Mansoor Raza Mirza

AURELIA: A randomized phase III trial evaluating bevacizumab (BEV) plus chemotherapy (CT) for platinum (PT)-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (OC).

LBA5002^ Background: In three phase III trials in OC (2 front line, 1 PT-sensitive recurrent), BEV + CT → BEV significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs CT alone. AURELIA is the first randomized trial of BEV in PT-resistant OC. METHODS Eligible patients (pts) had OC (measurable by RECIST 1.0 or assessable) that had progressed ≤6 mo after ≥4 cycles of PT-based therapy. Pts with refractory OC, history of bowel obstruction, or >2 prior anticancer regimens were ineligible. After CT selection by the investigator (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin [PLD], topotecan [TOP], or weekly paclitaxel [PAC]), pts were randomized to CT either alone or with BEV (10 mg/kg q2w or 15 mg/kg q3w depending on CT) until progression (PD), unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Pts in the CT-alone arm could cross over to BEV monotherapy at PD. The primary endpoint was PFS by RECIST. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival, safety, and quality of life. The design provided 80% power to detect a PFS hazard ratio (HR) of 0.7 with 2-sided log-rank test and α=0.05 after 247 events, assuming median PFS of 4.0 mo with CT and 5.7 mo with CT + BEV. RESULTS Between Oct 2009 and Apr 2011, 361 pts were randomized to receive selected CT (PLD: 126; PAC: 115; TOP: 120) alone or with BEV. Median follow-up after 301 PFS events was 13.5 mo. CONCLUSIONS In PT-resistant OC, BEV + CT provides statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS and ORR vs CT alone. Strict inclusion criteria minimized the incidence of BEV AEs. This is the first phase III trial in PT-resistant OC to show benefit with a targeted therapy and improved outcome with a combination vs monotherapy. [Table: see text].

Randomized, double-blind, phase III trial of pazopanib versus placebo in women who have not progressed after first-line chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (AEOC): Results of an international Intergroup trial (AGO-OVAR16).

LBA5503 Background: Pazopanib is an oral, multikinase inhibitor of VEGFR-1, -2, -3, PDGFR-α and -β, and c-Kit. Preclinical and clinical studies support VEGF(R) and PDGF(R) as targets for AEOC treatment. This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pazopanib maintenance therapy in patients who have not progressed after first-line chemotherapy for AEOC. METHODS Patients with histologically confirmed AEOC, FIGO II-IV, and no evidence of progression after surgery and ≥ 5 cycles of platinum-taxane chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to receive 800 mg pazopanib once daily or placebo for up to 24 months. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, PFS by GCIG criteria, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS Most of the 940 randomized patients had stage III/IV disease (91%) at initial diagnosis, and no residual disease after surgery (58%). The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7.1 months in the placebo arm and 7.0 months in the pazopanib arm. The median follow-up was 24 months. Patients in the pazopanib arm had a prolonged PFS vs placebo (HR = 0.766; 95% CI: 0.64-0.91; p = 0.0021; medians 17.9 vs 12.3 months, respectively). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses of PFS, and analysis of PFS by GCIG criteria, were consistent with the primary analysis. The first interim analysis for OS (only 189 OS events = 20.1% of population) showed no difference between arms. Pazopanib mean exposure was shorter vs placebo (8.9 vs 11.7 months). Pazopanib treatment was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (26% vs 11%) vs placebo. The most common AEs were hypertension, diarrhea, nausea, headache, fatigue, and neutropenia. Fatal SAEs were reported in three patients on pazopanib and one patient on placebo. CONCLUSIONS Pazopanib maintenance therapy provided a statistically significant and clinically meaningful PFS benefit in patients with AEOC; OS data are not mature. The safety profile of pazopanib in this setting was consistent with its established profile. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION NCT00866697.

Standard first-line chemotherapy with or without nintedanib for advanced ovarian cancer (AGO-OVAR 12): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

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

Cancer of the corpus uteri

1.1.2. Nodal stations The major lymphatic trunks are the utero-ovarian (infundibulopelvic), parametrial, and presacral, which drain into the hypogastric, external iliac, common iliac, presacral, and para-aortic nodes. Although a direct route of lymphatic spread from the corpus uteri to the paraaortic nodes through the infundibulopelvic ligament has been suggested from anatomical and sentinel lymph node studies, direct metastases to the para-aortic lymph nodes are uncommon.

First-in-Class, First-in-Human Phase I Study of Selinexor, a Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export, in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors

Purpose This trial evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy of selinexor (KPT-330), a novel, oral small-molecule inhibitor of exportin 1 (XPO1/CRM1), and determined the recommended phase II dose. Patients and Methods In total, 189 patients with advanced solid tumors received selinexor (3 to 85 mg/m2) in 21- or 28-day cycles. Pre- and post-treatment levels of XPO1 mRNA in patient-derived leukocytes were determined by reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction, and tumor biopsies were examined by immunohistochemistry for changes in markers consistent with XPO1 inhibition. Antitumor response was assessed according Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 guidelines. Results The most common treatment-related adverse events included fatigue (70%), nausea (70%), anorexia (66%), and vomiting (49%), which were generally grade 1 or 2. Most commonly reported grade 3 or 4 toxicities were thrombocytopenia (16%), fatigue (15%), and hyponatremia (13%). Clinically significant major organ or cumulative toxicities were rare. The maximum-tolerated dose was defined at 65 mg/m2 using a twice-a-week (days 1 and 3) dosing schedule. The recommended phase II dose of 35 mg/m2 given twice a week was chosen based on better patient tolerability and no demonstrable improvement in radiologic response or disease stabilization compared with higher doses. Pharmacokinetics were dose proportional, with no evidence of drug accumulation. Dose-dependent elevations in XPO1 mRNA in leukocytes were demonstrated up to a dose level of 28 mg/m2 before plateauing, and paired tumor biopsies showed nuclear accumulation of key tumor-suppressor proteins, reduction of cell proliferation, and induction of apoptosis. Among 157 patients evaluable for response, one complete and six partial responses were observed (n = 7, 4%), with 27 patients (17%) achieving stable disease for ≥ 4 months. Conclusion Selinexor is a novel and safe therapeutic with broad antitumor activity. Further interrogation into this class of therapy is warranted.

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).

ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Consensus Conference on Endometrial Cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

The first joint European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) consensus conference on endometrial cancer was held on 11-13 December 2014 in Milan, Italy, and comprised a multidisciplinary panel of 40 leading experts in the management of endometrial cancer. Before the conference, the expert panel prepared three clinically-relevant questions about endometrial cancer relating to the following four areas: Prevention and screening, surgery, adjuvant treatment and advanced and recurrent disease. All relevant scientific literature, as identified by the experts, was reviewed in advance. During the consensus conference, the panel developed recommendations for each specific question and a consensus was reached. Results of this consensus conference, together with a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation, are detailed in this article. All participants have approved this final article.

Patterns of care for radiotherapy in vulvar cancer: a Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup study.

Background: This study aimed to describe radiotherapeutic practice in the treatment of vulvar cancer in member study groups of the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG). Methods: A survey was developed and distributed to representatives of the member study groups of the GCIG, targeting the use of radiotherapy (RT) in vulvar cancer. Results: Thirty-two surveys were returned from 12 different cooperative groups. The most common indications for neoadjuvant RT include unresectable disease or International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage ≥III. For the neoadjuvant treatment of vulvar cancer, pelvic doses were 48.2 ± 5.0 Gy (mean ± SD). The upper border of the pelvic field was L4/5 in 4, L5/S1 in 12, and not specified in 4. Of 21 groups that perform neoadjuvant RT, 17 use concomitant chemotherapy and 4 individualize treatment. Weekly cisplatin was the most commonly used chemotherapy. For the neoadjuvant RT treatment of the inguinal region, doses were 49.9 ± 5.5 Gy (mean ± SD). Sixteen of 18 groups used computed tomographic simulation for planning. After initial surgery, the most common indications for RT included positive lymph nodes or positive margins. Chemotherapy was not routinely used after surgery. Conclusions: Doses of RT among GCIG members are similar; however, the indications for treatment, treatment fields, and use of chemotherapy differ somewhat between groups. This is likely due to the rarity of the disease. The lack of randomized trials may contribute to the absence of a broadly accepted standard. This underscores the importance of international cooperation as in GCIG to gather more reliable data for uncommon tumors in gynecologic oncology.

BRCA1/2 mutations associated with progression-free survival in ovarian cancer patients in the AGO-OVAR 16 study

OBJECTIVE AGO-OVAR 16 demonstrated that pazopanib maintenance therapy significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with ovarian cancer whose disease had not progressed after first-line therapy. In a sub-study, we evaluated the effect of clinically important germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations on PFS. METHODS Of 940 AGO-OVAR 16 participants, 664 had BRCA1/2 exon sequencing data (pazopanib, n=335; placebo, n=329). A Cox model was used to test the association between genetic variants and PFS. RESULTS Ninety-seven of 664 patients (15%) carried clinically important BRCA1/2 mutations (BRCA1/2 carriers: pazopanib 14%, placebo 16%). Median PFS was longer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers than in BRCA1/2 non-carriers in the placebo arm (30.3 vs 14.1 months, hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-0.78; P=0.0031); a similar non-significant trend was noted with pazopanib (30.2 vs 17.7 months, hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI: 0.40-1.03; P=0.069). Among BRCA1/2 non-carriers, PFS was longer for pazopanib-treated patients than placebo-treated patients (17.7 vs 14.1 months, hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI: 0.62-0.97; P=0.024). Among BRCA1/2 carriers, there was no significant PFS difference between treatments, although numbers were small (pazopanib, 46; placebo, 51), resulting in a wide CI (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% CI: 0.66-2.82). CONCLUSIONS Patients with clinically important BRCA1/2 mutations had better prognosis. BRCA1/2 mutation status might be added as strata in future trials in primary ovarian cancer.

Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus review for carcinoid tumors of the ovary.

Abstract Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a heterogeneous group of neoplasms most commonly occurring in the gastrointestinal tract or the lungs. More frequent are gastrointestinal tumors, but over the past 30 years, there have been a number of small series or anecdotal case reports on ovarian NETs. Neuroendocrine tumors in the gynecologic tract are uncommon and account for about 2% of all gynecologic malignancies but may also be metastatic from other sites. They require a multimodality therapeutic approach determined by the extent of disease and the primary organ of involvement. Pathological diagnosis is critical to guide therapy. Surgery is the cornerstone of treatment for localized disease. There have been many new developments for treatment of advanced NETs including somatostatin analogs, hepatic artery embolization, chemotherapy, interferons, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors and radiolabeled somatostatin analogs. Given the rarity and lack of level I evidence, this is by nature more of a guidance and recommendation for management of these rare tumors until we can mount international studies.