo cytoreductive surgery. A patient should not be denied surgery based solely on the lack of a RECIST or GCIG CA125 response. Funding Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

Long-Term Toxicity and Health-Related Quality of Life After Adjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy or Radiation Therapy Alone for High-Risk Endometrial Cancer in the Randomized PORTEC-3 Trial

Abstract: PURPOSE: The survival results of the PORTEC-3 trial showed a significant improvement in both overall and failure-free survival with chemoradiation therapy versus pelvic radiation therapy alone. The present analysis was performed to compare long-term adverse events (AE) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS AND MATERIALS: In the study, 660 women with high-risk endometrial cancer were randomly assigned to receive chemoradiation therapy (2 concurrent cycles of cisplatin followed by 4 cycles of carboplatin/paclitaxel) or radiation therapy alone. Toxicity was graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0. HRQOL was measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 and CX24/OV28 subscales and compared with normative data. An as-treated analysis was performed. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 74.6 months; 574 (87%) patients were evaluable for HRQOL. At 5 years, grade ≥2 AE were scored for 78 (38%) patients who had received chemoradiation therapy versus 46 (24%) who had received radiation therapy alone (P = .008). Grade 3 AE did not differ significantly between the groups (8% vs 5%, P = .18) at 5 years, and only one new late grade 4 toxicity had been reported. At 3 and 5 years, sensory neuropathy toxicity grade ≥2 persisted after chemoradiation therapy in 6% (vs 0% after radiation therapy, P < .001) and more patients reported significant tingling or numbness at HRQOL (27% vs 8%, P < .001 at 3 years; 24% vs 9%, P = .002 at 5 years). Up to 3 years, more patients who had chemoradiation therapy reported limb weakness (21% vs 5%, P < .001) and lower physical (79 vs 87, P < .001) and role functioning (78 vs 88, P < .001) scores. Both treatment groups reported similar long-term global health/quality of life scores, which were better than those of the normative population. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a long-lasting, clinically relevant, negative impact of chemoradiation therapy on toxicity and HRQOL, most importantly persistent peripheral sensory neuropathy. Physical and role functioning impairments were seen until 3 years. These long-term data are essential for patient information and shared decision-making regarding adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk endometrial cancer.

ICON 9—an international phase III randomized study to evaluate the efficacy of maintenance therapy with olaparib and cediranib or olaparib alone in patients with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer following a response to platinum-based chemotherapy

Abstract: Background Two novel biological agents—cediranib targeting angiogenesis, and olaparib targeting DNA repair processes—have individually led to an improvement in ovarian cancer control. The aim of ICON9 is to investigate the combination of cediranib and olaparib maintenance in recurrent ovarian cancer following platinum-based therapy. Primary objective To assess the efficacy of maintenance treatment with olaparib in combination with cediranib compared with olaparib alone following a response to platinum-based chemotherapy in women with platinum-sensitive ovarian, fallopian tube or peritoneal cancer during first relapse. Study hypothesis Maintenance therapy with cediranib and olaparib in combination is associated with improved patient outcomes compared with olaparib alone. Trial design International phase III randomized controlled trial. Following a response to platinum-based chemotherapy patients are randomized 1:1 to either oral olaparib and cediranib (intervention arm) or oral olaparib alone (control arm). Major inclusion criteria Patients with a known diagnosis of high grade serous or endometrioid carcinoma of the ovary, fallopian tube or peritoneum, progressing more than 6 months after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, who have responded to second-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Primary endpoints Progression-free and overall survival. Co-primary endpoints to be assessed using a fixed-sequence gatekeeping approach: (1) progression-free survival, all patients; (2) progression-free survival, BRCA wild type; (3) overall survival, all patients; (4) overall survival, BRCA wild type. Sample size 618 patients will be recruited. Estimated dates for completing accrual and presenting results Accrual is expected to be completed in 2024 with presentation of results in 2025. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03278717.

Molecular and clinical predictors of improvement in progression-free survival with maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy in women with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The authors performed a meta‐analysis to better quantify the benefit of maintenance poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy to inform practice in platinum‐sensitive, recurrent, high‐grade ovarian cancer for patient subsets with the following characteristics: germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm), somatic BRCA mutation (sBRCAm), wild‐type BRCA but homologous recombinant‐deficient (HRD), homologous recombinant‐proficient (HRP), and baseline clinical prognostic characteristics. METHODS: Randomized trials comparing a PARPi versus placebo as maintenance treatment were identified from electronic databases. Treatment estimates of progression‐free survival were pooled across trials using the inverse variance weighted method. RESULTS: Four trials included 972 patients who received a PARPi (olaparib, 31%; niraparib, 35%; or rucaparib, 34%) and 530 patients who received placebo. For patients who had germline BRCA1 mutation (gBRCAm1) (N = 471), the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.23‐0.37); for those who had germline BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm2) (N = 236), the HR was 0.26 (95% CI, 0.17‐0.39); and, for those who had sBRCAm (N = 123), the HR was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.12‐0.41). The treatment effect was similar between the gBRCAm and sBRCAm subsets (P = .48). In patients who had wild‐type BRCA HRD tumors (excluding sBRCAm; N = 309), the HR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31‐0.56); and, in those who had wild‐type BRCA HRP tumors (N = 346), the HR was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.49‐0.83). The relative treatment effect was greater for the BRCAm versus HRD (P = .03), BRCAm versus HRP (P < .00001), and HRD versus HRP (P < .00001) subsets. There was no difference in benefit based on age, response after recent chemotherapy, and prior bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: In platinum‐sensitive, recurrent, high‐grade ovarian cancer, maintenance PARPi improves progression‐free survival for all patient subsets. PARPi therapy has a similar magnitude of benefit for sBRCAm and gBRCAm. Although patients with BRCAm derive the greatest benefit, the absence of a BRCAm or HRD could not be used to exclude patients from maintenance PARPi therapy.

Retrospective analysis of Schlafen11 (SLFN11) to predict the outcomes to therapies affecting the DNA damage response.

Abstract: Background The absence of the putative DNA/RNA helicase Schlafen11 (SLFN11) is thought to cause resistance to DNA-damaging agents (DDAs) and PARP inhibitors. Methods We developed and validated a clinically applicable SLFN11 immunohistochemistry assay and retrospectively correlated SLFN11 tumour levels to patient outcome to the standard of care therapies and olaparib maintenance. Results High SLFN11 associated with improved prognosis to the first-line treatment with DDAs platinum-plus-etoposide in SCLC patients, but was not strongly linked to paclitaxel-platinum response in ovarian cancer patients. Multivariate analysis of patients with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer from the randomised, placebo-controlled Phase II olaparib maintenance Study19 showed SLFN11 tumour levels associated with sensitivity to olaparib. Study19 patients with high SLFN11 had a lower progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratio compared to patients with low SLFN11, although both groups had the benefit of olaparib over placebo. Whilst caveated by small sample size, this trend was maintained for PFS, but not overall survival, when adjusting for BRCA status across the olaparib and placebo treatment groups, a key driver of PARP inhibitor sensitivity. Conclusion We provide clinical evidence supporting the role of SLFN11 as a DDA therapy selection biomarker in SCLC and highlight the need for further clinical investigation into SLFN11 as a PARP inhibitor predictive biomarker.

British Gynaecological Cancer Society recommendations for women with gynecological cancer who received non-standard care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract: During the COVID-19 pandemic, pressures on clinical services required adaptation to how care was prioritised and delivered for women with gynecological cancer. This document discusses potential 'salvage' measures when treatment has deviated from the usual standard of care. The British Gynaecological Cancer Society convened a multidisciplinary working group to develop recommendations for the onward management and follow-up of women with gynecological cancer who have been impacted by a change in treatment during the pandemic. These recommendations are presented for each tumor type and for healthcare systems, and the impact on gynecological services are discussed. It will be important that patient concerns about the impact of COVID-19 on their cancer pathway are acknowledged and addressed for their ongoing care.

Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma: The effects of progression-free interval and prior therapies on efficacy and safety in the randomized phase III trial ARIEL3

Abstract: Introduction In ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo regardless of biomarker status when used as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer. The aim of the current analyses was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rucaparib in subgroups based on progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of prior chemotherapies, and prior use of bevacizumab. Methods Patients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Within subgroups, progression-free survival was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutant, homologous recombination deficient (BRCA-mutant or wild-type BRCA/high genomic loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat population. Results In the intent-to-treat population, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 8.2 months with rucaparib versus 4.1 months with placebo (n=151 vs n=76; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.46, p 12 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.4 versus 5.4 months (n=231 vs n=124; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54, p Conclusions Rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo irrespective of progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of lines of prior chemotherapy, and previous use of bevacizumab.

Adjuvant and post-surgical treatment in high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer

Abstract: Cytoreductive surgery is the mainstay of treatment for high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer. Although for early stage disease outcomes following surgery alone are good, the risk of recurrence necessitates adjuvant chemotherapy for the majority of patients. Post-operative chemotherapy in advanced-stage disease, or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery has improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). However, despite the use of chemotherapy, the rate of recurrence remains high. In recent years, there has been considerable increase in knowledge regarding the biology of ovarian cancer, which has led to a journey of drug discovery, facilitating the use of novel targeted agents such as VEGF inhibitors and, more recently, PARP inhibitors in the first-line treatment of ovarian cancer. Here, we outline the current evidence-based guidance for systemic therapies in ovarian cancer and highlight the ongoing research to improve patient outcome.

Frontline Maintenance Treatment for Ovarian Cancer

Abstract: Advanced epithelial ovarian cancer remains the most lethal gynaecological cancer. Most patients with advanced disease will relapse within 3 years after primary treatment with surgery and chemotherapy. Recurrences become increasing difficult to treat due to the emergence of drug resistance and 5-year survival has changed little over the last decade. Maintenance treatment, here defined as treatment given beyond primary chemotherapy, can both consolidate the response and prolong the control of disease which is an approach to improve survival. Here we review maintenance strategies such as targeting angiogenesis, interference of DNA repair through inhibition of PARP, combinations of targeting agents, and immunotherapy and hormonal therapy. Much has been learnt from the success and challenges of these treatments that have in the last few years which led to significant reduction in disease recurrence, changed the guidelines for treatment, and established a new paradigm for the treatment of ovarian cancer.

Maintenance treatment with rucaparib for recurrent ovarian carcinoma in ARIEL3, a randomized phase 3 trial: The effects of best response to last platinum-based regimen and disease at baseline on efficacy and safety.

Abstract: Background The efficacy and safety of rucaparib maintenance treatment in ARIEL3 were evaluated in subgroups based on best response to most recent platinum-based chemotherapy and baseline disease. Methods Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either oral rucaparib at a dosage of 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutated, homologous recombination deficient (HRD; BRCA mutated or wild-type BRCA/high loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results Median PFS for patients in the ITT population with a complete response to most recent platinum-based chemotherapy was 11.1 months in the rucaparib arm (126 patients) versus 5.6 months in the placebo arm (64 patients) (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.23-0.48]), and in patients with a partial response (249 vs. 125), it was 9.0 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.38 [0.30-0.49]). In subgroups of the ITT population based on baseline disease, median PFS was 8.2 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.40 [0.28-0.57]) in patients with measurable disease (141 rucaparib vs. 66 placebo), 10.4 versus 4.5 months (HR, 0.31 [0.20-0.48]) in those with nonmeasurable but evaluable disease (104 vs. 56), and 14.1 versus 7.3 months (HR, 0.35 [0.24-0.51]) in those with no residual disease (130 vs. 67). Across subgroups, significantly longer median PFS was observed with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA-mutated and HRD cohorts. Objective responses were reported in patients with measurable disease and in patients with nonmeasurable but evaluable baseline disease. Safety was consistent across subgroups. Conclusion Rucaparib maintenance treatment provided clinically meaningful efficacy benefits across subgroups based on response to last platinum-based chemotherapy or baseline disease.