A du Bois

Pattern and clinical predictors of lymph node metastases in epithelial ovarian cancer

Para-aortic lymphadenectomy is part of staging in early epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and could be part of therapy in advanced EOC. However, only a minority of patients receive therapy according to guidelines or have attendance to a specialized unit. We analyzed pattern of lymphatic spread of EOC and evaluated if clinical factors and intraoperative findings reliably could predict lymph node involvement, in order to evaluate if patients could be identified in whom lymphadenectomy could be omitted and who should not be referred to a center with capacity of performing extensive gynecological operations. Retrospective analysis was carried out of all patients with EOC who had systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy during primary cytoreductive surgery. One hundred ninety-five patients underwent systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Histologic lymph node metastases were found in 53%. The highest frequency was found in the upper left para-aortic region (32% of all patients) and between vena cava inferior and abdominal aorta (36%). Neither intraoperative clinical diagnosis nor frozen section of pelvic nodes could reliably predict para-aortic lymph node metastasis. The pathologic diagnosis of the pelvic nodes, if used as diagnostic tool for para-aortic lymph nodes, showed a sensitivity of only 50% in ovarian cancer confined to the pelvis and 73% in more advanced disease. We could not detect any intraoperative tool that could reliably predict pathologic status of para-aortic lymph nodes. Systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy remains part of staging in EOC. Patients with EOC should be offered the opportunity to receive state-of-the-art treatment including surgery

Second-line carboplatin and gemcitabine in platinum sensitive ovarian cancer—a dose-finding study by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) Ovarian Cancer Study Group

BACKGROUND Despite the progress that has been achieved in the last years, recurrence rates in ovarian cancer patients are still considerably high and the majority of patients ultimately become candidates for second-line treatment. Carboplatin reinduction is a broadly adopted regimen in patients with recurrences occurring six months or later after first-line treatment. Gemcitabine is among the candidates as combination partner in second-line regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS We performed a study with escalating doses of gemcitabine combined with carboplatin in 26 platinum-pretreated patients with recurrent ovarian cancer and a treatment-free interval of 6+ months. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and a maximum tolerable dose (MTD) recommendable for further trials was evaluated. RESULTS The DLT was myelosuppression, mainly thrombocytopenia. No dose limiting non-hematological toxicities were observed. The MTD of gemcitabine was 1,000 mg/m2 given on days 1 + 8 of a three-week schedule combined with carboplatin AUC 4 given on day 1. The majority of evaluable patients showed an objective response (62.5%), and median progression-free and overall survival were 10 and 18+ months, respectively. CONCLUSION Gemcitabine-carboplatin given according to the MTD is well tolerated and active against recurrent platinum-sensitive disease. A randomized trial comparing carboplatin with or without gemcitabine in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer has already been initiated.

A phase II trial (AGO 2.11) in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: a randomized multicenter trial with sunitinib (SU11248) to evaluate dosage, schedule, tolerability, toxicity and effectiveness of a multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy

BACKGROUND Recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer usually has a poor outcome with conventional chemotherapeutic therapy and new treatment modalities are warranted. This phase II study was conducted to evaluate sunitinib, an oral antiangiogenic multitargeted tyrosin kinase inhibitor, in this setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS The primary end point of this randomized phase II trial was the objective response rate according to RECIST criteria and/or Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup CA125 response criteria to sunitinib in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer who were pretreated with up to three chemotherapies. A selection design was employed to compare two schedules of sunitinib (arm 1: 50 mg sunitinib daily orally for 28 days followed by 14 days off drug; and arm 2: 37.5 mg sunitinib administered daily continuously). RESULTS Of 73 patients enrolled, 36 patients were randomly allocated to the noncontinuous treatment arm (arm 1) and 37 patients were randomly allocated to the continuous treatment arm (arm 2). The mean age was 58.8 and 58.5 years, respectively. We observed six responders (complete response+partial response) in arm 1 (16.7%) and 2 responders in arm 2 (5.4%). The median progression-free survival (arm 1: 4.8 [2.9-8.1] months; arm 2: 2.9 [2.9-5.1] months) and the median overall survival (arm 1: 13.6 [7.0-23.2] months; arm 2: 13.7 [8.4-25.6] months) revealed no significant difference. Adverse events included fatigue as well as cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and abdominal symptoms, hematologic and hepatic laboratory abnormalities. Pattern and frequency of adverse events revealed no substantial differences between both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS Sunitinib treatment is feasible and moderately active in relapsed platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The noncontinuous treatment schedule should be chosen for further studies in ovarian cancer.BACKGROUND Recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer usually has a poor outcome with conventional chemotherapeutic therapy and new treatment modalities are warranted. This phase II study was conducted to evaluate sunitinib, an oral antiangiogenic multitargeted tyrosin kinase inhibitor, in this setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS The primary end point of this randomized phase II trial was the objective response rate according to RECIST criteria and/or Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup CA125 response criteria to sunitinib in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer who were pretreated with up to three chemotherapies. A selection design was employed to compare two schedules of sunitinib (arm 1: 50 mg sunitinib daily orally for 28 days followed by 14 days off drug; and arm 2: 37.5 mg sunitinib administered daily continuously). RESULTS Of 73 patients enrolled, 36 patients were randomly allocated to the noncontinuous treatment arm (arm 1) and 37 patients were randomly allocated to the continuous treatment arm (arm 2). The mean age was 58.8 and 58.5 years, respectively. We observed six responders (complete response + partial response) in arm 1 (16.7%) and 2 responders in arm 2 (5.4%). The median progression-free survival (arm 1: 4.8 [2.9-8.1] months; arm 2: 2.9 [2.9-5.1] months) and the median overall survival (arm 1: 13.6 [7.0-23.2] months; arm 2: 13.7 [8.4-25.6] months) revealed no significant difference. Adverse events included fatigue as well as cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and abdominal symptoms, hematologic and hepatic laboratory abnormalities. Pattern and frequency of adverse events revealed no substantial differences between both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS Sunitinib treatment is feasible and moderately active in relapsed platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The noncontinuous treatment schedule should be chosen for further studies in ovarian cancer.

A phase I open-label dose-escalation study of oral BIBF 1120 combined with standard paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with advanced gynecological malignancies

BACKGROUND The purpose of the phase I dose-escalation study was to evaluate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of BIBF 1120, an oral triple angiokinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor, platelet derived growth factor and fibroblast growth factor receptors, combined with paclitaxel and carboplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced gynecological malignancies received BIBF 1120 twice-daily (b.i.d.) continuously at 100, 150, 200 or 250 mg, combined with paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (area under the curve 5 min.mg/ml) every 3 weeks. The MTD, safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and clinical activity were evaluated. RESULTS Twenty-two patients were treated. Three experienced dose-limiting toxic effects in the first treatment cycle: 1 of 13 at 200 mg b.i.d. BIBF 1120 [diarrhea, common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) grade 3]; two of two at 250 mg b.i.d. BIBF 1120 (elevated alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase, CTCAE grade 3/4). The MTD was defined as 200 mg b.i.d. Principal adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders. No clinically relevant drug-drug interaction was observed after 20 days treatment with 200 mg b.i.d. BIBF 1120 on the PK of paclitaxel or carboplatin and vice versa. CONCLUSIONS The MTD of BIBF 1120 in a 20-day continuous dosing regimen with standard-dose paclitaxel and carboplatin was 200 mg b.i.d. This combination had an acceptable safety profile and no clinically relevant drug-drug interactions. Further evaluation of this combination is warranted in this indication.

Predictors of survival in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer undergoing secondary cytoreductive surgery based on the pooled analysis of an international collaborative cohort

Background:This study aims to identify prognostic factors and to develop a risk model predicting survival in patients undergoing secondary cytoreductive surgery (SCR) for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer.Methods:Individual data of 1100 patients with recurrent ovarian cancer of a progression-free interval at least 6 months who underwent SCR were pooled analysed. A simplified scoring system for each independent prognostic factor was developed according to its coefficient. Internal validation was performed to assess the discrimination of the model.Results:Complete SCR was strongly associated with the improvement of survival, with a median survival of 57.7 months, when compared with 27.0 months in those with residual disease of 0.1–1 cm and 15.6 months in those with residual disease of >1 cm, respectively (P<0.0001). Progression-free interval (⩽23.1 months vs >23.1 months, hazard ratio (HR): 1.72; score: 2), ascites at recurrence (present vs absent, HR: 1.27; score: 1), extent of recurrence (multiple vs localised disease, HR: 1.38; score: 1) as well as residual disease after SCR (R1 vs R0, HR: 1.90, score: 2; R2 vs R0, HR: 3.0, score: 4) entered into the risk model.Conclusion:This prognostic model may provide evidence to predict survival benefit from secondary cytoreduction in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

Gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC) vs. carboplatin (C) in platinum sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (OVCA). Results of a Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup randomized phase III trial of the AGO OVAR, the NCIC CTG and the EORTC GCG

5005 Background: Most patients (pts) with OVCA relapse. ICON 4 - AGO OVAR 2.2 results suggest combination C-based therapy may be superior to single agent C. GC is a feasible less neurotoxic regimen and thus of interest to evaluate in this setting. METHODS In this phase III trial pts with platinum sensitive recurrent OVCA (≥ 6 months after the end of primary therapy) were randomized to receive C (AUC 4 d1) plus G (1000 mg/m2 d1 and 8) or C (AUC 5 d1) every 3 weeks. The primary objective compared progression free survival (PFS) in both arms. Secondary objectives were response rate (RR) and duration, overall survival (OS), toxicity and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS From 09/99 and 04/02, 356 pts (178 GC, 178 C) were randomized. Both study arms were well balanced for baseline disease characteristics. Median number of cycles was 6 for GC (0-10) and C (0-9). The weekly dose intensity was 98.2% for C (C arm) and 96.2% for C and 75.6% (92.8% for d 1 and 63.4% for d8) for G (GC arm). Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were significant higher in the GC arm (anemia 27.4% of pts. vs. 8.0%, neutropenia 70.3% vs. 12.0%, thrombocytopenia 34.9% vs. 11.4%). G-CSF or GM-CSF was more often used in GC (23.6% of pts. vs. 10.1%) as well as red cell transfusions (37.1% vs. 14.6%). Clinical sequelae were similar between arms: febrile neutropenia (1.1% GC vs. 0% C) and infections (0.6% for both arms). Grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicities were infrequent in both arms (< 5%), especially for sensory neuropathy (1.1% GC vs. 1.7% C). Overall RR for GC was 47.2% (95% CI: 39.9-54.5%) and 30.9% (95% CI: 24.1-37.7) for C (p= 0.0016). GC pts reported significantly faster palliation of abdominal symptoms as well as significantly improved global QoL. With a median follow up of 13 months, median PFS was 8.6 mo (95%CI: 8.0-9.7) for GC and 5.8 mo (95% CI: 5.2-7.1) for C (HR 0.72 [95% CI: 0.57-0.90], p= 0.0038, e= 311). OS data are immature and this study was not powered to detect differences in OS. CONCLUSION The combination of G plus C improves PFS and QoL in platinum sensitive recurrent OVCA patients with acceptable toxicity. [Table: see text].

Independent prognostic significance of cell cycle regulator proteins p16INK4a and pRb in advanced-stage ovarian carcinoma including optimally debulked patients: a translational research subprotocol of a randomised study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Ovarian Cancer Study Group

The purpose of the study is to test the hypothesis that expression of cell cycle regulatory proteins p16INK4a and pRb is significantly associated with prognosis in ovarian carcinomas. We performed immunohistochemical analysis of p16INK4a and pRb expression and correlated with survival in a series of 300 patients with FIGO stage IIb-IV ovarian carcinoma which were enrolled in a randomized prospective trial evaluating two different platinum and paxlitaxel chemotherapy combinations after radical surgery. p16INK4a negative tumours (17/300; 6%) had a significantly worse prognosis (univariate analysis, P<0.001; multivariate analysis: odds ratio 2.41, P=0.009). Among p16INK4a-positive tumours (283 out of 300; 94%), survival was better for patients with intermediate expression as compared to low or high expression levels (P=0.001). High expression levels of pRb were associated with an incremental deterioration of prognosis (univariate analysis, P=0.004; multivariate analysis: odds ratio 2.98, P=0.002). This observation held also true in the subgroup of optimally debulked patients (n=82), in whom the most important established prognostic factor, postoperative residual tumour cannot be applied. In conclusion p16INK4a and pRb are independent prognostic factors in advanced-stage ovarian carcinomas after radical surgery and postoperative chemotherapy. High pRb expression is a significant prognosticator in optimally debulked patients and may hold potential for subgroup stratification in postoperative treatment.

Phase I/II study of the combination of carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

PURPOSE We performed a phase I/II study evaluating the combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. The aim of this study was to define a feasible and safe combination regimen that could be recommended for future phase III studies. DESIGN This study was a parallel two-arm, non-randomized, open trial. In a first step, carboplatin was administered at a fixed dose of AUC 5 and paclitaxel was escalated in 25 mg/ m2 steps starting at 135 mg/m2. Paclitaxel was given as a three-hour infusion. Carboplatin was administered on day 1 following paclitaxel in one study arm and 24 hours after paclitaxel infusion on day 2 in the other study arm. Carboplatin was escalated to AUC 6 and AUC 7.5 after the MTD for paclitaxel had been defined. Treatment was repeated every three weeks. PATIENTS Sixty-one patients with untreated histologically confirmed epithelial ovarian cancer were recruited of whom 59 were found eligible and evaluable for toxicity. Thirty-three patients with bidimensionally measurable disease were evaluable for tumor response. RESULTS We could not detect any advantage of the two-day schedule compared with the more convenient one-day schedule. Dose limiting toxicities were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and neurotoxicity. Except for two patients, toxicity was acceptable and clinically managable. One patient died of neutropenic sepsis and one further patient developed grade III peripheral neurotoxicity that did not resolve within two months after chemotherapy had been terminated. Overall objective response rate was 70%. The MTD for paclitaxel was 185 mg/m2 and AUC 6 for carboplatin, respectively. Secondary prophylaxis with G-CSF did not allow further dose escalation and therefore is not generally recommended. CONCLUSIONS Paclitaxel 185 mg/m2 given as three-hour infusion followed by carboplatin AUC 6 is a feasible and safe regimen and can be recommended for phase III trials. Observed response rates justify further evaluation of this combination. A randomized phase III trial comparing a three-hour infusion of paclitaxel 185 mg/m2 combined with either carboplatin AUC 6 or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 as first-line chemotherapy of advanced ovarian cancer has recently been initiated by our group.

Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup: recurrent disease

This manuscript reports the consensus statements regarding recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC), reached at the fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (OCCC), which was held in Tokyo, Japan, in November 2015. Three important questions were identified: (i) What are the subgroups for clinical trials in ROC? The historical definition of using platinum-free interval (PFI) to categorise patients as having platinum-sensitive/resistant disease was replaced by therapy-free interval (TFI). TFI can be broken down into TFIp (PFI), TFInp (non-PFI) and TFIb (biological agent-free interval). Additional criteria to consider include histology, BRCA mutation status, number/type of previous therapies, outcome of prior surgery and patient reported symptoms. (ii) What are the control arms for clinical trials in ROC? When platinum is considered the best option, the control arm should be a platinum-based therapy with or without an anti-angiogenic agent or a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor. If platinum is not considered the best option, the control arm could include a non-platinum drug, either as single agent or in combination. (iii) What are the endpoints for clinical trials in ROC? Overall survival (OS) is the preferred endpoint for patient cohorts with an expected median OS < or = 12 months. Progression-free survival (PFS) is an alternative, and it is the preferred endpoint when the expected median OS is > 12 months. However, PFS alone should not be the only endpoint and must be supported by additional endpoints including pre-defined patient reported outcomes (PROs), time to second subsequent therapy (TSST), or time until definitive deterioration of quality of life (TUDD).

Platinum versus platinum-combination chemotherapy in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis using individual patient data

BACKGROUND The majority of women with ovarian cancer develop recurrent disease. For patients with a platinum-free interval of >6 months, platinum-based chemotherapy is a treatment of choice. The benefit of platinum-based combination chemotherapy in randomized trials varies, and a meta-analysis was carried out to gain more secure information on the size of the benefit of this treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS We initiated a systematic review and meta-analysis following a pre-specified protocol to determine whether combination chemotherapy is superior to single-agent platinum chemotherapy in women with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. RESULTS A total of five potentially eligible randomized trials were identified that had used combination-platinum chemotherapy versus single-agent platinum chemotherapy in women with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. For one trial (190 patients), adequate contact with the investigators could not be established. Therefore, four trials that randomly assigned 1300 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 36.1 months. Overall survival (OS) analyses were based on 865 deaths and demonstrated evidence for the benefit of combination-platinum chemotherapy (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00; P = 0.05). Progression-free survival (PFS) analyses were based on 1167 events and demonstrated strong evidence for the benefit of combination-platinum chemotherapy (HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81; P < 0.001). There was no evidence of a difference in the relative effect of combination-platinum chemotherapy on either OS or PFS in patient subgroups defined by previous paclitaxel (Taxol) treatment (OS, P = 0.49; PFS, P = 0.66), duration of treatment-free interval (OS, P = 0.86; PFS, P = 0.48) or the number of previous lines of chemotherapy (OS, P = 0.21; PFS, P = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS In this individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis, we have demonstrated that combination-platinum chemotherapy improves OS and PFS across all subgroups. This provides the strongest evidence to date of the benefit of combination-platinum over single-agent platinum.