Publications by authors named "Amit M Oza"

183 Publications

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

JAMA Oncol 2021 Oct 14. Epub 2021 Oct 14.

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle.

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 in TP53 but 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). TP53 CHIP was associated with longer prior exposure to platinum (mean 14.0 months of 15 TP53 CHIP cases vs 11.1 months of 49 non-TP53 CHIP cases; P = .02). Longitudinal analysis showed that preexisting TP53 CHIP variants expanded in patients who developed t-MNs.

Conclusions And Relevance: The findings of this genetic association study suggest that preexisting TP53 CHIP variants may be associated with t-MNs after rucaparib treatment.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.4664DOI Listing
October 2021

Adavosertib with Chemotherapy in Patients with Primary Platinum-Resistant Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, or Peritoneal Cancer: an Open-Label, Four-Arm, Phase II Study.

Clin Cancer Res 2021 Oct 13. Epub 2021 Oct 13.

Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

This study assessed the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of adavosertib in combination with four chemotherapy agents commonly used in patients with primary platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Women with histologically or cytologically confirmed epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer with measurable disease were enrolled between January 2015 and January 2018 in this open-label, four-arm, multicenter, Phase II study. Patients received adavosertib (oral capsules, 2 days on/5 days off or 3 days on/4 days off) in six cohorts from 175 mg once daily to 225 mg twice daily combined with gemcitabine, paclitaxel, carboplatin, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. The primary outcome measurement was overall response rate. Three percent of patients (3/94) had confirmed complete response and 29% (27/94) had confirmed partial response. The response rate was highest with carboplatin plus weekly adavosertib, at 66.7%, with 100% disease control rate, and median progression-free survival of 12.0 months. The longest median duration of response was in the paclitaxel cohort (12.0 months). The most common grade {greater than or equal to}3 adverse events across all cohorts were neutropenia (45/94 [47.9%] patients), anemia (31/94 [33.0%]), thrombocytopenia (30/94 [31.9%]), and diarrhea and vomiting (10/94 [10.6%] each). Adavosertib showed preliminary efficacy when combined with chemotherapy. The most promising treatment combination was adavosertib 225 mg twice daily on days 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 plus carboplatin every 21 days. However, hematologic toxicity was more frequent than would be expected for carboplatin monotherapy, and the combination requires further study to optimize the dose, schedule, and supportive medications.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0158DOI Listing
October 2021

Characterization of patients with long-term responses to rucaparib treatment in recurrent ovarian cancer.

Gynecol Oncol 2021 Sep 30. Epub 2021 Sep 30.

Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Objective: To describe molecular and clinical characteristics of patients with high-grade recurrent ovarian carcinoma (HGOC) who had long-term responses to the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib.

Methods: This post hoc analysis pooled patients from Study 10 (NCT01482715; Parts 2A and 2B; n = 54) and ARIEL2 (NCT01891344; Parts 1 and 2; n = 491). Patients with investigator-assessed complete or partial response per RECIST were classified based on duration of response (DOR): long (≥1 year), intermediate (6 months to <1 year), or short (<6 months). Next-generation sequencing was used to detect deleterious mutations and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in tumors.

Results: Overall, 25.3% (138/545) of enrolled patients were responders. Of these, 27.5% (38/138) had long-term responses; 28.3% (39/138) were intermediate- and 34.8% (48/138) were short-term responders. Most of the long-term responders harbored a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation (71.1%, 27/38), and BRCA structural variants were most frequent among long-term responders (14.8%; 4/27). Responders with HGOC harboring a BRCA structural variant (n = 5) had significantly longer DOR than patients with other mutation types (n = 81; median not reached vs 0.62 years; HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.43; unadjusted p = 0.014). Among responders with BRCA wild-type HGOC, most long- and intermediate-term responders had high genome-wide LOH: 81.8% (9/11) and 76.9% (10/13), respectively, including 7 with deleterious RAD51C, RAD51D, or CDK12 mutations.

Conclusion: Among patients who responded to rucaparib, a substantial proportion achieved responses lasting ≥1 year. These analyses demonstrate the relationship between DOR to PARP inhibitor treatment and molecular characteristics in HGOC, such as presence of reversion-resistant BRCA structural variants.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.08.030DOI Listing
September 2021

ATHENA (GOG-3020/ENGOT-ov45): a randomized, phase III trial to evaluate rucaparib as monotherapy (ATHENA-MONO) and rucaparib in combination with nivolumab (ATHENA-COMBO) as maintenance treatment following frontline platinum-based chemotherapy in ovarian cancer.

Int J Gynecol Cancer 2021 Sep 30. Epub 2021 Sep 30.

Department of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Background: The optimal treatment strategy for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer has yet to be determined. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have demonstrated substantial improvement in progression-free survival as monotherapy maintenance treatment in the frontline setting versus active surveillance. Furthermore, preclinical and early clinical studies have shown that PARP inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors have synergistic antitumor activity and may provide an additional therapeutic option for patients in this population.

Primary Objectives: In women with newly diagnosed ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer, we wish to assess the efficacy of frontline maintenance treatment with the PARP inhibitor rucaparib versus placebo following response to platinum-based chemotherapy (ATHENA-MONO), and to assess the combination of rucaparib plus nivolumab (a programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1)-blocking monoclonal antibody) versus rucaparib alone (ATHENA-COMBO).

Study Hypothesis: (1) Maintenance therapy with rucaparib monotherapy may extend progression-free survival following standard treatment for ovarian cancer in the frontline setting. (2) The combination of nivolumab plus rucaparib may extend progression-free survival following standard treatment for ovarian cancer in the frontline setting compared with rucaparib alone.

Trial Design: ATHENA is an international, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial consisting of two independent comparisons (ATHENA-MONO and ATHENA-COMBO) in patients with newly diagnosed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Patients are randomized 4:4:1:1 to the following: oral rucaparib+ intravenous nivolumab (arm A); oral rucaparib + intravenous placebo (arm B); oral placebo+ intravenous nivolumab (arm C); and oral placebo + intravenous placebo (arm D). The starting dose of rucaparib is 600 mg orally twice a day and nivolumab 480 mg intravenously every 4 weeks. ATHENA-MONO compares arm B with arm D to evaluate rucaparib monotherapy versus placebo, and ATHENA-COMBO evaluates arm A versus arm B to investigate the effects of rucaparib and nivolumab in combination versus rucaparib monotherapy. ATHENA-MONO and ATHENA-COMBO share a common treatment arm (arm B) but each comparison is independently powered.

Major Inclusion/exclusion Criteria: Patients ≥18 years of age with newly diagnosed advanced, high-grade epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have achieved a response after completion of cytoreductive surgery and initial platinum-based chemotherapy are enrolled. No other prior treatment for ovarian cancer, other than the frontline platinum regimen, is permitted.

Primary Endpoint: The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1.

Sample Size: Approximately 1000 patients have been enrolled and randomized.

Estimated Dates For Completing Accrual And Presenting Results: The trial completed accrual in 2020. While dependent on event rates, primary results of ATHENA-MONO are anticipated in early 2022 and results of ATHENA-COMBO are anticipated to mature at a later date.

Trial Registration: This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03522246).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2021-002933DOI Listing
September 2021

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.

Cancer Med 2021 Sep 21. Epub 2021 Sep 21.

Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

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.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4260DOI Listing
September 2021

A Long-Term Extension Study of Bevacizumab in Patients With Solid Tumors.

Oncologist 2021 Sep 9. Epub 2021 Sep 9.

Università Milano-Bicocca, and Programma Ginecologia, Istituto Europeo Oncologia, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Milano, Italy.

Background: Bevacizumab has been studied in numerous clinical trials in multiple types of cancer; however, patients may receive bevacizumab over an extended period of time. This study assessed the long-term safety and tolerability of bevacizumab among patients with solid tumors.

Materials And Methods: Patients enrolled in a Roche/Genentech-sponsored trial who had derived benefit from bevacizumab therapy as monotherapy or in combination with anticancer drugs were eligible for continuation of bevacizumab in this long-term extension (LTE) study. The primary endpoints were the incidence of adverse events (AEs) of Common Terminology Criteria for AEs (CTCAE) grade ≥3 related to bevacizumab treatment, serious AEs (SAEs), and deaths.

Results: Ninety-five patients with the following cancer types were enrolled in the LTE: ovarian cancer or peritoneal carcinoma (n = 41), non-small cell lung cancer (n = 16), glioblastoma multiforme (n = 14), breast cancer (n = 11), colorectal cancer (n = 7), or renal cell carcinoma (n = 6). The median (range) duration of bevacizumab treatment was 15.6 (0.0-81.0) months during the LTE and 57.5 (16.4-134.9) months overall (parent trial + LTE), with three patients receiving bevacizumab for >10 years. Overall, 17 patients (17.9%) experienced SAEs, and 21 (22.1%) had a bevacizumab-related AE of CTCAE grade ≥3 (proteinuria and hypertension were the most common). Four patients died: three from disease progression and one from an AE considered unrelated to bevacizumab.

Conclusion: The safety outcomes observed support the tolerability of long-term bevacizumab in patients with various solid tumors, with a median extended treatment duration of almost 5 years overall and >10 years in some individual patients. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01588184.

Implications For Practice: In this long-term extension study of patients with solid tumors, the median duration of bevacizumab treatment (including parent trials) was just under 5 years, with a long-term exposure in some patients of 7 to >10 years. Grade ≥3 adverse events related to bevacizumab were consistent with the established safety profile, with proteinuria and hypertension being the most common. Patients received bevacizumab over an extended period of time (beyond the length of most clinical trials), and the overall safety outcomes observed support the tolerability of long-term bevacizumab treatment in patients with solid tumors, with clinical benefit achieved over an extended period.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/onco.13971DOI Listing
September 2021

Phase II Trial of Symptom Screening With Targeted Early Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Cancer.

J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021 Sep 7:1-10. Epub 2021 Sep 7.

12Department of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.

Background: Routine early palliative care (EPC) improves quality of life (QoL) for patients with advanced cancer, but it may not be necessary for all patients. We assessed the feasibility of Symptom screening with Targeted Early Palliative care (STEP) in a phase II trial.

Methods: Patients with advanced cancer were recruited from medical oncology clinics. Symptoms were screened at each visit using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised (ESAS-r); moderate to severe scores (screen-positive) triggered an email to a palliative care nurse, who called the patient and offered EPC. Patient-reported outcomes of QoL, depression, symptom control, and satisfaction with care were measured at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months. The primary aim was to determine feasibility, according to predefined criteria. Secondary aims were to assess whether STEP identified patients with worse patient-reported outcomes and whether screen-positive patients who accepted and received EPC had better outcomes over time than those who did not receive EPC.

Results: In total, 116 patients were enrolled, of which 89 (77%) completed screening for ≥70% of visits. Of the 70 screen-positive patients, 39 (56%) received EPC during the 6-month study and 4 (6%) received EPC after the study end. Measure completion was 76% at 2 months, 68% at 4 months, and 63% at 6 months. Among screen-negative patients, QoL, depression, and symptom control were substantially better than for screen-positive patients at baseline (all P<.0001) and remained stable over time. Among screen-positive patients, mood and symptom control improved over time for those who accepted and received EPC and worsened for those who did not receive EPC (P<.01 for trend over time), with no difference in QoL or satisfaction with care.

Conclusions: STEP is feasible in ambulatory patients with advanced cancer and distinguishes between patients who remain stable without EPC and those who benefit from targeted EPC. Acceptance of the triggered EPC visit should be encouraged. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04044040.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2020.7803DOI Listing
September 2021

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.

Lancet Oncol 2021 09 4;22(9):1275-1289. Epub 2021 Aug 4.

UCL Cancer Institute and UCL Hospitals, London, UK.

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/m every 3 weeks or 80 mg/m 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 (<1%) patient in the avelumab maintenance group (due to atrial fibrillation) and one (<1%) patient in the avelumab combination group (due to disease progression).

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.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00342-9DOI Listing
September 2021

Ethical frameworks in clinical research processes during COVID-19: a scoping review.

BMJ Open 2021 07 23;11(7):e047076. Epub 2021 Jul 23.

Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Objectives: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic there have been significant developments in research, its conduct and the supporting ethical framework. While many protocols have been delayed, halted or modified, other research efforts have been accelerated, generating controversy. The goal of this paper is to determine the rates of references surrounding the ethical oversight of research as reported in current COVID-19-related research publications.

Design: Scoping review.

Setting: Population-based observational or interventional studies from December 2019 to May 2020 with sample size of two or more. Studies were searched through electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials.

Participants: Eligibility criteria included participants within published studies who tested positive for COVID-19.

Main Outcomes And Measures: Data were extracted and charting methods included taking note of references to ethical frameworks, institutional review board (IRB), ethics committee (EC) or research ethics board (REB) involvement, consent processes, and other variables.

Results: 11 556 articles were screened, with 656 included in the final analysis. References to ethics were present in 530 (80.8%) studies, with 491 (74.8%) involving IRB/ECs/REBs and 126 (19.2%) not referencing ethics. Consent processes were outlined in 201 (30.6%) studies, with 198 (30.2%) reporting that they obtained consent waivers, however, 257 (39.2%) did not mention consent at all. Differences (p<0.001) in ethics-related references were apparent when analysed by continent, publication type, sample size and IF.

Conclusions: The majority of published articles pertaining to COVID-19 research made mention of ethical considerations, however, national and regional variations in research ethics review requirements introduce heterogeneity between studies and raise important questions about the conduct of scientific research during global public emergencies.

Trial Registration Number: Open Science Framework: https://osfio/z67wb.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047076DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8313312PMC
July 2021

Prognostic nomogram for progression-free survival in patients with BRCA mutations and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer on maintenance olaparib therapy following response to chemotherapy.

Eur J Cancer 2021 Sep 19;154:190-200. Epub 2021 Jul 19.

National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia; Department of Medical Oncology, St George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW 2217, Australia; Australia New Zealand Gynecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.

Background: The impact of maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors (PARPi) on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with BRCA mutations and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) varies widely. Individual prognostic factors do not reliably distinguish patients who progress early from those who have durable benefit. We developed and validated a prognostic nomogram to predict PFS in these patients.

Methods: The nomogram was developed using data from a training patient cohort with BRCA mutations and high-grade serous PSROC on the placebo arm of two maintenance therapy trials, Study 19 and SOLO2/ENGOT-ov21. We performed multivariable Cox regression analysis based on pre-treatment characteristics to develop a nomogram that predicts PFS. We assessed the discrimination and validation of the nomogram in independent validation patient cohorts treated with maintenance olaparib.

Results: The nomogram includes four PFS predictors: CA-125 at randomisation, platinum-free interval, presence of measurable disease and number of prior lines of platinum therapy. In the training (placebo) cohort (internal validation C-index 0.64), median PFS in the model-predicted good, intermediate and poor-risk groups was: 7.7 (95% CI 5.3-11.3), 5.4 (4.8-5.8) and 2.9 (2.8-4.4) months, respectively. In the validation (olaparib) cohort (C-index 0.71), median PFS in the model-predicted good, intermediate and poor-risk groups was: not reached, 16.6 (13.1-22.4) and 8.3 (7.1-10.8) months, respectively. The nomogram showed good calibration in the validation cohort (calibration plot).

Conclusions: This nomogram can be used to predict PFS and counsel patients with BRCA mutations and PSROC prior to maintenance olaparib and for stratification of patients in trials of maintenance therapies.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2021.06.024DOI Listing
September 2021

Research biopsies in patients with gynecologic cancers: patient-reported outcomes, perceptions, and preferences.

Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021 Jun 23. Epub 2021 Jun 23.

Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address:

Background: Despite the growing integration of mandatory biopsies for correlative endpoints within oncology clinical trials, there are sparse data on patient-reported outcomes, perceptions, and preferences.

Objective: This study aimed to prospectively assess the impact of research biopsies on the quality of life in patients with gynecologic cancer, evaluate patient-reported outcomes, and determine factors associated with patients' willingness to undergo sequential biopsies.

Study Design: We conducted a prospective study in patients with gynecologic malignancies undergoing research biopsies between 2015 and 2019 at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02334761). Here, we report the results of the paper-based surveys performed before and 1 week after biopsy. Although the questionnaires each assessed the impact of anxiety using a modified version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the postbiopsy questionnaire specifically assessed the likelihood of future biopsies, postbiopsy symptoms, complications, and perceptions.

Results: A total of 129 patients were enrolled, of which 91 (70.5%) completed at least 1 questionnaire. These patients had either ovarian (89%; 81 of 91) or endometrial cancer (11%; 10 of 91). Of all biopsies taken, 75% were from the abdomen or pelvis (67 of 89). There was 1 clinician-reported complication, a perihepatic hematoma (1%). Pain during the biopsy and physical discomfort were experienced by 60.3% (41 of 68) and 61.8% (42 of 68), respectively. Embarrassment and loss of dignity were experienced by 13.2% (9 of 68) and 11.8% (8 of 68), respectively. Although the mean Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score was in the normal range before and after biopsy, there was a significant decline in the total score after the biopsy (prebiopsy, 5.3 [standard deviation, 4.7] vs postbiopsy, 3.7 [standard deviation, 4.5]; P=.005); 84% of subjects (58 of 69) stated that they would definitely or likely consent to another biopsy. There was no impact on patients' willingness for future biopsies based on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, biopsy site, age, number of cores, and pain during the biopsy; however, subjects who reported feeling physically uncomfortable (odds ratio, 0.14; P=.005), embarrassed (odds ratio, 0.03; P=.004) or experienced loss of dignity (odds ratio, 0.05; P=.01) during the biopsy and those who experienced flu-like symptoms (odds ratio, 0.2; P=.018) or felt feverish (odds ratio, 0.2; P=.035) 1 week after biopsy, were less likely to undergo a sequential biopsy. Similarly, those with higher Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores before biopsy (odds ratio, 0.83; P=.008) and after biopsy (odds ratio, 0.8; P=.003) were less likely to consent for another biopsy.

Conclusion: Research biopsies were generally well accepted. Most patients (83%) were willing to undergo serial biopsies if necessary. Addressing the potentially modifiable psychosocial aspects of the procedure may improve the experience with research biopsies for patients with gynecologic cancers.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.06.071DOI Listing
June 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.

Lancet Oncol 2021 07 15;22(7):1034-1046. Epub 2021 Jun 15.

Arizona Oncology (US Oncology Network), University of Arizona College of Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ, USA.

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/m 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.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00216-3DOI Listing
July 2021

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.

Int J Gynecol Cancer 2021 07 8;31(7):949-958. Epub 2021 Jun 8.

Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London and UCL Hospitals, London, UK.

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: -mutant, homologous recombination deficient (-mutant or wild-type /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<0.0001) for patients with progression-free interval 6 to ≤12 months, and 13.6 versus 5.6 months (n=224 vs n=113; HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52, p<0.0001) for those with progression-free interval >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<0.0001) for patients who had received two prior chemotherapies, and 11.1 versus 5.3 months (n=144 vs n=65; HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.41, p<0.0001) for those who had received ≥3 prior chemotherapies. Median progression-free survival was 10.3 versus 5.4 months (n=83 vs n=43; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, p=0.0004) for patients who had received prior bevacizumab, and 10.9 versus 5.4 months (n=292 vs n=146; HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.45, p<0.0001) for those who had not. Across subgroups, median progression-free survival was also significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the -mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts. Safety was consistent across subgroups.

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.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2020-002240DOI Listing
July 2021

Maximizing cancer prevention through genetic navigation for Lynch syndrome detection in women with newly diagnosed endometrial and nonserous/nonmucinous epithelial ovarian cancer.

Cancer 2021 Sep 13;127(17):3082-3091. Epub 2021 May 13.

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University Health Network/Sinai Health Systems, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Background: Despite recommendations for reflex immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins to identify Lynch syndrome (LS), the uptake of genetic assessment by those who meet referral criteria is low. The authors implemented a comprehensive genetic navigation program to increase the uptake of genetic testing for LS in patients with endometrial cancer (EC) or nonserous/nonmucinous ovarian cancer (OC).

Methods: Participants with newly diagnosed EC or OC were prospectively recruited from 3 cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. Family history questionnaires were used to assess LS-specific family history. Reflex IHC for MMR proteins was performed with the inclusion of clinical directives in pathology reports. A trained genetic navigator initiated a genetic referral on behalf of the treating physician and facilitated genetic referrals to the closest genetics center.

Results: A total of 841 participants (642 with EC, 172 with OC, and 27 with synchronous EC/OC) consented to the study; 194 (23%) were MMR-deficient by IHC. Overall, 170 women (20%) were eligible for a genetic assessment for LS: 35 on the basis of their family history alone, 24 on the basis of their family history and IHC, 82 on the basis of IHC alone, and 29 on the basis of clinical discretion. After adjustments for participants who died (n = 6), 149 of 164 patients (91%) completed a genetic assessment, and 111 were offered and completed genetic testing. Thirty-four women (4.0% of the total cohort and 30.6% of those with genetic testing) were diagnosed with LS: 5 with mutL homolog 1 (MLH1), 9 with mutS homolog 2 (MSH2), 15 with mutS homolog 6 (MSH6), and 5 with PMS2.

Conclusions: The introduction of a navigated genetic program resulted in a high rate of genetic assessment (>90%) in patients with gynecologic cancer at risk for LS.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33625DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8453540PMC
September 2021

Molecular and clinical determinants of response and resistance to rucaparib for recurrent ovarian cancer treatment in ARIEL2 (Parts 1 and 2).

Nat Commun 2021 05 3;12(1):2487. Epub 2021 May 3.

Clovis Oncology, Inc., Boulder, CO, USA.

ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) is a single-arm, open-label phase 2 study of the PARP inhibitor (PARPi) rucaparib in relapsed high-grade ovarian carcinoma. In this post hoc exploratory biomarker analysis of pre- and post-platinum ARIEL2 samples, RAD51C and RAD51D mutations and high-level BRCA1 promoter methylation predict response to rucaparib, similar to BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. BRCA1 methylation loss may be a major cross-resistance mechanism to platinum and PARPi. Genomic scars associated with homologous recombination deficiency are irreversible, persisting even as platinum resistance develops, and therefore are predictive of rucaparib response only in platinum-sensitive disease. The RAS, AKT, and cell cycle pathways may be additional modulators of PARPi sensitivity.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22582-6DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8093258PMC
May 2021

Wee1 Inhibition in Recurrent Serous Uterine Cancer: Science Paving the Way in a Challenging Disease.

J Clin Oncol 2021 05 2;39(14):1513-1517. Epub 2021 Apr 2.

Division of Medical Oncology & Hematology, Bras Drug Development Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.21.00288DOI Listing
May 2021

Population exposure-efficacy and exposure-safety analyses for rucaparib in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma from Study 10 and ARIEL2.

Gynecol Oncol 2021 Jun 19;161(3):668-675. Epub 2021 Mar 19.

Clinical Pharmacology, Clovis Oncology, Inc., Boulder, CO, USA.

Objective: To evaluate correlations between rucaparib exposure and selected efficacy and safety endpoints in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma using pooled data from Study 10 and ARIEL2.

Methods: Efficacy analyses were limited to patients with carcinomas harboring a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who had received ≥2 prior lines of chemotherapy. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received ≥1 rucaparib dose. Steady-state daily area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and maximum concentration (C) for rucaparib were calculated for each patient and averaged by actual dose received over time (AUC and C) using a previously developed population pharmacokinetic model.

Results: Rucaparib exposure was dose-proportional and not associated with baseline patient weight. In the exposure-efficacy analyses (n = 121), AUC was positively associated with independent radiology review-assessed RECIST response in the subgroup of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent disease (n = 75, p = 0.017). In the exposure-safety analyses (n = 393, 40 mg once daily to 840 mg twice daily [BID] starting doses), most patients received a 600 mg BID rucaparib starting dose, with 27% and 21% receiving 1 or ≥2 dose reductions, respectively. C was significantly correlated with grade ≥2 serum creatinine increase, grade ≥3 alanine transaminase/aspartate transaminase increase, platelet decrease, fatigue/asthenia, and maximal hemoglobin decrease (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: The exposure-response analyses provide support for the approved starting dose of rucaparib 600 mg BID for maximum clinical benefit with subsequent dose modification only following the occurrence of a treatment-emergent adverse event in patients with BRCA-mutated recurrent ovarian carcinoma.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.03.015DOI Listing
June 2021

Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): a final analysis of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Lancet Oncol 2021 05 18;22(5):620-631. Epub 2021 Mar 18.

Association de Recherche Contre les Cancers dont Gynécologiques-ARCAGY, Paris, France.

Background: Olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously been shown to extend progression-free survival versus placebo when given to patients with relapsed high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer who were platinum sensitive and who had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation, as part of the SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21 trial. The aim of this final analysis is to investigate the effect of olaparib on overall survival.

Methods: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done across 123 medical centres in 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0-1, had histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous or high-grade endometrioid ovarian cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer, and had received two or more previous platinum regimens. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive web or voice-response system. Stratification was by response to previous chemotherapy and length of platinum-free interval. Treatment assignment was masked to patients, treatment providers, and data assessors. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival has been reported previously. Overall survival was a key secondary endpoint and was analysed in all patients as randomly allocated. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one treatment dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01874353, and is no longer recruiting patients.

Findings: Between Sept 3, 2013 and Nov 21, 2014, 295 patients were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either olaparib (n=196 [66%]) or placebo (n=99 [34%]). One patient, randomised in error, did not receive olaparib. Median follow-up was 65·7 months (IQR 63·6-69·3) with olaparib and 64·5 months (63·4-68·7) with placebo. Median overall survival was 51·7 months (95% CI 41·5-59·1) with olaparib and 38·8 months (31·4-48·6) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·74 [95% CI 0·54-1·00]; p=0·054), unadjusted for the 38% of patients in the placebo group who received subsequent PARP inhibitor therapy. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia (which occurred in 41 [21%] of 195 patients in the olaparib group and two [2%] of 99 patients in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 50 (26%) of 195 patients receiving olaparib and eight (8%) of 99 patients receiving placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events with a fatal outcome occurred in eight (4%) of the 195 patients receiving olaparib, six of which were judged to be treatment-related (attributed to myelodysplastic syndrome [n=3] and acute myeloid leukaemia [n=3]).

Interpretation: Olaparib provided a median overall survival benefit of 12·9 months compared with placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation. Although statistical significance was not reached, these findings are arguably clinically meaningful and support the use of maintenance olaparib in these patients.

Funding: AstraZeneca and Merck.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00073-5DOI Listing
May 2021

Can variant negative be high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma? A case series.

Gynecol Oncol Rep 2021 May 12;36:100729. Epub 2021 Feb 12.

Division of Medical Oncology & Hematology, Bras Family Drug Development Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z5, Canada.

• variant negative high-grade serous ovarian cancer is rare and can still show p53 abnormal immunohistochemistry.•Diagnostic and therapeutic considerations include pathologic, molecular and clinical domains.•Genetic reassessment through more comprehensive assays should be considered to ensure no missed rare or complex variants.•Presence of mutations can occur in variant high-grade serous ovarian cancer.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2021.100729DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7910505PMC
May 2021

Angiogenesis Inhibitors as Anti-Cancer Therapy Following Renal Transplantation: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

Curr Oncol 2021 01 22;28(1):661-670. Epub 2021 Jan 22.

Division of Medical Oncology & Hematology, Bras Family Drug Development Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G2M9, Canada.

Solid organ transplant recipients on long-term immunosuppressive medication are at increased risk of developing malignancy, and treatment of advanced cancers with angiogenesis inhibitors in this context has not been widely studied. We present a case of recurrent high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma treated with paclitaxel and bevacizumab in the context of prior renal transplantation where the patient responded well to treatment with controlled toxicities, discussing the potential for increased rates of adverse events and drug interactions in this select population.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/curroncol28010064DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7924357PMC
January 2021

Adavosertib plus gemcitabine for platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory recurrent ovarian cancer: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

Lancet 2021 01;397(10271):281-292

Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address:

Background: The Wee1 (WEE1hu) inhibitor adavosertib and gemcitabine have shown preclinical synergy and promising activity in early phase clinical trials. We aimed to determine the efficacy of this combination in patients with ovarian cancer.

Methods: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, women with measurable recurrent platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory high-grade serous ovarian cancer were recruited from 11 academic centres in the USA and Canada. Women were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, a life expectancy of more than 3 months, and normal organ and marrow function. Women with ovarian cancer of non-high-grade serous histology were eligible for enrolment in a non-randomised exploratory cohort. Eligible participants with high-grade serous ovarian cancer were randomly assigned (2:1), using block randomisation (block size of three and six) and no stratification, to receive intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m on days 1, 8, and 15) with either oral adavosertib (175 mg) or identical placebo once daily on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients and the team caring for each patient were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The safety and efficacy analysis population comprised all patients who received at least one dose of treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02151292, and is closed to accrual.

Findings: Between Sept 22, 2014, and May 30, 2018, 124 women were enrolled, of whom 99 had high-grade serous ovarian cancer and were randomly assigned to adavosertib plus gemcitabine (65 [66%]) or placebo plus gemcitabine (34 [34%]). 25 women with non-high-grade serous ovarian cancer were enrolled in the exploratory cohort. After randomisation, five patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer were found to be ineligible (four in the experimental group and one in the control group) and did not receive treatment. Median age for all treated patients (n=119) was 62 years (IQR 54-67). Progression-free survival was longer with adavosertib plus gemcitabine (median 4·6 months [95% CI 3·6-6·4] with adavosertib plus gemcitabine vs 3·0 months [1·8-3·8] with placebo plus gemcitabine; hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·35-0·90]; log-rank p=0·015). The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were haematological (neutropenia in 38 [62%] of 61 participants in the adavosertib plus gemcitabine group vs ten [30%] of 33 in the placebo plus gemcitabine group; thrombocytopenia in 19 [31%] of 61 in the adavosertib plus gemcitabine group vs two [6%] of 33 in the placebo plus gemcitabine group). There were no treatment-related deaths; two patients (one in each group in the high-grade serous ovarian cancer cohort) died while on study medication (from sepsis in the experimental group and from disease progression in the control group).

Interpretation: The observed clinical efficacy of a Wee1 inhibitor combined with gemcitabine supports ongoing assessment of DNA damage response drugs in high-grade serous ovarian cancer, a TP53-mutated tumour type with high replication stress. This therapeutic approach might be applicable to other tumour types with high replication stress; larger confirmatory studies are required.

Funding: US National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, US Department of Defense, Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation, and AstraZeneca.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32554-XDOI Listing
January 2021

Understanding the clinical implication of mismatch repair deficiency in endometrioid endometrial cancer through a prospective study.

Gynecol Oncol 2021 04 19;161(1):221-227. Epub 2021 Jan 19.

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network/Sinai Health Systems, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Zane Cohen Centre for Digestive Diseases, Familial Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address:

Objectives: Findings on impact of mismatch repair deficiency (MMRd) on patient outcomes in endometrial cancer (EC) have been inconsistent to date. The objective of this study was to compare the oncologic outcomes and recurrence patterns between MMRd and MMR-intact (MMRi) endometrioid EC (EEC).

Methods: Between 2015 and 2018, we prospectively recruited 492 EEC cases from three cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. Tumors were reflexively assessed for MMR protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Clinicopathological, survival and recurrence patterns were compared between MMRd and MMRi cases.

Results: Of 492 EEC, 348 were MMRi (71%) and 144 were MMRd (29%) with median follow-up of 16.8 months (0-69.6). MMRd tumors tended to be grade 2 or 3 (56% vs. 29%, p < 0.001), with propensity for lymphovascular space invasion (28% vs. 18%, p = 0.024), lymph node involvement (7% vs. 5%, p < 0.001) and received more adjuvant treatment (46% vs. 33%, p = 0.027). This group also had significantly lower 3-year recurrence-free survival (78% vs. 90%, p = 0.014) although there was no difference in OS (p = 0.603). MMRd cases were more likely to recur in retroperitoneal lymph nodes (p = 0.045). Upon subgroup analysis, MLH1 methylated tumors had the worst prognostic features and survival outcomes.

Conclusions: MLH1 methylated EECs exhibit more aggressive features compared to other MMRd and MMRi EECs. This may indicate an inherent difference in tumor biology, suggesting the importance of individualized management based on EC molecular phenotype.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.01.002DOI Listing
April 2021

Optimizing clinical research procedures in public health emergencies.

Med Res Rev 2021 03 11;41(2):725-738. Epub 2020 Nov 11.

Division of Medical Oncology & Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Public Health Emergencies of International Concern, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, have a devastating impact on an individual and societal level, and there is an urgent need to learn, understand and bridge the therapeutic gap at a time of extreme stress on the patient, health care systems and staff. Well-designed, controlled clinical trials play a crucial role in the discovery of novel diagnostic and management strategies; however, these catastrophic circumstances pose unique challenges in initiating research studies at institutional, national, and international levels, highlighting the importance of a coordinated, collaborative approach. This review discusses key elements necessary to consider for developing clinical trials within a Public Health Emergency setting.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/med.21749DOI Listing
March 2021

Measuring Quality of Life in Ovarian Cancer Clinical Trials-Can We Improve Objectivity and Cross Trial Comparisons?

Cancers (Basel) 2020 Nov 7;12(11). Epub 2020 Nov 7.

Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 1X6, Canada.

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remains a lethal disease for the majority of women diagnosed with it worldwide. For the majority of patients, diagnosis occurs late, in the advanced setting. Disease-induced as well as treatment-related adverse events can negatively impact quality of life (QoL). Research to date has captured these data through use of patient-related outcomes (PROs) and, increasingly, has become an area of increased attention and focus in clinical trial reporting. QoL/PRO measurements in EOC clinical trials at different transition points in a patient's journey are increasingly being recognized by patients, clinicians and regulatory agencies as the key determinants of treatment benefit. Various context-specific PROs and PRO endpoints have been described for clinical trials in EOC. Standardized approaches and checklists for incorporating PRO endpoints in clinical trials have been proposed. In a real-world clinical practice setting, PRO/QoL measures, which are meaningful, valid, reliable, feasible and acceptable to patients and clinicians, need to be implemented and used. These may assist by serving as screening tools; helping with the identification of patient preferences to aid in decision making; improving patient-provider communication; facilitating shared decision making. Importantly, they may also improve quality of care through an increasingly patient-centered approach. Potential areas of future research include assessment of anxiety, depression and other mental health issues. In good prognostic groups, such as maintenance clinical trials, following patients beyond progression will capture possible downstream effects related to delaying the psychological trauma of relapse, symptoms due to disease progression and side-effects of subsequent chemotherapy. Identifying PRO endpoints in next-generation-targeted therapies (including immunotherapies) also warrants investigation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers12113296DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7694966PMC
November 2020

Tumor site discordance in mismatch repair deficiency in synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers.

Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020 12 20;30(12):1951-1958. Epub 2020 Oct 20.

Gynecologic Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Objectives: For synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers, most centers rely on mismatch repair testing of the endometrial cancer to identify Lynch syndrome, and neglect the ovarian tumor site completely. We examined the mismatch repair immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability results from the endometrium and ovary to assess discordance between the tumor sites and between tests.

Methods: 30 women with newly diagnosed synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer were prospectively recruited from three cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. Both tumor sites were assessed for mismatch repair deficiency by immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability test; discordance in results between tumor sites and discordance between test results at each site was examined. Cases with discordant results had tumors sequenced with a targeted panel in order to reconcile the findings. All women underwent mismatch repair gene germline testing.

Results: Of 30 patients, 11 (37%) were mismatch repair deficient or microsatellite instable at either tumor site, with 5 (17%) testing positive for Lynch syndrome. Mismatch repair immunohistochemistry expression was discordant between endometrial and ovarian tumor sites in 2 of 27 patients (7%) while microsatellite instability results were discordant in 2 of 25 patients (8%). Relying on immunohistochemistry or microsatellite instability alone on the endometrial tumor would have missed one and three cases of Lynch syndrome, respectively. One patient with Lynch syndrome with a pathogenic variant was not detected by either immunohistochemistry or microsatellite instability testing. The rate of discordance between immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability test was 3.8% in the ovary and 12% in the endometrium.

Conclusions: There was discordance in immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability results between tumor sites and between tests within each site. Endometrial tumor testing with mismatch repair immunohistochemistry performed well, but missed one case of Lynch syndrome. Given the high incidence of Lynch syndrome (17%), consideration may be given to germline testing in all patients with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2020-001927DOI Listing
December 2020

Across barriers: poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors beyond progression in high grade serous ovarian cancer with brain metastases.

Int J Gynecol Cancer 2021 01 30;31(1):139-143. Epub 2020 Sep 30.

Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2020-001849DOI Listing
January 2021

Biomarkers of outcome to weekly paclitaxel in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Gynecol Oncol 2020 11 8;159(2):539-545. Epub 2020 Sep 8.

Division of Medical Oncology & Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address:

Objective: We sought to evaluate the role of intrinsic chromosomal aberrations in determining favorable outcome to weekly paclitaxel (WP) in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

Methods: We evaluated the common genomic aberrations of two patients with EOC and exceptional WP response in the GENIUS study (NCT03740503). We then searched for potential markers of unusual outcomes to WP in a validation cohort. We performed shallow whole genome sequencing (sWGS) in the tumor tissue of women with EOC considered as short-responders (SR; progression with ≤3 cycles) and long-responders (LR; response at ≥8 cycles) to WP monotherapy.

Results: We identified two women with exceptional response to WP, lasting over four years, who shared chromosome 8 gain as a common genomic aberration. In order to validate our findings, we reviewed 188 patients with EOC treated with WP and selected 61 women (39 SR, 22 LR) with unusual responses. By sWGS, there was no differential alterations in the copy number changes in chromosome 8, or in genes related to angiogenesis, tubulin superfamily, cell-cycle, apoptosis and paclitaxel metabolism or transportation pathways. Amongst the LR group, we identified six exceptionally long responders (ExLR), with responses lasting over a year. In an exploratory analysis, there was increased amplification of angiogenesis (VEGFB, MMP9), tubulin superfamily (TSC2) and apoptosis related genes (BCL2L1, BAD) in ExLR compared to SR. We identified one patient with a complete response to WP for over 7 years. Molecular profiling identified unique amplifications in interleukin related genes (CXCR1, CXCR2, IL1A, IL1B), not detected in other patients.

Conclusion: Intrinsic tumor pathways may impact outcome with weekly paclitaxel monotherapy and further investigations are required.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.08.032DOI Listing
November 2020

DUETTE: a phase II randomized, multicenter study to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of a second maintenance treatment in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer, who have previously received poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor maintenance treatment.

Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020 11 2;30(11):1824-1828. Epub 2020 Sep 2.

Division of Medical Oncology & Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Background: With the success of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy in the first-line and second-line treatment settings, a new patient population is emerging with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer, who have previously received a PARP inhibitor in the maintenance setting and for whom no second maintenance standard of care exists. DUETTE (NCT04239014) will evaluate the combination of ceralasertib (a potent, selective inhibitor of the serine/threonine kinase ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related protein (ATR) + olaparib, or olaparib monotherapy, compared with placebo, in this patient population of unmet need.

Primary Objective: The primary objective is to assess the efficacy of ceralasertib + olaparib combination, and olaparib monotherapy, compared with placebo, as second maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer.

Study Hypothesis: This study will test the hypothesis that ceralasertib + olaparib, or olaparib monotherapy, is tolerable, and effective at prolonging progression-free survival compared with placebo.

Trial Design: This is a phase II, multicenter study where patients will be randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either (Arm 1) ceralasertib + olaparib, (Arm 2) olaparib monotherapy, or (Arm 3) placebo. The olaparib and placebo arms will be double-blinded, whereas the ceralasertib + olaparib arm will be open label. Patients will be stratified according to status, and response to platinum-based chemotherapy.

Major Inclusion/exclusion Criteria: Eligible patients will have histologically diagnosed high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer, with platinum-sensitive relapse on, or after, completion of at least 6 months of any prior PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy (a minimum of 12 months is required if the patient received PARP inhibitor maintenance following first-line chemotherapy). If the prior PARP inhibitor used was olaparib then patients must have received treatment without significant toxicity or the need for a permanent dose reduction. Disease relapse in the second-line or third-line setting is allowed. Patients who have received secondary debulking surgery are potentially eligible if they meet all other inclusion criteria.

Primary Endpoints: The primary endpoint is progression-free survival determined by blinded independent central review according to RECIST 1.1, with sensitivity analysis of progression-free survival using investigator assessments according to RECIST 1.1.

Sample Size: 192 patients.

Estimated Dates For Completing Accrual And Presenting Results: December 2022.

Trial Registration: NCT04239014.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2020-001694DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7656147PMC
November 2020

The effect of age on efficacy, safety and patient-centered outcomes with rucaparib: A post hoc exploratory analysis of ARIEL3, a phase 3, randomized, maintenance study in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

Gynecol Oncol 2020 10 26;159(1):101-111. Epub 2020 Aug 26.

Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA.

Background: In the phase 3 trial ARIEL3, maintenance treatment with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib provided clinical benefit versus placebo for patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Here, we evaluate the impact of age on the clinical utility of rucaparib in ARIEL3.

Methods: Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma with ≥2 prior platinum-based chemotherapies who responded to their last platinum-based therapy were enrolled in ARIEL3 and randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Exploratory, post hoc analyses of progression-free survival (PFS), patient-centered outcomes (quality-adjusted PFS [QA-PFS] and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity [Q-TWiST]), and safety were conducted in three age subgroups (<65 years, 65-74 years, and ≥75 years).

Results: Investigator-assessed PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in patients aged <65 years (rucaparib n = 237 vs placebo n = 117; median, 11.1 vs 5.4 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.33 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.25-0.43]; P < 0.0001) and 65-74 years (n = 113 vs n = 64; median, 8.3 vs 5.3 months; HR 0.43 [95% CI 0.29-0.63]; P < 0.0001) and numerically longer in patients aged ≥75 years (n = 25 vs n = 8; median, 9.2 vs 5.5 months; HR 0.47 [95% CI 0.16-1.35]; P = 0.1593). QA-PFS and Q-TWiST were significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo across all age subgroups. Safety of rucaparib was generally similar across the age subgroups.

Conclusions: Efficacy, patient-centered outcomes, and safety of rucaparib were similar between age subgroups, indicating that all eligible women with recurrent ovarian cancer should be offered this therapeutic option, irrespective of age. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01968213.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.05.045DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8450972PMC
October 2020

Patient-Centered Outcomes in ARIEL3, a Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Rucaparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Carcinoma.

J Clin Oncol 2020 10 24;38(30):3494-3505. Epub 2020 Aug 24.

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.

Purpose: To investigate quality-adjusted progression-free survival (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) in a post hoc exploratory analysis of the phase III ARIEL3 study of rucaparib maintenance treatment versus placebo.

Patients And Methods: Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma were randomly assigned to rucaparib (600 mg twice per day) or placebo. QA-PFS was calculated as progression-free survival function × the 3-level version of the EQ-5D questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) index score function. Q-TWiST analyses were performed defining TOX as the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) or the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 2 TEAEs of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and asthenia. Q-TWiST was calculated as μTOX × TOX + TWiST, with μTOX calculated using EQ-5D-3L data.

Results: The visit cutoff was Apr 15, 2017. Mean QA-PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (375 randomly assigned to rucaparib 189 randomly assigned to placebo; difference, 6.28 months [95% CI, 4.85 to 7.47 months]); -mutant cohort (130 rucaparib 66 placebo; 9.37 months [95% CI, 6.65 to 11.85 months]); homologous recombination deficient (HRD) cohort (236 rucaparib 118 placebo; 7.93 months [95% CI, 5.93 to 9.53 months]); and wild-type/loss of heterozygosity (LOH) low patient subgroup (107 rucaparib 54 placebo; 2.71 months [95% CI, 0.31 to 4.44 months]). With TOX defined using grade ≥ 3 TEAEs, the difference in mean Q-TWiST (rucaparib placebo) was 6.88 months (95% CI, 5.71 to 8.23 months), 9.73 months (95% CI, 7.10 to 11.94 months), 8.11 months (95% CI, 6.36 to 9.49 months), and 3.35 months (95% CI, 1.66 to 5.40 months) in the ITT population, -mutant cohort, HRD cohort, and wild-type/LOH low patient subgroup, respectively. Q-TWiST with TOX defined using select grade ≥ 2 TEAEs also consistently favored rucaparib.

Conclusion: The significant differences in QA-PFS and Q-TWiST confirm the benefit of rucaparib versus placebo in all predefined cohorts.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.03107DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7571791PMC
October 2020
-->