Explore the vast range of titles available.

Ovarian cancer is the second most common cause of gynecologic cancer death in women around the world. The outcomes are complicated, because the disease is often diagnosed late and composed of several subtypes with distinct biological and molecular properties (even within the same histological subtype), and there is inconsistency in availability of and access to treatment. Upfront treatment largely relies on debulking surgery to no residual disease and platinum‐based chemotherapy, with the addition of antiangiogenic agents in patients who have suboptimally debulked and stage IV disease. Major improvement in maintenance therapy has been seen by incorporating inhibitors against poly (ADP‐ribose) polymerase (PARP) molecules involved in the DNA damage‐repair process, which have been approved in a recurrent setting and recently in a first‐line setting among women with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. In recognizing the challenges facing the treatment of ovarian cancer, current investigations are enlaced with deep molecular and cellular profiling. To improve survival in this aggressive disease, access to appropriate evidence‐based care is requisite. In concert, realizing individualized precision medicine will require prioritizing clinical trials of innovative treatments and refining predictive biomarkers that will enable selection of patients who would benefit from chemotherapy, targeted agents, or immunotherapy. Together, a coordinated and structured approach will accelerate significant clinical and academic advancements in ovarian cancer and meaningfully change the paradigm of care.

Epithelial ovarian cancer generally presents at an advanced stage and is the most common cause of gynaecological cancer death. Treatment requires expert multidisciplinary care. Population-based screening has been ineffective, but new approaches for early diagnosis and prevention that leverage molecular genomics are in development. Initial therapy includes surgery and adjuvant therapy. Epithelial ovarian cancer is composed of distinct histological subtypes with unique genomic characteristics, which are improving the precision and effectiveness of therapy, allowing discovery of predictors of response such as mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, and homologous recombination deficiency for DNA damage response pathway inhibitors or resistance (cyclin E1). Rapidly evolving techniques to measure genomic changes in tumour and blood allow for assessment of sensitivity and emergence of resistance to therapy, and might be accurate indicators of residual disease. Recurrence is usually incurable, and patient symptom control and quality of life are key considerations at this stage. Treatments for recurrence have to be designed from a patient's perspective and incorporate meaningful measures of benefit. Urgent progress is needed to develop evidence and consensus-based treatment guidelines for each subgroup, and requires close international cooperation in conducting clinical trials through academic research groups such as the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup.

Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of gynecological cancer death. Improved understanding of the biologic pathways and introduction of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) during the last decade have changed the treatment landscape. This has improved outcomes, but unfortunately half the women with ovarian cancer still succumb to the disease within 5 years of diagnosis. Pathways of resistance to PARPi and chemotherapy have been studied extensively, but there is an unmet need to overcome treatment failure and improve outcome. Major mechanisms of PARPi resistance include restoration of homologous recombination repair activity, alteration of PARP function, stabilization of the replication fork, drug efflux, and activation of alternate pathways. These resistant mechanisms can be targeted to sensitize the resistant ovarian cancer cells either by rechallenging with PARPi, overcoming resistance mechanism or bypassing resistance pathways. Augmenting the PARPi activity by combining it with other targets in the DNA damage response pathway, antiangiogenic agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors can potentially overcome the resistance mechanisms. Methods to bypass resistance include targeting non-cross-resistant pathways acting independent of homologous recombination repair (HRR), modulating tumour microenvironment, and enhancing drug delivery systems such as antibody drug conjugates. In this review, we will discuss the first-line management of ovarian cancer, resistance mechanisms and potential strategies to overcome these.

Cancer treatment should allow patients to live better or longer lives, and ideally, both. Trial endpoints should show clinically meaningful improvements in patient survival or quality of life. Alternative endpoints such as progression-free survival, disease-free survival, and objective response rate have been used to identify benefit earlier, but their true validity as surrogate endpoints is controversial. In this Review we discuss the measurement, assessment, and benefits and limitations of trial endpoints in use for cancer treatment. Many stakeholders are affected, including regulatory agencies, industry partners, clinicians, and most importantly, patients. In an accompanying Review, reflections from individual stakeholders are incorporated into a discussion of what the future holds for clinical trial endpoints and design.

Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world both in terms of incidence and mortality, more so important in low- and middle-income countries. Surgery and radiotherapy remain the backbone of treatment for non-metastatic cervical cancer, with significant improvement in survival provided by addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy. Survival as well as quality of life is improved by chemotherapy in metastatic disease. Platinum-based chemotherapy with/without bevacizumab is the mainstay of treatment for metastatic disease and has shown improvement in survival. The right combinations and sequence of treatment modalities and medicines are still evolving. Data regarding the molecular and genomic biology of cervical cancer have revealed multiple potential targets for treatment, and several new agents are presently under evaluation including targeted therapies, immunotherapies and vaccines. This review discusses briefly the current standards, newer updates as well as future prospective approaches in systemic therapies for cervical cancer.

Ovarian carcinoma is characterized by heterogeneity at the molecular, cellular and anatomical levels, both spatially and temporally. This heterogeneity affects response to surgery and/or systemic therapy, and also facilitates inherent and acquired drug resistance. As a consequence, this tumour type is often aggressive and frequently lethal. Ovarian carcinoma is not a single disease entity and comprises various subtypes, each with distinct complex molecular landscapes that change during progression and therapy. The interactions of cancer and stromal cells within the tumour microenvironment further affects disease evolution and response to therapy. In past decades, researchers have characterized the cellular, molecular, microenvironmental and immunological heterogeneity of ovarian carcinoma. Traditional treatment approaches have considered ovarian carcinoma as a single entity. This landscape is slowly changing with the increasing appreciation of heterogeneity and the recognition that delivering ineffective therapies can delay the development of effective personalized approaches as well as potentially change the molecular and cellular characteristics of the tumour, which might lead to additional resistance to subsequent therapy. In this Review we discuss the heterogeneity of ovarian carcinoma, outline the current treatment landscape for this malignancy and highlight potentially effective therapeutic strategies in development.Ovarian carcinoma is a highly heterogeneous tumour type, both spatially and temporally. As a consequence, these carcinomas are often associated with poor outcomes. Ovarian carcinoma comprises various subtypes with distinct complex molecular features. The authors of this Review discuss the molecular, cellular and anatomical heterogeneity of ovarian carcinoma, and outline the current and future treatment strategies for this malignancy.

Platinum chemotherapy remains the cornerstone of treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) and Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) now have an established role as maintenance therapy. The mechanisms of action of these agents is, in many ways, complementary, and crucially reliant on the intracellular DNA Damage Repair (DDR) response. Here, we review mechanisms of primary and acquired resistance to treatment with platinum and PARPi, examining the interplay between both classes of agents. A key resistance mechanism appears to be the restoration of the Homologous Recombination (HR) repair pathway, through BRCA reversion mutations and epigenetic upregulation of BRCA1. Alterations in non-homologous end-joint (NHEJ) repair, replication fork protection, upregulation of cellular drug efflux pumps, reduction in PARP1 activity and alterations to the tumour microenvironment have also been described. These resistance mechanisms reveal molecular vulnerabilities, which may be targeted to re-sensitise OC to platinum or PARPi treatment. Promising therapeutic strategies include ATR inhibition, epigenetic re-sensitisation through DNMT inhibition, cell cycle checkpoint inhibition, combination with anti-angiogenic therapy, BET inhibition and G-quadruplex stabilisation. Translational studies to elucidate mechanisms of treatment resistance should be incorporated into future clinical trials, as understanding these biologic mechanisms is crucial to developing new and effective therapeutic approaches in advanced OC.

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. 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. 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). 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. Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Among patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer, the use of niraparib, a PARP inhibitor, was associated with a significantly longer duration of progression-free survival than placebo, with moderate bone marrow toxicity. Ovarian cancer is a leading cause of death from gynecologic cancers worldwide. 1 , 2 Despite a high initial response rate to platinum and taxane treatment in patients with advanced cancer, the effectiveness of the treatments diminishes over time, and most patients have a relapse. 3 Platinum retreatment is used in patients in whom there is an assumed platinum sensitivity, with diminishing effectiveness and a cumulative increase in toxicity. 3 Niraparib is a highly selective inhibitor of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]–ribose) polymerase (PARP) 1/2, 4 nuclear proteins that detect DNA damage and promote its repair. Clinical studies have evaluated PARP inhibitors in patients with recurrent ovarian . . .

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. 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. 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 (<1%) patient in the avelumab maintenance group (due to atrial fibrillation) and one (<1%) patient in the avelumab combination group (due to disease progression). 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. Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.