No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Overall survival and patient-reported outcome results from the placebo-controlled randomized phase III IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39 trial of atezolizumab for newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer
Abstract
Objective:
To determine the impact on overall survival (OS) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of combining atezolizumab with standard therapy for newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer.
Methods:
The placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39 trial (NCT03038100) assigned eligible patients to 3-weekly atezolizumab 1200 mg or placebo for 22 cycles with platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival (already reported) and OS in the PD-L1-positive and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, tested hierarchically. Prespecified PRO analyses focused on disease-related abdominal pain and bloating symptoms (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-OV28), functioning, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (QLQ-C30).
Results:
After 38 months' median follow-up, the OS hazard ratio in the PD-L1-positive population was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.66-1.06; p = 0.13); median OS was not estimable with atezolizumab versus 49.2 months with placebo. The hazard ratio for OS in the ITT population was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.78-1.09; median 50.5 versus 46.6 months, respectively). At week 9, similar proportions of patients in both arms of the neoadjuvant cohort showed ≥10-point improvement from baseline in abdominal pain and bloating, functioning, and HRQoL. In the primary surgery cohort, similar proportions of patients in each arm had improved, stable, or worsened physical and role function and HRQoL from baseline over time. Neither cohort showed differences between arms in treatment-related symptoms or overall side-effect bother.
Conclusions:
Incorporation of atezolizumab into standard therapy for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer does not significantly improve efficacy or impose additional treatment burden for patients.
Clinicaltrials:
gov registration: NCT03038100.
... Median treatment duration was 12·7 months (IQR 7·6-24·8) in the experimental group versus 8·5 months (5·1-13·9) in the standard group. Median duration of chemotherapy was six cycles (IQR 6-8) in both groups, whereas median bevacizumab duration was longer in the experimental group (14 cycles [IQR 7-25]) than the standard group (ten cycles [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]). Median atezolizumab duration was 16 cycles (IQR 8-32). ...
... Importantly, following lessons learned from GOG240 (with cisplatin) 3 and CECILIA (with carboplatin in a more selected population), 10 patient selection in BEATcc led to a lower incidence of grade 3 or worse fistulae (3% overall vs 6% in GOG240 4 ), which is one of the most concerning adverse events in patients with cervical cancer treated with bevacizumab. Consistent with previous phase 3 trials of atezolizumab in gynaecological cancers, [11][12][13] hypothyroidism and rash (both predominantly grade 1-2) were more common in the experimental group. Until recently, the success of immunotherapy for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer was limited to therapies targeting the PD-1 receptor given as monotherapy [14][15][16][17] or with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyteassociated protein 4 agents. ...
... Preclinical models have shown that inhibiting VEGF signaling can boost anti-neoplastic immunity and improve the capability of ICI [29] , while combining anti-PD-L1 with anti-VEGF has demonstrated combined effects in vivo [30] . In a phase II clinical investigation involving 38 OC patients, the concurrent use of nivolumab (an anti-PD1) and bevacizumab (an anti-VEGF) was evaluated [31] . The combination achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 28.9%, with differing rates between platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant groups (40% vs. 16.7%). ...
Ovarian cancer (OC) is the leading cause of death related to gynecologic malignancies, with recurrence occurring frequently despite significant advances in surgical interventions and chemotherapy. Therefore, novel therapies are necessary to improve the long-term prognosis of the disease. Immunotherapy holds promise in OC treatment by harnessing the potential of the immune system to combat neoplastic cells. The effectiveness of immunotherapy has been demonstrated in numerous cancers and subsequently integrated into clinical practice. However, despite initial preclinical findings suggesting an immunogenic microenvironment in OC, immune checkpoint inhibitors have not shown significant outcomes in clinical studies thus far. Further investigation is needed to fully understand the role of immunity in OC and to develop more effective therapeutic strategies, including combinatorial approaches and the identification of predictive biomarkers for more accurate patient selection for immunotherapy.
Purpose: To assess the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) on the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) in gynaecological tumors, with a focus on understanding the potential for enhanced combination therapies.
Methods: We systematically queried the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases, encompassing reviews, clinical trials, and case studies, to undertake a thorough analysis of the impact of NACT on the TIME of gynaecological tumors.
Results: NACT induces diverse immune microenvironment changes in gynaecological tumors. In cervical cancer, NACT boosts immune-promoting cells, enhancing tumor clearance. Ovarian cancer studies yield variable outcomes, influenced by patient-specific factors and treatment regimens. Limited research exists on NACT’s impact on endometrial cancer’s immune microenvironment, warranting further exploration. In summary, NACT-induced immune microenvironment changes display variability. Clinical trials highlight personalized immunotherapy’s positive impact on gynaecological tumor prognosis, suggesting potential avenues for future cancer treatments. However, rigorous investigation is needed to determine the exact efficacy and safety of combining NACT with immunotherapy.
Conclusion: This review provides a solid foundation for the development of late-stage immunotherapy and highlights the importance of therapeutic strategies targeting immune cells in TIME in anti-tumor therapy.
Purpose:
Platinum-based doublets with concurrent and maintenance bevacizumab are standard therapy for ovarian cancer (OC) relapsing after a platinum-free interval (PFI) >6 months. Immunotherapy may be synergistic with bevacizumab and chemotherapy.
Patients and methods:
ATALANTE/ENGOT-ov29 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02891824), a placebo-controlled double-blinded randomized phase III trial, enrolled patients with recurrent epithelial OC, one to two previous chemotherapy lines, and PFI >6 months. Eligible patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to atezolizumab (1,200 mg once every 3 weeks or equivalent) or placebo for up to 24 months, combined with bevacizumab and six cycles of chemotherapy doublet, stratified by PFI, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen. Coprimary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-positive populations (alpha .025 for each population).
Results:
Between September 2016 and October 2019, 614 patients were randomly assigned: 410 to atezolizumab and 204 to placebo. Only 38% had PD-L1-positive tumors. After 3 years' median follow-up, the PFS difference between atezolizumab and placebo did not reach statistical significance in the ITT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99; P = .041; median 13.5 v 11.3 months, respectively) or PD-L1-positive (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.16; P = .30; median 15.2 v 13.1 months, respectively) populations. The immature overall survival (OS) HR was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.01; median 35.5 v 30.6 months with atezolizumab v placebo, respectively). Global health-related quality of life did not differ between treatment arms. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 88% of atezolizumab-treated and 87% of placebo-treated patients; grade ≥3 AEs typical of immunotherapy were more common with atezolizumab (13% v 8%, respectively).
Conclusion:
ATALANTE/ENGOT-ov29 did not meet its coprimary PFS objectives in the ITT or PD-L1-positive populations. OS follow-up continues. Further research on biopsy samples is warranted to decipher the immunologic landscape of late-relapsing OC.
Purpose:
To explore whether patients with BRCA1/2-mutated or homologous recombination-deficient (HRD) ovarian cancers benefitted from atezolizumab in the phase III IMagyn050 (NCT03038100) trial.
Methods:
Patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer were randomized to either atezolizumab or placebo with standard chemotherapy and bevacizumab. PD-L1 status of tumor-infiltrating immune cells was determined centrally (VENTANA SP142 assay). Genomic alterations, including deleterious BRCA1/2 alterations, genomic loss of heterozygosity (gLOH), tumor mutation burden (TMB), and microsatellite instability (MSI), were evaluated using the FoundationOne assay. HRD was defined as gLOH ≥16%, regardless of BRCA1/2 mutation status. Potential associations between progression-free survival (PFS) and genomic biomarkers were evaluated using standard correlation analyses and log-rank of Kaplan-Meier estimates.
Results:
Among biomarker-evaluable samples, 22% (234/1050) harbored BRCA1/2 mutations and 46% (446/980) were HRD. Median TMB was low irrespective of BRCA1/2 or HRD. Only 3% (29/1024) had TMB ≥10 mut/Mb and 0.3% (3/1022) were MSI-high. PFS was better in BRCA2-mutated versus BRCA2-non-mutated tumors and in HRD versus proficient tumors. PD-L1 positivity (≥1% expression on immune cells) was associated with HRD but not BRCA1/2 mutations. PFS was not improved by adding atezolizumab in BRCA2-mutated or HRD tumors; there was a trend toward enhanced PFS with atezolizumab in BRCA1-mutated tumors.
Conclusions:
Most ovarian tumors have low TMB despite BRCA1/2 mutations or HRD. Neither BRCA1/2 mutation nor HRD predicted enhanced benefit from atezolizumab. This is the first randomized double-blind trial in ovarian cancer demonstrating that genomic instability triggered by BRCA1/2 mutation or HRD is not associated with improved sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Purpose:
To evaluate the addition of the humanized monoclonal antiprogrammed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) antibody, atezolizumab, to platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab in newly diagnosed stage III or IV ovarian cancer (OC).
Methods:
This multicenter placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03038100) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed untreated International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III or IV OC who either had undergone primary cytoreductive surgery with macroscopic residual disease or were planned to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval surgery. Patients were stratified by FIGO stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, tumor immune cell PD-L1 staining, and treatment strategy and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 3-weekly cycles of atezolizumab 1,200 mg or placebo (day 1, cycles 1-22), with paclitaxel plus carboplatin (day 1, cycles 1-6) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (day 1, cycles 2-22), omitting perioperative bevacizumab in neoadjuvant patients. The co-primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat and PD-L1-positive populations.
Results:
Between March 8, 2017, and March 26, 2019, 1,301 patients were enrolled. The median progression-free survival was 19.5 versus 18.4 months with atezolizumab versus placebo, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.07; stratified log-rank P = .28), in the intention-to-treat population and 20.8 versus 18.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.99; P = .038), in the PD-L1-positive population. The interim (immature) overall survival results showed no significant benefit from atezolizumab. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (21% with atezolizumab v 21% with placebo), hypertension (18% v 20%, respectively), and anemia (12% v 12%).
Conclusion:
Current evidence does not support the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in newly diagnosed OC. Insight from this trial should inform further evaluation of immunotherapy in OC.
There is general acceptance of the importance of incorporating patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures including health-related quality of life (HRQOL) into clinical trials, and there are now a number of guidance documents available on how to use PRO's for regulatory authorities and in comparative effectiveness research. The methods used to collect, analyse and report PRO data in clinical trials have received considerable scrutiny, revealing many shortcomings in the standard of reporting of HRQOL in clinical trials as well as in how PRO's have been selected and analysed in clinical trials. This has led to the recent Consolidated Standards of Reporting Clinical Trials-PRO extension statement which lays down a framework for selection and reporting analysis of PROs, either as primary or secondary trial end points, thus ensuring scientific rigour. Adherence to these guidelines can only improve the conduct of clinical trials and interpretation of their results, which may help avoid missing out on opportunities as in the past. We review pertinent literature on PRO measures and discuss how various recent PRO guidance documents should be applied to ovarian cancer clinical trials. © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved.
There is no consensus as to what symptoms or quality-of-life (QOL) domains should be measured as patient-reported outcomes
(PROs) in ovarian cancer clinical trials. A panel of experts convened by the National Cancer Institute reviewed studies published
between January 2000 and August 2011. The results were included in and combined with an expert consensus-building process
to identify the most salient PROs for ovarian cancer clinical trials. We identified a set of PROs specific to ovarian cancer:
abdominal pain, bloating, cramping, fear of recurrence/disease progression, indigestion, sexual dysfunction, vomiting, weight
gain, and weight loss. Additional PROs identified in parallel with a group charged with identifying the most important PROs
across cancer types were anorexia, cognitive problems, constipation, diarrhea, dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, neuropathy, pain,
and insomnia. Physical and emotional domains were considered to be the most salient domains of QOL. Findings of the review
and consensus process provide good support for use of these ovarian cancer–specific PROs in ovarian cancer clinical trials.
Aim: We describe the impact of a sequential dose-dense schedule of carboplatin and paclitaxel on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with ovarian cancer.
In this multicenter phase II trial, four cycles of carboplatin followed by 12 cycles of weekly paclitaxel were applied after cytoreductive surgery. QoL was assessed using the QoL questionnaires EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OV28 before chemotherapy (baseline), after four cycles of carboplatin, at the end of treatment (EOT), and after 6, 12, and 24 months.
Out of 104 eligible patients 87 (84%) participated in at least one QoL assessment. At baseline, all QLQ-C30 scales and symptoms were significantly worse than age-adjusted values for the general population. Subsequently QoL improved in general. During chemotherapy with paclitaxel, most functioning scales and symptoms worsened slightly (not significantly). However, peripheral neuropathy and chemotherapy-related side-effects increased to clinically important levels. At the end of treatment, most QoL scores were similar to those of the general population, but physical functioning and fatigue were worse. Sexual functioning and peripheral neuropathy remained problematic.
QoL was affected mainly by the weekly paclitaxel schedule, but effects were in most cases only temporary. A dose-dense regimen using a sequential protocol may be favourable in terms of QoL.
In the CALYPSO trial, carboplatin-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (CD) demonstrated superior therapeutic index versus carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP) in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. This paper reports the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) findings.
HRQoL was measured with the EORTC QoL-QC30 questionnaire and OV28 ovarian cancer module. Mean change scores from baseline in HRQoL subscales (five functional scales and global health status) in each arm and the proportion of patients improved or worsened were calculated every 3 months until 12 months.
Compliance was 90% at baseline and 76%, 64%, 57% at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively. Baseline HRQoL showed already impaired global scores (mean 62/100) and considerable symptom burden (90% of patients reporting nonzero scores). Global QoL and abdominal symptom scores improved over time in both arms; at 6 months, 36% of patients met criteria for improved symptoms. Treatment with CD resulted in less peripheral neuropathy (9.8 versus 24.2), fewer other chemotherapy side-effects (9.5 versus 16.2), and less impact on body image (3.8 versus 10.4) versus CP (all P<0.02) at 6 months.
These patient-reported outcomes confirm the overall lower toxicity of CD versus CP. The improved disease-related outcomes achieved with CD were not at the expense of QoL.
Background:
In the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 primary analysis, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab demonstrated a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer patients in clinical response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, irrespective of surgical status. Prespecified, exploratory analyses by molecular biomarker status showed substantial benefit in patients with a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (BRCAm) or homologous recombination deficiency (HRD; BRCAm and/or genomic instability). We report the prespecified final overall survival (OS) analysis, including analyses by HRD status.
Patients and methods:
Patients were randomized 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg bid; up to 24 months) plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg q3w; 15 months total) or placebo plus bevacizumab. Analysis of OS, a key secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing, was planned for ∼60% maturity or 3 years after the primary analysis.
Results:
After median follow-up of 61.7 and 61.9 months in the olaparib and placebo arms, respectively, median OS was 56.5 versus 51.6 months in the ITT (hazard ratio [HR]=0.92, 95% CI 0.76-1.12; P=0.4118). Subsequent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy was received by 105 (19.6%) olaparib patients versus 123 (45.7%) placebo patients. In the HRD-positive population, OS was longer with olaparib plus bevacizumab (HR=0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.85; 5-year OS rate, 65.5% versus 48.4%); at 5 years, updated PFS also showed a higher proportion of olaparib plus bevacizumab patients without relapse (HR=0.41, 95% CI 0.32-0.54; 5-year PFS rate, 46.1% versus 19.2%). Myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, aplastic anemia, and new primary malignancy incidence remained low and balanced between arms.
Conclusions:
Olaparib plus bevacizumab provided clinically meaningful OS improvement for first-line patients with HRD-positive ovarian cancer. These prespecified exploratory analyses demonstrated improvement despite a high proportion of patients in the placebo arm receiving PARP inhibitors post-progression, confirming the combination as one of the standards of care in this setting with the potential to enhance cure.
Background: Tumor biomarkers such as CD8 density and location (i.e., immune inflamed phenotype) and immune rich molecular subtype have been linked to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) overall survival (OS) in different cancers. The IMagyn050 trial (NCT03038100), which evaluated the efficacy of Atezo vs placebo (Pla) with carboplatin, paclitaxel and bevacizumab (CPB) in front line ovarian cancer patient (pts), did not meet its co-primary endpoints of PFS in ITT or PD-L1+ (Moore et al. JCO 2021). In the current IMagyn050 substudy we assessed potential predictive tumor immune biomarkers for Atezo clinical benefit.
Methods: FFPE tumors from the biomarker evaluable population were tested for PD-L1 IHC, CD8/PanCK IHC (total CD8 T cells and immune location phenotypes [inflamed, excluded, desert]) and RNA-seq (to derive molecular subtypes, biological pathways and cellular components [xCELL]) in tissue from baseline (n=860), on-treatment (OT, 9 weeks, n=233), intra- (n=8) and inter-lesion (n=12) matched samples. Hazard ratio (HR) interaction test from multivariate adjusted Cox-regression analysis for PFS and OS was performed to test predictive biomarkers.
Results: While tumors with CD8 T cells, immunoreactive molecular subtypes or immune inflamed phenotype were enriched for PD-L1+, only pts with immune inflamed tumors showed improved OS Atezo benefit (HR 0.67). Improved Atezo PFS/OS benefit was also observed in pts with whose tumors had high oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS, HR: 0.72/0.65) and UV Response (UV, HR: 0.64/0.58) but not IFNγ response. Plasma B cells were linked to improved OS Atezo benefit vs Pla (HR 0.53). We leveraged OT samples from pts in the neoadjuvant cohort to assess treatment effect on the tumor microenvironment. Analyses showed that CPB reduced tumor proliferation and increased tumor immune inflammation (CD8 T cells, PD-L1 and IFNα/IFNγ response), further increased by Atezo. Immune inflammation is challenging in ovarian cancer due to extensive tumor heterogeneity. Prevalence of tumor biomarkers varied by anatomic locations: total CD8, CD8 localization and molecular subtypes. Inter- and intra-lesion biomarker status within the same pt showed PD-L1 and plasma B cells as most consistent. Molecular subtypes and immune phenotypes had moderate intra-lesion agreement but discordant between lesions. PD-L1 and OXPHOS were the only biomarkers linked to Atezo benefit regardless of anatomical location.
Conclusion: This comprehensive exploratory study suggests that DNA damage, OXPHOS, plasma B cells and immune inflamed tumors, but not molecular subtypes or total CD8 T cells, may predict Atezo + CPB OS. This treatment promotes immune inflammation in OC tumors. Notably, we found that several biomarkers are highly heterogeneous. Our findings highlight the challenges of achieving durable clinical benefit from targeted immunotherapy in ovarian cancer pts.
Citation Format: Venkatesh Krishnan, Ching-Wei Chang, Habib Hamidi, Michael A. Bookman, Charles Landen, Tashanna Myers, Hiroaki Kajiyama, Sakari Hietanen, Lyndsay Willmott, Premal Thaker, Cagatay Taskiran, Jalid Sehouli, Victor Khor, Yvonne Lin Liu, Sandro Pignata, Kathleen Moore, Luciana Molinero. Ovarian cancer tumor microenvironment and atezolizumab (atezo) clinical activity: IMagyn050 sub-study. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 5702.
Immune checkpoint blockade has been ineffective in ovarian cancer, and there is an ongoing effort to identify biomarkers of therapeutic benefit. Despite promising preclinical data, a substudy of the IMagyn050 trial found that patients with homologous recombination deficient tumors did not have improved progression-free survival with the addition of the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab.
See related article by Landen et al., p. xxxx
Patients with primary metastatic/recurrent endometrial cancer have poor prognosis and available therapeutic options are limited. Current treatment is mainly based on platinum-based chemotherapy. Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval for the combination of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib for endometrial cancer patients without microsatellite instability (MSS) progressing to on a previous line of therapy while European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved the combination for all comers patients failing previous platinum treatment. Anti programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) dostarlimab (TSR-042) was approved as monotherapy in patients with advanced, microsatellite instable (MSI) endometrial cancer progressing to platinum treatment. Phase II-III clinical trials in metastatic endometrial cancer are mainly focused on target therapies and immunotherapy as single agents or in combination. Unfortunately, most of these trials are lacking of predictive biomarkers of response to select patients most or at least likely to benefit from those treatments.
The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) sixth Ovarian Cancer Conference on Clinical Research was held virtually in October, 2021, following published consensus guidelines. The goal of the consensus meeting was to achieve harmonisation on the design elements of upcoming trials in ovarian cancer, to select important questions for future study, and to identify unmet needs. All 33 GCIG member groups participated in the development, refinement, and adoption of 20 statements within four topic groups on clinical research in ovarian cancer including first line treatment, recurrent disease, disease subgroups, and future trials. Unanimous consensus was obtained for 14 of 20 statements, with greater than 90% concordance in the remaining six statements. The high acceptance rate following active deliberation among the GCIG groups confirmed that a consensus process could be applied in a virtual setting. Together with detailed categorisation of unmet needs, these consensus statements will promote the harmonisation of international clinical research in ovarian cancer.
Introduction:
Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy. Outcomes for patients with advanced and/or recurrent disease have been modest with the use of chemotherapy. The approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1 have recently revolutionized human cancer treatment. Recent trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors used alone or in combination with other agents, have demonstrated remarkable efficacy in the treatment of the all-comers EC patient population.
Areas covered:
In this article, we review major clinical trials on PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in advanced and recurrent EC and discuss the response rates to these agents in the context of their genomic background.
Expert opinion:
Immune checkpoint inhibitors have significantly changed our approach to the treatment of advanced/recurrent EC. Single agent anti-PD-1 regimens are highly effective in MMRd/MSI-H patients, but their clinical efficacy remains modest in MMR proficient/TMB low EC patients. Combination regimens that can decrease the tumor microenvironments immunosuppression and increase tumor immunogenicity represent a viable treatment option to broaden the activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced/recurrent EC patients. An increased understanding of the biomarkers of response and the molecular mechanisms of resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors remains key for the next advancement of the field.
Background:
Standard therapy for advanced endometrial cancer after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy remains unclear.
Methods:
In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with advanced endometrial cancer who had previously received at least one platinum-based chemotherapy regimen to receive either lenvatinib (20 mg, administered orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg, administered intravenously every 3 weeks) or chemotherapy of the treating physician's choice (doxorubicin at 60 mg per square meter of body-surface area, administered intravenously every 3 weeks, or paclitaxel at 80 mg per square meter, administered intravenously weekly [with a cycle of 3 weeks on and 1 week off]). The two primary end points were progression-free survival as assessed on blinded independent central review according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and overall survival. The end points were evaluated in patients with mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) disease and in all patients. Safety was also assessed.
Results:
A total of 827 patients (697 with pMMR disease and 130 with mismatch repair-deficient disease) were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (411 patients) or chemotherapy (416 patients). The median progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (pMMR population: 6.6 vs. 3.8 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.72; P<0.001; overall: 7.2 vs. 3.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.66; P<0.001). The median overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (pMMR population: 17.4 vs. 12.0 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001; overall: 18.3 vs. 11.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.75; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 88.9% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and in 72.7% of those who received chemotherapy.
Conclusions:
Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab led to significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than chemotherapy among patients with advanced endometrial cancer. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme [a subsidiary of Merck]; Study 309-KEYNOTE-775 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03517449.).
Background
Pembrolizumab has efficacy in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive metastatic or unresectable cervical cancer that has progressed during chemotherapy. We assessed the relative benefit of adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab.
Methods
In a double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy and, per investigator discretion, bevacizumab. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival, each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 1 or more, in the intention-to-treat population, and in patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 10 or more. The combined positive score is defined as the number of PD-L1–staining cells divided by the total number of viable tumor cells, multiplied by 100. All results are from the protocol-specified first interim analysis.
Results
In 548 patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 1 or more, median progression-free survival was 10.4 months in the pembrolizumab group and 8.2 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.77; P<0.001). In 617 patients in the intention-to-treat population, progression-free survival was 10.4 months and 8.2 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.79; P<0.001). In 317 patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 10 or more, progression-free survival was 10.4 months and 8.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.77; P<0.001). Overall survival at 24 months was 53.0% in the pembrolizumab group and 41.7% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.81; P<0.001), 50.4% and 40.4% (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.84; P<0.001), and 54.4% and 44.6% (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.84; P=0.001), respectively. The most common grade 3 to 5 adverse events were anemia (30.3% in the pembrolizumab group and 26.9% in the placebo group) and neutropenia (12.4% and 9.7%, respectively).
Conclusions
Progression-free and overall survival were significantly longer with pembrolizumab than with placebo among patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer who were also receiving chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; KEYNOTE-826 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03635567.)
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/m² intravenously every 4 weeks), or PLD and stratified by disease platinum status, number of previous anticancer regimens, and bulky disease. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival by blinded independent central review and overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, with the objective to show whether avelumab alone or avelumab plus PLD is superior to PLD. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02580058. The trial is no longer enrolling patients and this is the final analysis of both primary endpoints.
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.
Purpose:
We report the final, protocol-specified analysis of overall survival (OS) in GOG-0218, a phase III, randomized trial of bevacizumab in women with newly diagnosed ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma.
Methods:
A total of 1,873 women with incompletely resected stage III to IV disease were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to six 21-day cycles of intravenous carboplatin (area under the concentration v time curve 6) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) versus chemotherapy plus concurrent bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, cycles 2 to 6) versus chemotherapy plus concurrent and maintenance bevacizumab (cycles 2 to 22). Inclusion criteria included a Gynecologic Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 and no history of clinically significant vascular events or evidence of intestinal obstruction. OS was analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. A total of 1,195 serum and/or tumor specimens were sequenced for BRCA1/2 and damaging mutations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes. Intratumoral microvessel density was studied using CD31 immunohistochemistry.
Results:
Median follow-up was 102.9 months. Relative to control (n = 625), for patients receiving bevacizumab-concurrent (n = 625), the hazard ratio (HR) of death was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.20); for bevacizumab-concurrent plus maintenance (n = 623), the HR was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.09). Disease-specific survival was not improved in any arm. No survival advantage was observed after censoring patients who received bevacizumab at crossover or as second line. Median OS for stage IV bevacizumab-concurrent plus maintenance was 42.8 v 32.6 months for stage IV control (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.95). Relative to wild type, the HR for death for BRCA1/2 mutated carcinomas was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73), and for non-BRCA1/2 HRR, the HR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.85). BRCA1/2, HRR, and CD31 were not predictive of bevacizumab activity.
Conclusion:
No survival differences were observed for patients who received bevacizumab compared with chemotherapy alone. Testing for BRCA1/2 mutations and homologous recombination deficiency is essential.
Background:
Epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality for women worldwide. Patients may experience a multitude of disease- and treatment-related symptoms that can impact quality of life (QOL) and should be measured and reported in clinical trials. This systematic review investigated the adequacy of reporting of QOL in randomized phase III trials in OC in both the first-line and recurrent disease setting.
Materials and methods:
A systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE identified randomized clinical trials of systemic therapy in OC from 1980 to 2014. The adequacy of reporting QOL was evaluated with respect to adherence to established guidelines on reporting QOL in clinical trials and the recent recommendations on the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials from the Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference.
Results:
Of 3,247 abstracts, 35 studies, including 24,664 patients, met inclusion criteria. Twenty-two trials (63%) were in the first-line setting, with 13 (37%) in the recurrent setting. The inclusion of QOL assessments increased from 2% (1980s) to 62% (2010+). Quality of life was a co-primary endpoint in only one trial.Minimal clinically important differences in QOL were defined in eight trials (23%), with results included in the abstract in 37% and article in 86%. Compliance was reported in 26 trials (74%), with 13 trials (37%) reporting specifically how they dealt with missing data. Only seven trials reported the reasons for missing data (20%).Group results were published in 29 trials (83%), with 6 (17%) reporting individual patient results. Results were more commonly reported as a mean overall score (21 trials; 60%), with specific domain scores in only 9 trials (26%). No studies reported QOL beyond progression or included predefined context-specific endpoints based on objectives of treatment (i.e., palliation/cure/maintenance) and the patient population. Duration of benefit of palliative chemotherapy was reported in only one study.
Conclusion:
Inclusion and reporting of QOL as a trial endpoint has improved in phase III trials in OC, but there are still significant shortfalls that need to be addressed in future trials.
Implications for practice:
The impact of treatment on quality of life (QOL) is an important consideration in patients with ovarian cancer for whom treatment is often given with palliative intent. Both the disease and treatment impact a patient's QOL and require careful evaluation in clinical trials. Matching the QOL questions to the patient population of interest is critical. Similar rigor to that used to assess progression-based endpoints is essential to guide clinical decisions. This systematic review demonstrated that although the inclusion and reporting of QOL as a trial endpoint has improved in phase III trials there are still significant shortfalls that need to be addressed in future trials.
Despite the support for including patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and health-related quality of life in clinical trials, there have been deficiencies in how these have been assessed and reported in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) clinical trials. To redress this, the 5th Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference, included a plenary session entitled ‘How to include PROs in clinical trials’. The perspective is a summary of the recommendations made by the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup unanimously agreed on the importance of PROs and PRO end-points in EOC clinical trials. They recognised that effort must be made to ensure the integrity of collection of PRO data and to avoid missing data. PRO end-points should be based on the PRO hypotheses, be context specific and reflect the patient population and the objectives of treatment (e.g. first line, maintenance therapy, early or late relapse). The PRO end-points inform the choice of PRO measures used in the trial and how the results are analysed and reported. There was agreement that progression-free survival should be supported by PROs among patients with late relapse (platinum sensitive) and that progression-free survival alone was not sufficient as the primary end-point of clinical trials in patients with platinum resistant/refractory EOC and PROs should be included as either the primary/co-primary end-point in this subset of patients. Novel approaches to measure the benefit of palliative chemotherapy such as time until definitive deterioration of Health-Related Quality of Life were recommended. There was consensus to endorse the ISOQOL and CONSORT-PRO guidelines on the inclusion and reporting of PRO endpoints in protocols and that all future EOC Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup trials should adhere to these.
While the development of an index of clinical symptoms to use for the detection and diagnosis of ovarian cancer is under active investigation, the role of clinical symptoms in survival after the initial diagnosis is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to correlate the type and extent of clinical symptoms with survival outcomes in ovarian cancer.
Medical records of 276 cases of primary epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers were evaluated. Thirty-one symptoms in 5 categories were cataloged. The significance of clinical symptoms in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated.
Overall, 93.5% of ovarian cancer patients expressed at least 1 symptom at the time of initial diagnosis. The 3 most common symptoms were abdominal pain (40.6%), increased abdominal size (33.7%), and bloating (21.7%). In survival analysis, weight loss (16.3%), nausea/vomiting (13.4%), and lower extremity edema (6.5%) were significantly associated with both decreased PFS and OS (all, P < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, lower extremity edema remained the strongest significant symptom, associated with increased surgical mortality rate, decreased response rate to adjuvant chemotherapy after primary cytoreductive surgery, and diminished survival outcomes (median PFS, 4.9 vs 15.3 months, P < 0.0001; and median OS, 5.9 vs 49.1 months, P < 0.001). Multiple symptoms were associated with poor survival outcomes (individual number of symptom ≤1 vs 2 vs ≥3; median PFS, 26.8 vs 17.4 vs 11.7 months [P < 0.001]; and median OS, 70 vs 41.6 vs 37.2 months [P < 0.001]).
Lower extremity edema at initial diagnosis is a strong prognostic indicator of ovarian cancer patient.
To examine the symptoms of ovarian cancer in patients compared with symptoms experienced by healthy women using a case-control design.
Cases (n = 168) were women with ovarian cancer diagnosed at two hospitals in New York between 1994 and 1997 who were interviewed shortly after diagnosis. They were compared with healthy women (n = 251 controls) from the community. Women were asked about the prevalence, duration, and constancy of eight symptoms and about use of three types of medications in the 6 to 12 months before diagnosis (cases) or interview (controls).
Nearly all the cases (93%) reported at least one symptom, compared with 42% of controls. The most common symptoms among cases were: unusual bloating, fullness, and pressure in the abdomen (71%); unusual abdominal pain or lower back pain (52%); and lack of energy (43%). The proportions of controls reporting these symptoms were 9, 15, and 16%, respectively, resulting in odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of 25.3 (15.6, 40.9), 6.2 (4.0, 9.6), and 3.9 (2.5, 6.1), respectively, for these symptoms. Bloating, fullness, and pressure was of more recent onset among cases than controls (4.9 months compared with 7.6 months, P =.01). There were only minor differences in reported symptoms between cases with early and later stage disease.
Unusual bloating, fullness, and pressure, abdominal or back pain, and lack of energy are prominent symptoms in women with ovarian cancer and distinguish them from controls. Information on symptoms may make women and physicians more aware of changes associated with ovarian cancer.
Clinicians are being confronted with increasing amounts of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) data. Thus, there is a need for a greater understanding of the analysis and interpretation of HRQOL so that the data can be reported in an appropriate manner. The approach of the Clinical Trials Group of the National Cancer Institute of Canada emphasises the clinical meaning of the results, while avoiding complex statistical modelling. It consists of four steps: calculating the questionnaire completion rates, calculating the baseline scores, determining the individual change in scores over time for the domains specified in the trial hypothesis, and culminates in determining the proportions of patients who have reported clinically meaningful changes in scores since baseline. A rationale supporting each step is given. This approach is presented as a simple and practical aid to the analysis, interpretation and reporting of HRQOL results.
Investigators for GOG protocol 3016 and ENGOT protocol En-Cx9. Survival with cemiplimab in recurrent cervical cancer
- Tewari
Frequency of symptoms of ovarian cancer in women presenting to primary care clinics
- Goff
European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial Groups (ENGOT); GOG Foundation Inc.: joint ENGOT and GOG Foundation requirements for trials with industry partners
- Vergote