Explore the vast range of titles available.

In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer, treatment with adjuvant aromatase inhibitors is the standard of care, but it increases risk for osteoporosis and fractures. Results from the ABCSG-18 trial showed that use of denosumab as an adjuvant to aromatase inhibitor therapy significantly reduced clinical fractures. Disease-free survival outcomes from ABCSG-18 have not yet been reported. Postmenopausal patients with early, hormone receptor-positive, non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the breast, who had completed their initial adjuvant treatment pathway (surgery, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy, or a combination) and were receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, were enrolled at 58 trial centres in Austria and Sweden into this prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. With permuted block randomisation (block sizes 2 and 4, stratified by previous aromatase inhibitor use, total lumbar spine bone mineral density score at baseline, and type of centre), patients were assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous denosumab (60 mg) or matching placebo every 6 months during aromatase inhibitor therapy. The primary endpoint (previously reported) was the time to first clinical fracture after randomisation. The secondary endpoint reported here is disease-free survival (defined as time from randomisation to first evidence of local or distant metastasis, contralateral breast cancer, secondary carcinoma, or death from any cause) in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with EudraCT (number 2005–005275–15) and ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00556374), and is ongoing for long-term follow-up. Between Dec 18, 2006, and July 22, 2013, 3425 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned; 1711 to the denosumab group and 1709 to the placebo group (with five others withdrawing consent). After a median follow-up of 73 months (IQR 58–95), 240 (14·0%) patients in the denosumab and 287 (16·8%) in the placebo group had disease-free survival events. Disease-free survival was significantly improved in the denosumab group versus the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·82, 95% CI 0·69–0·98, Cox p=0·0260; descriptive analysis, without controlling for multiplicity). In the denosumab group, disease-free survival was 89·2% (95% CI 87·6–90·8) at 5 years and 80·6% (78·1–83·1) at 8 years of follow-up, compared with 87·3% (85·7–89·0) at 5 years and 77·5% (74·8–80·2) and 8 years in the placebo group. No independently adjudicated cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw or confirmed atypical femoral fractures were recorded. The total number of adverse events was similar in the denosumab group (1367 [including 521 serious] adverse events) and the placebo group (1339 [515 serious]). The most common serious adverse events were osteoarthritis (62 [3·6%] of 1709 in the denosumab group vs 58 [3·4%] of 1690 in the placebo group), meniscus injury (23 [1·3%] vs 24 [1·4%]), and cataract (16 [0·9%] vs 28 [1·7%]). One (<0·1%) treatment-related death (due to pneumonia, septic kidney failure, and cardiac decompensation) occurred in the denosumab group. Denosumab constitutes an effective and safe adjuvant treatment for patients with postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitor therapy. Amgen.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy compromises bone health in patients with breast cancer, causing osteopenia, osteoporosis, and fractures. Antiresorptive treatments such as bisphosphonates prevent and counteract these side-effects. In this trial, we aimed to investigate the effects of the anti-RANK ligand antibody denosumab in postmenopausal, aromatase inhibitor-treated patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. In this prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, postmenopausal patients with early hormone receptor-positive breast cancer receiving treatment with aromatase inhibitors were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either denosumab 60 mg or placebo administered subcutaneously every 6 months in 58 trial centres in Austria and Sweden. Patients were assigned by an interactive voice response system. The randomisation schedule used a randomly permuted block design with block sizes 2 and 4, stratified by type of hospital regarding Hologic device for DXA scans, previous aromatase inhibitor use, and baseline bone mineral density. Patients, treating physicians, investigators, data managers, and all study personnel were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was time from randomisation to first clinical fracture, analysed by intention to treat. As an additional sensitivity analysis, we also analysed the primary endpoint on the per-protocol population. Patients were treated until the prespecified number of 247 first clinical fractures was reached. This trial is ongoing (patients are in follow-up) and is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, number 2005-005275-15, and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00556374. Between Dec 18, 2006, and July 22, 2013, 3425 eligible patients were enrolled into the trial, of whom 3420 were randomly assigned to receive denosumab 60 mg (n=1711) or placebo (n=1709) subcutaneously every 6 months. Compared with the placebo group, patients in the denosumab group had a significantly delayed time to first clinical fracture (hazard ratio [HR] 0·50 [95% CI 0·39–0·65], p<0·0001). The overall lower number of fractures in the denosumab group (92) than in the placebo group (176) was similar in all patient subgroups, including in patients with a bone mineral density T-score of −1 or higher at baseline (n=1872, HR 0·44 [95% CI 0·31–0·64], p<0·0001) and in those with a bone mineral density T-score of less than −1 already at baseline (n=1548, HR 0·57 [95% CI 0·40–0·82], p=0·002). The patient incidence of adverse events in the safety analysis set (all patients who received at least one dose of study drug) did not differ between the denosumab group (1366 events, 80%) and the placebo group (1334 events, 79%), nor did the numbers of serious adverse events (521 vs 511 [30% in each group]). The main adverse events were arthralgia and other aromatase-inhibitor related symptoms; no additional toxicity from the study drug was reported. Despite proactive adjudication of every potential osteonecrosis of the jaw by an international expert panel, no cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were reported. 93 patients (3% of the full analysis set) died during the study, of which one death (in the denosumab group) was thought to be related to the study drug. Adjuvant denosumab 60 mg twice per year reduces the risk of clinical fractures in postmenopausal women with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors, and can be administered without added toxicity. Since a main side-effect of adjuvant breast cancer treatment can be substantially reduced by the addition of denosumab, this treatment should be considered for clinical practice. Amgen.

Folate can be transported into the cell by the reduced folate carrier (RFC), the proton-coupled folate transporter (PCFT), or the folate receptor (FR), of which various isoforms exist. While the RFC and PCFT are expressed by many normal cells, the FR is present only in a small proportion of normal tissues. In these tissues, the FR expression level is often low and restricted to the apical surface of polarized epithelial cells. In contrast, FR is expressed on the blood-accessible basal and lateral membranes of many types of epithelial cancer. Considering that FR is expressed in few nonmalignant cell types on luminal membranes generally not accessible for molecules transported in the blood, FR is considered a promising antitumor target. As FR expression seems associated with tumor progression and prognosis, anticancer therapies targeting FR are currently being developed, such as farletuzumab (Morphotek, Exton, PA, USA), IMGN853 (ImmunoGen, Waltham, MA, USA), vintafolide, and EC1456 (both Endocyte Inc., West Lafayette, IN, USA). FR expression could be used as a response-predictive biomarker for these treatments. The ability to identify patients and treat them with an effective therapy based on the known expression of the tumor marker would, indeed, be the next step in predictive medicine for these patients. This review summarizes the role of FR in ovarian cancer and the value of FR as a prognostic biomarker for ovarian cancer and a response-predictive biomarker for folate-targeted therapeutics.

Angiogenesis is a valid target in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer. Trebananib inhibits the binding of angiopoietins 1 and 2 to the Tie2 receptor, and thereby inhibits angiogenesis. We aimed to assess whether the addition of trebananib to single-agent weekly paclitaxel in patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer improved progression-free survival. For this randomised, double-blind phase 3 study undertaken between Nov 10, 2010, and Nov 19, 2012, we enrolled women with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer from 32 countries. Patient eligibility criteria included having been treated with three or fewer previous regimens, and a platinum-free interval of less than 12 months. We enrolled patients with a computerised interactive voice response system, and patients were randomly assigned using a permuted block method (block size of four) in a 1:1 ratio to receive weekly intravenous paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) plus either weekly masked intravenous placebo or trebananib (15 mg/kg). Patients were stratified on the basis of platinum-free interval (≥0 and ≤6 months vs >6 and ≤12 months), presence or absence of measurable disease, and region (North America, western Europe and Australia, or rest of world). The sponsor, investigators, site staff, and patients were masked to the treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01204749, and is no longer accruing patients. 919 patients were enrolled, of whom 461 were randomly assigned to the trebananib group and 458 to the placebo group. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the trebananib group than in the placebo group (7·2 months [5·8–7·4] vs 5·4 months [95% CI 4·3–5·5], respectively, hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·57–0·77, p<0·0001). Incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was similar between treatment groups (244 [54%] of 452 patients in the placebo group vs 258 [56%] of 461 patients in the trebananib group). Trebananib was associated with more adverse event-related treatment discontinuations than was placebo (77 [17%] patients vs 27 [6%], respectively) and higher incidences of oedema (294 [64%] patients had any-grade oedema in the trebananib group vs 127 [28%] patients in the placebo group). Grade 3 or higher adverse events included ascites (34 [8%] in the placebo group vs 52 [11%] in the trebananib group), neutropenia (40 [9%] vs 26 [6%]), and abdominal pain (21 [5%] vs 22 [5%]). We recorded serious adverse events in 125 (28%) patients in the placebo group and 159 (34%) patients in the trebananib group. There was a difference of 2% or less in class-specific adverse events associated with anti-VEGF therapy (hypertension, proteinuria, wound-healing complications, thrombotic events, gastrointestinal perforations), except bleeding, which was more common in the placebo group than in the trebananib group (75 [17%] vs 46 [10%]). Inhibition of angiopoietins 1 and 2 with trebananib provided a clinically meaningful prolongation in progression-free survival. This non-VEGF anti-angiogenesis option for women with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer should be investigated in other settings and in combination with additional agents. Although oedema was increased, typical anti-VEGF associated adverse events were not prominent. Amgen.

BackgroundPembrolizumab plus lenvatinib is a novel combination with promising efficacy in patients with advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer. This combination demonstrated high objective response rates in a single-arm phase 1b/2 trial of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (KEYNOTE-146/Study 111) after ≤2 previous lines of therapy. In a randomized phase 3 trial of lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab versus treatment of physician's choice in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (KEYNOTE-775/Study 309), after 1‒2 previous lines of therapy (including neoadjuvant/adjuvant), this combination improved objective response rates, progression-free survival, and overall survival compared with chemotherapy.Primary ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of first-line pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin in patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV or recurrent endometrial cancer, with measurable or radiographically apparent disease.Study HypothesisPembrolizumab plus lenvatinib is superior to chemotherapy with respect to progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with mismatch repair-proficient tumors and all patients (all-comers).Trial DesignPhase 3, randomized (1:1), open-label, active-controlled trial. Patients will receive pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks plus lenvatinib orally daily or paclitaxel plus carboplatin intravenously every 3 weeks, stratified by mismatch repair status (proficient vs deficient). Patients with mismatch repair-proficient tumors will be further stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0/1), measurable disease (yes/no), and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation (yes/no).Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaAdults with stage III/IV/recurrent histologically confirmed endometrial cancer that is measurable or radiographically apparent per blinded independent central review. Patients may have received previous chemotherapy only as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy and/or concurrently with radiation. Patients with carcinosarcoma (malignant mixed Müllerian tumor), endometrial leiomyosarcoma, or other high grade sarcomas, or endometrial stromal sarcomas were excluded.Primary EndpointsProgression-free and overall survival (dual primary endpoints).Sample SizeAbout 875 patients.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsEnrollment is expected to take approximately 24 months, with presentation of results in 2022.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03884101.

In 2023, based on advances in the understanding of the pathological and molecular features of endometrial carcinoma, an updated International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system was published, aiming to better define prognostic groups and identify relevant treatment subgroups by including factors reflecting tumour biology (histological subtypes, lymphovascular space invasion, and molecular classification) alongside refinements of anatomical factors (peritoneal carcinomatosis and lymph node metastasis). As part of its mission to improve the quality of care for people with gynaecological cancers, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) updated the ESGO–ESTRO–ESP evidence-based guidelines published in 2021 by incorporating this revised FIGO staging and the large body of new evidence addressing the management of endometrial carcinoma. The development process of these guidelines was based on a systematic literature review and critical appraisal process involving an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of 30 experts from relevant disciplines (gynaecological oncology, radiation oncology, medical oncology, and pathology). A patient representative was also included. Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 225 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and three patient representatives from Asia, Europe, North Africa, North America, the Middle East, and South America to ensure a global perspective. These guidelines comprehensively cover diagnosis, management, follow-up, and patient education. Management includes surgical and adjuvant therapy according to the stage of the disease, and metastatic and recurrent disease. The management algorithms and the principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.

Background A high percentage of epithelial ovarian cancers (EOC) express the estrogen receptor (ER), which is an ideal target for endocrine therapy. Letrozole is a proven, potent aromatase inhibitor, extensively tested and used in the treatment of ER positive breast cancer. In addition, it seems a potent drug for patients with heavily pre-treated OC as demonstrated in several distinctive settings. However, it has never been evaluated prospectively in a maintenance setting for ovarian cancer after standard of care. The here proposed trial aims to define a population of EOC patients, who would benefit from the effectiveness of the generic agent letrozole, with little expected toxicity and thus beneficial impact on overall quality of life (QoL). Methods In this international multicenter randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trial at clinical centers in Switzerland, Germany and Austria, we plan to include 540 patients with primary, newly diagnosed FIGO Stage II to IV and histologically confirmed low- or high-grade serous or endometrioid epithelial ovarian/fallopian tube/peritoneal cancer. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio into two groups: receiving blinded study treatment (letrozole or placebo tablets). When assuming a HR of 0.7, a median PFS of 18 months in the control arm and a median PFS of 25.7 months in the treatment arm, a two-sided alpha level of 5%, 3.5 years recruitment and 1.5 years observation time, we expect 330 events to have occurred within these 5 years in the total cohort yielding a power of 90%. Follow-up data for the whole cohort will be collected for up to 10 years and for the low-grade cancer for up to 12 years. Discussion The here proposed randomized phase III trial aims to identify patients with EOC in the maintenance setting, who benefit from the effectiveness of the letrozole, by proving its efficacy whilst maintaining a high standard of QoL due to the limited toxicity expected in comparison to the current alternative drugs on the market for this treatment phase. Trial registration This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov under the identifier NCT04111978 . Registered 02 October 2019.

Drawing causal conclusions from real-world data (RWD) poses methodological challenges and risk of bias. We aimed to systematically assess the type and impact of potential biases that may occur when analyzing RWD using the case of progressive ovarian cancer. We retrospectively compared overall survival with and without second-line chemotherapy (LOT2) using electronic medical records. Potential biases were determined using directed acyclic graphs. We followed a stepwise analytic approach ranging from crude analysis and multivariable-adjusted Cox model up to a full causal analysis using a marginal structural Cox model with replicates emulating a reference randomized controlled trial (RCT). To assess biases, we compared effect estimates (hazard ratios [HRs]) of each approach to the HR of the reference trial. The reference trial showed an HR for second line vs. delayed therapy of 1.01 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.82–1.25). The corresponding HRs from the RWD analysis ranged from 0.51 for simple baseline adjustments to 1.41 (95% CI: 1.22–1.64) accounting for immortal time bias with time-varying covariates. Causal trial emulation yielded an HR of 1.12 (95% CI: 0.96–1.28). Our study, using ovarian cancer as an example, shows the importance of a thorough causal design and analysis if one is expecting RWD to emulate clinical trial results. •To assess potential biases in real-world evidence (RWE), this paper compares the hazards ratio (HRs) of the reference trial to the estimated HRs following different analytic approaches.•Biases resulting from the different analytic approaches varied in size and direction, ranging from 75% underestimating the HR to 36% overestimating the HR.•The full causal analysis (including the target trial emulation using a marginal-structural-Cox-model) yielded the smallest bias, overestimating the HR by 10%.•In RWE, a thorough causal-inference-based design and analysis is important.

PurposeThe aim of the present study was to assess the impact of postponed screening examinations and lockdown measures on gynecological and breast cancer diagnoses throughout the year 2020 in a gynecological oncological center in Austria.MethodsData of 889 patients with either newly diagnosed gynecological or breast cancer between January 2019 and December 2020 were collected. Clinical parameters including symptoms, performance status, comorbidities and referral status were compared in patients, who were newly diagnosed with cancer in the period of the first lockdown from March 2020 to April 2020 and the second lockdown from November 2020 to December 2020 and compared to the same period in 2019.ResultsOur results showed a strong decline in newly diagnosed cancers during the lockdown periods: −45% in gynecological cancer and -52% in breast cancer compared to the same period in 2019. Compared to the analogue period of 2019, breast cancer patients reported significantly more tumor-associated symptoms (55% vs. 31%, p = 0.013) during and in between (48% vs. 32%, p = 0.022) the lockdowns. During the lockdown, periods in the group of breast cancer patients’ tumor stage varied significantly compared to 2019 (T2–T4; p = 0.047).ConclusionBoth lockdowns led to a strong decrease in newly diagnosed gynecological and breast cancers. Treatment delays in potentially curable disease could lead to inferior clinical outcomes, with the risk of missing the optimal treatment window. As the COVID-19 pandemic will be a challenge for some time to come, new strategies in patient care are needed to optimize cancer screening and management during the pandemic.

The efficacy of immunotherapies in high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) is limited, but clinical trials investigating the potential of combination immunotherapy including poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) are ongoing. Homologous recombination repair deficiency or BRCAness and the composition of the tumor microenvironment appear to play a critical role in determining the therapeutic response. We conducted comprehensive immunogenomic analyses of HGSOC using data from several patient cohorts. Machine learning methods were used to develop a classification model for BRCAness from gene expression data. Integrated analysis of bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing data was used to delineate the tumor immune microenvironment and was validated by immunohistochemistry. The impact of PARPi and BRCA1 mutations on the activation of immune-related pathways was studied using ovarian cancer cell lines, RNA sequencing, and immunofluorescence analysis. We identified a 24-gene signature that predicts BRCAness. Comprehensive immunogenomic analyses across patient cohorts identified samples with BRCAness and high immune infiltration. Further characterization of these samples revealed increased infiltration of immunosuppressive cells, including tumor-associated macrophages expressing , , and , as specified by single-cell RNA sequencing data and gene expression analysis of samples from patients receiving combination therapy with PARPi and anti-PD-1. Our findings show also that genomic instability and PARPi activated the cGAS-STING signaling pathway and the downstream innate immune response in a similar manner to HGSOC patients with BRCAness status. Finally, we have developed a web application (https://ovrseq.icbi.at) and an associated R package OvRSeq, which allow for comprehensive characterization of ovarian cancer patient samples and assessment of a vulnerability score that enables stratification of patients to predict response to the combination immunotherapy. Genomic instability in HGSOC affects the tumor immune environment, and TAMs play a crucial role in modulating the immune response. Based on various datasets, we have developed a diagnostic application that uses RNA sequencing data not only to comprehensively characterize HGSOC but also to predict vulnerability and response to combination immunotherapy.