Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a placebo-controlled, phase 2 study, olaparib, an oral PARP inhibitor that should be effective in tumor cells with BRCA1/2 -related base excision repair defects, increased progression-free survival from 4 months to 8 months in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic tumors in the Western world. 1 Approximately 80% of patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer have a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. However, most patients have relapses, and responses to subsequent therapies are generally short-lived. 2 – 6 Maintenance chemotherapy as part of first-line treatment has been shown to prolong control of ovarian cancer, 7 and disease control has also been prolonged with the combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy in patients receiving first-line treatment 8 , 9 and in those with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. 10 However, new treatments are needed because most patients eventually have a relapse. . . .

A randomized trial evaluated whether resection of lymph nodes that appeared macroscopically normal during surgery for ovarian cancer would lead to improved outcomes. Progression-free and overall survival were unaffected, and resection was associated with longer operations and more complications.

Maintenance monotherapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer. We aimed to explore the hypothesis that olaparib is most likely to benefit patients with a BRCA mutation. We present data from the second interim analysis of overall survival and a retrospective, preplanned analysis of data by BRCA mutation status from our randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study that assessed maintenance treatment with olaparib 400 mg twice daily (capsules) versus placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer who had received two or more platinum-based regimens and who had a partial or complete response to their most recent platinum-based regimen. Randomisation was by an interactive voice response system, stratified by time to progression on penultimate platinum-based regimen, response to the most recent platinum-based regimen before randomisation, and ethnic descent. The primary endpoint was PFS, analysed for the overall population and by BRCA status. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753545. Between Aug 28, 2008, and Feb 9, 2010, 136 patients were assigned to olaparib and 129 to placebo. BRCA status was known for 131 (96%) patients in the olaparib group versus 123 (95%) in the placebo group, of whom 74 (56%) versus 62 (50%) had a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline or tumour BRCA mutation. Of patients with a BRCA mutation, median PFS was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the placebo group (11·2 months [95% CI 8·3–not calculable] vs 4·3 months [3·0–5·4]; HR 0·18 [0·10–0·31]; p<0·0001); similar findings were noted for patients with wild-type BRCA, although the difference between groups was lower (7·4 months [5·5–10·3] vs 5·5 months [3·7–5·6]; HR 0·54 [0·34–0·85]; p=0·0075). At the second interim analysis of overall survival (58% maturity), overall survival did not significantly differ between the groups (HR 0·88 [95% CI 0·64–1·21]; p=0·44); similar findings were noted for patients with mutated BRCA (HR 0·73 [0·45–1·17]; p=0·19) and wild-type BRCA (HR 0·99 [0·63–1·55]; p=0·96). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the olaparib group were fatigue (in ten [7%] patients in the olaparib group vs four [3%] in the placebo group) and anaemia (seven [5%] vs one [<1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 25 (18%) patients who received olaparib and 11 (9%) who received placebo. Tolerability was similar in patients with mutated BRCA and the overall population. These results support the hypothesis that patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer with a BRCA mutation have the greatest likelihood of benefiting from olaparib treatment. AstraZeneca.

In patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer, maintenance monotherapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib significantly improves progression-free survival versus placebo. We assessed the effect of maintenance olaparib on overall survival in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer, including those with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (BRCAm). In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial involving 82 sites across 16 countries, patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer who had received two or more courses of platinum-based chemotherapy and had responded to their latest regimen were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated sequence to receive oral maintenance olaparib (as capsules; 400 mg twice a day) or a matching placebo by an interactive voice response system. Patients were stratified by ancestry, time to progression on penultimate platinum, and response to most recent platinum. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment by the use of unique identifiers generated during randomisation. The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival. In this updated analysis, we present data for overall survival, a secondary endpoint, from the third data analysis after more than 5 years’ follow-up (intention-to-treat population). We did the updated overall survival analysis, described in this Article at 77% data maturity, using a two-sided α of 0·95%. As the study was not powered to assess overall survival, this analysis should be regarded as descriptive and the p values are nominal. We analysed randomly assigned patients for overall survival and all patients who received at least one dose of treatment for safety. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753545. Between Aug 28, 2008, and Feb 9, 2010, 265 patients were randomly assigned to olaparib (n=136) or placebo (n=129). 136 patients had deleterious BRCAm. The data cutoff for this analysis was Sept 30, 2015. An overall survival advantage was seen with maintenance olaparib versus placebo in all patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·55–0·96]; nominal p=0·025, which did not meet the required threshold for statistical significance [p<0·0095]; median overall survival was 29·8 months [95% CI 26·9–35·7] for those treated with olaparib vs 27·8 months [24·9–33·7] for those treated with placebo), and in patients with BRCAm (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·41–0·94] nominal p=0·025; 34·9 months [95% CI 29·2–54·6] vs 30·2 months [23·1–40·7]). The overall survival data in patients with BRCA wild-type were HR 0·83 (95% CI 0·55–1·24, nominal p=0·37; 24·5 months [19·8–35·0] for those treated with olaparib vs 26·6 months [23·1–32·5] for those treated with placebo). 11 (15%) of 74 patients with BRCAm received maintenance olaparib for 5 years or more. Overall, common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the olaparib and placebo groups were fatigue (11 [8%] of 136 patients vs four [3%] of 128) and anaemia (eight [6%] vs one [1%]). 30 (22%) of 136 patients in the olaparib group and 11 (9%) of 128 patients in the placebo group reported serious adverse events. In patients treated for 2 years or more, adverse events in the olaparib and placebo groups included low-grade nausea (24 [75%] of 32 patients vs two [40%] of five), fatigue (18 [56%] of 32 vs two [40%] of five), vomiting (12 [38%] of 32 vs zero), and anaemia (eight [25%] of 32 vs one [20%] of five); generally, events were initially reported during the first 2 years of treatment. Despite not reaching statistical significance, patients with BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer receiving olaparib maintenance monotherapy after platinum-based chemotherapy appeared to have longer overall survival, supporting the reported progression-free survival benefit. Clinically useful long-term exposure to olaparib was seen with no new safety signals. Taken together, these data support both the long-term clinical benefit and tolerability of maintenance olaparib in patients with BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer. AstraZeneca.

BackgroundPredictive models based on radiomics features are novel, highly promising approaches for gynaecological oncology. Here, we wish to assess the prognostic value of the newly discovered Radiomic Prognostic Vector (RPV) in an independent cohort of high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) patients, treated within a Centre of Excellence, thus avoiding any bias in treatment quality.MethodsRPV was calculated using standardised algorithms following segmentation of routine preoperative imaging of patients (n = 323) who underwent upfront debulking surgery (01/2011-07/2018). RPV was correlated with operability, survival and adjusted for well-established prognostic factors (age, postoperative residual disease, stage), and compared to previous validation models.ResultsThe distribution of low, medium and high RPV scores was 54.2% (n = 175), 33.4% (n = 108) and 12.4% (n = 40) across the cohort, respectively. High RPV scores independently associated with significantly worse progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 1.69; 95% CI:1.06–2.71; P = 0.038), even after adjusting for stage, age, performance status and residual disease. Moreover, lower RPV was significantly associated with total macroscopic tumour clearance (OR = 2.02; 95% CI:1.56–2.62; P = 0.00647).ConclusionsRPV was validated to independently identify those HGSOC patients who will not be operated tumour-free in an optimal setting, and those who will relapse early despite complete tumour clearance upfront. Further prospective, multicentre trials with a translational aspect are warranted for the incorporation of this radiomics approach into clinical routine.

BackgroundPrimary cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy has been considered standard management for patients with advanced ovarian cancer over decades. An alternative approach of interval debulking surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy was subsequently reported by two randomized phase III trials (EORTC‐GCG, CHORUS), which were criticized owing to important limitations, especially regarding the rate of complete resection.Primary ObjectiveTo clarify the optimal timing of surgical therapy in advanced ovarian cancer.Study HypothesisPrimary cytoreductive surgery is superior to interval cytoreductive surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for overall survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.Trial DesignTRUST is an international open, randomized, controlled multi-center trial investigating overall survival after primary cytoreductive surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy and subsequent interval cytoreductive surgery in patients with FIGO stage IIIB–IVB ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal carcinoma. To guarantee adequate surgical quality, participating centers need to fulfill specific quality assurance criteria (eg, ≥50% complete resection rate in upfront surgery for FIGO IIIB–IVB patients, ≥36 debulking-surgeries/year) and agree to independent audits by TRUST quality committee delegates. Patients in the primary cytoreductive surgery arm undergo surgery followed by 6 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy, whereas patients in the interval cytoreductive surgery arm undergo 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy after histologic confirmation of the disease, followed by interval cytoreductive surgery and subsequently, 3 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. The intention of surgery for both groups is complete tumor resection according to guideline recommendations.Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaMajor inclusion criteria are suspected or histologically confirmed, newly diagnosed invasive epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube carcinoma, or primary peritoneal carcinoma FIGO stage IIIB–IVB (IV only if resectable metastasis). Major exclusion criteria are non-epithelial ovarian malignancies and borderline tumors; prior chemotherapy for ovarian cancer; or abdominal/pelvic radiotherapy.Primary EndpointOverall survival.Sample Size772 patients.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsAccrual completion approximately mid-2019, results are expected after 5 years' follow-up in 2024.Trial Registration NCT02828618.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to examine the survival effect of adjuvant therapy in stage II–III endometrial cancer based on peritoneal cytology results.MethodsThe National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program was retrospectively queried to examine 7467 women with stage II–III endometrial cancer who underwent hysterectomy, and with available peritoneal cytology results, from 2010 to 2016. A Cox proportional hazard regression model was fitted to assess the association between adjuvant therapy and all-cause mortality stratified by peritoneal cytology results.ResultsMalignant peritoneal cytology was reported in 1662 (22.3%) women and was associated with non-endometrioid histology, higher tumor stage, and nodal metastasis (p < 0.05). In a propensity score-weighted model, malignant peritoneal cytology was associated with increased all-cause mortality compared with negative peritoneal cytology (hazard ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.23–1.48). Adjuvant therapy types varied based on histology and peritoneal cytology results. In non-endometrioid histology, the combination of chemotherapy and whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) was associated with improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy or WPRT alone irrespective of the peritoneal cytology results (p < 0.05). The combination of chemotherapy and WPRT was also associated with improved overall survival in women with endometrioid histology and malignant peritoneal cytology (p = 0.026). Women with endometrioid histology and negative peritoneal cytology represented the most common subpopulation (46.5%), and overall survival was similar regardless of which of the three adjuvant therapy modalities was used (p = 0.319).ConclusionsMalignant peritoneal cytology is prevalent and prognostic in stage II–III endometrial cancer. This study found that the surgeon’s choice and benefit of adjuvant therapy for women with stage II–III endometrial cancer differed depending on the status of peritoneal cytology.

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing strategies and follow-up of patients with cervical cancers, ovarian cancers, and borderline ovarian tumours. The developmental process of these guidelines is based on a systematic literature review and critical appraisal involving an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of 25 experts from relevant disciplines (ie, gynaecological oncology, oncofertility, reproductive surgery, endoscopy, imaging, conservative surgery, medical oncology, and histopathology). Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 121 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. The guidelines comprehensively cover oncological aspects of fertility-sparing strategies during the initial management, optimisation of fertility results and infertility management, and the patient's desire for future pregnancy and beyond.

Angiogenesis is a target in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Nintedanib, an oral triple angiokinase inhibitor of VEGF receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and fibroblast growth factor receptor, has shown activity in phase 2 trials in this setting. We investigated the combination of nintedanib with standard carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. In this double-blind phase 3 trial, chemotherapy-naive patients (aged 18 years or older) with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) IIB–IV ovarian cancer and upfront debulking surgery were stratified by postoperative resection status, FIGO stage, and planned carboplatin dose. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive voice or web-based response system to receive six cycles of carboplatin (AUC 5 mg/mL per min or 6 mg/mL per min) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) in addition to either 200 mg of nintedanib (nintedanib group) or placebo (placebo group) twice daily on days 2–21 of every 3-week cycle for up to 120 weeks. Patients, investigators, and independent radiological reviewers were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01015118. Between Dec 9, 2009, and July 27, 2011, 1503 patients were screened and 1366 randomly assigned by nine study groups in 22 countries: 911 to the nintedanib group and 455 to the placebo group. 486 (53%) of 911 patients in the nintedanib group experienced disease progression or death compared with 266 (58%) of 455 in the placebo group. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the nintedanib group than in the placebo group (17·2 months [95% CI 16·6–19·9] vs 16·6 months [13·9–19·1]; hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·72–0·98]; p=0·024). The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal (diarrhoea: nintedanib group 191 [21%] of 902 grade 3 and three [<1%] grade 4 vs placebo group nine [2%] of 450 grade 3 only) and haematological (neutropenia: nintedanib group 180 [20%] grade 3 and 200 (22%) grade 4 vs placebo group 90 [20%] grade 3 and 72 [16%] grade 4; thrombocytopenia: 105 [12%] and 55 [6%] vs 21 [5%] and eight [2%]; anaemia: 108 [12%] and 13 [1%] vs 26 [6%] and five [1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 376 (42%) of 902 patients in the nintedanib group and 155 (34%) of 450 in the placebo group. 29 (3%) of 902 patients in the nintedanib group experienced serious adverse events associated with death compared with 16 (4%) of 450 in the placebo group, including 12 (1%) in the nintedanib group and six (1%) in the placebo group with a malignant neoplasm progression classified as an adverse event by the investigator. Drug-related adverse events leading to death occurred in three patients in the nintedanib group (one without diagnosis of cause; one due to non-drug-related sepsis associated with drug-related diarrhoea and renal failure; and one due to peritonitis) and in one patient in the placebo group (cause unknown). Nintedanib in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel is an active first-line treatment that significantly increases progression-free survival for women with advanced ovarian cancer, but is associated with more gastrointestinal adverse events. Future studies should focus on improving patient selection and optimisation of tolerability. Boehringer Ingelheim.

Antiangiogenic therapy has known activity in ovarian cancer. The investigator-initiated randomised phase 2 TRIAS trial assessed the multi-kinase inhibitor sorafenib combined with topotecan and continued as maintenance therapy for platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. We did a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 2 trial at 20 sites in Germany. Patients (≥18 years) with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer previously treated with two or fewer chemotherapy lines for recurrent disease were stratified (first vs later relapse) in block sizes of four and randomly assigned (1:1) using a web-generated response system to topotecan (1·25 mg/m2 on days 1–5) plus either oral sorafenib 400 mg or placebo twice daily on days 6–15, repeated every 21 days for six cycles, followed by daily maintenance sorafenib or placebo for up to 1 year in patients without progression. Investigators and patients were masked to allocation of sorafenib or placebo; topotecan treatment was open label. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01047891. Between Jan 18, 2010, and Sept 19, 2013, 185 patients were enrolled, 174 of whom were randomly assigned: 85 to sorafenib and 89 to placebo. Two patients in the sorafenib group had serious adverse events before treatment and were excluded from analyses. 83 patients in the sorafenib group and 89 in the placebo group started treatment. Progression-free survival was significantly improved with sorafenib versus placebo (hazard ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·43–0·83; p=0·0018). Median progression-free survival was 6·7 months (95% CI 5·8–7·6) with sorafenib versus 4·4 months (3·7–5·0) with placebo. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were leucopenia (57 [69%] of 83 patients in the sorafenib group vs 47 [53%] of 89 in the placebo group), neutropenia (46 [55%] vs 48 [54%]), and thrombocytopenia (23 [28%] vs 20 [22%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 49 (59%) of 83 sorafenib-treated patients and 45 (51%) of 89 placebo-treated patients. Of these, events were fatal in four patients (5%) in the sorafenib group (dyspnoea and poor general condition, septic shock, ascites and dyspnoea, and sigma perforation) and seven (8%) in the placebo group (pulmonary embolism in two patients, disease progression in two patients, and one case each of sepsis with fever, pleural effusion, and tumour cachexia). Sorafenib was associated with increased incidences of grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction (three [13%] vs 0 patients) and grade 2 alopecia (24 [29%] vs 12 [13%]). Sorafenib, when given orally in combination with topotecan and continued as maintenance therapy, showed a statistically and clinically significant improvement in progression-free survival in women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. These encouraging results support the crucial role of antiangiogenesis as the treatment backbone in combination with chemotherapy, making this approach attractive for further assessment with other targeted strategies. Bayer, Amgen, and GlaxoSmithKline.