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.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of physician assessment with a new multivariate index assay in identifying high-risk ovarian tumors. METHODS: The multivariate index assay was evaluated in women scheduled for surgery for an ovarian tumor in a prospective, multi-institutional trial involving 27 primary- care and specialty sites throughout the United States. Preoperative serum was collected, and results for the multivariate index assay, physician assessment, and CA 125 were correlated with surgical pathology. Physician assessment was documented by each physician before surgery. CA 125 cutoffs were chosen in accordance with the referral guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. RESULTS: The study enrolled 590 women, with 524 evaluable for the multivariate index assay and CA 125, and 516 for physician assessment. Fifty-three percent were enrolled by nongynecologic oncologists. There were 161 malignancies and 363 benign ovarian tumors. Physician assessment plus the multivariate index assay correctly identified malignancies missed by physician assessment in 70% of nongynecologic oncologists, and 95% of gynecologic oncologists. The multivariate index assay also detected 76% of malignancies missed by CA 125. Physician assessment plus the multivariate index assay identified 86% of malignancies missed by CA 125, including all advanced cancers. The performance of the multivariate index assay was consistent in early- and late-stage cancers. CONCLUSION: The multivariate index assay demonstrated higher sensitivity and lower specificity compared with physician assessment and CA 125 in detecting ovarian malignancies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III

Ovarian cancer is the most-deadly gynecologic malignancy, with greater than 14,000 women expected to succumb to the disease this year in the United States alone. In the front-line setting, patients are treated with a platinum and taxane doublet. Although 40–60% of patients achieve complete clinical response to first-line chemotherapy, 25% are inherently platinum-resistant or refractory with a median overall survival of about one year. More than 80% of women afflicted with ovarian cancer will recur. Many attempts have been made to understand the mechanism of platinum and taxane based chemotherapy resistance. However, despite decades of research, few predictive markers of chemotherapy resistance have been identified. Here, we review the current understanding of one of the most common genetic alterations in epithelial ovarian cancer, CCNE1 (cyclin E1) amplification, and its role as a potential predictive marker of cytotoxic chemotherapy resistance. CCNE1 amplification has been identified as a primary oncogenic driver in a subset of high grade serous ovarian cancer that have an unmet clinical need. Understanding the interplay between cyclin E1 amplification and other common ovarian cancer genetic alterations provides the basis for chemotherapeutic resistance in CCNE1 amplified disease. Exploration of the effect of cyclin E1 amplification on the cellular machinery that causes dysregulated proliferation in cancer cells has allowed investigators to explore promising targeted therapies that provide the basis for emerging clinical trials.

The tumor microenvironment (TME) has been implicated to play an important role in the progression of ovarian cancer. One of the most important components of the TME is tumor associated macrophages (TAMs). Phenotypically, macrophages are broadly categorized as M1 pro-inflammatory or M2 anti-inflammatory, based on the cytokines and chemokines that they secrete. The tumor microenvironment is associated with macrophages of an M2 phenotype which suppress the surrounding immune environment, assist tumor cells in evading immune targeting, and support tumor growth and metastasis. Contrarily, M1 macrophages help mount an immune response against tumors, and are associated with a more favorable prognosis in solid tumors. One of the characteristic indicators of a poor prognosis in ovarian cancer is the overrepresentation of M2-type TAMs. As such, therapeutic modalities targeting TME and TAMs are of increasing interest. Pharmacological approaches to eliminate TAMs, include decreasing macrophage survival and recruitment and increasing phagocytosis, have been underwhelming. Clinical strategies targeting these macrophage subtypes via repolarization to an M1 antitumoral state deserve increasing attention, and may serve as a new modality for immunotherapy.

The history of biomarkers and ultrasonography dates back over more than 50 years. The present status of biomarkers used in the context of ovarian cancer is addressed. Attention is given to new interpretations of the etiology of ovarian cancer. Cancer antigen 125 (CA125) and multivariate index assays (Ova1, Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm, Overa) are biomarker-driven considerations that are presented. Integration of biomarkers into ovarian cancer diagnostics and screening are presented in conjunction with ultrasound. Consideration is given to the serial application of both biomarkers and ultrasound, as well as morphology-based indices. Attempts are made to foresee how individualized molecular signatures may be able to both provide an alert of the potential for ovarian cancer and to provide molecular treatments tailored to a personalized genetic signature. In the future, an annual pelvic ultrasound and a comprehensive serum biomarker screening/diagnostic panel may replace the much maligned bimanual examination as part of the annual gynecologic examination. Taken together, it is likely that a new medical specialty for screening and early diagnostics will emerge for physicians and epidemiologists, a field of study that is independent of patient gender, organ, or the subspecialties of today.