Gynecologic Cancer

People whose treatment for cancer is delayed by even 1 month have a 6%-13% higher risk of dying, suggests research published online in the BMJ.

In light of the treatment delays resulting from the pandemic, Canadian and U.K. researchers carried out a review and analysis of relevant studies published between January 2000 and April 2020.

Included studies examined data on surgical interventions, systemic therapy, or radiotherapy for seven forms of cancer – bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck. Delays were measured from diagnosis to the first treatment or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next.

The search identified 34 suitable studies for 17 indications, with data from more than 1.2 million patients. The analysis identified a significant association between delay and increased mortality for 13 of the 17 indications (P < .05).

For surgery, there was a 6%-8% increase in the risk of death for every 4-week treatment delay. Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range, 1.01-1.28). Four-week delays in radiotherapy were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.09), and cervical cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.50).

Delays of up to 8 and 12 weeks further increased mortality. An 8-week delay in breast cancer surgery was linked to a 17% increased mortality, and a 12-week delay would increase mortality by 26%.

A surgical delay of 12 weeks for patients with breast cancer continuing for 1 year – which is likely to be the case as the pandemic continues – would lead to 1,400 excess deaths in the United Kingdom.

The authors said the results of this study could be used to guide policy making on the organization of cancer services, particularly as the pandemic continues and further delays are expected.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

People whose treatment for cancer is delayed by even 1 month have a 6%-13% higher risk of dying, suggests research published online in the BMJ.

In light of the treatment delays resulting from the pandemic, Canadian and U.K. researchers carried out a review and analysis of relevant studies published between January 2000 and April 2020.

Included studies examined data on surgical interventions, systemic therapy, or radiotherapy for seven forms of cancer – bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck. Delays were measured from diagnosis to the first treatment or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next.

The search identified 34 suitable studies for 17 indications, with data from more than 1.2 million patients. The analysis identified a significant association between delay and increased mortality for 13 of the 17 indications (P < .05).

For surgery, there was a 6%-8% increase in the risk of death for every 4-week treatment delay. Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range, 1.01-1.28). Four-week delays in radiotherapy were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.09), and cervical cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.50).

Delays of up to 8 and 12 weeks further increased mortality. An 8-week delay in breast cancer surgery was linked to a 17% increased mortality, and a 12-week delay would increase mortality by 26%.

A surgical delay of 12 weeks for patients with breast cancer continuing for 1 year – which is likely to be the case as the pandemic continues – would lead to 1,400 excess deaths in the United Kingdom.

The authors said the results of this study could be used to guide policy making on the organization of cancer services, particularly as the pandemic continues and further delays are expected.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

People whose treatment for cancer is delayed by even 1 month have a 6%-13% higher risk of dying, suggests research published online in the BMJ.

In light of the treatment delays resulting from the pandemic, Canadian and U.K. researchers carried out a review and analysis of relevant studies published between January 2000 and April 2020.

Included studies examined data on surgical interventions, systemic therapy, or radiotherapy for seven forms of cancer – bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck. Delays were measured from diagnosis to the first treatment or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next.

The search identified 34 suitable studies for 17 indications, with data from more than 1.2 million patients. The analysis identified a significant association between delay and increased mortality for 13 of the 17 indications (P < .05).

For surgery, there was a 6%-8% increase in the risk of death for every 4-week treatment delay. Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range, 1.01-1.28). Four-week delays in radiotherapy were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.09), and cervical cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.50).

Delays of up to 8 and 12 weeks further increased mortality. An 8-week delay in breast cancer surgery was linked to a 17% increased mortality, and a 12-week delay would increase mortality by 26%.

A surgical delay of 12 weeks for patients with breast cancer continuing for 1 year – which is likely to be the case as the pandemic continues – would lead to 1,400 excess deaths in the United Kingdom.

The authors said the results of this study could be used to guide policy making on the organization of cancer services, particularly as the pandemic continues and further delays are expected.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

For women who receive radiotherapy after undergoing hysterectomy for high-risk cervical cancer, image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) is superior to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) at reducing late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and is similarly efficacious, according to new findings.

“IG-IMRT should represent the new standard of care for postoperative pelvic radiation therapy in women with gynecological cancers,” said study lead author Supriya Chopra, MD, of the Tata Memorial Center in Mumbai, India.

She noted that the study, known as PARCER, is the first in gynecologic cancer to show the impact of advanced technology in reducing long-term morbidity and thus improving the experience of survivors.

At 4 years, rates of late GI toxicity of grade 2 or higher in the IG-IMRT and 3D-CRT arms were 19.2% and 36.2%, respectively (P = .005). Rates of toxicity of grade 3 or higher were 2.0% and 8.7%, respectively (P < .01).

Chopra presented the results at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online.

Postoperative radiotherapy is indicated for women with cervical and endometrial cancers who have high-risk features, but long-term follow-up has shown an increase in GI symptom burden and toxicity in long-term survivors after adjuvant radiotherapy.

“The uptake of IMRT has been relatively slow in gynecological cancers,” said Chopra. She explained that previous data suggested a benefit with the use of IMRT, but long-term postoperative effects were unclear.

The new data amount to a “practice-change use” of IMRT for this indication, said Sue Yom, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved with the study. “I see this as having potentially important future impacts on clinical practice.”

Yom explained that, although there have been studies in the United States on the use of postoperative IMRT for pelvic cancer, “this is the first phase 3 study that has shown definite long-term advantages with the use of IMRT, and I would consider it confirmatory.”

In 2015, the preliminary results of PARCER were presented at the plenary session at ASTRO. The results showed that patients treated with IG-IMRT had fewer late GI toxicities at a median follow-up of 20 months. However, the difference between groups was not statistically significant in this earlier analysis.
 

Now at 49 months’ follow-up

The study was conducted in three clinical sites of Tata Memorial Center and included a total of 300 patients with cervical cancer. The patients had undergone type III hysterectomy and had intermediate- or high-risk features, or they had undergone type I/II hysterectomy necessitating adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. They were randomly assigned to IG-IMRT (n = 151) or 3D-CRT (n = 149). Most patients (117 in the IG-IMRT arm and 114 in the 3D-CRT arm) received concurrent chemotherapy.

The primary endpoint was late GI toxicity of grade 2 or higher. Follow-up included clinical and quality-of-life evaluations, which were conducted every 3 months for 2 years and then every 6 months for years 2 to 5.

Chopra and colleagues evaluated 11 different GI-related side effects. Differences emerged over time between the two groups. Among the group that received IG-IMRT, significantly fewer patients reported moderate to severe acute diarrhea (17% in the IG-IMRT arm vs 27% in the 3D-CRT arm), late abdominal bloating (14% vs 28%), bowel obstruction (1% vs 7%), and anorexia/appetite loss (1% vs 7%).

Overall, for patients treated with IG-IMRT, grade 2 toxicity–free survival rates were significantly higher (78% with IG-IMRT vs 57% with 3D-CRT; P = .0009), as were grade 3 toxicity–free survival rates (97.6% vs 81.6%; P = .001).

As noted above, rates of disease-free survival were similar for both groups (73% with image-guided IMRT vs 68% with 3D-CRT; P = .30).

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Atomic Energy, Clinical Trials Center, in India, and by Varian International and the Terry Fox Foundation. Chopra and Yom have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For women who receive radiotherapy after undergoing hysterectomy for high-risk cervical cancer, image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) is superior to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) at reducing late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and is similarly efficacious, according to new findings.

“IG-IMRT should represent the new standard of care for postoperative pelvic radiation therapy in women with gynecological cancers,” said study lead author Supriya Chopra, MD, of the Tata Memorial Center in Mumbai, India.

She noted that the study, known as PARCER, is the first in gynecologic cancer to show the impact of advanced technology in reducing long-term morbidity and thus improving the experience of survivors.

At 4 years, rates of late GI toxicity of grade 2 or higher in the IG-IMRT and 3D-CRT arms were 19.2% and 36.2%, respectively (P = .005). Rates of toxicity of grade 3 or higher were 2.0% and 8.7%, respectively (P < .01).

Chopra presented the results at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online.

Postoperative radiotherapy is indicated for women with cervical and endometrial cancers who have high-risk features, but long-term follow-up has shown an increase in GI symptom burden and toxicity in long-term survivors after adjuvant radiotherapy.

“The uptake of IMRT has been relatively slow in gynecological cancers,” said Chopra. She explained that previous data suggested a benefit with the use of IMRT, but long-term postoperative effects were unclear.

The new data amount to a “practice-change use” of IMRT for this indication, said Sue Yom, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved with the study. “I see this as having potentially important future impacts on clinical practice.”

Yom explained that, although there have been studies in the United States on the use of postoperative IMRT for pelvic cancer, “this is the first phase 3 study that has shown definite long-term advantages with the use of IMRT, and I would consider it confirmatory.”

In 2015, the preliminary results of PARCER were presented at the plenary session at ASTRO. The results showed that patients treated with IG-IMRT had fewer late GI toxicities at a median follow-up of 20 months. However, the difference between groups was not statistically significant in this earlier analysis.
 

Now at 49 months’ follow-up

The study was conducted in three clinical sites of Tata Memorial Center and included a total of 300 patients with cervical cancer. The patients had undergone type III hysterectomy and had intermediate- or high-risk features, or they had undergone type I/II hysterectomy necessitating adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. They were randomly assigned to IG-IMRT (n = 151) or 3D-CRT (n = 149). Most patients (117 in the IG-IMRT arm and 114 in the 3D-CRT arm) received concurrent chemotherapy.

The primary endpoint was late GI toxicity of grade 2 or higher. Follow-up included clinical and quality-of-life evaluations, which were conducted every 3 months for 2 years and then every 6 months for years 2 to 5.

Chopra and colleagues evaluated 11 different GI-related side effects. Differences emerged over time between the two groups. Among the group that received IG-IMRT, significantly fewer patients reported moderate to severe acute diarrhea (17% in the IG-IMRT arm vs 27% in the 3D-CRT arm), late abdominal bloating (14% vs 28%), bowel obstruction (1% vs 7%), and anorexia/appetite loss (1% vs 7%).

Overall, for patients treated with IG-IMRT, grade 2 toxicity–free survival rates were significantly higher (78% with IG-IMRT vs 57% with 3D-CRT; P = .0009), as were grade 3 toxicity–free survival rates (97.6% vs 81.6%; P = .001).

As noted above, rates of disease-free survival were similar for both groups (73% with image-guided IMRT vs 68% with 3D-CRT; P = .30).

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Atomic Energy, Clinical Trials Center, in India, and by Varian International and the Terry Fox Foundation. Chopra and Yom have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For women who receive radiotherapy after undergoing hysterectomy for high-risk cervical cancer, image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) is superior to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) at reducing late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and is similarly efficacious, according to new findings.

“IG-IMRT should represent the new standard of care for postoperative pelvic radiation therapy in women with gynecological cancers,” said study lead author Supriya Chopra, MD, of the Tata Memorial Center in Mumbai, India.

She noted that the study, known as PARCER, is the first in gynecologic cancer to show the impact of advanced technology in reducing long-term morbidity and thus improving the experience of survivors.

At 4 years, rates of late GI toxicity of grade 2 or higher in the IG-IMRT and 3D-CRT arms were 19.2% and 36.2%, respectively (P = .005). Rates of toxicity of grade 3 or higher were 2.0% and 8.7%, respectively (P < .01).

Chopra presented the results at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online.

Postoperative radiotherapy is indicated for women with cervical and endometrial cancers who have high-risk features, but long-term follow-up has shown an increase in GI symptom burden and toxicity in long-term survivors after adjuvant radiotherapy.

“The uptake of IMRT has been relatively slow in gynecological cancers,” said Chopra. She explained that previous data suggested a benefit with the use of IMRT, but long-term postoperative effects were unclear.

The new data amount to a “practice-change use” of IMRT for this indication, said Sue Yom, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved with the study. “I see this as having potentially important future impacts on clinical practice.”

Yom explained that, although there have been studies in the United States on the use of postoperative IMRT for pelvic cancer, “this is the first phase 3 study that has shown definite long-term advantages with the use of IMRT, and I would consider it confirmatory.”

In 2015, the preliminary results of PARCER were presented at the plenary session at ASTRO. The results showed that patients treated with IG-IMRT had fewer late GI toxicities at a median follow-up of 20 months. However, the difference between groups was not statistically significant in this earlier analysis.
 

Now at 49 months’ follow-up

The study was conducted in three clinical sites of Tata Memorial Center and included a total of 300 patients with cervical cancer. The patients had undergone type III hysterectomy and had intermediate- or high-risk features, or they had undergone type I/II hysterectomy necessitating adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. They were randomly assigned to IG-IMRT (n = 151) or 3D-CRT (n = 149). Most patients (117 in the IG-IMRT arm and 114 in the 3D-CRT arm) received concurrent chemotherapy.

The primary endpoint was late GI toxicity of grade 2 or higher. Follow-up included clinical and quality-of-life evaluations, which were conducted every 3 months for 2 years and then every 6 months for years 2 to 5.

Chopra and colleagues evaluated 11 different GI-related side effects. Differences emerged over time between the two groups. Among the group that received IG-IMRT, significantly fewer patients reported moderate to severe acute diarrhea (17% in the IG-IMRT arm vs 27% in the 3D-CRT arm), late abdominal bloating (14% vs 28%), bowel obstruction (1% vs 7%), and anorexia/appetite loss (1% vs 7%).

Overall, for patients treated with IG-IMRT, grade 2 toxicity–free survival rates were significantly higher (78% with IG-IMRT vs 57% with 3D-CRT; P = .0009), as were grade 3 toxicity–free survival rates (97.6% vs 81.6%; P = .001).

As noted above, rates of disease-free survival were similar for both groups (73% with image-guided IMRT vs 68% with 3D-CRT; P = .30).

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Atomic Energy, Clinical Trials Center, in India, and by Varian International and the Terry Fox Foundation. Chopra and Yom have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Surprisingly, in the United States, the most common cancer associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) is oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (SCC), with one study reporting 15,479 cases among men and 3,428 cases among women in 2015.¹ In the same year, the investigators reported 11,788 cases of cervical cancer.¹ A public health concern is that cases of oropharyngeal SCC are increasing, while cases of cervical cancer are decreasing. From 1999 to 2015, the rate of oropharyngeal SCC increased annually among both men and women, at rates of 2.7% and 0.8% per year, respectively. By contrast, the rate of cervical cancer decreased by 1.6% per year.¹

Although the incidence of HPV-negative oropharyngeal SCC (cases associated with cigarette smoking) has declined by 50% from 1988 to 2004, the incidence of HPV-positive oropharyngeal SCC has increased by 225%, with much of the increase occurring among young, white men.² HPV infection is a major cause of oropharyngeal SCC at the base of the tongue and tonsils, but not in the soft palate or oropharyngeal walls.³

Most physicians and parents recognize that the 9-valent (9v)HPV vaccine prevents the majority of cervical cancers and precancers in women. Far fewer people realize that there is an important opportunity to prevent a large number of oropharyngeal cancers by improving 9vHPV vaccination in men and women.

Which HPV types are associated with oropharyngeal cancer?

HPV16 is the most common HPV type associated with oropharyngeal SCC. Among these cancer types, greater than 80% harbor HPV16, with greater than 90% harboring HPV16 or 18 and less than 10% of tumors associated with HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, or 58.^4-7

The high prevalence of HPV16 in patients with oropharyngeal cancer raises the question of the HPV status of the intimate partner of the index patient. In one study of 164 people with HPV detected in their oropharyngeal, the partner of the index patient had a low prevalence of high-risk HPV types (1.2%) in oral rinse and gargle samples, similar to the rate in the general population (1.3%).⁷ This finding is reassuring and suggests that intimate partners of patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer effectively clear high-risk HPV virus from the oropharynx. The HPV status of the genital tissue of the intimate partner of an index patient with oropharyngeal SCC has not been adequately studied.

Men are more likely than women to harbor oral HPV

Among a sample of 5,501 men and women aged 14 to 69 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, oral rinses were obtained and analyzed for the presence of HPV.⁸ The prevalence of any oral HPV and any oral high-risk HPV was 6.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Oral HPV-16 was detected in 1.6% of men and 0.3% of women. The prevalence of HPV was higher among current smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, and people with a history of a greater number of sexual partners. In men and women reporting more than 20 lifetime sexual partners, the prevalence of oral HPV was 20%.

In a study of 2,627 men and women aged 18 to 33 years, the prevalence of oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus those unvaccinated (0.11% and 1.6%, respectively; P = .008).⁹ Among men, oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus unvaccinated (0.0% and 2.13%, respectively; P = .007).⁹ The results of this observational study support the important role of vaccination in reducing oral HPV infection.

Continue to: Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer...

Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer

Most population studies report that males are less likely to receive an HPV vaccine than females. For example, based on the National Health Interview Survey of people aged 18 to 26, the percentage of women who self-reported receiving at least one dose of HPV vaccine was 37% in 2013 and 54% in 2018.¹⁰ By contrast, among men, the rates of self-reported vaccination were much lower—8% in 2013 and 27% in 2018.¹⁰

The percentage of women who received the recommended number of doses of HPV vaccine (see “9vHPV vaccine: Indications and immunization schedule”) was 26% in 2013 and 35% in 2018.¹⁰ For men, these percentages were 2% in 2013 and 9% in 2018.¹⁰ These data indicate that, compared with women, men are less likely to receive an HPV vaccination and far less likely to have received the recommended number of doses.

It is heartening that there has been a slow and steady increase in the prevalence of HPV vaccination. In fact, increasing the HPV vaccination rate among both boys and girls has the potential to markedly reduce the incidence of oropharyngeal cancer.

The reasons for the female-male gap in vaccination rates are not fully characterized. For one, parental awareness of the importance of HPV vaccination to prevent cancer among men is limited, and represents an important opportunity for additional public health education. In a qualitative interview study of mothers with children aged 11 to 19, the investigators reported that most mothers were aware that HPV vaccination could prevent cervical cancer in women, but most mothers did not know that HPV causes cancer of the mouth and that vaccination could prevent oropharyngeal cancer in boys and girls.¹¹ Because of this lack of knowledge, the mothers did not think their sons needed to have an HPV vaccine. The research report is aptly titled, “I don’t think he needs the HPV vaccine cause boys can’t have cervical cancer.”¹¹

Clinicians are highly influential in guiding parents to accept HPV vaccination of their children. Offering consistent messaging to parents that HPV vaccination prevents cancer in both women and men, and reducing the out-of-pocket cost of vaccination surely will result in an increase in the vaccination rate of boys and girls. ●

Surprisingly, in the United States, the most common cancer associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) is oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (SCC), with one study reporting 15,479 cases among men and 3,428 cases among women in 2015.¹ In the same year, the investigators reported 11,788 cases of cervical cancer.¹ A public health concern is that cases of oropharyngeal SCC are increasing, while cases of cervical cancer are decreasing. From 1999 to 2015, the rate of oropharyngeal SCC increased annually among both men and women, at rates of 2.7% and 0.8% per year, respectively. By contrast, the rate of cervical cancer decreased by 1.6% per year.¹

Although the incidence of HPV-negative oropharyngeal SCC (cases associated with cigarette smoking) has declined by 50% from 1988 to 2004, the incidence of HPV-positive oropharyngeal SCC has increased by 225%, with much of the increase occurring among young, white men.² HPV infection is a major cause of oropharyngeal SCC at the base of the tongue and tonsils, but not in the soft palate or oropharyngeal walls.³

Most physicians and parents recognize that the 9-valent (9v)HPV vaccine prevents the majority of cervical cancers and precancers in women. Far fewer people realize that there is an important opportunity to prevent a large number of oropharyngeal cancers by improving 9vHPV vaccination in men and women.

Which HPV types are associated with oropharyngeal cancer?

HPV16 is the most common HPV type associated with oropharyngeal SCC. Among these cancer types, greater than 80% harbor HPV16, with greater than 90% harboring HPV16 or 18 and less than 10% of tumors associated with HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, or 58.^4-7

The high prevalence of HPV16 in patients with oropharyngeal cancer raises the question of the HPV status of the intimate partner of the index patient. In one study of 164 people with HPV detected in their oropharyngeal, the partner of the index patient had a low prevalence of high-risk HPV types (1.2%) in oral rinse and gargle samples, similar to the rate in the general population (1.3%).⁷ This finding is reassuring and suggests that intimate partners of patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer effectively clear high-risk HPV virus from the oropharynx. The HPV status of the genital tissue of the intimate partner of an index patient with oropharyngeal SCC has not been adequately studied.

Men are more likely than women to harbor oral HPV

Among a sample of 5,501 men and women aged 14 to 69 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, oral rinses were obtained and analyzed for the presence of HPV.⁸ The prevalence of any oral HPV and any oral high-risk HPV was 6.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Oral HPV-16 was detected in 1.6% of men and 0.3% of women. The prevalence of HPV was higher among current smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, and people with a history of a greater number of sexual partners. In men and women reporting more than 20 lifetime sexual partners, the prevalence of oral HPV was 20%.

In a study of 2,627 men and women aged 18 to 33 years, the prevalence of oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus those unvaccinated (0.11% and 1.6%, respectively; P = .008).⁹ Among men, oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus unvaccinated (0.0% and 2.13%, respectively; P = .007).⁹ The results of this observational study support the important role of vaccination in reducing oral HPV infection.

Continue to: Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer...

Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer

Most population studies report that males are less likely to receive an HPV vaccine than females. For example, based on the National Health Interview Survey of people aged 18 to 26, the percentage of women who self-reported receiving at least one dose of HPV vaccine was 37% in 2013 and 54% in 2018.¹⁰ By contrast, among men, the rates of self-reported vaccination were much lower—8% in 2013 and 27% in 2018.¹⁰

The percentage of women who received the recommended number of doses of HPV vaccine (see “9vHPV vaccine: Indications and immunization schedule”) was 26% in 2013 and 35% in 2018.¹⁰ For men, these percentages were 2% in 2013 and 9% in 2018.¹⁰ These data indicate that, compared with women, men are less likely to receive an HPV vaccination and far less likely to have received the recommended number of doses.

It is heartening that there has been a slow and steady increase in the prevalence of HPV vaccination. In fact, increasing the HPV vaccination rate among both boys and girls has the potential to markedly reduce the incidence of oropharyngeal cancer.

The reasons for the female-male gap in vaccination rates are not fully characterized. For one, parental awareness of the importance of HPV vaccination to prevent cancer among men is limited, and represents an important opportunity for additional public health education. In a qualitative interview study of mothers with children aged 11 to 19, the investigators reported that most mothers were aware that HPV vaccination could prevent cervical cancer in women, but most mothers did not know that HPV causes cancer of the mouth and that vaccination could prevent oropharyngeal cancer in boys and girls.¹¹ Because of this lack of knowledge, the mothers did not think their sons needed to have an HPV vaccine. The research report is aptly titled, “I don’t think he needs the HPV vaccine cause boys can’t have cervical cancer.”¹¹

Clinicians are highly influential in guiding parents to accept HPV vaccination of their children. Offering consistent messaging to parents that HPV vaccination prevents cancer in both women and men, and reducing the out-of-pocket cost of vaccination surely will result in an increase in the vaccination rate of boys and girls. ●

Surprisingly, in the United States, the most common cancer associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) is oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (SCC), with one study reporting 15,479 cases among men and 3,428 cases among women in 2015.¹ In the same year, the investigators reported 11,788 cases of cervical cancer.¹ A public health concern is that cases of oropharyngeal SCC are increasing, while cases of cervical cancer are decreasing. From 1999 to 2015, the rate of oropharyngeal SCC increased annually among both men and women, at rates of 2.7% and 0.8% per year, respectively. By contrast, the rate of cervical cancer decreased by 1.6% per year.¹

Although the incidence of HPV-negative oropharyngeal SCC (cases associated with cigarette smoking) has declined by 50% from 1988 to 2004, the incidence of HPV-positive oropharyngeal SCC has increased by 225%, with much of the increase occurring among young, white men.² HPV infection is a major cause of oropharyngeal SCC at the base of the tongue and tonsils, but not in the soft palate or oropharyngeal walls.³

Most physicians and parents recognize that the 9-valent (9v)HPV vaccine prevents the majority of cervical cancers and precancers in women. Far fewer people realize that there is an important opportunity to prevent a large number of oropharyngeal cancers by improving 9vHPV vaccination in men and women.

Which HPV types are associated with oropharyngeal cancer?

HPV16 is the most common HPV type associated with oropharyngeal SCC. Among these cancer types, greater than 80% harbor HPV16, with greater than 90% harboring HPV16 or 18 and less than 10% of tumors associated with HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, or 58.^4-7

The high prevalence of HPV16 in patients with oropharyngeal cancer raises the question of the HPV status of the intimate partner of the index patient. In one study of 164 people with HPV detected in their oropharyngeal, the partner of the index patient had a low prevalence of high-risk HPV types (1.2%) in oral rinse and gargle samples, similar to the rate in the general population (1.3%).⁷ This finding is reassuring and suggests that intimate partners of patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer effectively clear high-risk HPV virus from the oropharynx. The HPV status of the genital tissue of the intimate partner of an index patient with oropharyngeal SCC has not been adequately studied.

Men are more likely than women to harbor oral HPV

Among a sample of 5,501 men and women aged 14 to 69 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, oral rinses were obtained and analyzed for the presence of HPV.⁸ The prevalence of any oral HPV and any oral high-risk HPV was 6.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Oral HPV-16 was detected in 1.6% of men and 0.3% of women. The prevalence of HPV was higher among current smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, and people with a history of a greater number of sexual partners. In men and women reporting more than 20 lifetime sexual partners, the prevalence of oral HPV was 20%.

In a study of 2,627 men and women aged 18 to 33 years, the prevalence of oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus those unvaccinated (0.11% and 1.6%, respectively; P = .008).⁹ Among men, oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus unvaccinated (0.0% and 2.13%, respectively; P = .007).⁹ The results of this observational study support the important role of vaccination in reducing oral HPV infection.

Continue to: Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer...

Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer

Most population studies report that males are less likely to receive an HPV vaccine than females. For example, based on the National Health Interview Survey of people aged 18 to 26, the percentage of women who self-reported receiving at least one dose of HPV vaccine was 37% in 2013 and 54% in 2018.¹⁰ By contrast, among men, the rates of self-reported vaccination were much lower—8% in 2013 and 27% in 2018.¹⁰

The percentage of women who received the recommended number of doses of HPV vaccine (see “9vHPV vaccine: Indications and immunization schedule”) was 26% in 2013 and 35% in 2018.¹⁰ For men, these percentages were 2% in 2013 and 9% in 2018.¹⁰ These data indicate that, compared with women, men are less likely to receive an HPV vaccination and far less likely to have received the recommended number of doses.

It is heartening that there has been a slow and steady increase in the prevalence of HPV vaccination. In fact, increasing the HPV vaccination rate among both boys and girls has the potential to markedly reduce the incidence of oropharyngeal cancer.

The reasons for the female-male gap in vaccination rates are not fully characterized. For one, parental awareness of the importance of HPV vaccination to prevent cancer among men is limited, and represents an important opportunity for additional public health education. In a qualitative interview study of mothers with children aged 11 to 19, the investigators reported that most mothers were aware that HPV vaccination could prevent cervical cancer in women, but most mothers did not know that HPV causes cancer of the mouth and that vaccination could prevent oropharyngeal cancer in boys and girls.¹¹ Because of this lack of knowledge, the mothers did not think their sons needed to have an HPV vaccine. The research report is aptly titled, “I don’t think he needs the HPV vaccine cause boys can’t have cervical cancer.”¹¹

Clinicians are highly influential in guiding parents to accept HPV vaccination of their children. Offering consistent messaging to parents that HPV vaccination prevents cancer in both women and men, and reducing the out-of-pocket cost of vaccination surely will result in an increase in the vaccination rate of boys and girls. ●

Encouraging trends abound in the management of ovarian cancer. As rates of ovarian disease continue to decline, there has also been a notable increase in tools for detecting it earlier in its course.

To better understand these developments, this news organization reached out to Rebecca Stone, MD, an ovarian cancer expert and associate professor of gynecologic oncology at Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

There has been a decline in the rates of ovarian cancer in recent years. What are the possible causes of this?Dr. Stone: The number of new cases in the United States has actually been declining over the past 2 decades. This is thought to be attributable to the increased prescribing of oral contraceptive pills in the late 1990s and the uptake of preventive measures, such as risk-reducing gynecologic surgery for women with genetic predisposition to ovarian cancer, as well as opportunistic salpingectomy in the general population. Opportunistic salpingectomy was introduced about 10 years ago. It is a surgical means for primary prevention of tubo-ovarian cancer by removing both fallopian tubes at the time of elective surgery for women who have completed childbearing or in lieu of “tying the tubes” for women who desire permanent surgical sterility.

What can you tell us about a recent study suggesting that high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer may be detected earlier in the course of the disease by testing for TP53 clonal variants in DNA from Papanicolaou (Pap) tests performed during cervical cancer screening?

The idea here is that early mutational events that ultimately result in the development of epithelial ovarian cancer can be detected by performing gene sequencing on genetic material collected at the time of routine Pap smear screening done for cervical cancer. Pap tests are known to contain cells and genetic material shed from the fallopian tubes, where the precancerous lesions thought to give rise to epithelial ovarian cancer, predominantly serous epithelial ovarian cancers, start.

p53 gene mutations are thought to occur early in the evolution of ovarian cancer. There are data indicating that these mutations actually occur in cells lining the fallopian tubes. Polymerase chain reaction–based DNA/gene sequencing performed on cervical fluid collected by Pap smears could detect these p53-mutated cells shed from the fallopian tubes.

A strength of this study is that it included healthy controls. None of their Pap smears screened positive for the p53 mutations, unlike the Pap smears of women predating their diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Limitations of the study include the fact that it had a small sample size. Findings will need to be confirmed in a larger patient population.

Also, the study only looked for p53 gene mutations. Ovarian cancers, like other cancers, are largely thought to occur when there is a buildup of mutations in critical genes that result in uncontrolled cell growth and division. These genetic changes/mutations are acquired during a person’s lifetime. Thus, there are likely early genetic changes/mutations that occur in addition to p53 mutations that ultimately lead to the development of ovarian cancer. Detecting these along with p53 mutations could improve the sensitivity/detection rate of the screening strategy that the authors are investigating.

Finally, this screening strategy may not prove effective for the early detection of all histologic subtypes of epithelial ovarian cancer or for nonepithelial ovarian cancers.

What other recent developments in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer should clinicians be aware of?

Liquid biopsies using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) have shown promising results for cancer detection and management, including ovarian cancer. However, further clarification is needed to define the minimum tumor size/burden detectable using ctDNA-based approaches. Moreover, large prospective studies are needed to determine the clinical utility of ctDNA detection for early diagnosis of ovarian cancer and its impact on patient outcomes.

DNA methylation is an early event in carcinogenesis and can be detected in blood plasma samples from cancer patients. Data related to the discovery and validation of discriminated methylated DNA marker candidates extracted from ovarian cancer tissues were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting this year. Findings were subsequently evaluated in plasma from women with and without ovarian cancer.

In addition to blood, peritoneal fluid and uterine lavage have been used to obtain cell pellets that are used for the identification of common mutant genes – TP53, BRCA1, and BRCA2. These body fluids have also been shown as the source of tumor-derived material that can be used to differentiate between ovarian cancer patients and healthy individuals.

Further studies are needed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of other noninvasive tests for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.

The American Cancer Society issued a statement that the human papillomavirus (HPV) test is the preferred cervical cancer screening tool. Why do they prefer the HPV test over the Pap test?

The American Cancer Society recommends that cervical cancer testing (screening) begin at age 25 years. Women aged 25-65 years should have a primary HPV test every 5 years. If primary HPV testing is not available, screening may be done with either a co-test that combines an HPV test with a Pap test every 5 years or a Pap test alone every 3 years.

The HPV test is widely available. The cost of an HPV test is approximately $44 (unit cost, 2014 USD). The cost of a Pap test is approximately $30 (unit cost, 2014 USD).

The HPV test is preferred over cytologic testing (Pap) for several reasons.

Firstly, in well-designed studies, the sensitivity of a single Pap smear for detecting high-grade precancer of the cervix is around 50%, which is less than optimal for a cancer screening test. Sensitivity means the chance that, if you have the disease (in this case, high-grade precancer of the cervix), the test will detect it. In particular, cytology is known to have an even more limited ability to detect glandular precancers, which arise in the endocervical canal rather than on or in close proximity to the exterior surface of the cervix (ectocervix). Thus, HPV-based screening programs hold the promise of improving detection of cervical adenocarcinoma.

Secondly, to function reliably, cytology programs require substantial infrastructure, highly qualified human resources, and a well‐defined quality-control system, which have proved to be costly and difficult to implement. This results in global disparities in cytology-based cervical cancer screening programs.

Thirdly, although co‐testing with both cytology and HPV tests is an option for screening programs, studies have confirmed that there is limited benefit from adding cytology to HPV screening. Long‐term studies from Kaiser Permanente that included over 1 million women found that HPV testing has a very high negative predictive value for precancerous lesions. Women with negative HPV tests were very unlikely to develop precancerous lesions in the following 5 years. The 5‐year risk of high-grade precancer or cancer of the cervix following a negative HPV test was 0.14%, whereas for women with a negative cytology, it was 0.31%. The screening benefit of co‐testing is largely driven by HPV testing and not cytology.

So, in summary, HPV testing is preferred over cytologic screening for cervical cancer, given its improved sensitivity and quality assurance, the opportunity to automate testing, and ultimately, its prospect of reducing the overall number of lifetime screenings for women.


Dr. Stone has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Encouraging trends abound in the management of ovarian cancer. As rates of ovarian disease continue to decline, there has also been a notable increase in tools for detecting it earlier in its course.

To better understand these developments, this news organization reached out to Rebecca Stone, MD, an ovarian cancer expert and associate professor of gynecologic oncology at Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

There has been a decline in the rates of ovarian cancer in recent years. What are the possible causes of this?Dr. Stone: The number of new cases in the United States has actually been declining over the past 2 decades. This is thought to be attributable to the increased prescribing of oral contraceptive pills in the late 1990s and the uptake of preventive measures, such as risk-reducing gynecologic surgery for women with genetic predisposition to ovarian cancer, as well as opportunistic salpingectomy in the general population. Opportunistic salpingectomy was introduced about 10 years ago. It is a surgical means for primary prevention of tubo-ovarian cancer by removing both fallopian tubes at the time of elective surgery for women who have completed childbearing or in lieu of “tying the tubes” for women who desire permanent surgical sterility.

What can you tell us about a recent study suggesting that high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer may be detected earlier in the course of the disease by testing for TP53 clonal variants in DNA from Papanicolaou (Pap) tests performed during cervical cancer screening?

The idea here is that early mutational events that ultimately result in the development of epithelial ovarian cancer can be detected by performing gene sequencing on genetic material collected at the time of routine Pap smear screening done for cervical cancer. Pap tests are known to contain cells and genetic material shed from the fallopian tubes, where the precancerous lesions thought to give rise to epithelial ovarian cancer, predominantly serous epithelial ovarian cancers, start.

p53 gene mutations are thought to occur early in the evolution of ovarian cancer. There are data indicating that these mutations actually occur in cells lining the fallopian tubes. Polymerase chain reaction–based DNA/gene sequencing performed on cervical fluid collected by Pap smears could detect these p53-mutated cells shed from the fallopian tubes.

A strength of this study is that it included healthy controls. None of their Pap smears screened positive for the p53 mutations, unlike the Pap smears of women predating their diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Limitations of the study include the fact that it had a small sample size. Findings will need to be confirmed in a larger patient population.

Also, the study only looked for p53 gene mutations. Ovarian cancers, like other cancers, are largely thought to occur when there is a buildup of mutations in critical genes that result in uncontrolled cell growth and division. These genetic changes/mutations are acquired during a person’s lifetime. Thus, there are likely early genetic changes/mutations that occur in addition to p53 mutations that ultimately lead to the development of ovarian cancer. Detecting these along with p53 mutations could improve the sensitivity/detection rate of the screening strategy that the authors are investigating.

Finally, this screening strategy may not prove effective for the early detection of all histologic subtypes of epithelial ovarian cancer or for nonepithelial ovarian cancers.

What other recent developments in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer should clinicians be aware of?

Liquid biopsies using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) have shown promising results for cancer detection and management, including ovarian cancer. However, further clarification is needed to define the minimum tumor size/burden detectable using ctDNA-based approaches. Moreover, large prospective studies are needed to determine the clinical utility of ctDNA detection for early diagnosis of ovarian cancer and its impact on patient outcomes.

DNA methylation is an early event in carcinogenesis and can be detected in blood plasma samples from cancer patients. Data related to the discovery and validation of discriminated methylated DNA marker candidates extracted from ovarian cancer tissues were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting this year. Findings were subsequently evaluated in plasma from women with and without ovarian cancer.

In addition to blood, peritoneal fluid and uterine lavage have been used to obtain cell pellets that are used for the identification of common mutant genes – TP53, BRCA1, and BRCA2. These body fluids have also been shown as the source of tumor-derived material that can be used to differentiate between ovarian cancer patients and healthy individuals.

Further studies are needed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of other noninvasive tests for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.

The American Cancer Society issued a statement that the human papillomavirus (HPV) test is the preferred cervical cancer screening tool. Why do they prefer the HPV test over the Pap test?

The American Cancer Society recommends that cervical cancer testing (screening) begin at age 25 years. Women aged 25-65 years should have a primary HPV test every 5 years. If primary HPV testing is not available, screening may be done with either a co-test that combines an HPV test with a Pap test every 5 years or a Pap test alone every 3 years.

The HPV test is widely available. The cost of an HPV test is approximately $44 (unit cost, 2014 USD). The cost of a Pap test is approximately $30 (unit cost, 2014 USD).

The HPV test is preferred over cytologic testing (Pap) for several reasons.

Firstly, in well-designed studies, the sensitivity of a single Pap smear for detecting high-grade precancer of the cervix is around 50%, which is less than optimal for a cancer screening test. Sensitivity means the chance that, if you have the disease (in this case, high-grade precancer of the cervix), the test will detect it. In particular, cytology is known to have an even more limited ability to detect glandular precancers, which arise in the endocervical canal rather than on or in close proximity to the exterior surface of the cervix (ectocervix). Thus, HPV-based screening programs hold the promise of improving detection of cervical adenocarcinoma.

Secondly, to function reliably, cytology programs require substantial infrastructure, highly qualified human resources, and a well‐defined quality-control system, which have proved to be costly and difficult to implement. This results in global disparities in cytology-based cervical cancer screening programs.

Thirdly, although co‐testing with both cytology and HPV tests is an option for screening programs, studies have confirmed that there is limited benefit from adding cytology to HPV screening. Long‐term studies from Kaiser Permanente that included over 1 million women found that HPV testing has a very high negative predictive value for precancerous lesions. Women with negative HPV tests were very unlikely to develop precancerous lesions in the following 5 years. The 5‐year risk of high-grade precancer or cancer of the cervix following a negative HPV test was 0.14%, whereas for women with a negative cytology, it was 0.31%. The screening benefit of co‐testing is largely driven by HPV testing and not cytology.

So, in summary, HPV testing is preferred over cytologic screening for cervical cancer, given its improved sensitivity and quality assurance, the opportunity to automate testing, and ultimately, its prospect of reducing the overall number of lifetime screenings for women.


Dr. Stone has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Encouraging trends abound in the management of ovarian cancer. As rates of ovarian disease continue to decline, there has also been a notable increase in tools for detecting it earlier in its course.

To better understand these developments, this news organization reached out to Rebecca Stone, MD, an ovarian cancer expert and associate professor of gynecologic oncology at Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

There has been a decline in the rates of ovarian cancer in recent years. What are the possible causes of this?Dr. Stone: The number of new cases in the United States has actually been declining over the past 2 decades. This is thought to be attributable to the increased prescribing of oral contraceptive pills in the late 1990s and the uptake of preventive measures, such as risk-reducing gynecologic surgery for women with genetic predisposition to ovarian cancer, as well as opportunistic salpingectomy in the general population. Opportunistic salpingectomy was introduced about 10 years ago. It is a surgical means for primary prevention of tubo-ovarian cancer by removing both fallopian tubes at the time of elective surgery for women who have completed childbearing or in lieu of “tying the tubes” for women who desire permanent surgical sterility.

What can you tell us about a recent study suggesting that high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer may be detected earlier in the course of the disease by testing for TP53 clonal variants in DNA from Papanicolaou (Pap) tests performed during cervical cancer screening?

The idea here is that early mutational events that ultimately result in the development of epithelial ovarian cancer can be detected by performing gene sequencing on genetic material collected at the time of routine Pap smear screening done for cervical cancer. Pap tests are known to contain cells and genetic material shed from the fallopian tubes, where the precancerous lesions thought to give rise to epithelial ovarian cancer, predominantly serous epithelial ovarian cancers, start.

p53 gene mutations are thought to occur early in the evolution of ovarian cancer. There are data indicating that these mutations actually occur in cells lining the fallopian tubes. Polymerase chain reaction–based DNA/gene sequencing performed on cervical fluid collected by Pap smears could detect these p53-mutated cells shed from the fallopian tubes.

A strength of this study is that it included healthy controls. None of their Pap smears screened positive for the p53 mutations, unlike the Pap smears of women predating their diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Limitations of the study include the fact that it had a small sample size. Findings will need to be confirmed in a larger patient population.

Also, the study only looked for p53 gene mutations. Ovarian cancers, like other cancers, are largely thought to occur when there is a buildup of mutations in critical genes that result in uncontrolled cell growth and division. These genetic changes/mutations are acquired during a person’s lifetime. Thus, there are likely early genetic changes/mutations that occur in addition to p53 mutations that ultimately lead to the development of ovarian cancer. Detecting these along with p53 mutations could improve the sensitivity/detection rate of the screening strategy that the authors are investigating.

Finally, this screening strategy may not prove effective for the early detection of all histologic subtypes of epithelial ovarian cancer or for nonepithelial ovarian cancers.

What other recent developments in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer should clinicians be aware of?

Liquid biopsies using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) have shown promising results for cancer detection and management, including ovarian cancer. However, further clarification is needed to define the minimum tumor size/burden detectable using ctDNA-based approaches. Moreover, large prospective studies are needed to determine the clinical utility of ctDNA detection for early diagnosis of ovarian cancer and its impact on patient outcomes.

DNA methylation is an early event in carcinogenesis and can be detected in blood plasma samples from cancer patients. Data related to the discovery and validation of discriminated methylated DNA marker candidates extracted from ovarian cancer tissues were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting this year. Findings were subsequently evaluated in plasma from women with and without ovarian cancer.

In addition to blood, peritoneal fluid and uterine lavage have been used to obtain cell pellets that are used for the identification of common mutant genes – TP53, BRCA1, and BRCA2. These body fluids have also been shown as the source of tumor-derived material that can be used to differentiate between ovarian cancer patients and healthy individuals.

Further studies are needed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of other noninvasive tests for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.

The American Cancer Society issued a statement that the human papillomavirus (HPV) test is the preferred cervical cancer screening tool. Why do they prefer the HPV test over the Pap test?

The American Cancer Society recommends that cervical cancer testing (screening) begin at age 25 years. Women aged 25-65 years should have a primary HPV test every 5 years. If primary HPV testing is not available, screening may be done with either a co-test that combines an HPV test with a Pap test every 5 years or a Pap test alone every 3 years.

The HPV test is widely available. The cost of an HPV test is approximately $44 (unit cost, 2014 USD). The cost of a Pap test is approximately $30 (unit cost, 2014 USD).

The HPV test is preferred over cytologic testing (Pap) for several reasons.

Firstly, in well-designed studies, the sensitivity of a single Pap smear for detecting high-grade precancer of the cervix is around 50%, which is less than optimal for a cancer screening test. Sensitivity means the chance that, if you have the disease (in this case, high-grade precancer of the cervix), the test will detect it. In particular, cytology is known to have an even more limited ability to detect glandular precancers, which arise in the endocervical canal rather than on or in close proximity to the exterior surface of the cervix (ectocervix). Thus, HPV-based screening programs hold the promise of improving detection of cervical adenocarcinoma.

Secondly, to function reliably, cytology programs require substantial infrastructure, highly qualified human resources, and a well‐defined quality-control system, which have proved to be costly and difficult to implement. This results in global disparities in cytology-based cervical cancer screening programs.

Thirdly, although co‐testing with both cytology and HPV tests is an option for screening programs, studies have confirmed that there is limited benefit from adding cytology to HPV screening. Long‐term studies from Kaiser Permanente that included over 1 million women found that HPV testing has a very high negative predictive value for precancerous lesions. Women with negative HPV tests were very unlikely to develop precancerous lesions in the following 5 years. The 5‐year risk of high-grade precancer or cancer of the cervix following a negative HPV test was 0.14%, whereas for women with a negative cytology, it was 0.31%. The screening benefit of co‐testing is largely driven by HPV testing and not cytology.

So, in summary, HPV testing is preferred over cytologic screening for cervical cancer, given its improved sensitivity and quality assurance, the opportunity to automate testing, and ultimately, its prospect of reducing the overall number of lifetime screenings for women.


Dr. Stone has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The treatment of ovarian cancer has evolved considerably in the last few years, with the approval of several PARP inhibitors, antiangiogenic agents, and other therapies for a multitude of indications. Additional treatments are likely to soon join this already diverse spectrum of available options, if their promising efficacy and safety continues to be borne out in ongoing research.

To better understand the individual merits and potential drawbacks of these treatments, Medscape recently spoke with Rebecca Stone, MD, an ovarian cancer expert and associate professor of gynecologic oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Medscape: We’re starting to see preliminary data on pamiparib , an investigational inhibitor of PARP1 and PARP2, for the treatment of ovarian cancer. What is the evidence supporting this drug?

Dr. Stone: Currently, six different PARP inhibitors – olaparib, rucaparib, veliparib, niraparib, talazoparib, and pamiparib – have been in clinical development at different stages. In clinical applications, PARP inhibitors, including olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib, and talazoparib, have demonstrated sustained antitumor responses as single agents in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Those with Food and Drug Administration indications in ovarian cancer include olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib. The preclinical and clinical data with pamiparib is limited as of now. But, in a xenograft breast cancer model, it was found to be over 10 times more potent than olaparib.

If approved, where would pamiparib fit in the treatment paradigm for ovarian cancer?

It would potentially fit as monotherapy as well as in combination with agents other than standard chemotherapy for the treatment of BRCA mutated ovarian cancer. It could also be considered for maintenance therapy at the conclusion of chemotherapy treatment of newly diagnosed or recurrent BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer.

What adverse events are associated with pamiparib? How does the toxicity profile compare with other drugs for ovarian cancer?

With respect to PARP inhibitors, the differences in potency (PARP trapping) correlate with their toxicity profiles. The most common adverse events are gastrointestinal, hematologic, and constitutional (fatigue). Even though it is difficult to compare toxicities across different trials with heterogeneous patient populations, there are a few points worth noting.

Rucaparib leads to inhibition of renal transporter proteins involved in secretion of creatinine and can lead to increased creatinine (any grade: 15%; grade 3: ≤1%). Transaminitis is generally self-limiting and highest with rucaparib (any grade: 34%; grade 3: 10%). Hematologic toxicities are the highest with niraparib (any grade: thrombocytopenia 61%, anemia 50%, neutropenia 30%; grade ≥3: thrombocytopenia 34%, anemia 25%, neutropenia 20%).

Toxicities are more common in the first few cycles of treatment, warranting closer early monitoring. This differs somewhat from the gastrointestinal, hematological, and constitutional (fatigue) adverse events that we see with common chemotherapeutic agents used to treat ovarian cancer, which are generally cumulative.

PARP inhibitor treatment is also associated with an increased risk of developing myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML). That being said, therapy-related MDS/AML is a well-recognized complication of conventional chemotherapy used to treat a variety of primary malignancies, including ovarian cancer.

The expected toxicity profile for pamiparib is based on what we have seen with the other PARP inhibitors. This includes any grade nausea (50%), fatigue (33%), anemia (20%), vomiting (15%), and neutropenia (13%). Toxicity of grade 3 or higher includes anemia (13%), neutropenia (8%), and fatigue (5%).

Where do the newest drugs to be approved for ovarian cancer in recent years fit within the treatment paradigm? What do the research findings show about their efficacy and safety?

Data from phase 2/3 trials support the use of PARP inhibitors as monotherapy as well as in combination with other agents (most commonly agents other than standard chemotherapy) for the treatment of BRCA mutated or otherwise homologous recombination-deficient (HRD) ovarian cancer. They can also be considered for maintenance therapy at the conclusion of treatment of newly diagnosed or recurrent BRCA-mutated/HRD ovarian cancer.

Large phase 3 studies have resulted in the approval of the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed and recurrent ovarian cancer, as well as for maintenance therapy at the conclusion of combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab treatment of newly diagnosed (GOG 218 and ICON 7 trials) or recurrent ovarian cancer (GOG 218, OCEANS, and AURELIA trials). The most common toxicity with antiangiogenic agents is hypertension. Women also commonly experience arthralgia/myalgia. There is an increased risk of proteinuria, blood clots, bleeding, and serious gastrointestinal events such as fistula and bowel perforation.

Data from the phase 2 KEYNOTE 158 trial support pembrolizumab for microsatellite high or mismatch repair-deficient ovarian cancers. Common side effects associated with the use of pembrolizumab include fatigue, itchy skin, diarrhea, nausea, decreased appetite, rash, fever, cough, difficulty breathing, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, and joint pain. Pembrolizumab can cause the immune system to attack normal organs and tissues in the body resulting in serious side effects, including inflammation of such organs as the lungs, colon, liver, endocrine glands, and kidneys. 

Evidence for hormonal therapy (i.e., aromatase inhibitors like letrozole) for the treatment of newly diagnosed and recurrent low-grade serous/endometrioid epithelial ovarian cancer comes from largely retrospective cohort studies. A large phase 3 study, now enrolling, will examine if letrozole monotherapy/maintenance is non-inferior to intravenous paclitaxel/carboplatin and maintenance letrozole with respect to progression-free survival in women with stage II-IV primary low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum after primary surgical cytoreduction.

Hormonal therapies are generally very well tolerated. Common side effects may include hot flashes, warmth or redness in the face or chest, headache, dizziness, weakness, bone pain, muscle or joint pain, swelling, weight gain, increased sweating, or increased cholesterol in the blood.

What other drugs are in development for ovarian cancer?

VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as cediranib, are in development. Anlotinib is another drug being investigated. It is a new multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets VEGFR, PDGFR, and FGFR. Drugs targeting folate-alpha receptor, such as mirvetuximab, are under investigation, particularly for patients with high folate-alpha receptor membrane staining by immunohistochemistry. Drugs targeting cell cycle arrest, such as CDK4/6 inhibitors, are also being considered.

Can you provide some of the highlights of ovarian cancer research presented at this year’s American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting ?

My take is that we have gone from a monotonous landscape of platinum doublet chemotherapy to an exciting, diversified landscape over the past several years. All of this activity has driven median overall survival up from 3 years to 5 years and progression-free survival following first platinum sensitive recurrence to well beyond 6 months.

Since last year’s meeting, we have seen several new approvals, including niraparib for the treatment of BRCA mutated and HRD disease, as well as for first-line maintenance in all comers. In May, the FDA expanded the indication for olaparib to include its combination with bevacizumab as first-line maintenance for BRCA-mutated and HRD disease based on the results of PAOLA-1. With certainty, our treatment paradigms will continue to evolve in response to these and other new data.

At this year’s meeting, the SOLO-2 investigators revealed the first overall survival data for second-line PARP inhibitor maintenance, which is the first suggestion that PARP inhibitor maintenance improves overall survival.

We have a new understanding about the genetics of long-term responders to rucaparib on ARIEL-2.

We also understand how the role of secondary cytoreductive surgery and how nonchemotherapy options for the treatment of platinum sensitive relapse compare in terms of efficacy and toxicity (i.e., AVANOVA-2 and GY004 trials). We see again the importance of R0 cytoreduction when surgery is pursued. Achieving anything less than R0 cytoreduction for the treatment of first platinum sensitive recurrence may translate into shorter survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

We are also becoming increasingly familiar with the limited therapeutic benefit of single-agent anti-PD-1/PD-L1, which is so different from our experience in mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancer. In the small percentage of responders, there are some durable responses and a suggestion of particular efficacy among women with clear cell ovarian cancer.

What other recent findings in ovarian cancer research should oncologists be aware of?

Data supporting improved efficacy of a gastrointestinal-type chemotherapy regimen for mucinous epithelial ovarian cancers come from a retrospective cohort study of patients with ovarian mucinous carcinoma who received postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy at two academic centers.  

Identification of inactivating SMARCA4 mutations as the driver of small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type, and the idea that CDK4/6 inhibitors could be effectively repurposed to treat this rare but highly aggressive type of ovarian cancer is also new and exciting.

Dr. Stone has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The treatment of ovarian cancer has evolved considerably in the last few years, with the approval of several PARP inhibitors, antiangiogenic agents, and other therapies for a multitude of indications. Additional treatments are likely to soon join this already diverse spectrum of available options, if their promising efficacy and safety continues to be borne out in ongoing research.

To better understand the individual merits and potential drawbacks of these treatments, Medscape recently spoke with Rebecca Stone, MD, an ovarian cancer expert and associate professor of gynecologic oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Medscape: We’re starting to see preliminary data on pamiparib , an investigational inhibitor of PARP1 and PARP2, for the treatment of ovarian cancer. What is the evidence supporting this drug?

Dr. Stone: Currently, six different PARP inhibitors – olaparib, rucaparib, veliparib, niraparib, talazoparib, and pamiparib – have been in clinical development at different stages. In clinical applications, PARP inhibitors, including olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib, and talazoparib, have demonstrated sustained antitumor responses as single agents in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Those with Food and Drug Administration indications in ovarian cancer include olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib. The preclinical and clinical data with pamiparib is limited as of now. But, in a xenograft breast cancer model, it was found to be over 10 times more potent than olaparib.

If approved, where would pamiparib fit in the treatment paradigm for ovarian cancer?

It would potentially fit as monotherapy as well as in combination with agents other than standard chemotherapy for the treatment of BRCA mutated ovarian cancer. It could also be considered for maintenance therapy at the conclusion of chemotherapy treatment of newly diagnosed or recurrent BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer.

What adverse events are associated with pamiparib? How does the toxicity profile compare with other drugs for ovarian cancer?

With respect to PARP inhibitors, the differences in potency (PARP trapping) correlate with their toxicity profiles. The most common adverse events are gastrointestinal, hematologic, and constitutional (fatigue). Even though it is difficult to compare toxicities across different trials with heterogeneous patient populations, there are a few points worth noting.

Rucaparib leads to inhibition of renal transporter proteins involved in secretion of creatinine and can lead to increased creatinine (any grade: 15%; grade 3: ≤1%). Transaminitis is generally self-limiting and highest with rucaparib (any grade: 34%; grade 3: 10%). Hematologic toxicities are the highest with niraparib (any grade: thrombocytopenia 61%, anemia 50%, neutropenia 30%; grade ≥3: thrombocytopenia 34%, anemia 25%, neutropenia 20%).

Toxicities are more common in the first few cycles of treatment, warranting closer early monitoring. This differs somewhat from the gastrointestinal, hematological, and constitutional (fatigue) adverse events that we see with common chemotherapeutic agents used to treat ovarian cancer, which are generally cumulative.

PARP inhibitor treatment is also associated with an increased risk of developing myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML). That being said, therapy-related MDS/AML is a well-recognized complication of conventional chemotherapy used to treat a variety of primary malignancies, including ovarian cancer.

The expected toxicity profile for pamiparib is based on what we have seen with the other PARP inhibitors. This includes any grade nausea (50%), fatigue (33%), anemia (20%), vomiting (15%), and neutropenia (13%). Toxicity of grade 3 or higher includes anemia (13%), neutropenia (8%), and fatigue (5%).

Where do the newest drugs to be approved for ovarian cancer in recent years fit within the treatment paradigm? What do the research findings show about their efficacy and safety?

Data from phase 2/3 trials support the use of PARP inhibitors as monotherapy as well as in combination with other agents (most commonly agents other than standard chemotherapy) for the treatment of BRCA mutated or otherwise homologous recombination-deficient (HRD) ovarian cancer. They can also be considered for maintenance therapy at the conclusion of treatment of newly diagnosed or recurrent BRCA-mutated/HRD ovarian cancer.

Large phase 3 studies have resulted in the approval of the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed and recurrent ovarian cancer, as well as for maintenance therapy at the conclusion of combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab treatment of newly diagnosed (GOG 218 and ICON 7 trials) or recurrent ovarian cancer (GOG 218, OCEANS, and AURELIA trials). The most common toxicity with antiangiogenic agents is hypertension. Women also commonly experience arthralgia/myalgia. There is an increased risk of proteinuria, blood clots, bleeding, and serious gastrointestinal events such as fistula and bowel perforation.

Data from the phase 2 KEYNOTE 158 trial support pembrolizumab for microsatellite high or mismatch repair-deficient ovarian cancers. Common side effects associated with the use of pembrolizumab include fatigue, itchy skin, diarrhea, nausea, decreased appetite, rash, fever, cough, difficulty breathing, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, and joint pain. Pembrolizumab can cause the immune system to attack normal organs and tissues in the body resulting in serious side effects, including inflammation of such organs as the lungs, colon, liver, endocrine glands, and kidneys. 

Evidence for hormonal therapy (i.e., aromatase inhibitors like letrozole) for the treatment of newly diagnosed and recurrent low-grade serous/endometrioid epithelial ovarian cancer comes from largely retrospective cohort studies. A large phase 3 study, now enrolling, will examine if letrozole monotherapy/maintenance is non-inferior to intravenous paclitaxel/carboplatin and maintenance letrozole with respect to progression-free survival in women with stage II-IV primary low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum after primary surgical cytoreduction.

Hormonal therapies are generally very well tolerated. Common side effects may include hot flashes, warmth or redness in the face or chest, headache, dizziness, weakness, bone pain, muscle or joint pain, swelling, weight gain, increased sweating, or increased cholesterol in the blood.

What other drugs are in development for ovarian cancer?

VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as cediranib, are in development. Anlotinib is another drug being investigated. It is a new multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets VEGFR, PDGFR, and FGFR. Drugs targeting folate-alpha receptor, such as mirvetuximab, are under investigation, particularly for patients with high folate-alpha receptor membrane staining by immunohistochemistry. Drugs targeting cell cycle arrest, such as CDK4/6 inhibitors, are also being considered.

Can you provide some of the highlights of ovarian cancer research presented at this year’s American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting ?

My take is that we have gone from a monotonous landscape of platinum doublet chemotherapy to an exciting, diversified landscape over the past several years. All of this activity has driven median overall survival up from 3 years to 5 years and progression-free survival following first platinum sensitive recurrence to well beyond 6 months.

Since last year’s meeting, we have seen several new approvals, including niraparib for the treatment of BRCA mutated and HRD disease, as well as for first-line maintenance in all comers. In May, the FDA expanded the indication for olaparib to include its combination with bevacizumab as first-line maintenance for BRCA-mutated and HRD disease based on the results of PAOLA-1. With certainty, our treatment paradigms will continue to evolve in response to these and other new data.

At this year’s meeting, the SOLO-2 investigators revealed the first overall survival data for second-line PARP inhibitor maintenance, which is the first suggestion that PARP inhibitor maintenance improves overall survival.

We have a new understanding about the genetics of long-term responders to rucaparib on ARIEL-2.

We also understand how the role of secondary cytoreductive surgery and how nonchemotherapy options for the treatment of platinum sensitive relapse compare in terms of efficacy and toxicity (i.e., AVANOVA-2 and GY004 trials). We see again the importance of R0 cytoreduction when surgery is pursued. Achieving anything less than R0 cytoreduction for the treatment of first platinum sensitive recurrence may translate into shorter survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

We are also becoming increasingly familiar with the limited therapeutic benefit of single-agent anti-PD-1/PD-L1, which is so different from our experience in mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancer. In the small percentage of responders, there are some durable responses and a suggestion of particular efficacy among women with clear cell ovarian cancer.

What other recent findings in ovarian cancer research should oncologists be aware of?

Data supporting improved efficacy of a gastrointestinal-type chemotherapy regimen for mucinous epithelial ovarian cancers come from a retrospective cohort study of patients with ovarian mucinous carcinoma who received postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy at two academic centers.  

Identification of inactivating SMARCA4 mutations as the driver of small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type, and the idea that CDK4/6 inhibitors could be effectively repurposed to treat this rare but highly aggressive type of ovarian cancer is also new and exciting.

Dr. Stone has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The treatment of ovarian cancer has evolved considerably in the last few years, with the approval of several PARP inhibitors, antiangiogenic agents, and other therapies for a multitude of indications. Additional treatments are likely to soon join this already diverse spectrum of available options, if their promising efficacy and safety continues to be borne out in ongoing research.

To better understand the individual merits and potential drawbacks of these treatments, Medscape recently spoke with Rebecca Stone, MD, an ovarian cancer expert and associate professor of gynecologic oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Medscape: We’re starting to see preliminary data on pamiparib , an investigational inhibitor of PARP1 and PARP2, for the treatment of ovarian cancer. What is the evidence supporting this drug?

Dr. Stone: Currently, six different PARP inhibitors – olaparib, rucaparib, veliparib, niraparib, talazoparib, and pamiparib – have been in clinical development at different stages. In clinical applications, PARP inhibitors, including olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib, and talazoparib, have demonstrated sustained antitumor responses as single agents in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Those with Food and Drug Administration indications in ovarian cancer include olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib. The preclinical and clinical data with pamiparib is limited as of now. But, in a xenograft breast cancer model, it was found to be over 10 times more potent than olaparib.

If approved, where would pamiparib fit in the treatment paradigm for ovarian cancer?

It would potentially fit as monotherapy as well as in combination with agents other than standard chemotherapy for the treatment of BRCA mutated ovarian cancer. It could also be considered for maintenance therapy at the conclusion of chemotherapy treatment of newly diagnosed or recurrent BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer.

What adverse events are associated with pamiparib? How does the toxicity profile compare with other drugs for ovarian cancer?

With respect to PARP inhibitors, the differences in potency (PARP trapping) correlate with their toxicity profiles. The most common adverse events are gastrointestinal, hematologic, and constitutional (fatigue). Even though it is difficult to compare toxicities across different trials with heterogeneous patient populations, there are a few points worth noting.

Rucaparib leads to inhibition of renal transporter proteins involved in secretion of creatinine and can lead to increased creatinine (any grade: 15%; grade 3: ≤1%). Transaminitis is generally self-limiting and highest with rucaparib (any grade: 34%; grade 3: 10%). Hematologic toxicities are the highest with niraparib (any grade: thrombocytopenia 61%, anemia 50%, neutropenia 30%; grade ≥3: thrombocytopenia 34%, anemia 25%, neutropenia 20%).

Toxicities are more common in the first few cycles of treatment, warranting closer early monitoring. This differs somewhat from the gastrointestinal, hematological, and constitutional (fatigue) adverse events that we see with common chemotherapeutic agents used to treat ovarian cancer, which are generally cumulative.

PARP inhibitor treatment is also associated with an increased risk of developing myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML). That being said, therapy-related MDS/AML is a well-recognized complication of conventional chemotherapy used to treat a variety of primary malignancies, including ovarian cancer.

The expected toxicity profile for pamiparib is based on what we have seen with the other PARP inhibitors. This includes any grade nausea (50%), fatigue (33%), anemia (20%), vomiting (15%), and neutropenia (13%). Toxicity of grade 3 or higher includes anemia (13%), neutropenia (8%), and fatigue (5%).

Where do the newest drugs to be approved for ovarian cancer in recent years fit within the treatment paradigm? What do the research findings show about their efficacy and safety?

Data from phase 2/3 trials support the use of PARP inhibitors as monotherapy as well as in combination with other agents (most commonly agents other than standard chemotherapy) for the treatment of BRCA mutated or otherwise homologous recombination-deficient (HRD) ovarian cancer. They can also be considered for maintenance therapy at the conclusion of treatment of newly diagnosed or recurrent BRCA-mutated/HRD ovarian cancer.

Large phase 3 studies have resulted in the approval of the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed and recurrent ovarian cancer, as well as for maintenance therapy at the conclusion of combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab treatment of newly diagnosed (GOG 218 and ICON 7 trials) or recurrent ovarian cancer (GOG 218, OCEANS, and AURELIA trials). The most common toxicity with antiangiogenic agents is hypertension. Women also commonly experience arthralgia/myalgia. There is an increased risk of proteinuria, blood clots, bleeding, and serious gastrointestinal events such as fistula and bowel perforation.

Data from the phase 2 KEYNOTE 158 trial support pembrolizumab for microsatellite high or mismatch repair-deficient ovarian cancers. Common side effects associated with the use of pembrolizumab include fatigue, itchy skin, diarrhea, nausea, decreased appetite, rash, fever, cough, difficulty breathing, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, and joint pain. Pembrolizumab can cause the immune system to attack normal organs and tissues in the body resulting in serious side effects, including inflammation of such organs as the lungs, colon, liver, endocrine glands, and kidneys. 

Evidence for hormonal therapy (i.e., aromatase inhibitors like letrozole) for the treatment of newly diagnosed and recurrent low-grade serous/endometrioid epithelial ovarian cancer comes from largely retrospective cohort studies. A large phase 3 study, now enrolling, will examine if letrozole monotherapy/maintenance is non-inferior to intravenous paclitaxel/carboplatin and maintenance letrozole with respect to progression-free survival in women with stage II-IV primary low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum after primary surgical cytoreduction.

Hormonal therapies are generally very well tolerated. Common side effects may include hot flashes, warmth or redness in the face or chest, headache, dizziness, weakness, bone pain, muscle or joint pain, swelling, weight gain, increased sweating, or increased cholesterol in the blood.

What other drugs are in development for ovarian cancer?

VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as cediranib, are in development. Anlotinib is another drug being investigated. It is a new multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets VEGFR, PDGFR, and FGFR. Drugs targeting folate-alpha receptor, such as mirvetuximab, are under investigation, particularly for patients with high folate-alpha receptor membrane staining by immunohistochemistry. Drugs targeting cell cycle arrest, such as CDK4/6 inhibitors, are also being considered.

Can you provide some of the highlights of ovarian cancer research presented at this year’s American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting ?

My take is that we have gone from a monotonous landscape of platinum doublet chemotherapy to an exciting, diversified landscape over the past several years. All of this activity has driven median overall survival up from 3 years to 5 years and progression-free survival following first platinum sensitive recurrence to well beyond 6 months.

Since last year’s meeting, we have seen several new approvals, including niraparib for the treatment of BRCA mutated and HRD disease, as well as for first-line maintenance in all comers. In May, the FDA expanded the indication for olaparib to include its combination with bevacizumab as first-line maintenance for BRCA-mutated and HRD disease based on the results of PAOLA-1. With certainty, our treatment paradigms will continue to evolve in response to these and other new data.

At this year’s meeting, the SOLO-2 investigators revealed the first overall survival data for second-line PARP inhibitor maintenance, which is the first suggestion that PARP inhibitor maintenance improves overall survival.

We have a new understanding about the genetics of long-term responders to rucaparib on ARIEL-2.

We also understand how the role of secondary cytoreductive surgery and how nonchemotherapy options for the treatment of platinum sensitive relapse compare in terms of efficacy and toxicity (i.e., AVANOVA-2 and GY004 trials). We see again the importance of R0 cytoreduction when surgery is pursued. Achieving anything less than R0 cytoreduction for the treatment of first platinum sensitive recurrence may translate into shorter survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

We are also becoming increasingly familiar with the limited therapeutic benefit of single-agent anti-PD-1/PD-L1, which is so different from our experience in mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancer. In the small percentage of responders, there are some durable responses and a suggestion of particular efficacy among women with clear cell ovarian cancer.

What other recent findings in ovarian cancer research should oncologists be aware of?

Data supporting improved efficacy of a gastrointestinal-type chemotherapy regimen for mucinous epithelial ovarian cancers come from a retrospective cohort study of patients with ovarian mucinous carcinoma who received postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy at two academic centers.  

Identification of inactivating SMARCA4 mutations as the driver of small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type, and the idea that CDK4/6 inhibitors could be effectively repurposed to treat this rare but highly aggressive type of ovarian cancer is also new and exciting.

Dr. Stone has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should replace whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as the new standard of care for patients with four or more brain metastases, say researchers who report results from a randomized trial conducted in patients with four to 15 brain metastases

“SRS was associated with reduced risk of neurocognitive deterioration compared to WBRT, as demonstrated by a constellation of neurocognitive tests, individually or by composite scores,” said lead author Jing Li, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and codirector of the Brain Metastasis Clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

She was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID pandemic.

“The results from this phase 3 randomized trial strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival,” said Li.

SRS is already the standard of care for patients with one to three brain metastases. Two previous phase 3 randomized trials showed that SRS was better at preserving cognitive function without compromising overall survival in comparison to WBRT.

However, there has been some controversy over the use of SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases, commented study discussant Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, a professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

This study has shown, “in a practice-changing manner, that giving SRS can improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease,” she said.

Up to 30% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. Historically, these have been associated with poor overall survival, in the range of 1 to 4 months.
 

Reduces cognitive decline

The new trial involved 72 patients with four to 15 untreated, nonmelanoma brain metastases (up to 20 lesions were allowed at the time of treatment); the median number of brain metastases was eight. Most (83%) of the trial participants were White, nearly half were aged 60 years or older, and 58% were women.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SRS (15–24 Gy per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 9005) or WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). On the basis of previous research, 62% of patients in the WBRT arm were also given memantine, a dementia drug that can help preserve cognitive function.

All participants completed neurocognitive testing, including testing of learning, memory, attention span, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, and motor dexterity, at enrollment and longitudinally.

The primary endpoints were Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised Total Recall (HVLT-R TR) score and local control at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, distant brain failure, toxicity, and time to initiation of systemic therapy.

In the primary endpoint analysis, at 4 months, the HVLT-R TR standardized z-score increased by +0.21 (standard error [SE], 0.27) for patients who received SRS, but it declined by –0.74 (SE, 0.36) for WBRT-treated patients (P = .041). On the basis of Clinical Trial Battery Composite score, neurocognitive function of patients in the SRS arm improved on average +0.23 (SE, 0.14) but declined an average –0.73 (SE, 0.35) in the WBRT arm (P = .008).

Li pointed out that there was also a “clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit” with SRS at 1 month (P = .033) and 6 months (P = .012).

A total of 69 patients (35 for SRS and 34 for WBRT) were evaluable for overall survival, which was similar between the groups (SRS median, 7.8 months; WBRT median, 8.9 months; P = .59). Treatment with SRS resulted in better local control rates (95% at 4 months with SRS and 86.7% with WBRT; P = .09), but the median time to distant brain failure was shorter (10.5 months for WBRT and 6.3 months for SRS; P = .37).

In her discussion of the study, Yom noted that overall survival time was similar in the two arms and that, numerically, it may have even been a little longer in the SRS group. “While it is true that they had more relapses in untreated portions of the brain, they lived as long or longer than those who received WBRT and had better cognitive function,” she noted

Yom also noted that of particular importance was the finding that SRS was associated with shorter interruptions of systemic therapy (time to systemic therapy: SRS, 1.7 weeks; WBRT, 4.1 weeks; P = .001). Patients with metastatic disease usually have cancer in locations other than the brain. They may be receiving some type of systemic therapy, which is interrupted with WBRT, Li commented.

Toxicities of grade 3 or higher were observed in four patients in the WBRT arm and two in the SRS arm. Radiographic evidence of radiation necrosis, a side effect associated with SRS, was observed in 17% patients in the SRS arm of the trial (4% of all treated lesions).

The trial was halted early owing to the publication of another phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology CC 001), which provided level 1 evidence for replacing standard WBRT with hippocampal-avoidance WBRT. Despite the early trial termination, Li concluded that these results “strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival.”

Li has received research funding from BMS and Medtronic and honorarium from Novocure and Monteris.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should replace whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as the new standard of care for patients with four or more brain metastases, say researchers who report results from a randomized trial conducted in patients with four to 15 brain metastases

“SRS was associated with reduced risk of neurocognitive deterioration compared to WBRT, as demonstrated by a constellation of neurocognitive tests, individually or by composite scores,” said lead author Jing Li, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and codirector of the Brain Metastasis Clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

She was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID pandemic.

“The results from this phase 3 randomized trial strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival,” said Li.

SRS is already the standard of care for patients with one to three brain metastases. Two previous phase 3 randomized trials showed that SRS was better at preserving cognitive function without compromising overall survival in comparison to WBRT.

However, there has been some controversy over the use of SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases, commented study discussant Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, a professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

This study has shown, “in a practice-changing manner, that giving SRS can improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease,” she said.

Up to 30% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. Historically, these have been associated with poor overall survival, in the range of 1 to 4 months.
 

Reduces cognitive decline

The new trial involved 72 patients with four to 15 untreated, nonmelanoma brain metastases (up to 20 lesions were allowed at the time of treatment); the median number of brain metastases was eight. Most (83%) of the trial participants were White, nearly half were aged 60 years or older, and 58% were women.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SRS (15–24 Gy per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 9005) or WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). On the basis of previous research, 62% of patients in the WBRT arm were also given memantine, a dementia drug that can help preserve cognitive function.

All participants completed neurocognitive testing, including testing of learning, memory, attention span, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, and motor dexterity, at enrollment and longitudinally.

The primary endpoints were Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised Total Recall (HVLT-R TR) score and local control at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, distant brain failure, toxicity, and time to initiation of systemic therapy.

In the primary endpoint analysis, at 4 months, the HVLT-R TR standardized z-score increased by +0.21 (standard error [SE], 0.27) for patients who received SRS, but it declined by –0.74 (SE, 0.36) for WBRT-treated patients (P = .041). On the basis of Clinical Trial Battery Composite score, neurocognitive function of patients in the SRS arm improved on average +0.23 (SE, 0.14) but declined an average –0.73 (SE, 0.35) in the WBRT arm (P = .008).

Li pointed out that there was also a “clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit” with SRS at 1 month (P = .033) and 6 months (P = .012).

A total of 69 patients (35 for SRS and 34 for WBRT) were evaluable for overall survival, which was similar between the groups (SRS median, 7.8 months; WBRT median, 8.9 months; P = .59). Treatment with SRS resulted in better local control rates (95% at 4 months with SRS and 86.7% with WBRT; P = .09), but the median time to distant brain failure was shorter (10.5 months for WBRT and 6.3 months for SRS; P = .37).

In her discussion of the study, Yom noted that overall survival time was similar in the two arms and that, numerically, it may have even been a little longer in the SRS group. “While it is true that they had more relapses in untreated portions of the brain, they lived as long or longer than those who received WBRT and had better cognitive function,” she noted

Yom also noted that of particular importance was the finding that SRS was associated with shorter interruptions of systemic therapy (time to systemic therapy: SRS, 1.7 weeks; WBRT, 4.1 weeks; P = .001). Patients with metastatic disease usually have cancer in locations other than the brain. They may be receiving some type of systemic therapy, which is interrupted with WBRT, Li commented.

Toxicities of grade 3 or higher were observed in four patients in the WBRT arm and two in the SRS arm. Radiographic evidence of radiation necrosis, a side effect associated with SRS, was observed in 17% patients in the SRS arm of the trial (4% of all treated lesions).

The trial was halted early owing to the publication of another phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology CC 001), which provided level 1 evidence for replacing standard WBRT with hippocampal-avoidance WBRT. Despite the early trial termination, Li concluded that these results “strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival.”

Li has received research funding from BMS and Medtronic and honorarium from Novocure and Monteris.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should replace whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as the new standard of care for patients with four or more brain metastases, say researchers who report results from a randomized trial conducted in patients with four to 15 brain metastases

“SRS was associated with reduced risk of neurocognitive deterioration compared to WBRT, as demonstrated by a constellation of neurocognitive tests, individually or by composite scores,” said lead author Jing Li, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and codirector of the Brain Metastasis Clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

She was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID pandemic.

“The results from this phase 3 randomized trial strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival,” said Li.

SRS is already the standard of care for patients with one to three brain metastases. Two previous phase 3 randomized trials showed that SRS was better at preserving cognitive function without compromising overall survival in comparison to WBRT.

However, there has been some controversy over the use of SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases, commented study discussant Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, a professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

This study has shown, “in a practice-changing manner, that giving SRS can improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease,” she said.

Up to 30% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. Historically, these have been associated with poor overall survival, in the range of 1 to 4 months.
 

Reduces cognitive decline

The new trial involved 72 patients with four to 15 untreated, nonmelanoma brain metastases (up to 20 lesions were allowed at the time of treatment); the median number of brain metastases was eight. Most (83%) of the trial participants were White, nearly half were aged 60 years or older, and 58% were women.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SRS (15–24 Gy per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 9005) or WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). On the basis of previous research, 62% of patients in the WBRT arm were also given memantine, a dementia drug that can help preserve cognitive function.

All participants completed neurocognitive testing, including testing of learning, memory, attention span, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, and motor dexterity, at enrollment and longitudinally.

The primary endpoints were Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised Total Recall (HVLT-R TR) score and local control at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, distant brain failure, toxicity, and time to initiation of systemic therapy.

In the primary endpoint analysis, at 4 months, the HVLT-R TR standardized z-score increased by +0.21 (standard error [SE], 0.27) for patients who received SRS, but it declined by –0.74 (SE, 0.36) for WBRT-treated patients (P = .041). On the basis of Clinical Trial Battery Composite score, neurocognitive function of patients in the SRS arm improved on average +0.23 (SE, 0.14) but declined an average –0.73 (SE, 0.35) in the WBRT arm (P = .008).

Li pointed out that there was also a “clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit” with SRS at 1 month (P = .033) and 6 months (P = .012).

A total of 69 patients (35 for SRS and 34 for WBRT) were evaluable for overall survival, which was similar between the groups (SRS median, 7.8 months; WBRT median, 8.9 months; P = .59). Treatment with SRS resulted in better local control rates (95% at 4 months with SRS and 86.7% with WBRT; P = .09), but the median time to distant brain failure was shorter (10.5 months for WBRT and 6.3 months for SRS; P = .37).

In her discussion of the study, Yom noted that overall survival time was similar in the two arms and that, numerically, it may have even been a little longer in the SRS group. “While it is true that they had more relapses in untreated portions of the brain, they lived as long or longer than those who received WBRT and had better cognitive function,” she noted

Yom also noted that of particular importance was the finding that SRS was associated with shorter interruptions of systemic therapy (time to systemic therapy: SRS, 1.7 weeks; WBRT, 4.1 weeks; P = .001). Patients with metastatic disease usually have cancer in locations other than the brain. They may be receiving some type of systemic therapy, which is interrupted with WBRT, Li commented.

Toxicities of grade 3 or higher were observed in four patients in the WBRT arm and two in the SRS arm. Radiographic evidence of radiation necrosis, a side effect associated with SRS, was observed in 17% patients in the SRS arm of the trial (4% of all treated lesions).

The trial was halted early owing to the publication of another phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology CC 001), which provided level 1 evidence for replacing standard WBRT with hippocampal-avoidance WBRT. Despite the early trial termination, Li concluded that these results “strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival.”

Li has received research funding from BMS and Medtronic and honorarium from Novocure and Monteris.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sexual dysfunction is a common treatment-related problem observed across numerous cancer diagnoses, and a new survey finds that 87% of cancer survivors have had such problems.

However, most of them also reported that their oncologist had not formally discussed the topic, and female patients were particularly unlikely to be asked about sexual dysfunction.

“The main takeaway from our study is that sexual side effects following treatment are very common,” said lead author James Taylor, MD, MPH, chief resident in radiation oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“Nearly 9 in 10 patients reported some change after cancer treatment that negatively affected their sexual health,” he said.

Taylor was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting, held virtually this year because of the pandemic.

“Negative effects on sexual health after cancer treatment are unfortunately very common,” he said. “This is not just patients treated with radiation but this includes chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, surgery, and other treatment modalities.”

Potential issues include physical complications such as erectile dysfunction with prostate cancer treatment or vaginal dryness with gynecological cancer treatment. One recent study found that one-third of men who had undergone treatment for prostate cancer reported that a subsequent lack of sexual function has had the greatest impact on their quality of life. Another study reported that nearly all patients with breast cancer taking endocrine therapy experience a high degree of sexual dysfunction, including vulvovaginal dryness and severe dyspareunia.
 

Not discussed, not warned

Taylor and colleagues developed a questionnaire with input from radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and surgeons, which consisted of more than 25 questions and was specifically targeted at cancer survivors.

A total of 405 adults completed the electronic survey about their experiences with sexual side effects after cancer treatment (391 responses were eligible for analysis). Most of the respondents were women (81%), and the most common cancer types were breast (67%), prostate (16%), and endometrial (6%). Treatments included chemotherapy (78%), radiation therapy (54%), and hormone therapy (47%).

“The questionnaires were distributed at Thomas Jefferson and throughout social media,” said Taylor. “The responses from social media are important because it shows a broad representation of patients who are treated in multiple clinics across the United States.”

Most of the survivors who responded (n = 337, 87%) stated cancer treatment had impacted sexual function or desire, with 53.8% reporting body image distortion, 73.4% with dyspareunia, and 42.3% unable to achieve orgasm.

Only about one-quarter (27.9%) said they had been formally asked about their sexual health by their clinician.

“Only about 40% said that they have been preemptively warned that their sexual health may be affected by treatment,” said Taylor.

Women were far less likely to be asked about their sexual health by their provider. The survey showed that male respondents were twice as likely to say they had been asked about sexual health and counseled about the potential toxicity (53% vs 22%; P < .001), and a substantially higher percentage of men reported receiving a formal assessment tool such as a survey (32% vs 5%; P = .001) compared with female respondents.

Taylor noted that the survey demonstrated several things. “One is that sexual toxicity is exceedingly common, and number two, it identified a gender disparity,” he said. “But number 3, and I think that this is an important aspect of our study, is that the majority of respondents felt that they would like a standard questionnaire to initiate and guide a discussion on sexual health with their provider.”

The reason that aspect is very important, he emphasized, is that “we know metrics and questionnaires already exist, so this gives us an actionable intervention that we can distribute and help mitigate some of these disparities.”
 

Importance of being holistic

The results of the survey “highlight the importance of being holistic in our approach to patient survivorship,” commented Karen Winkfield, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and executive director of the Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, Tennessee.

“We need to ask patients about all parts of their well-being, including sexual health,” Winkfield said. “Body dysmorphism can impact anyone, but especially patients who have had surgery or radiation,” she said, while chemotherapy can impact energy and libido and have other toxicities that impact sexual health.

“I encourage all oncologists to ask patients about their sexual health, and a standardized form that can be used across all sites will make this much easier,” Winkfield commented. “We owe it to our patients to treat them holistically.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sexual dysfunction is a common treatment-related problem observed across numerous cancer diagnoses, and a new survey finds that 87% of cancer survivors have had such problems.

However, most of them also reported that their oncologist had not formally discussed the topic, and female patients were particularly unlikely to be asked about sexual dysfunction.

“The main takeaway from our study is that sexual side effects following treatment are very common,” said lead author James Taylor, MD, MPH, chief resident in radiation oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“Nearly 9 in 10 patients reported some change after cancer treatment that negatively affected their sexual health,” he said.

Taylor was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting, held virtually this year because of the pandemic.

“Negative effects on sexual health after cancer treatment are unfortunately very common,” he said. “This is not just patients treated with radiation but this includes chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, surgery, and other treatment modalities.”

Potential issues include physical complications such as erectile dysfunction with prostate cancer treatment or vaginal dryness with gynecological cancer treatment. One recent study found that one-third of men who had undergone treatment for prostate cancer reported that a subsequent lack of sexual function has had the greatest impact on their quality of life. Another study reported that nearly all patients with breast cancer taking endocrine therapy experience a high degree of sexual dysfunction, including vulvovaginal dryness and severe dyspareunia.
 

Not discussed, not warned

Taylor and colleagues developed a questionnaire with input from radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and surgeons, which consisted of more than 25 questions and was specifically targeted at cancer survivors.

A total of 405 adults completed the electronic survey about their experiences with sexual side effects after cancer treatment (391 responses were eligible for analysis). Most of the respondents were women (81%), and the most common cancer types were breast (67%), prostate (16%), and endometrial (6%). Treatments included chemotherapy (78%), radiation therapy (54%), and hormone therapy (47%).

“The questionnaires were distributed at Thomas Jefferson and throughout social media,” said Taylor. “The responses from social media are important because it shows a broad representation of patients who are treated in multiple clinics across the United States.”

Most of the survivors who responded (n = 337, 87%) stated cancer treatment had impacted sexual function or desire, with 53.8% reporting body image distortion, 73.4% with dyspareunia, and 42.3% unable to achieve orgasm.

Only about one-quarter (27.9%) said they had been formally asked about their sexual health by their clinician.

“Only about 40% said that they have been preemptively warned that their sexual health may be affected by treatment,” said Taylor.

Women were far less likely to be asked about their sexual health by their provider. The survey showed that male respondents were twice as likely to say they had been asked about sexual health and counseled about the potential toxicity (53% vs 22%; P < .001), and a substantially higher percentage of men reported receiving a formal assessment tool such as a survey (32% vs 5%; P = .001) compared with female respondents.

Taylor noted that the survey demonstrated several things. “One is that sexual toxicity is exceedingly common, and number two, it identified a gender disparity,” he said. “But number 3, and I think that this is an important aspect of our study, is that the majority of respondents felt that they would like a standard questionnaire to initiate and guide a discussion on sexual health with their provider.”

The reason that aspect is very important, he emphasized, is that “we know metrics and questionnaires already exist, so this gives us an actionable intervention that we can distribute and help mitigate some of these disparities.”
 

Importance of being holistic

The results of the survey “highlight the importance of being holistic in our approach to patient survivorship,” commented Karen Winkfield, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and executive director of the Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, Tennessee.

“We need to ask patients about all parts of their well-being, including sexual health,” Winkfield said. “Body dysmorphism can impact anyone, but especially patients who have had surgery or radiation,” she said, while chemotherapy can impact energy and libido and have other toxicities that impact sexual health.

“I encourage all oncologists to ask patients about their sexual health, and a standardized form that can be used across all sites will make this much easier,” Winkfield commented. “We owe it to our patients to treat them holistically.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sexual dysfunction is a common treatment-related problem observed across numerous cancer diagnoses, and a new survey finds that 87% of cancer survivors have had such problems.

However, most of them also reported that their oncologist had not formally discussed the topic, and female patients were particularly unlikely to be asked about sexual dysfunction.

“The main takeaway from our study is that sexual side effects following treatment are very common,” said lead author James Taylor, MD, MPH, chief resident in radiation oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“Nearly 9 in 10 patients reported some change after cancer treatment that negatively affected their sexual health,” he said.

Taylor was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting, held virtually this year because of the pandemic.

“Negative effects on sexual health after cancer treatment are unfortunately very common,” he said. “This is not just patients treated with radiation but this includes chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, surgery, and other treatment modalities.”

Potential issues include physical complications such as erectile dysfunction with prostate cancer treatment or vaginal dryness with gynecological cancer treatment. One recent study found that one-third of men who had undergone treatment for prostate cancer reported that a subsequent lack of sexual function has had the greatest impact on their quality of life. Another study reported that nearly all patients with breast cancer taking endocrine therapy experience a high degree of sexual dysfunction, including vulvovaginal dryness and severe dyspareunia.
 

Not discussed, not warned

Taylor and colleagues developed a questionnaire with input from radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and surgeons, which consisted of more than 25 questions and was specifically targeted at cancer survivors.

A total of 405 adults completed the electronic survey about their experiences with sexual side effects after cancer treatment (391 responses were eligible for analysis). Most of the respondents were women (81%), and the most common cancer types were breast (67%), prostate (16%), and endometrial (6%). Treatments included chemotherapy (78%), radiation therapy (54%), and hormone therapy (47%).

“The questionnaires were distributed at Thomas Jefferson and throughout social media,” said Taylor. “The responses from social media are important because it shows a broad representation of patients who are treated in multiple clinics across the United States.”

Most of the survivors who responded (n = 337, 87%) stated cancer treatment had impacted sexual function or desire, with 53.8% reporting body image distortion, 73.4% with dyspareunia, and 42.3% unable to achieve orgasm.

Only about one-quarter (27.9%) said they had been formally asked about their sexual health by their clinician.

“Only about 40% said that they have been preemptively warned that their sexual health may be affected by treatment,” said Taylor.

Women were far less likely to be asked about their sexual health by their provider. The survey showed that male respondents were twice as likely to say they had been asked about sexual health and counseled about the potential toxicity (53% vs 22%; P < .001), and a substantially higher percentage of men reported receiving a formal assessment tool such as a survey (32% vs 5%; P = .001) compared with female respondents.

Taylor noted that the survey demonstrated several things. “One is that sexual toxicity is exceedingly common, and number two, it identified a gender disparity,” he said. “But number 3, and I think that this is an important aspect of our study, is that the majority of respondents felt that they would like a standard questionnaire to initiate and guide a discussion on sexual health with their provider.”

The reason that aspect is very important, he emphasized, is that “we know metrics and questionnaires already exist, so this gives us an actionable intervention that we can distribute and help mitigate some of these disparities.”
 

Importance of being holistic

The results of the survey “highlight the importance of being holistic in our approach to patient survivorship,” commented Karen Winkfield, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and executive director of the Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, Tennessee.

“We need to ask patients about all parts of their well-being, including sexual health,” Winkfield said. “Body dysmorphism can impact anyone, but especially patients who have had surgery or radiation,” she said, while chemotherapy can impact energy and libido and have other toxicities that impact sexual health.

“I encourage all oncologists to ask patients about their sexual health, and a standardized form that can be used across all sites will make this much easier,” Winkfield commented. “We owe it to our patients to treat them holistically.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past 4 decades there has been increasing use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gynecologic cancer, particularly endometrial and cervical cancers. Uterine manipulators are a device inserted into the uterine cavity during MIS approaches to aid in directing the uterus within the pelvis, facilitating access to the uterine blood supply, defining the cardinal ligaments, lateralizing the ureters, and delineating the cervicovaginal junction. However, concerns have been raised regarding whether these devices are safe to use when the uterine corpus or cervix contains cancer.

In 2018, the LACC trial was published and demonstrated decreased survival for patients with cervical cancer who had undergone radical hysterectomy via a minimally invasive route.¹ Several hypotheses were proposed to explain this finding including possible tumor disruption from use of a uterine manipulator. Regrettably, this study did not document manipulator use, and therefore its influence on outcomes could not be measured. However, since that time there has been honed interest into the potential negative influence of uterine manipulators on endometrial and cervical cancer surgery.

Uterine manipulators typically are inserted through the uterine cervix and reside in the endometrial cavity. It is often an inflated balloon which stabilizes the device within the cavity. Hypotheses for how they may contribute to the spread of malignancy include the massage of endometrial tumor from the pressure of the inflated balloon, facilitation of tumor dissemination through cervical lymphatics or vasculature as the manipulator traverses or punctures a cervical cancer, and possibly perforation of the uterine cavity during placement of the manipulator, and in doing so, contaminating the peritoneal cavity with endometrial or cervical cancer cells that have been dragged through with the device.

Interestingly, uterine manipulator placement is not the only time during which endometrial or cervical cancers may be disturbed prior to resection. Many diagnostic procedures such as cervical excisional procedures (loop electrosurgical excision procedure and conizations) or hysteroscopic resections cause significant intentional disruption of tumor. In the case of hysteroscopy for endometrial cancer, endometrial cancer cells have been detected in the peritoneal washings of endometrial cancer patients who have undergone this procedure, however, no worse outcomes have been associated when hysteroscopy was included as part of the diagnostic work-up, suggesting that more than simply efflux into the peritoneal cavity is necessary for those tumor cells to have metastatic potential.²

Indeed the data is mixed regarding oncologic outcomes with uterine manipulator use, especially for endometrial cancer. In one recent study the outcomes of 951 patients with endometrial cancer from seven Italian centers were evaluated.³ There was no difference in recurrence rates or disease-specific survival between the 579 patients in whom manipulators were used and the 372 patients in which surgery was performed without manipulators. More recently a Spanish study reported retrospectively on 2,661 patients at 15 centers and determined that use of a uterine manipulator (two-thirds of the cohort) was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.74 (95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.83) for risk of death.⁴ Unfortunately, in this study there were substantial differences between sites that used manipulators and those that did not. Additionally, while one would expect different patterns of recurrence if the manipulator was introducing a unique mechanism for metastasis, this was not observed between the manipulator and nonmanipulator arms. Finally, the groups were intrinsically different with respect to important risk factors such as lymphovascular space invasion, which might have contributed to the observed outcomes. It is important to recognize that, in both the LAP-2 and LACE trials, minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer had been shown to have noninferior survival outcomes, compared with open hysterectomy.^5,6 While these large randomized, controlled trials did not capture uterine manipulator usage, presumably it was utilized in at least some or most cases, and without apparent significant negative effect.

In cervical cancer, there is more competing data raising concern regarding manipulator use. The SUCCOR study was completed in 2020 and included a retrospective evaluation of 1,272 patients who had undergone open or MIS radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer across 126 European centers during 2013-2014.⁷ They were able to evaluate for variables, such as uterine manipulator use. While they found that recurrence was higher for patients who had MIS hysterectomy, the HR (2.07) was similar to the HR for recurrence (2.76) among those who had uterine manipulator use. Conversely, the hazard ratio for recurrence following MIS radical hysterectomy without a manipulator was comparable with the superior rates seen with open surgery. This study was retrospective and therefore is largely hypothesis generating, however it does raise the question of whether the technique of MIS radical hysterectomy can be performed safely if particular steps, such as avoidance of a uterine manipulator, are followed. We await definitive results from prospective trials to determine this.

As mentioned earlier, the uterine manipulator is an important safety and feasibility tool for MIS hysterectomy. When not utilized, surgeons may need to add additional ports and instrumentation to maneuver the uterus and may have difficulty completing hysterectomy via a MIS approach for obese patients. There are additional urologic safety concerns when uterine elevation and cervicovaginal delineation is missing. Therefore, surgeons should consider use of the uterine manipulator on a case-by-case basis, potentially avoiding its use when it is not felt to be of benefit. While the wealth of prospective data suggests that manipulators are most likely safe in hysterectomy for endometrial cancer, they should be avoided if a minimally invasive approach to cervical cancer is employed.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest to report. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1806395.

2. Fertil Steril. 2011 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.07.1146.

3. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.01.027.

4. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jul 18. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.07.025.

5. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3248.

6. JAMA. 2017 Mar 28. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.2068.

7. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001506.

Over the past 4 decades there has been increasing use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gynecologic cancer, particularly endometrial and cervical cancers. Uterine manipulators are a device inserted into the uterine cavity during MIS approaches to aid in directing the uterus within the pelvis, facilitating access to the uterine blood supply, defining the cardinal ligaments, lateralizing the ureters, and delineating the cervicovaginal junction. However, concerns have been raised regarding whether these devices are safe to use when the uterine corpus or cervix contains cancer.

In 2018, the LACC trial was published and demonstrated decreased survival for patients with cervical cancer who had undergone radical hysterectomy via a minimally invasive route.¹ Several hypotheses were proposed to explain this finding including possible tumor disruption from use of a uterine manipulator. Regrettably, this study did not document manipulator use, and therefore its influence on outcomes could not be measured. However, since that time there has been honed interest into the potential negative influence of uterine manipulators on endometrial and cervical cancer surgery.

Uterine manipulators typically are inserted through the uterine cervix and reside in the endometrial cavity. It is often an inflated balloon which stabilizes the device within the cavity. Hypotheses for how they may contribute to the spread of malignancy include the massage of endometrial tumor from the pressure of the inflated balloon, facilitation of tumor dissemination through cervical lymphatics or vasculature as the manipulator traverses or punctures a cervical cancer, and possibly perforation of the uterine cavity during placement of the manipulator, and in doing so, contaminating the peritoneal cavity with endometrial or cervical cancer cells that have been dragged through with the device.

Interestingly, uterine manipulator placement is not the only time during which endometrial or cervical cancers may be disturbed prior to resection. Many diagnostic procedures such as cervical excisional procedures (loop electrosurgical excision procedure and conizations) or hysteroscopic resections cause significant intentional disruption of tumor. In the case of hysteroscopy for endometrial cancer, endometrial cancer cells have been detected in the peritoneal washings of endometrial cancer patients who have undergone this procedure, however, no worse outcomes have been associated when hysteroscopy was included as part of the diagnostic work-up, suggesting that more than simply efflux into the peritoneal cavity is necessary for those tumor cells to have metastatic potential.²

Indeed the data is mixed regarding oncologic outcomes with uterine manipulator use, especially for endometrial cancer. In one recent study the outcomes of 951 patients with endometrial cancer from seven Italian centers were evaluated.³ There was no difference in recurrence rates or disease-specific survival between the 579 patients in whom manipulators were used and the 372 patients in which surgery was performed without manipulators. More recently a Spanish study reported retrospectively on 2,661 patients at 15 centers and determined that use of a uterine manipulator (two-thirds of the cohort) was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.74 (95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.83) for risk of death.⁴ Unfortunately, in this study there were substantial differences between sites that used manipulators and those that did not. Additionally, while one would expect different patterns of recurrence if the manipulator was introducing a unique mechanism for metastasis, this was not observed between the manipulator and nonmanipulator arms. Finally, the groups were intrinsically different with respect to important risk factors such as lymphovascular space invasion, which might have contributed to the observed outcomes. It is important to recognize that, in both the LAP-2 and LACE trials, minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer had been shown to have noninferior survival outcomes, compared with open hysterectomy.^5,6 While these large randomized, controlled trials did not capture uterine manipulator usage, presumably it was utilized in at least some or most cases, and without apparent significant negative effect.

In cervical cancer, there is more competing data raising concern regarding manipulator use. The SUCCOR study was completed in 2020 and included a retrospective evaluation of 1,272 patients who had undergone open or MIS radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer across 126 European centers during 2013-2014.⁷ They were able to evaluate for variables, such as uterine manipulator use. While they found that recurrence was higher for patients who had MIS hysterectomy, the HR (2.07) was similar to the HR for recurrence (2.76) among those who had uterine manipulator use. Conversely, the hazard ratio for recurrence following MIS radical hysterectomy without a manipulator was comparable with the superior rates seen with open surgery. This study was retrospective and therefore is largely hypothesis generating, however it does raise the question of whether the technique of MIS radical hysterectomy can be performed safely if particular steps, such as avoidance of a uterine manipulator, are followed. We await definitive results from prospective trials to determine this.

As mentioned earlier, the uterine manipulator is an important safety and feasibility tool for MIS hysterectomy. When not utilized, surgeons may need to add additional ports and instrumentation to maneuver the uterus and may have difficulty completing hysterectomy via a MIS approach for obese patients. There are additional urologic safety concerns when uterine elevation and cervicovaginal delineation is missing. Therefore, surgeons should consider use of the uterine manipulator on a case-by-case basis, potentially avoiding its use when it is not felt to be of benefit. While the wealth of prospective data suggests that manipulators are most likely safe in hysterectomy for endometrial cancer, they should be avoided if a minimally invasive approach to cervical cancer is employed.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest to report. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1806395.

2. Fertil Steril. 2011 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.07.1146.

3. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.01.027.

4. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jul 18. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.07.025.

5. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3248.

6. JAMA. 2017 Mar 28. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.2068.

7. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001506.

Over the past 4 decades there has been increasing use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gynecologic cancer, particularly endometrial and cervical cancers. Uterine manipulators are a device inserted into the uterine cavity during MIS approaches to aid in directing the uterus within the pelvis, facilitating access to the uterine blood supply, defining the cardinal ligaments, lateralizing the ureters, and delineating the cervicovaginal junction. However, concerns have been raised regarding whether these devices are safe to use when the uterine corpus or cervix contains cancer.

In 2018, the LACC trial was published and demonstrated decreased survival for patients with cervical cancer who had undergone radical hysterectomy via a minimally invasive route.¹ Several hypotheses were proposed to explain this finding including possible tumor disruption from use of a uterine manipulator. Regrettably, this study did not document manipulator use, and therefore its influence on outcomes could not be measured. However, since that time there has been honed interest into the potential negative influence of uterine manipulators on endometrial and cervical cancer surgery.

Uterine manipulators typically are inserted through the uterine cervix and reside in the endometrial cavity. It is often an inflated balloon which stabilizes the device within the cavity. Hypotheses for how they may contribute to the spread of malignancy include the massage of endometrial tumor from the pressure of the inflated balloon, facilitation of tumor dissemination through cervical lymphatics or vasculature as the manipulator traverses or punctures a cervical cancer, and possibly perforation of the uterine cavity during placement of the manipulator, and in doing so, contaminating the peritoneal cavity with endometrial or cervical cancer cells that have been dragged through with the device.

Interestingly, uterine manipulator placement is not the only time during which endometrial or cervical cancers may be disturbed prior to resection. Many diagnostic procedures such as cervical excisional procedures (loop electrosurgical excision procedure and conizations) or hysteroscopic resections cause significant intentional disruption of tumor. In the case of hysteroscopy for endometrial cancer, endometrial cancer cells have been detected in the peritoneal washings of endometrial cancer patients who have undergone this procedure, however, no worse outcomes have been associated when hysteroscopy was included as part of the diagnostic work-up, suggesting that more than simply efflux into the peritoneal cavity is necessary for those tumor cells to have metastatic potential.²

Indeed the data is mixed regarding oncologic outcomes with uterine manipulator use, especially for endometrial cancer. In one recent study the outcomes of 951 patients with endometrial cancer from seven Italian centers were evaluated.³ There was no difference in recurrence rates or disease-specific survival between the 579 patients in whom manipulators were used and the 372 patients in which surgery was performed without manipulators. More recently a Spanish study reported retrospectively on 2,661 patients at 15 centers and determined that use of a uterine manipulator (two-thirds of the cohort) was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.74 (95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.83) for risk of death.⁴ Unfortunately, in this study there were substantial differences between sites that used manipulators and those that did not. Additionally, while one would expect different patterns of recurrence if the manipulator was introducing a unique mechanism for metastasis, this was not observed between the manipulator and nonmanipulator arms. Finally, the groups were intrinsically different with respect to important risk factors such as lymphovascular space invasion, which might have contributed to the observed outcomes. It is important to recognize that, in both the LAP-2 and LACE trials, minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer had been shown to have noninferior survival outcomes, compared with open hysterectomy.^5,6 While these large randomized, controlled trials did not capture uterine manipulator usage, presumably it was utilized in at least some or most cases, and without apparent significant negative effect.

In cervical cancer, there is more competing data raising concern regarding manipulator use. The SUCCOR study was completed in 2020 and included a retrospective evaluation of 1,272 patients who had undergone open or MIS radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer across 126 European centers during 2013-2014.⁷ They were able to evaluate for variables, such as uterine manipulator use. While they found that recurrence was higher for patients who had MIS hysterectomy, the HR (2.07) was similar to the HR for recurrence (2.76) among those who had uterine manipulator use. Conversely, the hazard ratio for recurrence following MIS radical hysterectomy without a manipulator was comparable with the superior rates seen with open surgery. This study was retrospective and therefore is largely hypothesis generating, however it does raise the question of whether the technique of MIS radical hysterectomy can be performed safely if particular steps, such as avoidance of a uterine manipulator, are followed. We await definitive results from prospective trials to determine this.

As mentioned earlier, the uterine manipulator is an important safety and feasibility tool for MIS hysterectomy. When not utilized, surgeons may need to add additional ports and instrumentation to maneuver the uterus and may have difficulty completing hysterectomy via a MIS approach for obese patients. There are additional urologic safety concerns when uterine elevation and cervicovaginal delineation is missing. Therefore, surgeons should consider use of the uterine manipulator on a case-by-case basis, potentially avoiding its use when it is not felt to be of benefit. While the wealth of prospective data suggests that manipulators are most likely safe in hysterectomy for endometrial cancer, they should be avoided if a minimally invasive approach to cervical cancer is employed.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest to report. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1806395.

2. Fertil Steril. 2011 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.07.1146.

3. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.01.027.

4. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jul 18. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.07.025.

5. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3248.

6. JAMA. 2017 Mar 28. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.2068.

7. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001506.

New guidelines recommend against retreatment with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in women with epithelial ovarian, tubal, or primary peritoneal cancer (EOC). However, trials investigating retreatment are underway, so this recommendation may change.

The guidelines, from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), do not recommend PARP inhibitors for the initial treatment of stage I-II EOC.

However, PARP inhibitor maintenance should be offered to women with newly diagnosed stage III-IV EOC who achieved a complete or partial response with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, according to the guidelines. Niraparib can be offered to all women meeting those criteria, while olaparib can be considered for patients with mutations in BRCA1/2.

The guidelines, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, are based on a systematic review of recent randomized PARP inhibitor trials, including PRIMA and SOLO1, among others.

What’s not available now is overall survival results from key clinical trials, the guideline authors noted. They added that further research is needed to address the issue of conserving platinum sensitivity in patients with disease progression on or after PARP inhibitor maintenance.

“Given the expectation that early treatment may confer the best outcome, maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors should be offered, with these caveats,” the authors wrote.

Olaparib can also be added to bevacizumab maintenance therapy following response to first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, according to the guidelines, which also address PARP inhibitor use for women with recurrent EOC, as well as management of adverse events.

The guidelines recommend against pairing PARP inhibitors with chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy outside a clinical trial.
 

Which drug, which setting, which dose?

This new ASCO guidelines may help cut through the complexity of treatment decision-making for women with EOC, according to Roisin E. O’Cearbhaill, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Today as clinicians, we have a whole range of opportunities to give our patients PARP inhibitors in the upfront and recurrent setting,” Dr. O’Cearbhaill said in an interview. “It is quite complicated to know which PARP inhibitor should be used in which setting and which patients.”

“We want to make sure that patients who would derive the most benefit from PARP inhibitors are offered these agents but also that we’re careful not to use PARP inhibitors in settings where there is little or no data,” added Dr. O’Cearbhaill, who was not involved in the drafting of the guidelines.

The ASCO guidelines provide a detailed review of 17 clinical trials to address key issues, including the histologic types of EOC and biomarker subsets for which PARP inhibitors are recommended in the newly diagnosed setting, as well as the settings, dose, and duration of treatment that are recommended for patients with recurrent EOC who have not yet received a PARP inhibitor.

While PARP inhibitors are generally well tolerated, some characteristic toxicities – such as anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, persistent cytopenias, and nausea – may warrant dose reductions, the guidelines state.

Special attention must be paid to low-grade adverse events since PARP inhibitors are administered continuously on a daily basis, according to the guidelines. If a dose is held because of a grade 2 adverse event, the subsequent dose should be reduced to avoid a second dose hold.

“Reescalation or resumption of the initial dose is never recommended,” the guidelines state.
 

Retreatment

Dr. O’Cearbhaill said she is eager to see future guidelines addressing PARP inhibitor retreatment following disease progression, especially since more and more patients will receive these agents in the upfront setting.

Right now, there is little data available to address PARP inhibitor retreatment. However, the ASCO guidelines do mention the ongoing OReO/ENGOT OV-38 phase 3 trial of maintenance retreatment with olaparib in women with EOC.

This study, which includes patients who previously received a PARP inhibitor and who are responding to additional platinum-based chemotherapy, has an estimated completion date in May 2021, according to details on ClinicalTrials.gov.

That’s one of several trials designed to determine how best to incorporate PARP inhibitor retreatment into the treatment paradigm, according to Dr. O’Cearbhaill.

“Even if a high proportion of patients aren’t ultimately cured by this approach, if we can delay progression of disease by the order of months or even years, whilst proactively managing side effects, it would make such a big difference for patients,” she said. “It allows them to have a better quality of life and go about their daily activities without symptomatic ovarian cancer.”

Cochairs of the ASCO expert panel for the guidelines were William P. Tew, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and Elise C. Kohn, MD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Dr. Tew and Dr. Kohn provided no disclosures, while their coauthors reported disclosures related to Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Merck, Seattle Genetics, and other companies. Dr. O’Cearbhaill disclosed that she is a coauthor on the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 phase 3 clinical trial (NCT02655016) and serves on the steering committee for DUO-O (NCT0373643). She reported personal fees from Clovis, Tesaro, Regeneron, and GlaxoSmithKline.

SOURCE: Tew WP et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01924.

New guidelines recommend against retreatment with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in women with epithelial ovarian, tubal, or primary peritoneal cancer (EOC). However, trials investigating retreatment are underway, so this recommendation may change.

The guidelines, from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), do not recommend PARP inhibitors for the initial treatment of stage I-II EOC.

However, PARP inhibitor maintenance should be offered to women with newly diagnosed stage III-IV EOC who achieved a complete or partial response with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, according to the guidelines. Niraparib can be offered to all women meeting those criteria, while olaparib can be considered for patients with mutations in BRCA1/2.

The guidelines, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, are based on a systematic review of recent randomized PARP inhibitor trials, including PRIMA and SOLO1, among others.

What’s not available now is overall survival results from key clinical trials, the guideline authors noted. They added that further research is needed to address the issue of conserving platinum sensitivity in patients with disease progression on or after PARP inhibitor maintenance.

“Given the expectation that early treatment may confer the best outcome, maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors should be offered, with these caveats,” the authors wrote.

Olaparib can also be added to bevacizumab maintenance therapy following response to first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, according to the guidelines, which also address PARP inhibitor use for women with recurrent EOC, as well as management of adverse events.

The guidelines recommend against pairing PARP inhibitors with chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy outside a clinical trial.
 

Which drug, which setting, which dose?

This new ASCO guidelines may help cut through the complexity of treatment decision-making for women with EOC, according to Roisin E. O’Cearbhaill, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Today as clinicians, we have a whole range of opportunities to give our patients PARP inhibitors in the upfront and recurrent setting,” Dr. O’Cearbhaill said in an interview. “It is quite complicated to know which PARP inhibitor should be used in which setting and which patients.”

“We want to make sure that patients who would derive the most benefit from PARP inhibitors are offered these agents but also that we’re careful not to use PARP inhibitors in settings where there is little or no data,” added Dr. O’Cearbhaill, who was not involved in the drafting of the guidelines.

The ASCO guidelines provide a detailed review of 17 clinical trials to address key issues, including the histologic types of EOC and biomarker subsets for which PARP inhibitors are recommended in the newly diagnosed setting, as well as the settings, dose, and duration of treatment that are recommended for patients with recurrent EOC who have not yet received a PARP inhibitor.

While PARP inhibitors are generally well tolerated, some characteristic toxicities – such as anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, persistent cytopenias, and nausea – may warrant dose reductions, the guidelines state.

Special attention must be paid to low-grade adverse events since PARP inhibitors are administered continuously on a daily basis, according to the guidelines. If a dose is held because of a grade 2 adverse event, the subsequent dose should be reduced to avoid a second dose hold.

“Reescalation or resumption of the initial dose is never recommended,” the guidelines state.
 

Retreatment

Dr. O’Cearbhaill said she is eager to see future guidelines addressing PARP inhibitor retreatment following disease progression, especially since more and more patients will receive these agents in the upfront setting.

Right now, there is little data available to address PARP inhibitor retreatment. However, the ASCO guidelines do mention the ongoing OReO/ENGOT OV-38 phase 3 trial of maintenance retreatment with olaparib in women with EOC.

This study, which includes patients who previously received a PARP inhibitor and who are responding to additional platinum-based chemotherapy, has an estimated completion date in May 2021, according to details on ClinicalTrials.gov.

That’s one of several trials designed to determine how best to incorporate PARP inhibitor retreatment into the treatment paradigm, according to Dr. O’Cearbhaill.

“Even if a high proportion of patients aren’t ultimately cured by this approach, if we can delay progression of disease by the order of months or even years, whilst proactively managing side effects, it would make such a big difference for patients,” she said. “It allows them to have a better quality of life and go about their daily activities without symptomatic ovarian cancer.”

Cochairs of the ASCO expert panel for the guidelines were William P. Tew, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and Elise C. Kohn, MD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Dr. Tew and Dr. Kohn provided no disclosures, while their coauthors reported disclosures related to Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Merck, Seattle Genetics, and other companies. Dr. O’Cearbhaill disclosed that she is a coauthor on the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 phase 3 clinical trial (NCT02655016) and serves on the steering committee for DUO-O (NCT0373643). She reported personal fees from Clovis, Tesaro, Regeneron, and GlaxoSmithKline.

SOURCE: Tew WP et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01924.

New guidelines recommend against retreatment with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in women with epithelial ovarian, tubal, or primary peritoneal cancer (EOC). However, trials investigating retreatment are underway, so this recommendation may change.

The guidelines, from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), do not recommend PARP inhibitors for the initial treatment of stage I-II EOC.

However, PARP inhibitor maintenance should be offered to women with newly diagnosed stage III-IV EOC who achieved a complete or partial response with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, according to the guidelines. Niraparib can be offered to all women meeting those criteria, while olaparib can be considered for patients with mutations in BRCA1/2.

The guidelines, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, are based on a systematic review of recent randomized PARP inhibitor trials, including PRIMA and SOLO1, among others.

What’s not available now is overall survival results from key clinical trials, the guideline authors noted. They added that further research is needed to address the issue of conserving platinum sensitivity in patients with disease progression on or after PARP inhibitor maintenance.

“Given the expectation that early treatment may confer the best outcome, maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors should be offered, with these caveats,” the authors wrote.

Olaparib can also be added to bevacizumab maintenance therapy following response to first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, according to the guidelines, which also address PARP inhibitor use for women with recurrent EOC, as well as management of adverse events.

The guidelines recommend against pairing PARP inhibitors with chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy outside a clinical trial.
 

Which drug, which setting, which dose?

This new ASCO guidelines may help cut through the complexity of treatment decision-making for women with EOC, according to Roisin E. O’Cearbhaill, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Today as clinicians, we have a whole range of opportunities to give our patients PARP inhibitors in the upfront and recurrent setting,” Dr. O’Cearbhaill said in an interview. “It is quite complicated to know which PARP inhibitor should be used in which setting and which patients.”

“We want to make sure that patients who would derive the most benefit from PARP inhibitors are offered these agents but also that we’re careful not to use PARP inhibitors in settings where there is little or no data,” added Dr. O’Cearbhaill, who was not involved in the drafting of the guidelines.

The ASCO guidelines provide a detailed review of 17 clinical trials to address key issues, including the histologic types of EOC and biomarker subsets for which PARP inhibitors are recommended in the newly diagnosed setting, as well as the settings, dose, and duration of treatment that are recommended for patients with recurrent EOC who have not yet received a PARP inhibitor.

While PARP inhibitors are generally well tolerated, some characteristic toxicities – such as anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, persistent cytopenias, and nausea – may warrant dose reductions, the guidelines state.

Special attention must be paid to low-grade adverse events since PARP inhibitors are administered continuously on a daily basis, according to the guidelines. If a dose is held because of a grade 2 adverse event, the subsequent dose should be reduced to avoid a second dose hold.

“Reescalation or resumption of the initial dose is never recommended,” the guidelines state.
 

Retreatment

Dr. O’Cearbhaill said she is eager to see future guidelines addressing PARP inhibitor retreatment following disease progression, especially since more and more patients will receive these agents in the upfront setting.

Right now, there is little data available to address PARP inhibitor retreatment. However, the ASCO guidelines do mention the ongoing OReO/ENGOT OV-38 phase 3 trial of maintenance retreatment with olaparib in women with EOC.

This study, which includes patients who previously received a PARP inhibitor and who are responding to additional platinum-based chemotherapy, has an estimated completion date in May 2021, according to details on ClinicalTrials.gov.

That’s one of several trials designed to determine how best to incorporate PARP inhibitor retreatment into the treatment paradigm, according to Dr. O’Cearbhaill.

“Even if a high proportion of patients aren’t ultimately cured by this approach, if we can delay progression of disease by the order of months or even years, whilst proactively managing side effects, it would make such a big difference for patients,” she said. “It allows them to have a better quality of life and go about their daily activities without symptomatic ovarian cancer.”

Cochairs of the ASCO expert panel for the guidelines were William P. Tew, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and Elise C. Kohn, MD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Dr. Tew and Dr. Kohn provided no disclosures, while their coauthors reported disclosures related to Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Merck, Seattle Genetics, and other companies. Dr. O’Cearbhaill disclosed that she is a coauthor on the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 phase 3 clinical trial (NCT02655016) and serves on the steering committee for DUO-O (NCT0373643). She reported personal fees from Clovis, Tesaro, Regeneron, and GlaxoSmithKline.

SOURCE: Tew WP et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01924.

A national effort to perform genotype drug matching across cancer types shows the value of next-generation sequencing and provides a roadmap for future precision oncology trials, according to experts.

Massachusetts General Hospital

The effort is the National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) trial. For this study, researchers performed next-generation sequencing on tumor biopsy specimens to identify therapeutically actionable molecular alterations in patients with “underexplored” cancer types.

The trial included 5,954 patients with cancers that had progressed on standard treatments or rare cancers for which there is no standard treatment. If actionable alterations were found in these patients, they could receive new drugs in development that showed promise in other clinical trials or drugs that were approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat at least one cancer type.

Data newly reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 37.6% of patients had alterations that could be matched to targeted drugs, and 17.8% of patients were assigned to targeted treatment. Multiple actionable tumor mutations were seen in 11.9% of specimens, and resistance-conferring mutations were seen in 71.3% of specimens.

“The bottom line from this report is that next-generation sequencing is an efficient way to identify both approved and promising investigational therapies. For this reason, it should be considered standard of care for patients with advanced cancers,” said study chair Keith T. Flaherty, MD, director of the Henri and Belinda Termeer Center for Targeted Therapy at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

“This study sets the benchmark for the ‘actionability’ of next-generation sequencing,” Dr. Flaherty added. “We expect this number [of actionable alterations] will continue to rise steadily as further advances are made in the development of therapies that target some of the genetic alterations for which we could not offer treatment options in NCI-MATCH.”
 

Relapsed/refractory vs. primary tumors

The NCI-MATCH researchers focused on the most commonly found genetic alterations and performed biopsies at study entry to provide the most accurate picture of the genetic landscape of relapsed/refractory cancer patients. That makes this cohort distinct from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), a database of patients with mostly untreated primary tumors, and other published cohorts that include genetic analysis of primary tumors and biopsies from the time of initial metastatic recurrence.

The researchers compared the tumor gene makeup of NCI-MATCH and TCGA patients with seven cancer types – breast, bile duct, cervix, colorectal, lung, pancreas, and prostate.

ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group

“Perhaps the biggest surprise was the relatively minimal change in the genetic alterations found in these relapsed/refractory patients, compared to primary tumors,” Dr. Flaherty said. “These findings suggest that it is very reasonable to perform next-generation sequencing at the time of initial metastatic cancer diagnosis and to rely on those findings for the purposes of considering FDA-approved therapies and clinical trial participation.”
 

Multiple alterations and resistance

The complex genetics of cancers has led researchers to explore combinations of targeted and other therapies to address multiple defects at the same time.

“Not surprisingly, the most common collision of multiple genetic alterations within the same tumor was in the commonly altered tumor suppressor genes: TP53, APC, and PTEN,” Dr. Flaherty said.

“An increasing body of evidence supports a role for loss-of-function alterations in these genes to confer resistance to many targeted therapies,” he added. “While we don’t have targeted therapies yet established to directly counter this form of therapeutic resistance, we hypothesize that various types of combination therapy may be able to indirectly undercut resistance and enhance the benefit of many targeted therapies.”

The NCI-MATCH researchers will continue to mine this large dataset to better understand the many small, genetically defined cancer subpopulations.

“We will continue to report the outcome of the individual treatment subprotocols, and combining this genetic analysis with those outcomes will likely inform the next clinical trials,” Dr. Flaherty said.
 

Actionable mutations make a difference

Precision oncology experts agree that NCI-MATCH results are impressive and add a fuller appreciation that actionable mutations make a clinical difference.

“This is a powerful, extremely well-designed study, a tour de force of collaborative science,” said Stephen Gruber, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Precision Medicine at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

“The future holds even more promise,” he added. “Our ability to interrogate the genomic landscape of cancer is improving rapidly. Tumor testing helps get the right drug to the right tumor faster than a guidelines-based approach from historical data of combination chemotherapy. This is a likely game changer for the way oncologists will practice in the future, especially as we learn more results of subset trials. The NCI-MATCH researchers have taken a laser-focused look at the current data, but we now know we can look far more comprehensively at genomic profiles of tumors.”

From the viewpoint of the practicing oncologist, co-occurring resistance mutations make a difference in defining what combinations are likely and, more importantly, less likely to be effective. “When we see two mutations and one is likely to confer resistance, we can make a choice to avoid a drug that is not likely to work,” Dr. Gruber said.

“The NCI-MATCH trial allows both approved and investigational agents, which expands the possibility of matching patients to newer agents. This is especially relevant if there are no FDA-approved drugs yet for some molecular aberrations,” said Lillian L. Siu, MD, a senior medical oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. “This trial enables such evaluations under the auspice of a clinical trial to provide important knowledge.”

Both experts agree that in-depth biological interrogations of cancer will move the field of precision oncology forward. Dr. Gruber said that “studies have not yet fully addressed the power of germline genetic testing of DNA. Inherited susceptibility will drive therapeutic choices – for example, PARP inhibitors that access homologous recombination deficiency for breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer. We will learn more about treatment choices for those cancers.”

Dr. Siu added: “I truly believe that liquid biopsies [circulating tumor DNA] will help us perform target-drug matching in a less invasive way. We need to explore beyond the genome to look at the transcriptome, proteome, epigenome, and immunome, among others. It is likely that multiomic predictors are going to be able to identify more therapeutic options compared to single genomic predictors.”

Dr. Flaherty noted that all tumor samples from patients assigned to treatment are being subjected to whole-exome sequencing to further the discovery of the genetic features of responsive and nonresponsive tumors.

NCI-MATCH was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Flaherty disclosed relationships with Clovis Oncology, Loxo, X4 Pharma, and many other companies. His coauthors disclosed many conflicts as well. Dr. Gruber is cofounder of Brogent International. Dr. Siu disclosed relationships with Agios, Treadwell Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03010.

A national effort to perform genotype drug matching across cancer types shows the value of next-generation sequencing and provides a roadmap for future precision oncology trials, according to experts.

Massachusetts General Hospital

The effort is the National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) trial. For this study, researchers performed next-generation sequencing on tumor biopsy specimens to identify therapeutically actionable molecular alterations in patients with “underexplored” cancer types.

The trial included 5,954 patients with cancers that had progressed on standard treatments or rare cancers for which there is no standard treatment. If actionable alterations were found in these patients, they could receive new drugs in development that showed promise in other clinical trials or drugs that were approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat at least one cancer type.

Data newly reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 37.6% of patients had alterations that could be matched to targeted drugs, and 17.8% of patients were assigned to targeted treatment. Multiple actionable tumor mutations were seen in 11.9% of specimens, and resistance-conferring mutations were seen in 71.3% of specimens.

“The bottom line from this report is that next-generation sequencing is an efficient way to identify both approved and promising investigational therapies. For this reason, it should be considered standard of care for patients with advanced cancers,” said study chair Keith T. Flaherty, MD, director of the Henri and Belinda Termeer Center for Targeted Therapy at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

“This study sets the benchmark for the ‘actionability’ of next-generation sequencing,” Dr. Flaherty added. “We expect this number [of actionable alterations] will continue to rise steadily as further advances are made in the development of therapies that target some of the genetic alterations for which we could not offer treatment options in NCI-MATCH.”
 

Relapsed/refractory vs. primary tumors

The NCI-MATCH researchers focused on the most commonly found genetic alterations and performed biopsies at study entry to provide the most accurate picture of the genetic landscape of relapsed/refractory cancer patients. That makes this cohort distinct from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), a database of patients with mostly untreated primary tumors, and other published cohorts that include genetic analysis of primary tumors and biopsies from the time of initial metastatic recurrence.

The researchers compared the tumor gene makeup of NCI-MATCH and TCGA patients with seven cancer types – breast, bile duct, cervix, colorectal, lung, pancreas, and prostate.

ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group

“Perhaps the biggest surprise was the relatively minimal change in the genetic alterations found in these relapsed/refractory patients, compared to primary tumors,” Dr. Flaherty said. “These findings suggest that it is very reasonable to perform next-generation sequencing at the time of initial metastatic cancer diagnosis and to rely on those findings for the purposes of considering FDA-approved therapies and clinical trial participation.”
 

Multiple alterations and resistance

The complex genetics of cancers has led researchers to explore combinations of targeted and other therapies to address multiple defects at the same time.

“Not surprisingly, the most common collision of multiple genetic alterations within the same tumor was in the commonly altered tumor suppressor genes: TP53, APC, and PTEN,” Dr. Flaherty said.

“An increasing body of evidence supports a role for loss-of-function alterations in these genes to confer resistance to many targeted therapies,” he added. “While we don’t have targeted therapies yet established to directly counter this form of therapeutic resistance, we hypothesize that various types of combination therapy may be able to indirectly undercut resistance and enhance the benefit of many targeted therapies.”

The NCI-MATCH researchers will continue to mine this large dataset to better understand the many small, genetically defined cancer subpopulations.

“We will continue to report the outcome of the individual treatment subprotocols, and combining this genetic analysis with those outcomes will likely inform the next clinical trials,” Dr. Flaherty said.
 

Actionable mutations make a difference

Precision oncology experts agree that NCI-MATCH results are impressive and add a fuller appreciation that actionable mutations make a clinical difference.

“This is a powerful, extremely well-designed study, a tour de force of collaborative science,” said Stephen Gruber, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Precision Medicine at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

“The future holds even more promise,” he added. “Our ability to interrogate the genomic landscape of cancer is improving rapidly. Tumor testing helps get the right drug to the right tumor faster than a guidelines-based approach from historical data of combination chemotherapy. This is a likely game changer for the way oncologists will practice in the future, especially as we learn more results of subset trials. The NCI-MATCH researchers have taken a laser-focused look at the current data, but we now know we can look far more comprehensively at genomic profiles of tumors.”

From the viewpoint of the practicing oncologist, co-occurring resistance mutations make a difference in defining what combinations are likely and, more importantly, less likely to be effective. “When we see two mutations and one is likely to confer resistance, we can make a choice to avoid a drug that is not likely to work,” Dr. Gruber said.

“The NCI-MATCH trial allows both approved and investigational agents, which expands the possibility of matching patients to newer agents. This is especially relevant if there are no FDA-approved drugs yet for some molecular aberrations,” said Lillian L. Siu, MD, a senior medical oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. “This trial enables such evaluations under the auspice of a clinical trial to provide important knowledge.”

Both experts agree that in-depth biological interrogations of cancer will move the field of precision oncology forward. Dr. Gruber said that “studies have not yet fully addressed the power of germline genetic testing of DNA. Inherited susceptibility will drive therapeutic choices – for example, PARP inhibitors that access homologous recombination deficiency for breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer. We will learn more about treatment choices for those cancers.”

Dr. Siu added: “I truly believe that liquid biopsies [circulating tumor DNA] will help us perform target-drug matching in a less invasive way. We need to explore beyond the genome to look at the transcriptome, proteome, epigenome, and immunome, among others. It is likely that multiomic predictors are going to be able to identify more therapeutic options compared to single genomic predictors.”

Dr. Flaherty noted that all tumor samples from patients assigned to treatment are being subjected to whole-exome sequencing to further the discovery of the genetic features of responsive and nonresponsive tumors.

NCI-MATCH was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Flaherty disclosed relationships with Clovis Oncology, Loxo, X4 Pharma, and many other companies. His coauthors disclosed many conflicts as well. Dr. Gruber is cofounder of Brogent International. Dr. Siu disclosed relationships with Agios, Treadwell Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03010.

A national effort to perform genotype drug matching across cancer types shows the value of next-generation sequencing and provides a roadmap for future precision oncology trials, according to experts.

Massachusetts General Hospital

The effort is the National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) trial. For this study, researchers performed next-generation sequencing on tumor biopsy specimens to identify therapeutically actionable molecular alterations in patients with “underexplored” cancer types.

The trial included 5,954 patients with cancers that had progressed on standard treatments or rare cancers for which there is no standard treatment. If actionable alterations were found in these patients, they could receive new drugs in development that showed promise in other clinical trials or drugs that were approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat at least one cancer type.

Data newly reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 37.6% of patients had alterations that could be matched to targeted drugs, and 17.8% of patients were assigned to targeted treatment. Multiple actionable tumor mutations were seen in 11.9% of specimens, and resistance-conferring mutations were seen in 71.3% of specimens.

“The bottom line from this report is that next-generation sequencing is an efficient way to identify both approved and promising investigational therapies. For this reason, it should be considered standard of care for patients with advanced cancers,” said study chair Keith T. Flaherty, MD, director of the Henri and Belinda Termeer Center for Targeted Therapy at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

“This study sets the benchmark for the ‘actionability’ of next-generation sequencing,” Dr. Flaherty added. “We expect this number [of actionable alterations] will continue to rise steadily as further advances are made in the development of therapies that target some of the genetic alterations for which we could not offer treatment options in NCI-MATCH.”
 

Relapsed/refractory vs. primary tumors

The NCI-MATCH researchers focused on the most commonly found genetic alterations and performed biopsies at study entry to provide the most accurate picture of the genetic landscape of relapsed/refractory cancer patients. That makes this cohort distinct from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), a database of patients with mostly untreated primary tumors, and other published cohorts that include genetic analysis of primary tumors and biopsies from the time of initial metastatic recurrence.

The researchers compared the tumor gene makeup of NCI-MATCH and TCGA patients with seven cancer types – breast, bile duct, cervix, colorectal, lung, pancreas, and prostate.

ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group

“Perhaps the biggest surprise was the relatively minimal change in the genetic alterations found in these relapsed/refractory patients, compared to primary tumors,” Dr. Flaherty said. “These findings suggest that it is very reasonable to perform next-generation sequencing at the time of initial metastatic cancer diagnosis and to rely on those findings for the purposes of considering FDA-approved therapies and clinical trial participation.”
 

Multiple alterations and resistance

The complex genetics of cancers has led researchers to explore combinations of targeted and other therapies to address multiple defects at the same time.

“Not surprisingly, the most common collision of multiple genetic alterations within the same tumor was in the commonly altered tumor suppressor genes: TP53, APC, and PTEN,” Dr. Flaherty said.

“An increasing body of evidence supports a role for loss-of-function alterations in these genes to confer resistance to many targeted therapies,” he added. “While we don’t have targeted therapies yet established to directly counter this form of therapeutic resistance, we hypothesize that various types of combination therapy may be able to indirectly undercut resistance and enhance the benefit of many targeted therapies.”

The NCI-MATCH researchers will continue to mine this large dataset to better understand the many small, genetically defined cancer subpopulations.

“We will continue to report the outcome of the individual treatment subprotocols, and combining this genetic analysis with those outcomes will likely inform the next clinical trials,” Dr. Flaherty said.
 

Actionable mutations make a difference

Precision oncology experts agree that NCI-MATCH results are impressive and add a fuller appreciation that actionable mutations make a clinical difference.

“This is a powerful, extremely well-designed study, a tour de force of collaborative science,” said Stephen Gruber, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Precision Medicine at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

“The future holds even more promise,” he added. “Our ability to interrogate the genomic landscape of cancer is improving rapidly. Tumor testing helps get the right drug to the right tumor faster than a guidelines-based approach from historical data of combination chemotherapy. This is a likely game changer for the way oncologists will practice in the future, especially as we learn more results of subset trials. The NCI-MATCH researchers have taken a laser-focused look at the current data, but we now know we can look far more comprehensively at genomic profiles of tumors.”

From the viewpoint of the practicing oncologist, co-occurring resistance mutations make a difference in defining what combinations are likely and, more importantly, less likely to be effective. “When we see two mutations and one is likely to confer resistance, we can make a choice to avoid a drug that is not likely to work,” Dr. Gruber said.

“The NCI-MATCH trial allows both approved and investigational agents, which expands the possibility of matching patients to newer agents. This is especially relevant if there are no FDA-approved drugs yet for some molecular aberrations,” said Lillian L. Siu, MD, a senior medical oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. “This trial enables such evaluations under the auspice of a clinical trial to provide important knowledge.”

Both experts agree that in-depth biological interrogations of cancer will move the field of precision oncology forward. Dr. Gruber said that “studies have not yet fully addressed the power of germline genetic testing of DNA. Inherited susceptibility will drive therapeutic choices – for example, PARP inhibitors that access homologous recombination deficiency for breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer. We will learn more about treatment choices for those cancers.”

Dr. Siu added: “I truly believe that liquid biopsies [circulating tumor DNA] will help us perform target-drug matching in a less invasive way. We need to explore beyond the genome to look at the transcriptome, proteome, epigenome, and immunome, among others. It is likely that multiomic predictors are going to be able to identify more therapeutic options compared to single genomic predictors.”

Dr. Flaherty noted that all tumor samples from patients assigned to treatment are being subjected to whole-exome sequencing to further the discovery of the genetic features of responsive and nonresponsive tumors.

NCI-MATCH was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Flaherty disclosed relationships with Clovis Oncology, Loxo, X4 Pharma, and many other companies. His coauthors disclosed many conflicts as well. Dr. Gruber is cofounder of Brogent International. Dr. Siu disclosed relationships with Agios, Treadwell Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03010.