Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundTreatment outcomes remain poor in recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Enadenotucirev, a tumor-selective and blood stable adenoviral vector, has demonstrated a manageable safety profile in phase 1 studies in epithelial solid tumors.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase 1 dose-escalation and dose-expansion study (OCTAVE) to assess enadenotucirev plus paclitaxel in patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer. During phase 1a, the maximum tolerated dose of intraperitoneally administered enadenotucirev monotherapy (three doses; days 1, 8 and 15) was assessed using a 3+3 dose-escalation model. Phase 1b included a dose-escalation and an intravenous dosing dose-expansion phase assessing enadenotucirev plus paclitaxel. For phase 1a/b, the primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose of enadenotucirev (with paclitaxel in phase 1b). In the dose-expansion phase, the primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Additional endpoints included response rate and T-cell infiltration.ResultsOverall, 38 heavily pretreated patients were enrolled and treated. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed at any doses. However, frequent catheter complications led to the discontinuation of intraperitoneal dosing during phase 1b. Intravenous enadenotucirev (1×1012 viral particles; days 1, 3 and 5 every 28-days for two cycles) plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2; days 9, 16 and 23 of each cycle) was thus selected for dose-expansion. Overall, 24/38 (63%) patients experienced at least 1 Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); most frequently neutropenia (21%). Six patients discontinued treatment due to TEAEs, including one patient due to a grade 2 treatment-emergent serious AE of catheter site infection (intraperitoneal enadenotucirev monotherapy). Among the 20 patients who received intravenous enadenotucirev plus paclitaxel, 4-month PFS rate was 64% (median 6.2 months), objective response rate was 10%, 35% of patients achieved stable disease and 65% of patients had a reduction in target lesion burden at ≥1 time point. Five out of six patients with matched pre-treatment and post-treatment biopsies treated with intravenous enadenotucirev plus paclitaxel had increased (mean 3.1-fold) infiltration of CD8 +T cells in post-treatment biopsies.ConclusionsIntravenously dosed enadenotucirev plus paclitaxel demonstrated manageable tolerability, an encouraging median PFS and increased tumor immune-cell infiltration in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.Trial registration numberNCT02028117.

Despite a multimodal radical treatment, mortality of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) remains high. Host-related factors, such as systemic inflammatory response and its interplay with the immune system, remain underexplored. We hypothesized that the prognostic impact of this response could vary between patients undergoing primary debulking surgery (PDS) and those undergoing interval debulking surgery (IDS). Therefore, we evaluated the outcomes of two surgical groups of newly diagnosed AEOC patients according to the neutrophil, monocyte and platelet to lymphocyte ratios (NLR, MLR, PLR), taking median ratio values as cutoffs. In the PDS group (n = 61), low NLR and PLR subgroups showed significantly better overall survival (not reached (NR) vs. 72.7 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 40.9–95.2, p = 0.019; and NR vs. 56.1 months, 95% CI: 40.9–95.2, p = 0.004, respectively) than those with high values. Similar results were observed in progression free survival. NLR and PLR-high values resulted in negative prognostic factors, adjusting for residual disease, BRCA1/2 status and stage (HR 2.48, 95% CI: 1.03–5.99, p = 0.043, and HR 2.91, 95% CI: 1.11–7.64, p = 0.03, respectively). In the IDS group (n = 85), ratios were not significant prognostic factors. We conclude that NLR and PLR may have prognostic value in the PDS setting, but none in IDS, suggesting that time of surgery can modulate the prognostic impact of baseline complete blood count (CBC).

BackgroundBevacizumab is an approved treatment after primary debulking surgery for ovarian cancer. However, there is limited information on bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy before interval debulking surgery.ObjectiveTo evaluate neoadjuvant bevacizumab in a randomized phase II trial.MethodsPatients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV high-grade serous/endometrioid ovarian cancer were randomized to receive four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without ≥3 cycles of bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks. After interval debulking surgery, all patients received post-operative chemotherapy (three cycles) and bevacizumab for 15 months. The primary end point was complete macroscopic response rate at interval debulking surgery.ResultsOf 68 patients randomized, 64 completed four neoadjuvant cycles; 22 of 33 (67%) in the chemotherapy-alone arm and 31 of 35 (89%) in the bevacizumab arm (p=0.029) underwent surgery. The complete macroscopic response rate did not differ between treatment arms in either the intention-to-treat population of 68 patients (6.1% vs 5.7%, respectively; p=0.25) or the 55 patients who underwent surgery (8.3% vs 6.5%; p=1.00). There was no difference in complete cytoreduction rate or progression-free survival between the treatment arms. During neoadjuvant therapy, grade ≥3 adverse events were more common with chemotherapy alone than with bevacizumab (61% vs 29%, respectively; p=0.008). Intestinal (sub)occlusion, fatigue/asthenia, abdominal infection, and thrombocytopenia were less frequent with bevacizumab. The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events was 9% in the control arm versus 16% in the experimental arm in the month after surgery.ConclusionsAdding three to four pre-operative cycles of bevacizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for unresectable disease did not improve the complete macroscopic response rate or surgical outcome, but improved surgical operability without increasing toxicity. These results support the early integration of bevacizumab in carefully selected high-risk patients requiring neoadjuvant chemotherapy for initially unresectable ovarian cancer.

The aim of this survey was to increase the knowledge on the characteristics and health concerns of long-term survivors (LTS; survival > 5 years) after ovarian cancer in order to tailor follow-up care. This international survey was initiated by the NOGGO and was made available to members of ENGOT and GCIG. The survey is anonymous and consists of 68 questions regarding sociodemographic, medical (cancer) history, health concerns including distress, long-term side effects, and lifestyle. For this analysis, 1044 LTS from 14 countries were recruited. In total, 58% were diagnosed with FIGO stage III/IV ovarian cancer and 43.4% developed recurrent disease, while 26.0% were receiving cancer treatment at the time of filling in the survey. LTS who survived 5–10 years self-estimated their health status as being significantly worse than LTS who survived more than 10 years (p = 0.034), whereas distress also remained high 10 years after cancer diagnosis. Almost half of the cohort (46.1%) reported still having symptoms, which were mainly lymphedema (37.7%), fatigue (23.9%), pain (21.6%), polyneuropathy (16.9%), gastrointestinal problems (16.6%), and memory problems (15.5%). Almost all patients (94.2%) regularly received follow-up care. Specialized survivorship care with a focus on long-term side effects, lifestyle, and prevention should be offered beyond the typical five years of follow-up care.

The GOG240 trial established bevacizumab with chemotherapy as standard first-line therapy for metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer. In the BEATcc trial (ENGOT-Cx10–GEICO 68-C–JGOG1084–GOG-3030), we aimed to evaluate the addition of an immune checkpoint inhibitor to this standard backbone. In this investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients from 92 sites in Europe, Japan, and the USA with metastatic (stage IVB), persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer that was measurable, previously untreated, and not amenable to curative surgery or radiation were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive standard therapy (cisplatin 50 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve of 5, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg, all on day 1 of every 3-week cycle) with or without atezolizumab 1200 mg. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient withdrawal, or death. Stratification factors were previous concomitant chemoradiation (yes vs no), histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs adenocarcinoma including adenosquamous carcinoma), and platinum backbone (cisplatin vs carboplatin). Dual primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 and overall survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03556839, and is ongoing. Between Oct 8, 2018, and Aug 20, 2021, 410 of 519 patients assessed for eligibility were enrolled. Median progression-free survival was 13·7 months (95% CI 12·3–16·6) with atezolizumab and 10·4 months (9·7–11·7) with standard therapy (hazard ratio [HR]=0·62 [95% CI 0·49–0·78]; p<0·0001); at the interim overall survival analysis, median overall survival was 32·1 months (95% CI 25·3–36·8) versus 22·8 months (20·3–28·0), respectively (HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·52–0·88]; p=0·0046). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 79% of patients in the experimental group and in 75% of patients in the standard group. Grade 1–2 diarrhoea, arthralgia, pyrexia, and rash were increased with atezolizumab. Adding atezolizumab to a standard bevacizumab plus platinum regimen for metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer significantly improves progression-free and overall survival and should be considered as a new first-line therapy option. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Abstract Introduction: Esophageal involvement in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma is a rare phenomenon when advanced systemic disease is detected. Dysphagia is the most common guide symptom. However, diagnosis is often delayed due to its submucosal process that is not early seen in endoscopic initial evaluation, while computerized tomography (CT) scan usually shows concentric thickening of the esophageal layers and gives the suspected diagnosis. Case Presentation: We present the case of a patient who died of mediastinitis caused by an esophageal perforated ulceration due to infiltration of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. In addition, this is the first case report of severe esophageal candidiasis associated that delayed diagnosis and subsequent oncological treatment. Conclusion: Esophageal secondary infiltration must be suspected when a patient has a history of malignancy combined with consistent CT findings.

Background To determine the state of current practice and to reach a consensus on recommendations for the management of advanced ovarian cancer using a Delphi survey with a group of Spanish gynecologists and medical oncologists specially dedicated to gynecological tumors. Methods The questionnaire was developed by the byline authors. All questions but one were answered using a 9-item Likert-like scale with three types of answers: frequency, relevance and agreement. We performed two rounds between December 2018 and July 2019. A consensus was considered reached when at least 75% of the answers were located within three consecutive points of the Likert scale. Results In the first round, 32 oncologists and gynecologists were invited to participate, and 31 (96.9%) completed the online questionnaire. In the second round, 27 (87.1%) completed the online questionnaire. The results for the questions on first-line management of advanced disease, treatment of patients with recurrent disease for whom platinum might be the best option, and treatment of patients with recurrent disease for whom platinum might not be the best option are presented. Conclusions This survey shows a snapshot of current recommendations by this selected group of physicians. Although the majority of the agreements and recommendations are aligned with the recently published ESMO-ESGO consensus, there are some discrepancies that can be explained by differences in the interpretation of certain clinical trials, reimbursement or accessibility issues.

Background: The PRIMA phase 3 trial showed niraparib significantly prolongs median progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (OC) responsive to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, including those who had tumors with homologous recombination deficiency (HRd). This analysis of PRIMA examined the quality-adjusted PFS (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease or toxicity (Q-TWiST) of patients on maintenance niraparib versus placebo. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive once-daily maintenance niraparib (n = 487) or placebo (n = 246). QA-PFS was defined as the PFS of patients adjusted for their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) prior to disease progression, measured using European Quality of Life Five-Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire index scores from the PRIMA trial. Q-TWiST was calculated by combining data on PFS, duration of symptomatic grade ⩾2 adverse events (fatigue or asthenia, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and abdominal bloating) prior to disease progression, and EQ-5D index scores. Analyses used data collected up to the last date of PFS assessment (May 17, 2019). Results: The restricted mean QA-PFS was significantly longer with niraparib versus placebo in the HRd (n = 373) and overall intention-to-treat (ITT; n = 733) populations (mean gains of 6.5 [95% confidence interval; CI, 3.9–8.9] and 4.1 [95% CI, 2.2–5.8] months, respectively). There were also significant improvements in restricted mean Q-TWiST for niraparib versus placebo (mean gains of 5.9 [95% CI, 3.5–8.6] and 3.5 [95% CI, 1.7–5.6] months, respectively) in the HRd and ITT populations. Conclusions: In patients with advanced OC, first-line niraparib maintenance was associated with significant gains in QA-PFS and Q-TWiST versus placebo. These findings demonstrate that niraparib maintenance treatment is associated with a PFS improvement and that treatment benefit is maintained even when HRQoL and/or toxicity data are combined with PFS in a single measure. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02655016; trial registration date: January 13, 2016 Plain language summary Background: In a large clinical trial called PRIMA, patients with advanced cancer of the ovary (ovarian cancer) were given either niraparib (a type of cancer medicine) or placebo (a pill containing no medicine/active substances) after having chemotherapy (another type of cancer medicine). Taking niraparib after chemotherapy is called maintenance therapy and aims to give patients more time before their cancer returns or gets worse than if they were not given any further treatment. In the PRIMA trial, patients who took niraparib did have more time before their cancer progressed than if they took placebo. However, it is important to consider patients’ quality of life, which can be made worse by cancer symptoms and/or side effects of treatment. Here, we assessed the overall benefit of niraparib for patients in PRIMA. Methods: Both the length of time before disease progression (or survival time) and quality of life were considered using two different analyses: ● The first analysis was called quality-adjusted PFS (QA-PFS) and looked at how long patients survived with good quality of life. ● The second analysis was called quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease or toxicity (Q-TWiST) and looked at how long patients survived without cancer symptoms or treatment side effects. Results: The PRIMA trial included 733 patients; 487 took niraparib and 246 took placebo. Around half of the patients in both groups had a type of ovarian cancer that responds particularly well to drugs like niraparib – they are known as homologous recombination deficiency (HRd) patients. ● When information on quality of life (collected from patient questionnaires) and survival was combined in the QA-PFS analysis, HRd patients who took niraparib had approximately 6.5 months longer with a good quality of life before disease progression than those who took placebo. In the overall group of patients (including HRd patients and non-HRd patients), those who took niraparib had approximately 4 months longer than with placebo. ● Using the second analysis (Q-TWiST) to combine information on survival with cancer symptoms and treatment side effects, the HRd patients taking niraparib had approximately 6 months longer without cancer symptoms or treatment side effects (such as nausea or vomiting) than patients taking placebo. In the overall group of patients, those taking niraparib had approximately 3.5 months longer without these cancer symptoms/side effects than patients receiving placebo. Conclusions: These results show that the survival benefits of niraparib treatment remain when accounting for patients’ quality of life. These benefits were seen not only in HRd patients who are known to respond better to niraparib, but in the overall group of patients who took niraparib.

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the leading cause of death in women with gynecological cancers. Its diagnosis is more likely in advanced ages, with the older population being the most seen in consultations. Poly(ADP-ribose) inhibitors (PARPi) have changed OC clinical practice and evolution, showing great benefit. However, there is a lack of evidence of PARPi in elderly population that can impact the therapeutic decision and the safety/efficacy. It is necessary to avoid age as limiting factor in PARPis prescription. We conducted a review of the most relevant randomized phase III trials of maintenance PARPi after first-line treatment of advanced OC. We observed the lack of a single criterion for considering older patients, varying among trials. There is a benefit of PARPis in different populations. However, PARPi effect on quality of life is not reported, something of great relevance considering their vulnerability. Measures are needed to benefit older patients to better adapt PARPi treatment.

In recent years, the incorporation of new strategies to the therapeutic armamentarium has completely changed the outcomes of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). The identification of new predictive and prognostic biomarkers has also enabled the selection of those patients more likely to respond to targeted agents. Nevertheless, EOC is still a highly lethal disease and resistance to many of these new agents is common. The objective of this guideline is to summarize the most relevant strategies to manage EOC, to help the clinician throughout the challenging diagnostic and therapeutic processes and to provide evidence-based recommendations.