PURPOSE: ATHENA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03522246 ) was designed to evaluate rucaparib first-line maintenance treatment in a broad patient population, including those without BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutations or other evidence of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), or high-risk clinical characteristics such as residual disease. We report the results from the ATHENA–MONO comparison of rucaparib versus placebo. METHODS: Patients with stage III-IV high-grade ovarian cancer undergoing surgical cytoreduction (R0/complete resection permitted) and responding to first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy were randomly assigned 4:1 to oral rucaparib 600 mg twice a day or placebo. Stratification factors were HRD test status, residual disease after chemotherapy, and timing of surgery. The primary end point of investigator-assessed progression-free survival was assessed in a step-down procedure, first in the HRD population (BRCA-mutant or BRCA wild-type/loss of heterozygosity high tumor), and then in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: As of March 23, 2022 (data cutoff), 427 and 111 patients were randomly assigned to rucaparib or placebo, respectively (HRD population: 185 v 49). Median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 28.7 months (23.0 to not reached) with rucaparib versus 11.3 months (9.1 to 22.1) with placebo in the HRD population (log-rank P = .0004; hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.72); 20.2 months (15.2 to 24.7) versus 9.2 months (8.3 to 12.2) in the intent-to-treat population (log-rank P < .0001; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68); and 12.1 months (11.1 to 17.7) versus 9.1 months (4.0 to 12.2) in the HRD-negative population (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.95). The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were anemia (rucaparib, 28.7% v placebo, 0%) and neutropenia (14.6% v 0.9%). CONCLUSION: Rucaparib monotherapy is effective as first-line maintenance, conferring significant benefit versus placebo in patients with advanced ovarian cancer with and without HRD.

PURPOSE: Single-agent chemotherapies have limited activity and considerable toxicity in patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (PROC). Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV) is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting folate receptor α (FRα). SORAYA is a single-arm, phase II study evaluating efficacy and safety of MIRV in patients with PROC. METHODS: SORAYA enrolled FRα-high patients with PROC who had received one to three prior therapies, including required bevacizumab. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by investigator; duration of response was the key secondary end point. RESULTS: One hundred six patients were enrolled; 105 were evaluable for efficacy. All patients had received prior bevacizumab, 51% had three prior lines of therapy, and 48% received a prior poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor. Median follow-up was 13.4 months. ORR was 32.4% (95% CI, 23.6 to 42.2), including five complete and 29 partial responses. The median duration of response was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 9.7). In patients with one to two priors, the ORR by investigator was 35.3% (95% CI, 22.4 to 49.9) and in patients with three priors was 30.2% (95% CI, 18.3 to 44.3). The ORR by investigator was 38.0% (95% CI, 24.7 to 52.8) in patients with prior poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor exposure and 27.5% (95% CI, 15.9 to 41.7) in those without. The most common treatment-related adverse events (all grade and grade 3-4) were blurred vision (41% and 6%), keratopathy (29% and 9%), and nausea (29% and 0%). Treatment-related adverse events led to dose delays, reductions, and discontinuations in 33%, 20%, and 9% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: MIRV demonstrated consistent clinically meaningful antitumor activity and favorable tolerability and safety in patients with FRα-high PROC who had received up to three prior therapies, including bevacizumab, representing an important advance for this biomarker-selected population.

Recently, a Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) utilising human epididymis secretory protein 4 (HE4) and CA125 successfully classified patients as presenting a high or low risk for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We validated this algorithm in an independent prospective study. Women with a pelvic mass, who were scheduled to have surgery, were enrolled in a prospective study. Preoperative serum levels of HE4 and CA125 were measured in 389 patients. The performance of each of the markers, as well as that of ROMA, was analysed. When all malignant tumours were included, ROMA (receiver operator characteristic (ROC)-area under curve (AUC)=0.898) and HE4 (ROC-AUC)=0.857) did not perform significantly better than CA125 alone (ROC–AUC=0.877). Using a cutoff for ROMA of 12.5% for pre-menopausal patients, the test had a sensitivity of 67.5% and a specificity of 87.9%. With a cutoff of 14.4% for post-menopausal patients, the test had a sensitivity of 90.8% and a specificity of 66.3%. For EOC vs benign disease, the ROC–AUC of ROMA increased to 0.913 and for invasive EOC vs benign disease to 0.957. This independent validation study demonstrated similar performance indices to those recently published. However, in this study, HE4 and ROMA did not increase the detection of malignant disease compared with CA125 alone. Although the initial reports were promising, measurement of HE4 serum levels does not contribute to the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.

Background: Malnutrition, weight loss, and muscle wasting (sarcopenia) are common among women with advanced ovarian cancer and have been associated with adverse clinical outcomes and survival. Our objective is to investigate overall survival (OS) related to changes in skeletal muscle (SM) for patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking.Methods: Ovarian cancer patients (n = 123) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking in the area of Maastricht (the Netherlands) between 2000 and 2014 were included retrospectively. Surface areas of SM and adipose tissue were defined on computed tomography at the level of the third lumbar vertebra. Low SM at baseline and SM changes during chemotherapy were compared with Kaplan Meier curves, and Cox‐regression models were applied to test predictors of OS.Results: Median OS for patients who lost SM (n = 83) was 916 ± 99 days, which was significantly different from median OS for patients who maintained or gained SM (n = 40), which was 1431 ± 470 days (P = 0.004). Loss of SM was also a significant predictor of OS in multivariable Cox‐regression analysis (hazard ratio 1.773 (95%CI: 1.018–3.088), P = 0.043). Low baseline SM did not influence survival.Conclusions: Patients with ovarian cancer have a worse survival when they lose SM during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Evaluation of low SM at a specific time point is not prognostic for OS. External and prospective validation of these findings is imperative. Nutritional, pharmacological, and/or physical intervention studies are necessary to establish whether SM impairment can be prevented to prolong ovarian cancer survival.