TBD Meeting (2910-20)

Two MEK inhibitors were tested against recurrent low-grade serous carcinomas of the ovaries, fallopian tubes, or peritoneum, but only one inhibitor offered clinical benefit over standard care, investigators from two randomized trials reported.

Trametinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with standard care, while binimetinib conferred no PFS benefit.

In a phase 2/3 trial, the median PFS was 13 months for patients treated with trametinib and 7.2 months for patients who received an aromatase inhibitor or chemotherapy (P < .0001).

“Our findings suggest that trametinib represents a new standard-of-care treatment option for women with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma,” said investigator David M. Gershenson, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

In contrast, in the phase 3 MILO/ENGOT-ov11 trial, there was no significant difference in PFS between patients treated with binimetinib and those who received physician’s choice of chemotherapy. The median PFS was 11.2 months with binimetinib and 14.1 months with chemotherapy (P = .752).

“Although this study did not meet its primary endpoint, binimetinib showed activity in low-grade serous ovarian cancer across the efficacy endpoints evaluated, with a response rate of 24% and a median PFS of 11.2 months on updated analysis. Chemotherapy responses were better than predicted, based on historical retrospective data,” said investigator Rachel N. Grisham, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

The binimetinib trial and the trametinib trial were both discussed during a webinar on rare tumors covering research slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Chemoresistant cancers

Low-grade serous ovarian or peritoneal cancers are rare, accounting for only 5% to 10% of all serous cancers, Dr. Gershenson noted.

“[Low-grade serous cancers are] characterized by alterations in the MAP kinase pathway, as well as relative chemoresistance, and prolonged overall survival compared to high-grade serous cancers. Because of this subtype’s relative chemoresistance, the search for novel therapeutics has predominated over the last decade or so,” he said.

MEK inhibitors interfere with the MEK1 and MEK2 enzymes in the MAPK pathway. Alterations in MAPK, especially in KRAS and BRAF proteins, are found in 30%-60% of low-grade serous carcinomas, providing the rationale for MEK inhibitors in these rare malignancies.
 

Trametinib study

In a phase 2/3 study, Dr. Gershenson and colleagues enrolled 260 patients with recurrent, low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum. Patients were randomized to receive either trametinib at 2 mg daily continuously until progression (n = 130) or standard care (n = 130).

Standard care consisted of one of the following: letrozole at 2.5 mg daily; pegylated liposomal doxorubicin at 40-50 mg IV every 28 days; weekly paclitaxel at 80 mg/m² for 3 out of 4 weeks; tamoxifen at 20 mg twice daily; or topotecan at 4 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days. Patients randomized to standard care could be crossed over to trametinib at progression.

All patients had at least one prior line of platinum-based chemotherapy, and nearly half had three or more prior lines of therapy. The median age was 56.6 years in the trametinib arm and 55.3 years in the control arm.

At a median follow-up of 31.4 months, median PFS, the primary endpoint, was 13 months with trametinib vs. 7.2 months with standard care. The hazard ratio (HR) for progression on trametinib was 0.48 (P < .0001).

The overall response rates were 26.2% in the trametinib arm and 6.2% in the standard care arm. The odds ratio for response on trametinib was 5.4 (P < .0001).

For 88 patients who crossed over to trametinib, the median PFS was 10.8 months, and the overall response rate was 15%.

Trametinib was also associated with a significantly longer response duration, at a median of 13.6 months, compared with 5.9 months for standard care (P value not shown).

The median overall survival was 37 months with trametinib and 29.2 months with standard care, with an HR favoring trametinib of 0.75, although this just missed statistical significance (P = .054). Dr. Gershenson pointed out that the overall survival in the standard care arm included patients who had been crossed over to trametinib.

Grade 3 or greater adverse events included hematologic toxicities in 13.4% of patients on trametinib and 9.4% on standard care; gastrointestinal toxicity in 27.6% and 29%, respectively; skin toxicities in 15% and 3.9%, respectively; and vascular toxicities in 18.9% and 8.6%, respectively.
 

Binimetinib study

The phase 3 MILO/ENGOT-ov11 study enrolled 341 patients with low-grade serous carcinomas of the ovaries, fallopian tubes, or peritoneum. Patients were randomized on a 2:1 basis to receive either binimetinib at 45 mg twice daily (n = 228) or physician’s choice of chemotherapy (n = 113). Chemotherapy consisted of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin at 40 mg/m² on day 1 of each 28-day cycle; paclitaxel at 80 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle; or topotecan at 1.25 mg/m² IV on days 1-5 of each 21-day cycle.

The efficacy analysis included 227 patients assigned to binimetinib and 106 assigned to chemotherapy.

A planned interim analysis was performed in 2016 after the first 303 patients were enrolled. At that time, the median PFS by blinded central review was 9.1 months in the binimetinib arm and 10.6 months in the physician’s choice arm (HR, 1.21; P = .807), so the trial was halted early for futility. Patients on active treatment at the time could continue until progression and were followed by local radiology.

At the interim analysis, secondary endpoints were also similar between the arms. The overall response rate was 16% in the binimetinib arm and 13% in the chemotherapy arm.

The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events with binimetinib were blood creatinine phosphokinase increase (26%) and vomiting (10%).

Dr. Grisham also reported updated follow-up results through January 2019.

The median PFS in the updated analysis was 11.2 months with the MEK inhibitor and 14.1 months with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant (HR, 1.12; P = .752). Updated overall response rates were the same in both arms, at 24%.

A post hoc molecular analysis of 215 patients suggested a possible association between KRAS mutation and response to binimetinib.
 

Two MEKs, one ‘meh’

Discussant Jubilee Brown, MD, of the Levine Cancer Institute at Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., said that “with a 2% to 5% chance of response in patients with low-grade serous ovarian cancer, there is a low bar for any compound to demonstrate success.”

Regarding the MILO/ENGOT-ov11 trial, she noted that “this study did not meet its primary endpoint, but perhaps the endpoint is not reflective of the importance of the study.”

A different outcome might have occurred had investigators stratified patients by KRAS status upfront, comparing patients with KRAS mutations treated with binimetinib to KRAS wild-type patients treated with either a MEK inhibitor or physician’s choice of care, Dr. Brown said.

She agreed with the assertion by Dr. Gershenson and colleagues that improved PFS qualifies trametinib to be considered a new option for standard care, ”especially in a rare tumor setting with limited options. This is a huge win for patients.”

The trametinib study was sponsored by NRG Oncology and the UK National Cancer Research Institute. Dr. Gershenson disclosed relationships with NRG Oncology, Genentech, Novartis, Elsevier, and UpToDate, as well as stock in several companies.

The binimetinib study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Grisham disclosed relationships with Clovis, Regeneron, Mateon, Amgen, Abbvie, OncLive, PRIME, MCM, and Medscape. MDedge News and Medscape are owned by the same parent organization.

Dr. Brown disclosed consulting for Biodesix, Caris, Clovis, Genentech, Invitae, Janssen, Olympus, OncLive, and Tempus.

SOURCE: Gershenson DM et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 42; Grisham RN et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 41.

Two MEK inhibitors were tested against recurrent low-grade serous carcinomas of the ovaries, fallopian tubes, or peritoneum, but only one inhibitor offered clinical benefit over standard care, investigators from two randomized trials reported.

Trametinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with standard care, while binimetinib conferred no PFS benefit.

In a phase 2/3 trial, the median PFS was 13 months for patients treated with trametinib and 7.2 months for patients who received an aromatase inhibitor or chemotherapy (P < .0001).

“Our findings suggest that trametinib represents a new standard-of-care treatment option for women with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma,” said investigator David M. Gershenson, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

In contrast, in the phase 3 MILO/ENGOT-ov11 trial, there was no significant difference in PFS between patients treated with binimetinib and those who received physician’s choice of chemotherapy. The median PFS was 11.2 months with binimetinib and 14.1 months with chemotherapy (P = .752).

“Although this study did not meet its primary endpoint, binimetinib showed activity in low-grade serous ovarian cancer across the efficacy endpoints evaluated, with a response rate of 24% and a median PFS of 11.2 months on updated analysis. Chemotherapy responses were better than predicted, based on historical retrospective data,” said investigator Rachel N. Grisham, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

The binimetinib trial and the trametinib trial were both discussed during a webinar on rare tumors covering research slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Chemoresistant cancers

Low-grade serous ovarian or peritoneal cancers are rare, accounting for only 5% to 10% of all serous cancers, Dr. Gershenson noted.

“[Low-grade serous cancers are] characterized by alterations in the MAP kinase pathway, as well as relative chemoresistance, and prolonged overall survival compared to high-grade serous cancers. Because of this subtype’s relative chemoresistance, the search for novel therapeutics has predominated over the last decade or so,” he said.

MEK inhibitors interfere with the MEK1 and MEK2 enzymes in the MAPK pathway. Alterations in MAPK, especially in KRAS and BRAF proteins, are found in 30%-60% of low-grade serous carcinomas, providing the rationale for MEK inhibitors in these rare malignancies.
 

Trametinib study

In a phase 2/3 study, Dr. Gershenson and colleagues enrolled 260 patients with recurrent, low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum. Patients were randomized to receive either trametinib at 2 mg daily continuously until progression (n = 130) or standard care (n = 130).

Standard care consisted of one of the following: letrozole at 2.5 mg daily; pegylated liposomal doxorubicin at 40-50 mg IV every 28 days; weekly paclitaxel at 80 mg/m² for 3 out of 4 weeks; tamoxifen at 20 mg twice daily; or topotecan at 4 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days. Patients randomized to standard care could be crossed over to trametinib at progression.

All patients had at least one prior line of platinum-based chemotherapy, and nearly half had three or more prior lines of therapy. The median age was 56.6 years in the trametinib arm and 55.3 years in the control arm.

At a median follow-up of 31.4 months, median PFS, the primary endpoint, was 13 months with trametinib vs. 7.2 months with standard care. The hazard ratio (HR) for progression on trametinib was 0.48 (P < .0001).

The overall response rates were 26.2% in the trametinib arm and 6.2% in the standard care arm. The odds ratio for response on trametinib was 5.4 (P < .0001).

For 88 patients who crossed over to trametinib, the median PFS was 10.8 months, and the overall response rate was 15%.

Trametinib was also associated with a significantly longer response duration, at a median of 13.6 months, compared with 5.9 months for standard care (P value not shown).

The median overall survival was 37 months with trametinib and 29.2 months with standard care, with an HR favoring trametinib of 0.75, although this just missed statistical significance (P = .054). Dr. Gershenson pointed out that the overall survival in the standard care arm included patients who had been crossed over to trametinib.

Grade 3 or greater adverse events included hematologic toxicities in 13.4% of patients on trametinib and 9.4% on standard care; gastrointestinal toxicity in 27.6% and 29%, respectively; skin toxicities in 15% and 3.9%, respectively; and vascular toxicities in 18.9% and 8.6%, respectively.
 

Binimetinib study

The phase 3 MILO/ENGOT-ov11 study enrolled 341 patients with low-grade serous carcinomas of the ovaries, fallopian tubes, or peritoneum. Patients were randomized on a 2:1 basis to receive either binimetinib at 45 mg twice daily (n = 228) or physician’s choice of chemotherapy (n = 113). Chemotherapy consisted of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin at 40 mg/m² on day 1 of each 28-day cycle; paclitaxel at 80 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle; or topotecan at 1.25 mg/m² IV on days 1-5 of each 21-day cycle.

The efficacy analysis included 227 patients assigned to binimetinib and 106 assigned to chemotherapy.

A planned interim analysis was performed in 2016 after the first 303 patients were enrolled. At that time, the median PFS by blinded central review was 9.1 months in the binimetinib arm and 10.6 months in the physician’s choice arm (HR, 1.21; P = .807), so the trial was halted early for futility. Patients on active treatment at the time could continue until progression and were followed by local radiology.

At the interim analysis, secondary endpoints were also similar between the arms. The overall response rate was 16% in the binimetinib arm and 13% in the chemotherapy arm.

The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events with binimetinib were blood creatinine phosphokinase increase (26%) and vomiting (10%).

Dr. Grisham also reported updated follow-up results through January 2019.

The median PFS in the updated analysis was 11.2 months with the MEK inhibitor and 14.1 months with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant (HR, 1.12; P = .752). Updated overall response rates were the same in both arms, at 24%.

A post hoc molecular analysis of 215 patients suggested a possible association between KRAS mutation and response to binimetinib.
 

Two MEKs, one ‘meh’

Discussant Jubilee Brown, MD, of the Levine Cancer Institute at Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., said that “with a 2% to 5% chance of response in patients with low-grade serous ovarian cancer, there is a low bar for any compound to demonstrate success.”

Regarding the MILO/ENGOT-ov11 trial, she noted that “this study did not meet its primary endpoint, but perhaps the endpoint is not reflective of the importance of the study.”

A different outcome might have occurred had investigators stratified patients by KRAS status upfront, comparing patients with KRAS mutations treated with binimetinib to KRAS wild-type patients treated with either a MEK inhibitor or physician’s choice of care, Dr. Brown said.

She agreed with the assertion by Dr. Gershenson and colleagues that improved PFS qualifies trametinib to be considered a new option for standard care, ”especially in a rare tumor setting with limited options. This is a huge win for patients.”

The trametinib study was sponsored by NRG Oncology and the UK National Cancer Research Institute. Dr. Gershenson disclosed relationships with NRG Oncology, Genentech, Novartis, Elsevier, and UpToDate, as well as stock in several companies.

The binimetinib study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Grisham disclosed relationships with Clovis, Regeneron, Mateon, Amgen, Abbvie, OncLive, PRIME, MCM, and Medscape. MDedge News and Medscape are owned by the same parent organization.

Dr. Brown disclosed consulting for Biodesix, Caris, Clovis, Genentech, Invitae, Janssen, Olympus, OncLive, and Tempus.

SOURCE: Gershenson DM et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 42; Grisham RN et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 41.

Two MEK inhibitors were tested against recurrent low-grade serous carcinomas of the ovaries, fallopian tubes, or peritoneum, but only one inhibitor offered clinical benefit over standard care, investigators from two randomized trials reported.

Trametinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with standard care, while binimetinib conferred no PFS benefit.

In a phase 2/3 trial, the median PFS was 13 months for patients treated with trametinib and 7.2 months for patients who received an aromatase inhibitor or chemotherapy (P < .0001).

“Our findings suggest that trametinib represents a new standard-of-care treatment option for women with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma,” said investigator David M. Gershenson, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

In contrast, in the phase 3 MILO/ENGOT-ov11 trial, there was no significant difference in PFS between patients treated with binimetinib and those who received physician’s choice of chemotherapy. The median PFS was 11.2 months with binimetinib and 14.1 months with chemotherapy (P = .752).

“Although this study did not meet its primary endpoint, binimetinib showed activity in low-grade serous ovarian cancer across the efficacy endpoints evaluated, with a response rate of 24% and a median PFS of 11.2 months on updated analysis. Chemotherapy responses were better than predicted, based on historical retrospective data,” said investigator Rachel N. Grisham, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

The binimetinib trial and the trametinib trial were both discussed during a webinar on rare tumors covering research slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Chemoresistant cancers

Low-grade serous ovarian or peritoneal cancers are rare, accounting for only 5% to 10% of all serous cancers, Dr. Gershenson noted.

“[Low-grade serous cancers are] characterized by alterations in the MAP kinase pathway, as well as relative chemoresistance, and prolonged overall survival compared to high-grade serous cancers. Because of this subtype’s relative chemoresistance, the search for novel therapeutics has predominated over the last decade or so,” he said.

MEK inhibitors interfere with the MEK1 and MEK2 enzymes in the MAPK pathway. Alterations in MAPK, especially in KRAS and BRAF proteins, are found in 30%-60% of low-grade serous carcinomas, providing the rationale for MEK inhibitors in these rare malignancies.
 

Trametinib study

In a phase 2/3 study, Dr. Gershenson and colleagues enrolled 260 patients with recurrent, low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum. Patients were randomized to receive either trametinib at 2 mg daily continuously until progression (n = 130) or standard care (n = 130).

Standard care consisted of one of the following: letrozole at 2.5 mg daily; pegylated liposomal doxorubicin at 40-50 mg IV every 28 days; weekly paclitaxel at 80 mg/m² for 3 out of 4 weeks; tamoxifen at 20 mg twice daily; or topotecan at 4 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days. Patients randomized to standard care could be crossed over to trametinib at progression.

All patients had at least one prior line of platinum-based chemotherapy, and nearly half had three or more prior lines of therapy. The median age was 56.6 years in the trametinib arm and 55.3 years in the control arm.

At a median follow-up of 31.4 months, median PFS, the primary endpoint, was 13 months with trametinib vs. 7.2 months with standard care. The hazard ratio (HR) for progression on trametinib was 0.48 (P < .0001).

The overall response rates were 26.2% in the trametinib arm and 6.2% in the standard care arm. The odds ratio for response on trametinib was 5.4 (P < .0001).

For 88 patients who crossed over to trametinib, the median PFS was 10.8 months, and the overall response rate was 15%.

Trametinib was also associated with a significantly longer response duration, at a median of 13.6 months, compared with 5.9 months for standard care (P value not shown).

The median overall survival was 37 months with trametinib and 29.2 months with standard care, with an HR favoring trametinib of 0.75, although this just missed statistical significance (P = .054). Dr. Gershenson pointed out that the overall survival in the standard care arm included patients who had been crossed over to trametinib.

Grade 3 or greater adverse events included hematologic toxicities in 13.4% of patients on trametinib and 9.4% on standard care; gastrointestinal toxicity in 27.6% and 29%, respectively; skin toxicities in 15% and 3.9%, respectively; and vascular toxicities in 18.9% and 8.6%, respectively.
 

Binimetinib study

The phase 3 MILO/ENGOT-ov11 study enrolled 341 patients with low-grade serous carcinomas of the ovaries, fallopian tubes, or peritoneum. Patients were randomized on a 2:1 basis to receive either binimetinib at 45 mg twice daily (n = 228) or physician’s choice of chemotherapy (n = 113). Chemotherapy consisted of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin at 40 mg/m² on day 1 of each 28-day cycle; paclitaxel at 80 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle; or topotecan at 1.25 mg/m² IV on days 1-5 of each 21-day cycle.

The efficacy analysis included 227 patients assigned to binimetinib and 106 assigned to chemotherapy.

A planned interim analysis was performed in 2016 after the first 303 patients were enrolled. At that time, the median PFS by blinded central review was 9.1 months in the binimetinib arm and 10.6 months in the physician’s choice arm (HR, 1.21; P = .807), so the trial was halted early for futility. Patients on active treatment at the time could continue until progression and were followed by local radiology.

At the interim analysis, secondary endpoints were also similar between the arms. The overall response rate was 16% in the binimetinib arm and 13% in the chemotherapy arm.

The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events with binimetinib were blood creatinine phosphokinase increase (26%) and vomiting (10%).

Dr. Grisham also reported updated follow-up results through January 2019.

The median PFS in the updated analysis was 11.2 months with the MEK inhibitor and 14.1 months with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant (HR, 1.12; P = .752). Updated overall response rates were the same in both arms, at 24%.

A post hoc molecular analysis of 215 patients suggested a possible association between KRAS mutation and response to binimetinib.
 

Two MEKs, one ‘meh’

Discussant Jubilee Brown, MD, of the Levine Cancer Institute at Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., said that “with a 2% to 5% chance of response in patients with low-grade serous ovarian cancer, there is a low bar for any compound to demonstrate success.”

Regarding the MILO/ENGOT-ov11 trial, she noted that “this study did not meet its primary endpoint, but perhaps the endpoint is not reflective of the importance of the study.”

A different outcome might have occurred had investigators stratified patients by KRAS status upfront, comparing patients with KRAS mutations treated with binimetinib to KRAS wild-type patients treated with either a MEK inhibitor or physician’s choice of care, Dr. Brown said.

She agreed with the assertion by Dr. Gershenson and colleagues that improved PFS qualifies trametinib to be considered a new option for standard care, ”especially in a rare tumor setting with limited options. This is a huge win for patients.”

The trametinib study was sponsored by NRG Oncology and the UK National Cancer Research Institute. Dr. Gershenson disclosed relationships with NRG Oncology, Genentech, Novartis, Elsevier, and UpToDate, as well as stock in several companies.

The binimetinib study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Grisham disclosed relationships with Clovis, Regeneron, Mateon, Amgen, Abbvie, OncLive, PRIME, MCM, and Medscape. MDedge News and Medscape are owned by the same parent organization.

Dr. Brown disclosed consulting for Biodesix, Caris, Clovis, Genentech, Invitae, Janssen, Olympus, OncLive, and Tempus.

SOURCE: Gershenson DM et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 42; Grisham RN et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 41.

The autologous tumor cell vaccine gemogenovatucel-T (Vigil Ovarian) is well tolerated as maintenance therapy in stage III-IV ovarian cancer patients and may improve relapse-free survival, particularly in BRCA wild-type disease, according to findings from the ongoing VITAL study.

In patients with and without BRCA1/2 mutations, the median relapse-free survival was longer with gemogenovatucel-T maintenance than with placebo, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .065).

However, among patients with wild-type BRCA, the median relapse-free survival was significantly longer with gemogenovatucel-T (P = .0007).

Rodney P. Rocconi, MD, of the Mitchell Cancer Institute at University of South Alabama, Mobile, reported these results in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancers. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some data have been updated from the abstract.
 

Study rationale

Gemogenovatucel-T (formerly called FANG) is an autologous tumor cell vaccine transfected with a plasmid encoding granulocyte-macrophage colony–stimulating factor and a novel bifunctional short hairpin interfering RNA targeting furin convertase.

“In the era of personalized, targeted medicine, I think this is about as personalized as you can get, this type of vaccine,” Dr. Rocconi said. “Essentially, we harvest patients’ own cancer cells and create a vaccine that is targeted to the antigens on their cells so that it recognizes only that patient’s cancer.”

The vaccine also helps recruit immune cells to the area and has a very limited off-target effect, Dr. Rocconi added.

He noted that gemogenovatucel-T previously demonstrated promising efficacy and limited side effects in a phase 1 study that included patients with advanced ovarian cancer (Mol Ther. 2012 Mar;20[3]:679-86).

“So we thought that, in ovarian cancer, as a maintenance therapy, it made a lot of sense,” Dr. Rocconi said, noting that the overall prognosis for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer remains limited.
 

Treatment and toxicity

Dr. Rocconi and colleagues reported data on 91 patients in the VITAL study. The patients had achieved a complete response after frontline surgery and chemotherapy, and they were randomized to maintenance with gemogenovatucel-T or placebo.

Patients had a median time from surgery to randomization of 208.5 days in the gemogenovatucel-T group and 200 days in the control group. The patients were treated with 1 x 10⁷ cells/mL of gemogenovatucel-T or placebo intradermally once a month for up to 12 doses.

Gemogenovatucel-T was well tolerated. No added overall toxicity was noted in the gemogenovatucel-T group versus the control group, and no grade 4/5 toxicities were observed, Dr. Rocconi said. Grade 2/3 toxic events were observed in 8% of patients in the gemogenovatucel-T group, compared with 18% in the control group. The most common events were nausea and musculoskeletal pain in the gemogenovatucel-T group, and were bone pain and fatigue in the control group.
 

Relapse-free and overall survival

In the entire cohort, the median relapse-free survival was longer with gemogenovatucel-T maintenance – 12.6 months versus 8.4 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69) – but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .065).

However, in the 67 patients with wild-type BRCA, the median relapse-free survival was 19.4 months with gemogenovatucel-T and 14.8 months with placebo, a statistically significant difference (HR, 0.459; P = .0007).

The median overall survival was not reached in the BRCA wild-type patients treated with gemogenovatucel-T, and it was 41.4 months from the time of randomization in those who received placebo (HR, 0.417; P = .02).

No benefit was seen with gemogenovatucel-T in patients with known BRCA1/2 mutations, Dr. Rocconi said.
 

‘Encouraging’ results

The overall improvement in the gemogenovatucel-T group was encouraging, particularly in a maintenance-type trial, Dr. Rocconi said. He noted that prior treatments for maintenance have received approval based on shorter survival gains, and the finding of particular benefit in BRCA wild-type disease could have important implications for a population that usually has lesser benefit from treatments, compared with patients who have BRCA mutations.

“So this result is very unique,” Dr. Rocconi said, explaining that about 85% of ovarian cancer patients have BRCA wild-type disease; with this treatment, patients with wild-type BRCA may achieve similar survival rates as those seen in BRCA-mutant disease.

“I think, in general, immunotherapy has been somewhat disappointing in ovarian cancer, so to have a targeted vaccine work in ovarian cancer, just broadly ... is pretty noteworthy,” he said. “We’re really excited, obviously, about the overall success we’ve seen for all patients, but most importantly in those with BRCA wild type. This is a pretty marked significance in recurrence-free intervals and overall survival, and we’re definitely pleased with that.”
 

Next steps

The findings from this trial have been submitted for publication, and efforts are underway to determine next steps through communication with the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Rocconi said.

Additionally, other studies are underway to assess gemogenovatucel-T in patients who fall in “the middle ground” – that is, patients who have BRCA wild-type disease but have “some homologous recombination deficiency where the tumor itself might be BRCA deficient or have some other type of deficiency,” Dr. Rocconi explained.

“So we’re trying to tease out specifically what is going on across all the different variations of ovarian cancer patients, and also looking for potential biomarkers for predicting response,” he said. “What we would like to see is a companion test where we’re able to predict which patients can really respond and do best with this technology, and, that way, we know how to stratify patients most appropriately.”

The current trial was sponsored by Gradalis. Dr. Rocconi disclosed relationships with Gradalis, Genentech, Clovis, and Johnson & Johnson.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rocconi RP et al. SGO 2020, Abstract LBA7.

The autologous tumor cell vaccine gemogenovatucel-T (Vigil Ovarian) is well tolerated as maintenance therapy in stage III-IV ovarian cancer patients and may improve relapse-free survival, particularly in BRCA wild-type disease, according to findings from the ongoing VITAL study.

In patients with and without BRCA1/2 mutations, the median relapse-free survival was longer with gemogenovatucel-T maintenance than with placebo, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .065).

However, among patients with wild-type BRCA, the median relapse-free survival was significantly longer with gemogenovatucel-T (P = .0007).

Rodney P. Rocconi, MD, of the Mitchell Cancer Institute at University of South Alabama, Mobile, reported these results in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancers. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some data have been updated from the abstract.
 

Study rationale

Gemogenovatucel-T (formerly called FANG) is an autologous tumor cell vaccine transfected with a plasmid encoding granulocyte-macrophage colony–stimulating factor and a novel bifunctional short hairpin interfering RNA targeting furin convertase.

“In the era of personalized, targeted medicine, I think this is about as personalized as you can get, this type of vaccine,” Dr. Rocconi said. “Essentially, we harvest patients’ own cancer cells and create a vaccine that is targeted to the antigens on their cells so that it recognizes only that patient’s cancer.”

The vaccine also helps recruit immune cells to the area and has a very limited off-target effect, Dr. Rocconi added.

He noted that gemogenovatucel-T previously demonstrated promising efficacy and limited side effects in a phase 1 study that included patients with advanced ovarian cancer (Mol Ther. 2012 Mar;20[3]:679-86).

“So we thought that, in ovarian cancer, as a maintenance therapy, it made a lot of sense,” Dr. Rocconi said, noting that the overall prognosis for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer remains limited.
 

Treatment and toxicity

Dr. Rocconi and colleagues reported data on 91 patients in the VITAL study. The patients had achieved a complete response after frontline surgery and chemotherapy, and they were randomized to maintenance with gemogenovatucel-T or placebo.

Patients had a median time from surgery to randomization of 208.5 days in the gemogenovatucel-T group and 200 days in the control group. The patients were treated with 1 x 10⁷ cells/mL of gemogenovatucel-T or placebo intradermally once a month for up to 12 doses.

Gemogenovatucel-T was well tolerated. No added overall toxicity was noted in the gemogenovatucel-T group versus the control group, and no grade 4/5 toxicities were observed, Dr. Rocconi said. Grade 2/3 toxic events were observed in 8% of patients in the gemogenovatucel-T group, compared with 18% in the control group. The most common events were nausea and musculoskeletal pain in the gemogenovatucel-T group, and were bone pain and fatigue in the control group.
 

Relapse-free and overall survival

In the entire cohort, the median relapse-free survival was longer with gemogenovatucel-T maintenance – 12.6 months versus 8.4 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69) – but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .065).

However, in the 67 patients with wild-type BRCA, the median relapse-free survival was 19.4 months with gemogenovatucel-T and 14.8 months with placebo, a statistically significant difference (HR, 0.459; P = .0007).

The median overall survival was not reached in the BRCA wild-type patients treated with gemogenovatucel-T, and it was 41.4 months from the time of randomization in those who received placebo (HR, 0.417; P = .02).

No benefit was seen with gemogenovatucel-T in patients with known BRCA1/2 mutations, Dr. Rocconi said.
 

‘Encouraging’ results

The overall improvement in the gemogenovatucel-T group was encouraging, particularly in a maintenance-type trial, Dr. Rocconi said. He noted that prior treatments for maintenance have received approval based on shorter survival gains, and the finding of particular benefit in BRCA wild-type disease could have important implications for a population that usually has lesser benefit from treatments, compared with patients who have BRCA mutations.

“So this result is very unique,” Dr. Rocconi said, explaining that about 85% of ovarian cancer patients have BRCA wild-type disease; with this treatment, patients with wild-type BRCA may achieve similar survival rates as those seen in BRCA-mutant disease.

“I think, in general, immunotherapy has been somewhat disappointing in ovarian cancer, so to have a targeted vaccine work in ovarian cancer, just broadly ... is pretty noteworthy,” he said. “We’re really excited, obviously, about the overall success we’ve seen for all patients, but most importantly in those with BRCA wild type. This is a pretty marked significance in recurrence-free intervals and overall survival, and we’re definitely pleased with that.”
 

Next steps

The findings from this trial have been submitted for publication, and efforts are underway to determine next steps through communication with the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Rocconi said.

Additionally, other studies are underway to assess gemogenovatucel-T in patients who fall in “the middle ground” – that is, patients who have BRCA wild-type disease but have “some homologous recombination deficiency where the tumor itself might be BRCA deficient or have some other type of deficiency,” Dr. Rocconi explained.

“So we’re trying to tease out specifically what is going on across all the different variations of ovarian cancer patients, and also looking for potential biomarkers for predicting response,” he said. “What we would like to see is a companion test where we’re able to predict which patients can really respond and do best with this technology, and, that way, we know how to stratify patients most appropriately.”

The current trial was sponsored by Gradalis. Dr. Rocconi disclosed relationships with Gradalis, Genentech, Clovis, and Johnson & Johnson.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rocconi RP et al. SGO 2020, Abstract LBA7.

The autologous tumor cell vaccine gemogenovatucel-T (Vigil Ovarian) is well tolerated as maintenance therapy in stage III-IV ovarian cancer patients and may improve relapse-free survival, particularly in BRCA wild-type disease, according to findings from the ongoing VITAL study.

In patients with and without BRCA1/2 mutations, the median relapse-free survival was longer with gemogenovatucel-T maintenance than with placebo, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .065).

However, among patients with wild-type BRCA, the median relapse-free survival was significantly longer with gemogenovatucel-T (P = .0007).

Rodney P. Rocconi, MD, of the Mitchell Cancer Institute at University of South Alabama, Mobile, reported these results in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancers. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some data have been updated from the abstract.
 

Study rationale

Gemogenovatucel-T (formerly called FANG) is an autologous tumor cell vaccine transfected with a plasmid encoding granulocyte-macrophage colony–stimulating factor and a novel bifunctional short hairpin interfering RNA targeting furin convertase.

“In the era of personalized, targeted medicine, I think this is about as personalized as you can get, this type of vaccine,” Dr. Rocconi said. “Essentially, we harvest patients’ own cancer cells and create a vaccine that is targeted to the antigens on their cells so that it recognizes only that patient’s cancer.”

The vaccine also helps recruit immune cells to the area and has a very limited off-target effect, Dr. Rocconi added.

He noted that gemogenovatucel-T previously demonstrated promising efficacy and limited side effects in a phase 1 study that included patients with advanced ovarian cancer (Mol Ther. 2012 Mar;20[3]:679-86).

“So we thought that, in ovarian cancer, as a maintenance therapy, it made a lot of sense,” Dr. Rocconi said, noting that the overall prognosis for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer remains limited.
 

Treatment and toxicity

Dr. Rocconi and colleagues reported data on 91 patients in the VITAL study. The patients had achieved a complete response after frontline surgery and chemotherapy, and they were randomized to maintenance with gemogenovatucel-T or placebo.

Patients had a median time from surgery to randomization of 208.5 days in the gemogenovatucel-T group and 200 days in the control group. The patients were treated with 1 x 10⁷ cells/mL of gemogenovatucel-T or placebo intradermally once a month for up to 12 doses.

Gemogenovatucel-T was well tolerated. No added overall toxicity was noted in the gemogenovatucel-T group versus the control group, and no grade 4/5 toxicities were observed, Dr. Rocconi said. Grade 2/3 toxic events were observed in 8% of patients in the gemogenovatucel-T group, compared with 18% in the control group. The most common events were nausea and musculoskeletal pain in the gemogenovatucel-T group, and were bone pain and fatigue in the control group.
 

Relapse-free and overall survival

In the entire cohort, the median relapse-free survival was longer with gemogenovatucel-T maintenance – 12.6 months versus 8.4 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69) – but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .065).

However, in the 67 patients with wild-type BRCA, the median relapse-free survival was 19.4 months with gemogenovatucel-T and 14.8 months with placebo, a statistically significant difference (HR, 0.459; P = .0007).

The median overall survival was not reached in the BRCA wild-type patients treated with gemogenovatucel-T, and it was 41.4 months from the time of randomization in those who received placebo (HR, 0.417; P = .02).

No benefit was seen with gemogenovatucel-T in patients with known BRCA1/2 mutations, Dr. Rocconi said.
 

‘Encouraging’ results

The overall improvement in the gemogenovatucel-T group was encouraging, particularly in a maintenance-type trial, Dr. Rocconi said. He noted that prior treatments for maintenance have received approval based on shorter survival gains, and the finding of particular benefit in BRCA wild-type disease could have important implications for a population that usually has lesser benefit from treatments, compared with patients who have BRCA mutations.

“So this result is very unique,” Dr. Rocconi said, explaining that about 85% of ovarian cancer patients have BRCA wild-type disease; with this treatment, patients with wild-type BRCA may achieve similar survival rates as those seen in BRCA-mutant disease.

“I think, in general, immunotherapy has been somewhat disappointing in ovarian cancer, so to have a targeted vaccine work in ovarian cancer, just broadly ... is pretty noteworthy,” he said. “We’re really excited, obviously, about the overall success we’ve seen for all patients, but most importantly in those with BRCA wild type. This is a pretty marked significance in recurrence-free intervals and overall survival, and we’re definitely pleased with that.”
 

Next steps

The findings from this trial have been submitted for publication, and efforts are underway to determine next steps through communication with the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Rocconi said.

Additionally, other studies are underway to assess gemogenovatucel-T in patients who fall in “the middle ground” – that is, patients who have BRCA wild-type disease but have “some homologous recombination deficiency where the tumor itself might be BRCA deficient or have some other type of deficiency,” Dr. Rocconi explained.

“So we’re trying to tease out specifically what is going on across all the different variations of ovarian cancer patients, and also looking for potential biomarkers for predicting response,” he said. “What we would like to see is a companion test where we’re able to predict which patients can really respond and do best with this technology, and, that way, we know how to stratify patients most appropriately.”

The current trial was sponsored by Gradalis. Dr. Rocconi disclosed relationships with Gradalis, Genentech, Clovis, and Johnson & Johnson.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rocconi RP et al. SGO 2020, Abstract LBA7.

Adding trastuzumab to carboplatin/paclitaxel improved survival in patients with advanced or recurrent HER2/Neu-positive uterine serous carcinoma (USC), according to an updated analysis from a phase 2 trial.

Dr Amanda Nickles Fader

At a median follow-up of 25.9 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.9 months in patients who received trastuzumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel and 8.0 months in patients who received only carboplatin/paclitaxel. The median overall survival (OS) was 29.6 months and 24.4 months, respectively.

Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues reported these findings in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Confirmed benefit

The phase 2 trial was designed to assess whether trastuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets HER2/neu – a growth factor receptor found in almost all USC cases and overexpressed in 30% of cases – would improve survival in patients with USC, Dr. Nickles Fader explained in an interview. She noted that trastuzumab has been shown to provide benefit in breast cancer patients with HER2/neu overexpression.

“[U]terine serous carcinoma ... is a very aggressive high-grade endometrial cancer subtype that is associated with really poor clinical outcomes and significant mortality,” Dr. Nickles Fader said. “It represents fewer than 10% of all uterine cancer cases, but it actually accounts for a disproportionate 40% of all deaths from uterine cancer.”

The overall survival among USC patients is about 45%, compared with 91% for more common lower-grade types of uterine cancers, she added.

“The conventional treatments for uterine serous carcinoma include surgery and then chemotherapy, but we’ve only really gotten so far by using a sort of one-size-fits-all treatment philosophy,” Dr. Nickles Fader said.

Based on preliminary findings from the current trial (J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jul 10;36[20]:2044-51), trastuzumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel is now recognized as an alternative standard in treating advanced or recurrent HER2/Neu-positive USC, and this updated analysis confirms the benefits of adding trastuzumab, she said.
 

PFS, OS, and toxicity

There were 58 evaluable patients with primary stage III-IV or recurrent USC who were randomized to receive six cycles of carboplatin/paclitaxel alone or in combination with intravenous trastuzumab given until toxicity or progression.

The median PFS at a median follow-up of 25.9 months “very significantly favored” the trastuzumab arm, Dr. Nickles Fader said. The median PFS was 12.9 months in the trastuzumab arm and 8.0 months in the carboplatin/paclitaxel arm (hazard ratio, 0.46; P = .005).

In the 41 patients undergoing primary treatment, the median PFS was 17.7 months in the trastuzumab arm and 9.3 months in the control arm (HR, 0.44; P = .015). In the 17 patients with recurrent disease, the median PFS was 9.2 months and 7.0 months, respectively (HR, 0.12; P = .004).

“We were very pleased to see that there was also an overall survival benefit of about 5 months in the trastuzumab arm, compared to the control arm,” Dr. Nickles Fader said. The median OS was 29.6 months and 24.4 months, respectively (HR, 0.58; P = .046).

The PFS and OS benefit was “particularly striking” in the stage III-IV patients, according to Dr. Nickles Fader and colleagues. In this subgroup, the median OS was not reached in the trastuzumab arm, and it was 25.4 months in the control arm (HR, 0.49; P = .041).

Long-term toxicity did not differ between the treatment arms.
 

Applications and next steps

“The take-home message here is women should be tested if they have this subtype,” Dr. Nickles Fader said. “If they’re newly diagnosed, they should be tested for the HER2/neu receptor, and if [it is overexpressed] and they have advanced disease, we do recommend treatment with not only the conventional treatment, but with trastuzumab added to that, because that’s where we saw the most benefit.”

This is the only trial that has ever shown a major PFS and OS difference with combination targeted therapy and conventional chemotherapy in USC, Dr. Nickles Fader noted.

“So it was really exciting to see that,” she said, adding that a “much larger cooperative group trial” is being designed by the National Cancer Institute and NRG Oncology Group to look at this approach in HER2-positive, advanced-stage uterine cancers. The trial will include patients with USC, but it will extend to other uterine cancer types as well.

“We’re looking at different combinations of anti-HER2 therapies to sort of validate the results of this trial, but also to study this in other tumors that are HER2 positive,” Dr. Nickles Fader explained.

She also stressed the importance of addressing racial disparities in survival among women with USC, as African American women have higher rates of USC and related mortality than do other groups.

“It’s going to be important to look at not only molecular targets and improving survival but also racial inequalities and potentially epigenetics to really improve survival across the board,” Dr. Nickles Fader said.

She reported having no disclosures. The trial was sponsored by Yale University in collaboration with Genentech.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nickles Fader A et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 12.

Adding trastuzumab to carboplatin/paclitaxel improved survival in patients with advanced or recurrent HER2/Neu-positive uterine serous carcinoma (USC), according to an updated analysis from a phase 2 trial.

Dr Amanda Nickles Fader

At a median follow-up of 25.9 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.9 months in patients who received trastuzumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel and 8.0 months in patients who received only carboplatin/paclitaxel. The median overall survival (OS) was 29.6 months and 24.4 months, respectively.

Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues reported these findings in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Confirmed benefit

The phase 2 trial was designed to assess whether trastuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets HER2/neu – a growth factor receptor found in almost all USC cases and overexpressed in 30% of cases – would improve survival in patients with USC, Dr. Nickles Fader explained in an interview. She noted that trastuzumab has been shown to provide benefit in breast cancer patients with HER2/neu overexpression.

“[U]terine serous carcinoma ... is a very aggressive high-grade endometrial cancer subtype that is associated with really poor clinical outcomes and significant mortality,” Dr. Nickles Fader said. “It represents fewer than 10% of all uterine cancer cases, but it actually accounts for a disproportionate 40% of all deaths from uterine cancer.”

The overall survival among USC patients is about 45%, compared with 91% for more common lower-grade types of uterine cancers, she added.

“The conventional treatments for uterine serous carcinoma include surgery and then chemotherapy, but we’ve only really gotten so far by using a sort of one-size-fits-all treatment philosophy,” Dr. Nickles Fader said.

Based on preliminary findings from the current trial (J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jul 10;36[20]:2044-51), trastuzumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel is now recognized as an alternative standard in treating advanced or recurrent HER2/Neu-positive USC, and this updated analysis confirms the benefits of adding trastuzumab, she said.
 

PFS, OS, and toxicity

There were 58 evaluable patients with primary stage III-IV or recurrent USC who were randomized to receive six cycles of carboplatin/paclitaxel alone or in combination with intravenous trastuzumab given until toxicity or progression.

The median PFS at a median follow-up of 25.9 months “very significantly favored” the trastuzumab arm, Dr. Nickles Fader said. The median PFS was 12.9 months in the trastuzumab arm and 8.0 months in the carboplatin/paclitaxel arm (hazard ratio, 0.46; P = .005).

In the 41 patients undergoing primary treatment, the median PFS was 17.7 months in the trastuzumab arm and 9.3 months in the control arm (HR, 0.44; P = .015). In the 17 patients with recurrent disease, the median PFS was 9.2 months and 7.0 months, respectively (HR, 0.12; P = .004).

“We were very pleased to see that there was also an overall survival benefit of about 5 months in the trastuzumab arm, compared to the control arm,” Dr. Nickles Fader said. The median OS was 29.6 months and 24.4 months, respectively (HR, 0.58; P = .046).

The PFS and OS benefit was “particularly striking” in the stage III-IV patients, according to Dr. Nickles Fader and colleagues. In this subgroup, the median OS was not reached in the trastuzumab arm, and it was 25.4 months in the control arm (HR, 0.49; P = .041).

Long-term toxicity did not differ between the treatment arms.
 

Applications and next steps

“The take-home message here is women should be tested if they have this subtype,” Dr. Nickles Fader said. “If they’re newly diagnosed, they should be tested for the HER2/neu receptor, and if [it is overexpressed] and they have advanced disease, we do recommend treatment with not only the conventional treatment, but with trastuzumab added to that, because that’s where we saw the most benefit.”

This is the only trial that has ever shown a major PFS and OS difference with combination targeted therapy and conventional chemotherapy in USC, Dr. Nickles Fader noted.

“So it was really exciting to see that,” she said, adding that a “much larger cooperative group trial” is being designed by the National Cancer Institute and NRG Oncology Group to look at this approach in HER2-positive, advanced-stage uterine cancers. The trial will include patients with USC, but it will extend to other uterine cancer types as well.

“We’re looking at different combinations of anti-HER2 therapies to sort of validate the results of this trial, but also to study this in other tumors that are HER2 positive,” Dr. Nickles Fader explained.

She also stressed the importance of addressing racial disparities in survival among women with USC, as African American women have higher rates of USC and related mortality than do other groups.

“It’s going to be important to look at not only molecular targets and improving survival but also racial inequalities and potentially epigenetics to really improve survival across the board,” Dr. Nickles Fader said.

She reported having no disclosures. The trial was sponsored by Yale University in collaboration with Genentech.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nickles Fader A et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 12.

Adding trastuzumab to carboplatin/paclitaxel improved survival in patients with advanced or recurrent HER2/Neu-positive uterine serous carcinoma (USC), according to an updated analysis from a phase 2 trial.

Dr Amanda Nickles Fader

At a median follow-up of 25.9 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.9 months in patients who received trastuzumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel and 8.0 months in patients who received only carboplatin/paclitaxel. The median overall survival (OS) was 29.6 months and 24.4 months, respectively.

Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues reported these findings in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Confirmed benefit

The phase 2 trial was designed to assess whether trastuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets HER2/neu – a growth factor receptor found in almost all USC cases and overexpressed in 30% of cases – would improve survival in patients with USC, Dr. Nickles Fader explained in an interview. She noted that trastuzumab has been shown to provide benefit in breast cancer patients with HER2/neu overexpression.

“[U]terine serous carcinoma ... is a very aggressive high-grade endometrial cancer subtype that is associated with really poor clinical outcomes and significant mortality,” Dr. Nickles Fader said. “It represents fewer than 10% of all uterine cancer cases, but it actually accounts for a disproportionate 40% of all deaths from uterine cancer.”

The overall survival among USC patients is about 45%, compared with 91% for more common lower-grade types of uterine cancers, she added.

“The conventional treatments for uterine serous carcinoma include surgery and then chemotherapy, but we’ve only really gotten so far by using a sort of one-size-fits-all treatment philosophy,” Dr. Nickles Fader said.

Based on preliminary findings from the current trial (J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jul 10;36[20]:2044-51), trastuzumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel is now recognized as an alternative standard in treating advanced or recurrent HER2/Neu-positive USC, and this updated analysis confirms the benefits of adding trastuzumab, she said.
 

PFS, OS, and toxicity

There were 58 evaluable patients with primary stage III-IV or recurrent USC who were randomized to receive six cycles of carboplatin/paclitaxel alone or in combination with intravenous trastuzumab given until toxicity or progression.

The median PFS at a median follow-up of 25.9 months “very significantly favored” the trastuzumab arm, Dr. Nickles Fader said. The median PFS was 12.9 months in the trastuzumab arm and 8.0 months in the carboplatin/paclitaxel arm (hazard ratio, 0.46; P = .005).

In the 41 patients undergoing primary treatment, the median PFS was 17.7 months in the trastuzumab arm and 9.3 months in the control arm (HR, 0.44; P = .015). In the 17 patients with recurrent disease, the median PFS was 9.2 months and 7.0 months, respectively (HR, 0.12; P = .004).

“We were very pleased to see that there was also an overall survival benefit of about 5 months in the trastuzumab arm, compared to the control arm,” Dr. Nickles Fader said. The median OS was 29.6 months and 24.4 months, respectively (HR, 0.58; P = .046).

The PFS and OS benefit was “particularly striking” in the stage III-IV patients, according to Dr. Nickles Fader and colleagues. In this subgroup, the median OS was not reached in the trastuzumab arm, and it was 25.4 months in the control arm (HR, 0.49; P = .041).

Long-term toxicity did not differ between the treatment arms.
 

Applications and next steps

“The take-home message here is women should be tested if they have this subtype,” Dr. Nickles Fader said. “If they’re newly diagnosed, they should be tested for the HER2/neu receptor, and if [it is overexpressed] and they have advanced disease, we do recommend treatment with not only the conventional treatment, but with trastuzumab added to that, because that’s where we saw the most benefit.”

This is the only trial that has ever shown a major PFS and OS difference with combination targeted therapy and conventional chemotherapy in USC, Dr. Nickles Fader noted.

“So it was really exciting to see that,” she said, adding that a “much larger cooperative group trial” is being designed by the National Cancer Institute and NRG Oncology Group to look at this approach in HER2-positive, advanced-stage uterine cancers. The trial will include patients with USC, but it will extend to other uterine cancer types as well.

“We’re looking at different combinations of anti-HER2 therapies to sort of validate the results of this trial, but also to study this in other tumors that are HER2 positive,” Dr. Nickles Fader explained.

She also stressed the importance of addressing racial disparities in survival among women with USC, as African American women have higher rates of USC and related mortality than do other groups.

“It’s going to be important to look at not only molecular targets and improving survival but also racial inequalities and potentially epigenetics to really improve survival across the board,” Dr. Nickles Fader said.

She reported having no disclosures. The trial was sponsored by Yale University in collaboration with Genentech.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nickles Fader A et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 12.

A significant compensation discrepancy exists between male and female gynecologic oncologists, a recent survey suggests.

Dr. Katherine M. Croft

After controlling for differences between the genders, the male gynecologic oncologists surveyed were 1.28 times more likely than their female counterparts to earn a salary above the median, according to Katherine M. Croft, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Dr. Croft and colleagues reported findings from the survey in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Of 263 members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology who responded to the anonymous survey, 41% were women and 59% were men. The median annual salaries were $380,000 and $500,000 respectively.

“Comparing compensation by gender, there was a $120,000 difference in median salary when you compare them on a surface level,” Dr. Croft said. “Combing through the data further, we found that there were few other differences by gender.”

There were no differences between genders with respect to group size, percentage of protected research time, frequency of call, or geographic location. However, men were more likely to be compensated for extra call and were more likely to respond to obstetrical emergencies, and those differences were statistically significant.

Further, female gynecologic oncologists were younger and had been in practice for fewer years. They also were more likely to work in an academic setting and to work with residents.

“For men, the odds of making above the median salary was 1.28 times that of female providers when controlling for these differences” Dr. Croft said.

Significant compensation differences were noted based on practice setting. When these were substratified by gender, only academic or teaching hospitals and teaching hospital/community hybrids had significant pay differences by gender.

Academic or teaching hospitals comprised the largest subgroup, allowing for further analysis.

“Age and years post fellowship were the only significant differences by gender in this group,” Dr. Croft said. “Again, female providers earned less than their male counterparts, with mean compensation of $349,717, compared with $461,054.”

In fact, less than 25% of women in academic practice in this survey made above the median reported salary, Dr. Croft noted. Controlling not only for differences between male and female providers in this group but also for other known factors affecting compensation, the odds of a male provider making greater than the median salary were 1.77 times that of female providers.

Women represent nearly a third of all practicing physicians, but their salaries continue to lag behind those of men, Dr. Croft noted. She added that “this is the first study that has been presented with regards to gynecologic oncology gender salary discrepancies.”

The findings are limited by survey response bias and a potential lack of data that could explain some of the discrepancies. The study was originally designed to look at on-call compensation, so respondents were not queried about academic ranking or specific work responsibilities. Still, Dr. Croft said the findings point to a need for policy reform to ensure equitable compensation.

“My hope is that these data open a dialogue to further explore discrepancies by gender in our field,” she said.

Dr. Croft reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Croft K et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 15.

A significant compensation discrepancy exists between male and female gynecologic oncologists, a recent survey suggests.

Dr. Katherine M. Croft

After controlling for differences between the genders, the male gynecologic oncologists surveyed were 1.28 times more likely than their female counterparts to earn a salary above the median, according to Katherine M. Croft, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Dr. Croft and colleagues reported findings from the survey in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Of 263 members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology who responded to the anonymous survey, 41% were women and 59% were men. The median annual salaries were $380,000 and $500,000 respectively.

“Comparing compensation by gender, there was a $120,000 difference in median salary when you compare them on a surface level,” Dr. Croft said. “Combing through the data further, we found that there were few other differences by gender.”

There were no differences between genders with respect to group size, percentage of protected research time, frequency of call, or geographic location. However, men were more likely to be compensated for extra call and were more likely to respond to obstetrical emergencies, and those differences were statistically significant.

Further, female gynecologic oncologists were younger and had been in practice for fewer years. They also were more likely to work in an academic setting and to work with residents.

“For men, the odds of making above the median salary was 1.28 times that of female providers when controlling for these differences” Dr. Croft said.

Significant compensation differences were noted based on practice setting. When these were substratified by gender, only academic or teaching hospitals and teaching hospital/community hybrids had significant pay differences by gender.

Academic or teaching hospitals comprised the largest subgroup, allowing for further analysis.

“Age and years post fellowship were the only significant differences by gender in this group,” Dr. Croft said. “Again, female providers earned less than their male counterparts, with mean compensation of $349,717, compared with $461,054.”

In fact, less than 25% of women in academic practice in this survey made above the median reported salary, Dr. Croft noted. Controlling not only for differences between male and female providers in this group but also for other known factors affecting compensation, the odds of a male provider making greater than the median salary were 1.77 times that of female providers.

Women represent nearly a third of all practicing physicians, but their salaries continue to lag behind those of men, Dr. Croft noted. She added that “this is the first study that has been presented with regards to gynecologic oncology gender salary discrepancies.”

The findings are limited by survey response bias and a potential lack of data that could explain some of the discrepancies. The study was originally designed to look at on-call compensation, so respondents were not queried about academic ranking or specific work responsibilities. Still, Dr. Croft said the findings point to a need for policy reform to ensure equitable compensation.

“My hope is that these data open a dialogue to further explore discrepancies by gender in our field,” she said.

Dr. Croft reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Croft K et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 15.

A significant compensation discrepancy exists between male and female gynecologic oncologists, a recent survey suggests.

Dr. Katherine M. Croft

After controlling for differences between the genders, the male gynecologic oncologists surveyed were 1.28 times more likely than their female counterparts to earn a salary above the median, according to Katherine M. Croft, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Dr. Croft and colleagues reported findings from the survey in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Of 263 members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology who responded to the anonymous survey, 41% were women and 59% were men. The median annual salaries were $380,000 and $500,000 respectively.

“Comparing compensation by gender, there was a $120,000 difference in median salary when you compare them on a surface level,” Dr. Croft said. “Combing through the data further, we found that there were few other differences by gender.”

There were no differences between genders with respect to group size, percentage of protected research time, frequency of call, or geographic location. However, men were more likely to be compensated for extra call and were more likely to respond to obstetrical emergencies, and those differences were statistically significant.

Further, female gynecologic oncologists were younger and had been in practice for fewer years. They also were more likely to work in an academic setting and to work with residents.

“For men, the odds of making above the median salary was 1.28 times that of female providers when controlling for these differences” Dr. Croft said.

Significant compensation differences were noted based on practice setting. When these were substratified by gender, only academic or teaching hospitals and teaching hospital/community hybrids had significant pay differences by gender.

Academic or teaching hospitals comprised the largest subgroup, allowing for further analysis.

“Age and years post fellowship were the only significant differences by gender in this group,” Dr. Croft said. “Again, female providers earned less than their male counterparts, with mean compensation of $349,717, compared with $461,054.”

In fact, less than 25% of women in academic practice in this survey made above the median reported salary, Dr. Croft noted. Controlling not only for differences between male and female providers in this group but also for other known factors affecting compensation, the odds of a male provider making greater than the median salary were 1.77 times that of female providers.

Women represent nearly a third of all practicing physicians, but their salaries continue to lag behind those of men, Dr. Croft noted. She added that “this is the first study that has been presented with regards to gynecologic oncology gender salary discrepancies.”

The findings are limited by survey response bias and a potential lack of data that could explain some of the discrepancies. The study was originally designed to look at on-call compensation, so respondents were not queried about academic ranking or specific work responsibilities. Still, Dr. Croft said the findings point to a need for policy reform to ensure equitable compensation.

“My hope is that these data open a dialogue to further explore discrepancies by gender in our field,” she said.

Dr. Croft reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Croft K et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 15.

Rates of minimally invasive surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer may be higher than previously reported, results of a registry study suggest.

Of 3,730 women with endometrial cancer in the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Clinical Outcomes Registry (SGO-COR), 88.8% underwent minimally invasive procedures, reported Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, and colleagues.

“When you have surgery with a gyn-oncologist who is specially trained in this type of surgery, we see that women have a very high likelihood of having the appropriate surgery, the minimally invasive surgery, and we thought that this benchmark of an 80% rate of minimally invasive surgery in these patients is very feasible and should be recognized as the standard of care,” Dr. Nickles Fader said in an interview.

Coinvestigator Summer B. Dewdney, MD, of Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was instrumental in creating and running the SGO-COR registry, said these findings are encouraging.

“We’re happy to see that rate. It’s the rate that it should be because minimally invasive surgery is the standard of care for endometrial cancer,” Dr. Dewdney said. She added, however, that data supplied to the registry come from gynecologic oncologists who are highly motivated to participate and follow best practice guidelines, which could skew the results slightly toward more favorable outcomes.

Results of the registry-based study are detailed in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Assessing adherence to guidelines

In 2015, the SGO Clinical Practice Committee and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a practice bulletin, which stated that “minimally invasive surgery should be embraced as the standard surgical approach for comprehensive surgical staging in women with endometrial cancer.”

Similarly, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for uterine cancer state that “minimally invasive surgery is the preferred approach when technically feasible” for treatment of endometrial cancer confined to the uterus.

Despite these recommendations, the overall rate of minimally invasive endometrial cancer surgery in the United States is reported be around to 60%, Dr. Nickles Fader and colleagues wrote.

With this in mind, the investigators set out to determine the rate of minimally invasive surgery in women with apparent stage I, II, or III endometrial cancer who underwent hysterectomy with or without staging from 2012 to 2017 at a center reporting to SGO-COR.

The team identified 3,730 women treated at 25 SGO-COR centers; 12 of which were university-affiliated centers and 13 of which were nonuniversity based. Most patients (83.2%) had stage I disease, 4.7% had stage II cancer, and 12.1% had stage III disease. The median patient age was 57 years. Most patients (88%) were white, and two-thirds (67.1%) were obese. In all, 80.4% of samples had endometrioid histology, and 77.7% were either grade 1 or 2.
 

Factors associated with minimally invasive surgery

The data showed that 88.8% of patients underwent a minimally invasive hysterectomy, composed of robotic-assisted procedures in 73.9% of cases, laparoscopy in 13.4%, and vaginal access in 1.6%.

The proportion of patients who underwent a minimally invasive procedure was significantly higher at nonuniversity centers, compared with academic centers (92.6% vs. 82.7%; P < .0001), but rates of minimally invasive procedures did not differ significantly across U.S. geographic regions.

Dr. Dewdney said that the higher proportion of open surgeries performed at university centers may be attributable to those centers treating patients with more advanced disease or rare aggressive cancers that may not be amenable to a minimally invasive approach.

In a multivariate analysis, factors associated with a failure to perform minimally invasive surgery were black race of the patient (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57), body mass index over 35 kg/m² (aOR, 1.40), stage II disease (aOR, 0.49), stage III disease (aOR, 0.36), carcinosarcoma/leiomyosarcoma (aOR, 0.58), and university hospital (aOR, 3.46).

Looking at perioperative complications, the investigators found that laparotomy was associated with more in-hospital complications than minimally invasive procedures, including more unscheduled ICU stays (P < .001) and prolonged hospital stays (P = .0002).

Dr. Dewdney said that investigators are planning further registry-based studies focusing on ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and cervical cancer.

Dr. Nickles Fader and Dr. Dewdney reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Nickles Fader A et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 63.

Rates of minimally invasive surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer may be higher than previously reported, results of a registry study suggest.

Of 3,730 women with endometrial cancer in the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Clinical Outcomes Registry (SGO-COR), 88.8% underwent minimally invasive procedures, reported Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, and colleagues.

“When you have surgery with a gyn-oncologist who is specially trained in this type of surgery, we see that women have a very high likelihood of having the appropriate surgery, the minimally invasive surgery, and we thought that this benchmark of an 80% rate of minimally invasive surgery in these patients is very feasible and should be recognized as the standard of care,” Dr. Nickles Fader said in an interview.

Coinvestigator Summer B. Dewdney, MD, of Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was instrumental in creating and running the SGO-COR registry, said these findings are encouraging.

“We’re happy to see that rate. It’s the rate that it should be because minimally invasive surgery is the standard of care for endometrial cancer,” Dr. Dewdney said. She added, however, that data supplied to the registry come from gynecologic oncologists who are highly motivated to participate and follow best practice guidelines, which could skew the results slightly toward more favorable outcomes.

Results of the registry-based study are detailed in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Assessing adherence to guidelines

In 2015, the SGO Clinical Practice Committee and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a practice bulletin, which stated that “minimally invasive surgery should be embraced as the standard surgical approach for comprehensive surgical staging in women with endometrial cancer.”

Similarly, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for uterine cancer state that “minimally invasive surgery is the preferred approach when technically feasible” for treatment of endometrial cancer confined to the uterus.

Despite these recommendations, the overall rate of minimally invasive endometrial cancer surgery in the United States is reported be around to 60%, Dr. Nickles Fader and colleagues wrote.

With this in mind, the investigators set out to determine the rate of minimally invasive surgery in women with apparent stage I, II, or III endometrial cancer who underwent hysterectomy with or without staging from 2012 to 2017 at a center reporting to SGO-COR.

The team identified 3,730 women treated at 25 SGO-COR centers; 12 of which were university-affiliated centers and 13 of which were nonuniversity based. Most patients (83.2%) had stage I disease, 4.7% had stage II cancer, and 12.1% had stage III disease. The median patient age was 57 years. Most patients (88%) were white, and two-thirds (67.1%) were obese. In all, 80.4% of samples had endometrioid histology, and 77.7% were either grade 1 or 2.
 

Factors associated with minimally invasive surgery

The data showed that 88.8% of patients underwent a minimally invasive hysterectomy, composed of robotic-assisted procedures in 73.9% of cases, laparoscopy in 13.4%, and vaginal access in 1.6%.

The proportion of patients who underwent a minimally invasive procedure was significantly higher at nonuniversity centers, compared with academic centers (92.6% vs. 82.7%; P < .0001), but rates of minimally invasive procedures did not differ significantly across U.S. geographic regions.

Dr. Dewdney said that the higher proportion of open surgeries performed at university centers may be attributable to those centers treating patients with more advanced disease or rare aggressive cancers that may not be amenable to a minimally invasive approach.

In a multivariate analysis, factors associated with a failure to perform minimally invasive surgery were black race of the patient (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57), body mass index over 35 kg/m² (aOR, 1.40), stage II disease (aOR, 0.49), stage III disease (aOR, 0.36), carcinosarcoma/leiomyosarcoma (aOR, 0.58), and university hospital (aOR, 3.46).

Looking at perioperative complications, the investigators found that laparotomy was associated with more in-hospital complications than minimally invasive procedures, including more unscheduled ICU stays (P < .001) and prolonged hospital stays (P = .0002).

Dr. Dewdney said that investigators are planning further registry-based studies focusing on ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and cervical cancer.

Dr. Nickles Fader and Dr. Dewdney reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Nickles Fader A et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 63.

Rates of minimally invasive surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer may be higher than previously reported, results of a registry study suggest.

Of 3,730 women with endometrial cancer in the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Clinical Outcomes Registry (SGO-COR), 88.8% underwent minimally invasive procedures, reported Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, and colleagues.

“When you have surgery with a gyn-oncologist who is specially trained in this type of surgery, we see that women have a very high likelihood of having the appropriate surgery, the minimally invasive surgery, and we thought that this benchmark of an 80% rate of minimally invasive surgery in these patients is very feasible and should be recognized as the standard of care,” Dr. Nickles Fader said in an interview.

Coinvestigator Summer B. Dewdney, MD, of Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was instrumental in creating and running the SGO-COR registry, said these findings are encouraging.

“We’re happy to see that rate. It’s the rate that it should be because minimally invasive surgery is the standard of care for endometrial cancer,” Dr. Dewdney said. She added, however, that data supplied to the registry come from gynecologic oncologists who are highly motivated to participate and follow best practice guidelines, which could skew the results slightly toward more favorable outcomes.

Results of the registry-based study are detailed in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Assessing adherence to guidelines

In 2015, the SGO Clinical Practice Committee and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a practice bulletin, which stated that “minimally invasive surgery should be embraced as the standard surgical approach for comprehensive surgical staging in women with endometrial cancer.”

Similarly, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for uterine cancer state that “minimally invasive surgery is the preferred approach when technically feasible” for treatment of endometrial cancer confined to the uterus.

Despite these recommendations, the overall rate of minimally invasive endometrial cancer surgery in the United States is reported be around to 60%, Dr. Nickles Fader and colleagues wrote.

With this in mind, the investigators set out to determine the rate of minimally invasive surgery in women with apparent stage I, II, or III endometrial cancer who underwent hysterectomy with or without staging from 2012 to 2017 at a center reporting to SGO-COR.

The team identified 3,730 women treated at 25 SGO-COR centers; 12 of which were university-affiliated centers and 13 of which were nonuniversity based. Most patients (83.2%) had stage I disease, 4.7% had stage II cancer, and 12.1% had stage III disease. The median patient age was 57 years. Most patients (88%) were white, and two-thirds (67.1%) were obese. In all, 80.4% of samples had endometrioid histology, and 77.7% were either grade 1 or 2.
 

Factors associated with minimally invasive surgery

The data showed that 88.8% of patients underwent a minimally invasive hysterectomy, composed of robotic-assisted procedures in 73.9% of cases, laparoscopy in 13.4%, and vaginal access in 1.6%.

The proportion of patients who underwent a minimally invasive procedure was significantly higher at nonuniversity centers, compared with academic centers (92.6% vs. 82.7%; P < .0001), but rates of minimally invasive procedures did not differ significantly across U.S. geographic regions.

Dr. Dewdney said that the higher proportion of open surgeries performed at university centers may be attributable to those centers treating patients with more advanced disease or rare aggressive cancers that may not be amenable to a minimally invasive approach.

In a multivariate analysis, factors associated with a failure to perform minimally invasive surgery were black race of the patient (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57), body mass index over 35 kg/m² (aOR, 1.40), stage II disease (aOR, 0.49), stage III disease (aOR, 0.36), carcinosarcoma/leiomyosarcoma (aOR, 0.58), and university hospital (aOR, 3.46).

Looking at perioperative complications, the investigators found that laparotomy was associated with more in-hospital complications than minimally invasive procedures, including more unscheduled ICU stays (P < .001) and prolonged hospital stays (P = .0002).

Dr. Dewdney said that investigators are planning further registry-based studies focusing on ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and cervical cancer.

Dr. Nickles Fader and Dr. Dewdney reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Nickles Fader A et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 63.

Combination therapy with apatinib and camrelizumab shows promising antitumor activity in patients with advanced cervical cancer, regardless of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, according to preliminary findings from a phase 2 study.

Dr. Chunyan Lan

Apatinib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, and camrelizumab, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, produced an objective response rate of 60% in evaluable patients.

Chunyan Lan, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, and colleagues reported these results in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The following data differ somewhat from the abstract.

Dr. Lan and colleagues reported results in 45 patients who had progressed after at least one line of systemic chemotherapy for metastatic, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer, and had measurable disease. Patients had a median age of 51 years and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. They were enrolled at four centers in China between Jan. 21 and Aug. 1, 2019.

Treatment consisted of oral apatinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily and intravenous camrelizumab at a dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal.

As of Jan. 22, 2020, 25 of 42 efficacy-evaluable patients had achieved a response. Two patients had a complete response, 23 had a partial response, and 12 had stable disease.

“We saw responses in patients regardless of PD-L1 expression,” Dr. Lan said. “In our study, 34% were PD-L1 negative, and the response rate is 65% in PD-L1-positive and 50% in PD-L1-negative [patients].”

The median duration of response was not reached, she added.

The median follow-up was 9.2 months, with the last patient enrolled having 6 months of follow-up. At the data cutoff, 19 patients had disease progression, and 8 had died of their disease.

The median overall survival also was not reached, Dr. Lan said, but overall survival at 9 months was 80%. The median progression-free survival was 7.6 months, and the 6-month progression-free survival rate was 58%.

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 68.9% of patients; adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients included hypertension (22.2%), fatigue (15.6%), anemia (13.3%), and thrombocytopenia (6.7%).

“Nineteen patients were still on treatment at the data cutoff date, and 26 patients discontinued the study,” Dr. Lan said. “The most common reason to discontinue was disease progression, and three patients discontinued the study due to adverse events.”

“These preliminary results are very encouraging,” Dr. Lan said. “As we know, pembrolizumab is approved as the second-line therapy in recurrent cervical cancer [in] PD-L1-positive patients, and the objective response rate with pembrolizumab monotherapy for recurrent cervical cancer is only 17%, as reported in KEYNOTE-028 [J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 20;35(36):4035-41].”

Furthermore, apatinib monotherapy has been studied with only modest results.

“But in our study, this combination is really effective in recurrent cervical cancer, and we see a very durable response,” she said, again emphasizing that those responses occurred regardless of PD-L1 expression. “So this is important. ... We think our findings expand the opportunity of patients with recurrent cervical cancer to receive immune therapy.”

Study participants will be followed for 2 years, Dr. Lan noted.

She reported having no disclosures. The study is sponsored by Sun Yat-sen University.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lan C et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 55.

Combination therapy with apatinib and camrelizumab shows promising antitumor activity in patients with advanced cervical cancer, regardless of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, according to preliminary findings from a phase 2 study.

Dr. Chunyan Lan

Apatinib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, and camrelizumab, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, produced an objective response rate of 60% in evaluable patients.

Chunyan Lan, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, and colleagues reported these results in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The following data differ somewhat from the abstract.

Dr. Lan and colleagues reported results in 45 patients who had progressed after at least one line of systemic chemotherapy for metastatic, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer, and had measurable disease. Patients had a median age of 51 years and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. They were enrolled at four centers in China between Jan. 21 and Aug. 1, 2019.

Treatment consisted of oral apatinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily and intravenous camrelizumab at a dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal.

As of Jan. 22, 2020, 25 of 42 efficacy-evaluable patients had achieved a response. Two patients had a complete response, 23 had a partial response, and 12 had stable disease.

“We saw responses in patients regardless of PD-L1 expression,” Dr. Lan said. “In our study, 34% were PD-L1 negative, and the response rate is 65% in PD-L1-positive and 50% in PD-L1-negative [patients].”

The median duration of response was not reached, she added.

The median follow-up was 9.2 months, with the last patient enrolled having 6 months of follow-up. At the data cutoff, 19 patients had disease progression, and 8 had died of their disease.

The median overall survival also was not reached, Dr. Lan said, but overall survival at 9 months was 80%. The median progression-free survival was 7.6 months, and the 6-month progression-free survival rate was 58%.

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 68.9% of patients; adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients included hypertension (22.2%), fatigue (15.6%), anemia (13.3%), and thrombocytopenia (6.7%).

“Nineteen patients were still on treatment at the data cutoff date, and 26 patients discontinued the study,” Dr. Lan said. “The most common reason to discontinue was disease progression, and three patients discontinued the study due to adverse events.”

“These preliminary results are very encouraging,” Dr. Lan said. “As we know, pembrolizumab is approved as the second-line therapy in recurrent cervical cancer [in] PD-L1-positive patients, and the objective response rate with pembrolizumab monotherapy for recurrent cervical cancer is only 17%, as reported in KEYNOTE-028 [J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 20;35(36):4035-41].”

Furthermore, apatinib monotherapy has been studied with only modest results.

“But in our study, this combination is really effective in recurrent cervical cancer, and we see a very durable response,” she said, again emphasizing that those responses occurred regardless of PD-L1 expression. “So this is important. ... We think our findings expand the opportunity of patients with recurrent cervical cancer to receive immune therapy.”

Study participants will be followed for 2 years, Dr. Lan noted.

She reported having no disclosures. The study is sponsored by Sun Yat-sen University.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lan C et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 55.

Combination therapy with apatinib and camrelizumab shows promising antitumor activity in patients with advanced cervical cancer, regardless of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, according to preliminary findings from a phase 2 study.

Dr. Chunyan Lan

Apatinib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, and camrelizumab, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, produced an objective response rate of 60% in evaluable patients.

Chunyan Lan, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, and colleagues reported these results in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The following data differ somewhat from the abstract.

Dr. Lan and colleagues reported results in 45 patients who had progressed after at least one line of systemic chemotherapy for metastatic, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer, and had measurable disease. Patients had a median age of 51 years and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. They were enrolled at four centers in China between Jan. 21 and Aug. 1, 2019.

Treatment consisted of oral apatinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily and intravenous camrelizumab at a dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal.

As of Jan. 22, 2020, 25 of 42 efficacy-evaluable patients had achieved a response. Two patients had a complete response, 23 had a partial response, and 12 had stable disease.

“We saw responses in patients regardless of PD-L1 expression,” Dr. Lan said. “In our study, 34% were PD-L1 negative, and the response rate is 65% in PD-L1-positive and 50% in PD-L1-negative [patients].”

The median duration of response was not reached, she added.

The median follow-up was 9.2 months, with the last patient enrolled having 6 months of follow-up. At the data cutoff, 19 patients had disease progression, and 8 had died of their disease.

The median overall survival also was not reached, Dr. Lan said, but overall survival at 9 months was 80%. The median progression-free survival was 7.6 months, and the 6-month progression-free survival rate was 58%.

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 68.9% of patients; adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients included hypertension (22.2%), fatigue (15.6%), anemia (13.3%), and thrombocytopenia (6.7%).

“Nineteen patients were still on treatment at the data cutoff date, and 26 patients discontinued the study,” Dr. Lan said. “The most common reason to discontinue was disease progression, and three patients discontinued the study due to adverse events.”

“These preliminary results are very encouraging,” Dr. Lan said. “As we know, pembrolizumab is approved as the second-line therapy in recurrent cervical cancer [in] PD-L1-positive patients, and the objective response rate with pembrolizumab monotherapy for recurrent cervical cancer is only 17%, as reported in KEYNOTE-028 [J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 20;35(36):4035-41].”

Furthermore, apatinib monotherapy has been studied with only modest results.

“But in our study, this combination is really effective in recurrent cervical cancer, and we see a very durable response,” she said, again emphasizing that those responses occurred regardless of PD-L1 expression. “So this is important. ... We think our findings expand the opportunity of patients with recurrent cervical cancer to receive immune therapy.”

Study participants will be followed for 2 years, Dr. Lan noted.

She reported having no disclosures. The study is sponsored by Sun Yat-sen University.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lan C et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 55.

Strict adherence to pathology guidelines for interpreting immumohistochemical (IHC) staining in endometrial cancer samples may miss the opportunity to identify patients with Lynch syndrome, investigators cautioned.

Current College of American Pathologists recommendations say that any partial, indeterminate, or “heterogeneous” IHC staining for DNA mismatch repair proteins (MMRP) should be considered as intact expression staining.

However, a retrospective review of patients with endometrial cancer showed that 3 of 13 patients with Lynch syndrome had a small proportion of staining and would have been considered at low risk for Lynch syndrome if the reporting rules were followed to the letter, according to Courtney J. Riedinger, MD, and colleagues from the University of Tennessee Medical Center in Knoxville.

“IHC staining for mismatch repair proteins is a way to screen for who should get genetic testing [for Lynch syndrome],” Dr. Riedinger said in an interview. “The pathology guidelines say that any expression is intact staining, but we found some tumor specimens that have about only 20% staining, and we found that 3 of 27 patients with a range of 20%-60% expression had Lynch syndrome.”

The findings suggest that genetic testing for Lynch syndrome should be considered in patients with heterogeneous staining for MMRP, Dr. Riedinger and colleagues wrote in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.A recent systematic review estimated the prevalence of Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer to be 3%. The authors of the review recommended universal screening for Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer (Genet Med. 2019 Oct;21[10]:2167-2180).

As Dr. Riedinger and colleagues noted, screening for Lynch syndrome can be performed clinically with microsatellite instability testing or IHC staining for MMRP.

To determine the frequency of Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer whose samples exhibited heterogeneous staining for MMRP, the investigators conducted a retrospective review.

They identified 455 women who underwent hysterectomy for endometrial cancer during 2012-2017. Of this group, samples from 315 patients had no MMRP loss, 92 had complete loss, and 48 had heterogeneous MMRP staining. Of the latter group, 21 samples were reported as intact, and 27 were reported as heterogeneous.

A total of 13 patients were identified as having Lynch syndrome, including 3 of the 27 patients with reported heterogeneous staining and 10 with reported complete loss of MMRP.

The investigators found the frequency of Lynch syndrome among patients with reported heterogeneous staining was not significantly different than that for patients with complete MMRP loss. In addition, there were no significant differences between samples with heterogeneous or complete loss of staining by type of MMRP.

“Our data suggest genetic testing for Lynch syndrome in patients with heterogeneous IHC staining for MMRP should be considered. Current reporting guidelines regarding MMRP expression in endometrial cancer patients need to be reevaluated,” Dr. Riedinger and colleagues concluded.

Dr. Riedinger reported no conflicts of interest. The study was internally funded.

SOURCE: Riedinger CJ et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 104.

Strict adherence to pathology guidelines for interpreting immumohistochemical (IHC) staining in endometrial cancer samples may miss the opportunity to identify patients with Lynch syndrome, investigators cautioned.

Current College of American Pathologists recommendations say that any partial, indeterminate, or “heterogeneous” IHC staining for DNA mismatch repair proteins (MMRP) should be considered as intact expression staining.

However, a retrospective review of patients with endometrial cancer showed that 3 of 13 patients with Lynch syndrome had a small proportion of staining and would have been considered at low risk for Lynch syndrome if the reporting rules were followed to the letter, according to Courtney J. Riedinger, MD, and colleagues from the University of Tennessee Medical Center in Knoxville.

“IHC staining for mismatch repair proteins is a way to screen for who should get genetic testing [for Lynch syndrome],” Dr. Riedinger said in an interview. “The pathology guidelines say that any expression is intact staining, but we found some tumor specimens that have about only 20% staining, and we found that 3 of 27 patients with a range of 20%-60% expression had Lynch syndrome.”

The findings suggest that genetic testing for Lynch syndrome should be considered in patients with heterogeneous staining for MMRP, Dr. Riedinger and colleagues wrote in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.A recent systematic review estimated the prevalence of Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer to be 3%. The authors of the review recommended universal screening for Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer (Genet Med. 2019 Oct;21[10]:2167-2180).

As Dr. Riedinger and colleagues noted, screening for Lynch syndrome can be performed clinically with microsatellite instability testing or IHC staining for MMRP.

To determine the frequency of Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer whose samples exhibited heterogeneous staining for MMRP, the investigators conducted a retrospective review.

They identified 455 women who underwent hysterectomy for endometrial cancer during 2012-2017. Of this group, samples from 315 patients had no MMRP loss, 92 had complete loss, and 48 had heterogeneous MMRP staining. Of the latter group, 21 samples were reported as intact, and 27 were reported as heterogeneous.

A total of 13 patients were identified as having Lynch syndrome, including 3 of the 27 patients with reported heterogeneous staining and 10 with reported complete loss of MMRP.

The investigators found the frequency of Lynch syndrome among patients with reported heterogeneous staining was not significantly different than that for patients with complete MMRP loss. In addition, there were no significant differences between samples with heterogeneous or complete loss of staining by type of MMRP.

“Our data suggest genetic testing for Lynch syndrome in patients with heterogeneous IHC staining for MMRP should be considered. Current reporting guidelines regarding MMRP expression in endometrial cancer patients need to be reevaluated,” Dr. Riedinger and colleagues concluded.

Dr. Riedinger reported no conflicts of interest. The study was internally funded.

SOURCE: Riedinger CJ et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 104.

Strict adherence to pathology guidelines for interpreting immumohistochemical (IHC) staining in endometrial cancer samples may miss the opportunity to identify patients with Lynch syndrome, investigators cautioned.

Current College of American Pathologists recommendations say that any partial, indeterminate, or “heterogeneous” IHC staining for DNA mismatch repair proteins (MMRP) should be considered as intact expression staining.

However, a retrospective review of patients with endometrial cancer showed that 3 of 13 patients with Lynch syndrome had a small proportion of staining and would have been considered at low risk for Lynch syndrome if the reporting rules were followed to the letter, according to Courtney J. Riedinger, MD, and colleagues from the University of Tennessee Medical Center in Knoxville.

“IHC staining for mismatch repair proteins is a way to screen for who should get genetic testing [for Lynch syndrome],” Dr. Riedinger said in an interview. “The pathology guidelines say that any expression is intact staining, but we found some tumor specimens that have about only 20% staining, and we found that 3 of 27 patients with a range of 20%-60% expression had Lynch syndrome.”

The findings suggest that genetic testing for Lynch syndrome should be considered in patients with heterogeneous staining for MMRP, Dr. Riedinger and colleagues wrote in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.A recent systematic review estimated the prevalence of Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer to be 3%. The authors of the review recommended universal screening for Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer (Genet Med. 2019 Oct;21[10]:2167-2180).

As Dr. Riedinger and colleagues noted, screening for Lynch syndrome can be performed clinically with microsatellite instability testing or IHC staining for MMRP.

To determine the frequency of Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer whose samples exhibited heterogeneous staining for MMRP, the investigators conducted a retrospective review.

They identified 455 women who underwent hysterectomy for endometrial cancer during 2012-2017. Of this group, samples from 315 patients had no MMRP loss, 92 had complete loss, and 48 had heterogeneous MMRP staining. Of the latter group, 21 samples were reported as intact, and 27 were reported as heterogeneous.

A total of 13 patients were identified as having Lynch syndrome, including 3 of the 27 patients with reported heterogeneous staining and 10 with reported complete loss of MMRP.

The investigators found the frequency of Lynch syndrome among patients with reported heterogeneous staining was not significantly different than that for patients with complete MMRP loss. In addition, there were no significant differences between samples with heterogeneous or complete loss of staining by type of MMRP.

“Our data suggest genetic testing for Lynch syndrome in patients with heterogeneous IHC staining for MMRP should be considered. Current reporting guidelines regarding MMRP expression in endometrial cancer patients need to be reevaluated,” Dr. Riedinger and colleagues concluded.

Dr. Riedinger reported no conflicts of interest. The study was internally funded.

SOURCE: Riedinger CJ et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 104.

Almost half of obese endometrial cancer survivors in a recent study gained weight during 12 months of follow-up, whether or not they participated in a behavioral weight loss intervention.

Of 358 endometrial cancer survivors with a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² who were approached for participation in the randomized ScaleDown trial, 80 participated and 278 declined. The results of that study, which compared a “high-tech” weight loss intervention to “enhanced usual care,” were reported last year (Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jun;154[1]:20).

The goal of the ScaleDown trial was to identify a “better mechanism of weight loss encouragement for our patients,” said Abigail Zamorano, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis. “Unfortunately, we found that there was no difference in those two groups. It was rather disappointing.”

Dr. Zamorano and colleagues hypothesized that although the women who participated in the study failed to lose weight, perhaps they gained less weight than women who did not participate. Therefore, the researchers performed a retrospective study comparing the two groups.

The researchers reported results from this study in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Retrospective results

At both 6 months and 12 months of follow-up, there were no significant differences between the ScaleDown participants and nonparticipants with respect to BMI change from baseline (P = .77 and P = .76, respectively).

“In essence, we unfortunately found no difference in BMI change in these two groups either,” Dr. Zamorano said.

At 12 months, rates of weight loss and weight gain were similar in ScaleDown participants and nonparticipants:

• 49.2% and 47%, respectively, gained weight.
• 13.9% and 23.2%, respectively, lost 0% to 2.5% of weight.
• 10.8% and 7.1%, respectively, lost 2.5% to 4% of weight.
• 3.1% and 4.8%, respectively, lost 4% to 5% of weight.
• 23.1% and 17.9%, respectively, lost 5% or more of weight.

Compared with participants, the nonparticipants were significantly more likely to be white and were older (63.4 years vs. 59.3 years), on more medications (median of 7 vs. 4), had a lower median BMI (39.1 kg/m² vs. 41.7 kg/m²), were more likely to have recurrent cancer (15.2% vs. 5.1%), and were less likely to have had genetic counseling (10.8% vs. 20%). There were no differences between the groups in cancer histology, stage, or receipt of initial chemotherapy or radiation therapy.
 

How can oncologists help patients lose weight?

“Overall, I would say that the findings for the primary endpoint were not particularly encouraging,” Dr. Zamorano said.

However, she said an important message emerged from some of the survey results: Patients were very frustrated with their weight loss journey. Many said that, despite having a desire to lose weight, they didn’t know how, and nothing seemed to work. This suggests that, with the right strategies, oncologists are in a position to help, Dr. Zamorano said.

“As their oncologists who see them really regularly for years and years, even after they’ve completed their primary cancer therapy ... we have a unique relationship with them,” she explained. “We have this very unique role that we can play, so we should think a little outside the box about how else we can help our patients potentially lose weight.”

It’s important to try because thousands of women are diagnosed with endometrial cancer in the United States each year, and although many will be “successfully treated from a cancer perspective because they are diagnosed at early stages,” they also can have significant comorbidities – most often obesity, Dr. Zamorano said.

“And in conjunction with that ... diabetes and cardiovascular disease,” she added. “That means they have very high risk of long-term complications of obesity, and even though we are addressing their cancer, we weren’t addressing those other complications.”

One potential solution is bariatric surgery. Weight loss surgery has been shown to improve health care outcomes and reduce mortality rates and costs, yet 89% of ScaleDown participants said they had never considered it, and 67% said they would decline a referral.

This suggests that, despite the available evidence of benefit in patients who are candidates, there is a knowledge gap in awareness of the effectiveness and safety of bariatric surgery in this population, Dr. Zamorano said.

“Given the obesity-related health problems that this population has, we should really address weight as part of the essential cancer management strategy rather than as an afterthought,” she said, adding that it should be incorporated at the start and should potentially include a referral to surgical weight loss.

Dr. Zamorano reported having no disclosures. The research was funded by Washington University.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zamorano A et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 20.

Almost half of obese endometrial cancer survivors in a recent study gained weight during 12 months of follow-up, whether or not they participated in a behavioral weight loss intervention.

Of 358 endometrial cancer survivors with a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² who were approached for participation in the randomized ScaleDown trial, 80 participated and 278 declined. The results of that study, which compared a “high-tech” weight loss intervention to “enhanced usual care,” were reported last year (Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jun;154[1]:20).

The goal of the ScaleDown trial was to identify a “better mechanism of weight loss encouragement for our patients,” said Abigail Zamorano, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis. “Unfortunately, we found that there was no difference in those two groups. It was rather disappointing.”

Dr. Zamorano and colleagues hypothesized that although the women who participated in the study failed to lose weight, perhaps they gained less weight than women who did not participate. Therefore, the researchers performed a retrospective study comparing the two groups.

The researchers reported results from this study in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Retrospective results

At both 6 months and 12 months of follow-up, there were no significant differences between the ScaleDown participants and nonparticipants with respect to BMI change from baseline (P = .77 and P = .76, respectively).

“In essence, we unfortunately found no difference in BMI change in these two groups either,” Dr. Zamorano said.

At 12 months, rates of weight loss and weight gain were similar in ScaleDown participants and nonparticipants:

• 49.2% and 47%, respectively, gained weight.
• 13.9% and 23.2%, respectively, lost 0% to 2.5% of weight.
• 10.8% and 7.1%, respectively, lost 2.5% to 4% of weight.
• 3.1% and 4.8%, respectively, lost 4% to 5% of weight.
• 23.1% and 17.9%, respectively, lost 5% or more of weight.

Compared with participants, the nonparticipants were significantly more likely to be white and were older (63.4 years vs. 59.3 years), on more medications (median of 7 vs. 4), had a lower median BMI (39.1 kg/m² vs. 41.7 kg/m²), were more likely to have recurrent cancer (15.2% vs. 5.1%), and were less likely to have had genetic counseling (10.8% vs. 20%). There were no differences between the groups in cancer histology, stage, or receipt of initial chemotherapy or radiation therapy.
 

How can oncologists help patients lose weight?

“Overall, I would say that the findings for the primary endpoint were not particularly encouraging,” Dr. Zamorano said.

However, she said an important message emerged from some of the survey results: Patients were very frustrated with their weight loss journey. Many said that, despite having a desire to lose weight, they didn’t know how, and nothing seemed to work. This suggests that, with the right strategies, oncologists are in a position to help, Dr. Zamorano said.

“As their oncologists who see them really regularly for years and years, even after they’ve completed their primary cancer therapy ... we have a unique relationship with them,” she explained. “We have this very unique role that we can play, so we should think a little outside the box about how else we can help our patients potentially lose weight.”

It’s important to try because thousands of women are diagnosed with endometrial cancer in the United States each year, and although many will be “successfully treated from a cancer perspective because they are diagnosed at early stages,” they also can have significant comorbidities – most often obesity, Dr. Zamorano said.

“And in conjunction with that ... diabetes and cardiovascular disease,” she added. “That means they have very high risk of long-term complications of obesity, and even though we are addressing their cancer, we weren’t addressing those other complications.”

One potential solution is bariatric surgery. Weight loss surgery has been shown to improve health care outcomes and reduce mortality rates and costs, yet 89% of ScaleDown participants said they had never considered it, and 67% said they would decline a referral.

This suggests that, despite the available evidence of benefit in patients who are candidates, there is a knowledge gap in awareness of the effectiveness and safety of bariatric surgery in this population, Dr. Zamorano said.

“Given the obesity-related health problems that this population has, we should really address weight as part of the essential cancer management strategy rather than as an afterthought,” she said, adding that it should be incorporated at the start and should potentially include a referral to surgical weight loss.

Dr. Zamorano reported having no disclosures. The research was funded by Washington University.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zamorano A et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 20.

Almost half of obese endometrial cancer survivors in a recent study gained weight during 12 months of follow-up, whether or not they participated in a behavioral weight loss intervention.

Of 358 endometrial cancer survivors with a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² who were approached for participation in the randomized ScaleDown trial, 80 participated and 278 declined. The results of that study, which compared a “high-tech” weight loss intervention to “enhanced usual care,” were reported last year (Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jun;154[1]:20).

The goal of the ScaleDown trial was to identify a “better mechanism of weight loss encouragement for our patients,” said Abigail Zamorano, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis. “Unfortunately, we found that there was no difference in those two groups. It was rather disappointing.”

Dr. Zamorano and colleagues hypothesized that although the women who participated in the study failed to lose weight, perhaps they gained less weight than women who did not participate. Therefore, the researchers performed a retrospective study comparing the two groups.

The researchers reported results from this study in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Retrospective results

At both 6 months and 12 months of follow-up, there were no significant differences between the ScaleDown participants and nonparticipants with respect to BMI change from baseline (P = .77 and P = .76, respectively).

“In essence, we unfortunately found no difference in BMI change in these two groups either,” Dr. Zamorano said.

At 12 months, rates of weight loss and weight gain were similar in ScaleDown participants and nonparticipants:

• 49.2% and 47%, respectively, gained weight.
• 13.9% and 23.2%, respectively, lost 0% to 2.5% of weight.
• 10.8% and 7.1%, respectively, lost 2.5% to 4% of weight.
• 3.1% and 4.8%, respectively, lost 4% to 5% of weight.
• 23.1% and 17.9%, respectively, lost 5% or more of weight.

Compared with participants, the nonparticipants were significantly more likely to be white and were older (63.4 years vs. 59.3 years), on more medications (median of 7 vs. 4), had a lower median BMI (39.1 kg/m² vs. 41.7 kg/m²), were more likely to have recurrent cancer (15.2% vs. 5.1%), and were less likely to have had genetic counseling (10.8% vs. 20%). There were no differences between the groups in cancer histology, stage, or receipt of initial chemotherapy or radiation therapy.
 

How can oncologists help patients lose weight?

“Overall, I would say that the findings for the primary endpoint were not particularly encouraging,” Dr. Zamorano said.

However, she said an important message emerged from some of the survey results: Patients were very frustrated with their weight loss journey. Many said that, despite having a desire to lose weight, they didn’t know how, and nothing seemed to work. This suggests that, with the right strategies, oncologists are in a position to help, Dr. Zamorano said.

“As their oncologists who see them really regularly for years and years, even after they’ve completed their primary cancer therapy ... we have a unique relationship with them,” she explained. “We have this very unique role that we can play, so we should think a little outside the box about how else we can help our patients potentially lose weight.”

It’s important to try because thousands of women are diagnosed with endometrial cancer in the United States each year, and although many will be “successfully treated from a cancer perspective because they are diagnosed at early stages,” they also can have significant comorbidities – most often obesity, Dr. Zamorano said.

“And in conjunction with that ... diabetes and cardiovascular disease,” she added. “That means they have very high risk of long-term complications of obesity, and even though we are addressing their cancer, we weren’t addressing those other complications.”

One potential solution is bariatric surgery. Weight loss surgery has been shown to improve health care outcomes and reduce mortality rates and costs, yet 89% of ScaleDown participants said they had never considered it, and 67% said they would decline a referral.

This suggests that, despite the available evidence of benefit in patients who are candidates, there is a knowledge gap in awareness of the effectiveness and safety of bariatric surgery in this population, Dr. Zamorano said.

“Given the obesity-related health problems that this population has, we should really address weight as part of the essential cancer management strategy rather than as an afterthought,” she said, adding that it should be incorporated at the start and should potentially include a referral to surgical weight loss.

Dr. Zamorano reported having no disclosures. The research was funded by Washington University.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zamorano A et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 20.

Patients with gynecologic malignancies who consumed only water for 24 hours before and 24 hours after each chemotherapy cycle had fewer dose delays and reductions compared with patients who didn’t fast, results of a small study showed.

The study included 23 women with ovarian, uterine, or cervical cancer, most of whom received platinum-based chemotherapy and taxanes. Fewer treatment modifications were required among the 11 patients randomized to a 24-hour water-only fast before and after each chemotherapy cycle than among the 12 patients randomized to standard care. Furthermore, there were no hospital admissions in the fasting group and two admissions in the control group, according to study author Courtney J. Riedinger, MD, of the University of Tennessee Medical Center in Knoxville.

She and her colleagues detailed the rationale and results of this study in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data have been updated from the abstract.
 

Rationale

“There’s a lot of new research and interest about nonpharmacologic interventions and lifestyle modifications to help patients cope with chemotherapy and even help with treatment, potentially,” Dr. Riedinger said in an interview.

“We decided to test water-only fasting because there’s not much data about the cell-fitness effects of fasting” on chemotherapy outcomes, she said.

Pre-chemotherapy fasting is based on the concept of differential stress resistance intended to protect normal cells but not cancer cells from the effects of chemotherapy. Fasting decreases levels of insulin-like growth factor 1, which leads healthy cells to enter a protective state by decreasing cell growth and proliferation. Cancer cells, in contrast, cannot enter the protective state, and are therefore more vulnerable than healthy, quiescent cells when exposed to drugs that target the cell cycle, Dr. Riedinger and colleagues noted.

The team cited two studies suggesting a benefit from fasting prior to chemotherapy. In the first study, mice that underwent 48-60 hours of short-term fasting were significantly less likely to die after exposure to a high dose of etoposide, compared with mice that did not fast before exposure (PNAS; 105[24]: 8215-822).

The second study showed that breast and ovarian cancer patients had improved quality of life scores and decreased fatigue when they fasted for 36 hours before and 24 hours after a chemotherapy cycle (BMC Cancer;18: article 476).
 

Study details

Dr. Riedinger and colleagues conducted a nonblinded, randomized trial of fasting in women, aged 34-73 years, who had gynecologic malignancies treated with a planned six cycles of chemotherapy. The patients were instructed to maintain a water-only fast for 24 hours before and 24 hours after each cycle. Controls did not fast.

Patient functional status and quality of life were investigated with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network–Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Ovarian Symptom Index (NCCN-FACT FOSI-18). Questionnaires were completed at each chemotherapy visit, and the records were reviewed to evaluate compliance, changes in treatment plan, and hospitalizations.

In all, 92% of chemotherapy cycles were completed with fasting as directed.

There were no significant differences in any of the study measures between patients who fasted and those who did not. However, this study was not powered to detect a difference, according to Dr. Riedinger.

Still, there were trends suggesting a benefit to fasting. Fasting patients had a higher mean change in NCCN-FACT FOSI-18 score compared with controls – increases of 5.11 and .22, respectively.

Five patients in the fasting group required changes to their treatment regimen, compared with eight patients in the control group. In addition, there were no hospital admissions in the fasting group and two admissions in the control group.

Patients tolerated the fast well without significant weight loss, and there were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities among patients who fasted.

The investigators are planning a larger study to further evaluate the effect of fasting on quality of life scores and treatment, and to evaluate the effects of fasting on hematologic toxicities. Future studies will focus on the optimal duration of fasting and the use of fasting-mimicking diets to allow for longer fasting periods, Dr. Riedinger said.

The study was internally funded. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Riedinger CJ et al. SGO 2020. Abstract 22.

Patients with gynecologic malignancies who consumed only water for 24 hours before and 24 hours after each chemotherapy cycle had fewer dose delays and reductions compared with patients who didn’t fast, results of a small study showed.

The study included 23 women with ovarian, uterine, or cervical cancer, most of whom received platinum-based chemotherapy and taxanes. Fewer treatment modifications were required among the 11 patients randomized to a 24-hour water-only fast before and after each chemotherapy cycle than among the 12 patients randomized to standard care. Furthermore, there were no hospital admissions in the fasting group and two admissions in the control group, according to study author Courtney J. Riedinger, MD, of the University of Tennessee Medical Center in Knoxville.

She and her colleagues detailed the rationale and results of this study in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data have been updated from the abstract.
 

Rationale

“There’s a lot of new research and interest about nonpharmacologic interventions and lifestyle modifications to help patients cope with chemotherapy and even help with treatment, potentially,” Dr. Riedinger said in an interview.

“We decided to test water-only fasting because there’s not much data about the cell-fitness effects of fasting” on chemotherapy outcomes, she said.

Pre-chemotherapy fasting is based on the concept of differential stress resistance intended to protect normal cells but not cancer cells from the effects of chemotherapy. Fasting decreases levels of insulin-like growth factor 1, which leads healthy cells to enter a protective state by decreasing cell growth and proliferation. Cancer cells, in contrast, cannot enter the protective state, and are therefore more vulnerable than healthy, quiescent cells when exposed to drugs that target the cell cycle, Dr. Riedinger and colleagues noted.

The team cited two studies suggesting a benefit from fasting prior to chemotherapy. In the first study, mice that underwent 48-60 hours of short-term fasting were significantly less likely to die after exposure to a high dose of etoposide, compared with mice that did not fast before exposure (PNAS; 105[24]: 8215-822).

The second study showed that breast and ovarian cancer patients had improved quality of life scores and decreased fatigue when they fasted for 36 hours before and 24 hours after a chemotherapy cycle (BMC Cancer;18: article 476).
 

Study details

Dr. Riedinger and colleagues conducted a nonblinded, randomized trial of fasting in women, aged 34-73 years, who had gynecologic malignancies treated with a planned six cycles of chemotherapy. The patients were instructed to maintain a water-only fast for 24 hours before and 24 hours after each cycle. Controls did not fast.

Patient functional status and quality of life were investigated with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network–Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Ovarian Symptom Index (NCCN-FACT FOSI-18). Questionnaires were completed at each chemotherapy visit, and the records were reviewed to evaluate compliance, changes in treatment plan, and hospitalizations.

In all, 92% of chemotherapy cycles were completed with fasting as directed.

There were no significant differences in any of the study measures between patients who fasted and those who did not. However, this study was not powered to detect a difference, according to Dr. Riedinger.

Still, there were trends suggesting a benefit to fasting. Fasting patients had a higher mean change in NCCN-FACT FOSI-18 score compared with controls – increases of 5.11 and .22, respectively.

Five patients in the fasting group required changes to their treatment regimen, compared with eight patients in the control group. In addition, there were no hospital admissions in the fasting group and two admissions in the control group.

Patients tolerated the fast well without significant weight loss, and there were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities among patients who fasted.

The investigators are planning a larger study to further evaluate the effect of fasting on quality of life scores and treatment, and to evaluate the effects of fasting on hematologic toxicities. Future studies will focus on the optimal duration of fasting and the use of fasting-mimicking diets to allow for longer fasting periods, Dr. Riedinger said.

The study was internally funded. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Riedinger CJ et al. SGO 2020. Abstract 22.

Patients with gynecologic malignancies who consumed only water for 24 hours before and 24 hours after each chemotherapy cycle had fewer dose delays and reductions compared with patients who didn’t fast, results of a small study showed.

The study included 23 women with ovarian, uterine, or cervical cancer, most of whom received platinum-based chemotherapy and taxanes. Fewer treatment modifications were required among the 11 patients randomized to a 24-hour water-only fast before and after each chemotherapy cycle than among the 12 patients randomized to standard care. Furthermore, there were no hospital admissions in the fasting group and two admissions in the control group, according to study author Courtney J. Riedinger, MD, of the University of Tennessee Medical Center in Knoxville.

She and her colleagues detailed the rationale and results of this study in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data have been updated from the abstract.
 

Rationale

“There’s a lot of new research and interest about nonpharmacologic interventions and lifestyle modifications to help patients cope with chemotherapy and even help with treatment, potentially,” Dr. Riedinger said in an interview.

“We decided to test water-only fasting because there’s not much data about the cell-fitness effects of fasting” on chemotherapy outcomes, she said.

Pre-chemotherapy fasting is based on the concept of differential stress resistance intended to protect normal cells but not cancer cells from the effects of chemotherapy. Fasting decreases levels of insulin-like growth factor 1, which leads healthy cells to enter a protective state by decreasing cell growth and proliferation. Cancer cells, in contrast, cannot enter the protective state, and are therefore more vulnerable than healthy, quiescent cells when exposed to drugs that target the cell cycle, Dr. Riedinger and colleagues noted.

The team cited two studies suggesting a benefit from fasting prior to chemotherapy. In the first study, mice that underwent 48-60 hours of short-term fasting were significantly less likely to die after exposure to a high dose of etoposide, compared with mice that did not fast before exposure (PNAS; 105[24]: 8215-822).

The second study showed that breast and ovarian cancer patients had improved quality of life scores and decreased fatigue when they fasted for 36 hours before and 24 hours after a chemotherapy cycle (BMC Cancer;18: article 476).
 

Study details

Dr. Riedinger and colleagues conducted a nonblinded, randomized trial of fasting in women, aged 34-73 years, who had gynecologic malignancies treated with a planned six cycles of chemotherapy. The patients were instructed to maintain a water-only fast for 24 hours before and 24 hours after each cycle. Controls did not fast.

Patient functional status and quality of life were investigated with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network–Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Ovarian Symptom Index (NCCN-FACT FOSI-18). Questionnaires were completed at each chemotherapy visit, and the records were reviewed to evaluate compliance, changes in treatment plan, and hospitalizations.

In all, 92% of chemotherapy cycles were completed with fasting as directed.

There were no significant differences in any of the study measures between patients who fasted and those who did not. However, this study was not powered to detect a difference, according to Dr. Riedinger.

Still, there were trends suggesting a benefit to fasting. Fasting patients had a higher mean change in NCCN-FACT FOSI-18 score compared with controls – increases of 5.11 and .22, respectively.

Five patients in the fasting group required changes to their treatment regimen, compared with eight patients in the control group. In addition, there were no hospital admissions in the fasting group and two admissions in the control group.

Patients tolerated the fast well without significant weight loss, and there were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities among patients who fasted.

The investigators are planning a larger study to further evaluate the effect of fasting on quality of life scores and treatment, and to evaluate the effects of fasting on hematologic toxicities. Future studies will focus on the optimal duration of fasting and the use of fasting-mimicking diets to allow for longer fasting periods, Dr. Riedinger said.

The study was internally funded. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Riedinger CJ et al. SGO 2020. Abstract 22.

The experimental agent adavosertib showed hints of efficacy against recurrent uterine serous carcinoma in early data from a phase 2 trial.

The overall response rate among 21 patients with advanced uterine serous carcinoma treated with adavosertib monotherapy was 30%, and an additional patient had an unconfirmed response at the time of data cutoff, reported Joyce F. Liu, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues.

“These results were noteworthy for the preliminary response rate of 30% that was observed in the first cohort of patients on this study, especially as, on average, patients on this study had received three prior treatments for their cancer. For us, this was an exciting signal of activity, especially for a targeted therapy used by itself in this type of cancer,” Dr. Liu said in an interview.

Preliminary results of the phase 2 trial were published in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Adavosertib is a small molecule that inhibits the Wee1 kinase, a “gatekeeper” of the G2-M cell cycle checkpoint that is highly expressed and active in several types of cancer.

“Molecular characterization of these cancers has demonstrated that they have frequent p53 mutations as well as significant alterations in oncogenes,” Dr. Liu said. “These characteristics mean that these are cancers that may both have significant dysregulation of their cell cycle combined with high levels of replication stress. We hypothesized that these cancers could therefore be particularly vulnerable to further dysregulation of the cell cycle, which can be mediated by a drug such as adavosertib, which interrupts regulation of the G2-M cell cycle checkpoint by inhibiting the protein Wee1.”
 

Study details

The study enrolled women with recurrent uterine serous carcinoma. Patients were eligible if any disease component was considered to be serous, except for carcinosarcomas. The patients had a minimum of one prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen (median 3, range 1-7), with no upper limit on prior lines of therapy required for eligibility.

Patients with microsatellite high/deficient mismatch repair disease had to have received prior therapy with programmed death-1/ligand-1 inhibitor, or to have been deemed ineligible for immunotherapy with a checkpoint inhibitor.

The patients received adavosertib at 300 mg daily on days 1 through 5 and days 8 through 12 of each 21-day cycle.

The trial would be considered successful if at least of 4 of 35 patients planned for accrual had a confirmed response or if 8 patients were progression free at 6 months. The coprimary endpoints are overall response rate of 20% or more, or a progression-free survival rate at 6 months of 30% or more.
 

Results and next steps

As of Aug. 20, 2019, the investigators had enrolled 27 patients, of whom 21 were evaluable for response.

The overall response rate was 30%, consisting of six confirmed partial responses. One additional patient had an unconfirmed response. Eleven of the 21 patients had stable disease, and 3 had disease progression.

Eleven patients remained on treatment with adavosertib at the time of data cutoff. Progression-free survival data were not mature.

The most frequent adverse events included anemia and diarrhea in 67% of patients each, nausea in 58%, and fatigue in 50%.

Frequent grade 3 or higher adverse effects included anemia, neutropenia, and syncope, all occurring in 21% of patients.

Dr. Liu said the investigators plan to present updated data from the study at a future meeting.

“We are planning additional cohorts in this study that will allow us to more deeply investigate why certain uterine serous cancer patients had very good responses to adavosertib and to identify potential biomarkers of response,” she said.

“Additionally, we plan to investigate whether adavosertib has similar activity in another type of uterine cancer, uterine carcinosarcoma, that shares many similar molecular characteristics with uterine serous carcinoma, including p53 mutations and oncogenic alterations, that might make it similarly vulnerable to targeting Wee1,” she said.

Dr. Liu disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, which supported the trial, as well as Merck and other companies.

SOURCE: Liu JF et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 7.

The experimental agent adavosertib showed hints of efficacy against recurrent uterine serous carcinoma in early data from a phase 2 trial.

The overall response rate among 21 patients with advanced uterine serous carcinoma treated with adavosertib monotherapy was 30%, and an additional patient had an unconfirmed response at the time of data cutoff, reported Joyce F. Liu, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues.

“These results were noteworthy for the preliminary response rate of 30% that was observed in the first cohort of patients on this study, especially as, on average, patients on this study had received three prior treatments for their cancer. For us, this was an exciting signal of activity, especially for a targeted therapy used by itself in this type of cancer,” Dr. Liu said in an interview.

Preliminary results of the phase 2 trial were published in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Adavosertib is a small molecule that inhibits the Wee1 kinase, a “gatekeeper” of the G2-M cell cycle checkpoint that is highly expressed and active in several types of cancer.

“Molecular characterization of these cancers has demonstrated that they have frequent p53 mutations as well as significant alterations in oncogenes,” Dr. Liu said. “These characteristics mean that these are cancers that may both have significant dysregulation of their cell cycle combined with high levels of replication stress. We hypothesized that these cancers could therefore be particularly vulnerable to further dysregulation of the cell cycle, which can be mediated by a drug such as adavosertib, which interrupts regulation of the G2-M cell cycle checkpoint by inhibiting the protein Wee1.”
 

Study details

The study enrolled women with recurrent uterine serous carcinoma. Patients were eligible if any disease component was considered to be serous, except for carcinosarcomas. The patients had a minimum of one prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen (median 3, range 1-7), with no upper limit on prior lines of therapy required for eligibility.

Patients with microsatellite high/deficient mismatch repair disease had to have received prior therapy with programmed death-1/ligand-1 inhibitor, or to have been deemed ineligible for immunotherapy with a checkpoint inhibitor.

The patients received adavosertib at 300 mg daily on days 1 through 5 and days 8 through 12 of each 21-day cycle.

The trial would be considered successful if at least of 4 of 35 patients planned for accrual had a confirmed response or if 8 patients were progression free at 6 months. The coprimary endpoints are overall response rate of 20% or more, or a progression-free survival rate at 6 months of 30% or more.
 

Results and next steps

As of Aug. 20, 2019, the investigators had enrolled 27 patients, of whom 21 were evaluable for response.

The overall response rate was 30%, consisting of six confirmed partial responses. One additional patient had an unconfirmed response. Eleven of the 21 patients had stable disease, and 3 had disease progression.

Eleven patients remained on treatment with adavosertib at the time of data cutoff. Progression-free survival data were not mature.

The most frequent adverse events included anemia and diarrhea in 67% of patients each, nausea in 58%, and fatigue in 50%.

Frequent grade 3 or higher adverse effects included anemia, neutropenia, and syncope, all occurring in 21% of patients.

Dr. Liu said the investigators plan to present updated data from the study at a future meeting.

“We are planning additional cohorts in this study that will allow us to more deeply investigate why certain uterine serous cancer patients had very good responses to adavosertib and to identify potential biomarkers of response,” she said.

“Additionally, we plan to investigate whether adavosertib has similar activity in another type of uterine cancer, uterine carcinosarcoma, that shares many similar molecular characteristics with uterine serous carcinoma, including p53 mutations and oncogenic alterations, that might make it similarly vulnerable to targeting Wee1,” she said.

Dr. Liu disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, which supported the trial, as well as Merck and other companies.

SOURCE: Liu JF et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 7.

The experimental agent adavosertib showed hints of efficacy against recurrent uterine serous carcinoma in early data from a phase 2 trial.

The overall response rate among 21 patients with advanced uterine serous carcinoma treated with adavosertib monotherapy was 30%, and an additional patient had an unconfirmed response at the time of data cutoff, reported Joyce F. Liu, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues.

“These results were noteworthy for the preliminary response rate of 30% that was observed in the first cohort of patients on this study, especially as, on average, patients on this study had received three prior treatments for their cancer. For us, this was an exciting signal of activity, especially for a targeted therapy used by itself in this type of cancer,” Dr. Liu said in an interview.

Preliminary results of the phase 2 trial were published in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Adavosertib is a small molecule that inhibits the Wee1 kinase, a “gatekeeper” of the G2-M cell cycle checkpoint that is highly expressed and active in several types of cancer.

“Molecular characterization of these cancers has demonstrated that they have frequent p53 mutations as well as significant alterations in oncogenes,” Dr. Liu said. “These characteristics mean that these are cancers that may both have significant dysregulation of their cell cycle combined with high levels of replication stress. We hypothesized that these cancers could therefore be particularly vulnerable to further dysregulation of the cell cycle, which can be mediated by a drug such as adavosertib, which interrupts regulation of the G2-M cell cycle checkpoint by inhibiting the protein Wee1.”
 

Study details

The study enrolled women with recurrent uterine serous carcinoma. Patients were eligible if any disease component was considered to be serous, except for carcinosarcomas. The patients had a minimum of one prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen (median 3, range 1-7), with no upper limit on prior lines of therapy required for eligibility.

Patients with microsatellite high/deficient mismatch repair disease had to have received prior therapy with programmed death-1/ligand-1 inhibitor, or to have been deemed ineligible for immunotherapy with a checkpoint inhibitor.

The patients received adavosertib at 300 mg daily on days 1 through 5 and days 8 through 12 of each 21-day cycle.

The trial would be considered successful if at least of 4 of 35 patients planned for accrual had a confirmed response or if 8 patients were progression free at 6 months. The coprimary endpoints are overall response rate of 20% or more, or a progression-free survival rate at 6 months of 30% or more.
 

Results and next steps

As of Aug. 20, 2019, the investigators had enrolled 27 patients, of whom 21 were evaluable for response.

The overall response rate was 30%, consisting of six confirmed partial responses. One additional patient had an unconfirmed response. Eleven of the 21 patients had stable disease, and 3 had disease progression.

Eleven patients remained on treatment with adavosertib at the time of data cutoff. Progression-free survival data were not mature.

The most frequent adverse events included anemia and diarrhea in 67% of patients each, nausea in 58%, and fatigue in 50%.

Frequent grade 3 or higher adverse effects included anemia, neutropenia, and syncope, all occurring in 21% of patients.

Dr. Liu said the investigators plan to present updated data from the study at a future meeting.

“We are planning additional cohorts in this study that will allow us to more deeply investigate why certain uterine serous cancer patients had very good responses to adavosertib and to identify potential biomarkers of response,” she said.

“Additionally, we plan to investigate whether adavosertib has similar activity in another type of uterine cancer, uterine carcinosarcoma, that shares many similar molecular characteristics with uterine serous carcinoma, including p53 mutations and oncogenic alterations, that might make it similarly vulnerable to targeting Wee1,” she said.

Dr. Liu disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, which supported the trial, as well as Merck and other companies.

SOURCE: Liu JF et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 7.