PURPOSE: Platinum-based doublets with concurrent and maintenance bevacizumab are standard therapy for ovarian cancer (OC) relapsing after a platinum-free interval (PFI) >6 months. Immunotherapy may be synergistic with bevacizumab and chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ATALANTE/ENGOT-ov29 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02891824 ), a placebo-controlled double-blinded randomized phase III trial, enrolled patients with recurrent epithelial OC, one to two previous chemotherapy lines, and PFI >6 months. Eligible patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to atezolizumab (1,200 mg once every 3 weeks or equivalent) or placebo for up to 24 months, combined with bevacizumab and six cycles of chemotherapy doublet, stratified by PFI, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen. Coprimary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1–positive populations (alpha .025 for each population). RESULTS: Between September 2016 and October 2019, 614 patients were randomly assigned: 410 to atezolizumab and 204 to placebo. Only 38% had PD-L1–positive tumors. After 3 years' median follow-up, the PFS difference between atezolizumab and placebo did not reach statistical significance in the ITT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99; P = .041; median 13.5 v 11.3 months, respectively) or PD-L1–positive (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.16; P = .30; median 15.2 v 13.1 months, respectively) populations. The immature overall survival (OS) HR was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.01; median 35.5 v 30.6 months with atezolizumab v placebo, respectively). Global health-related quality of life did not differ between treatment arms. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 88% of atezolizumab-treated and 87% of placebo-treated patients; grade ≥3 AEs typical of immunotherapy were more common with atezolizumab (13% v 8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: ATALANTE/ENGOT-ov29 did not meet its coprimary PFS objectives in the ITT or PD-L1–positive populations. OS follow-up continues. Further research on biopsy samples is warranted to decipher the immunologic landscape of late-relapsing OC.

PURPOSE: To evaluate atezolizumab combined with platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) followed by maintenance niraparib for late-relapsing recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS: The multicenter placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III ENGOT-OV41/GEICO 69-O/ANITA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03598270 ) enrolled patients with measurable high-grade serous, endometrioid, or undifferentiated recurrent ovarian cancer who had received one or two previous CT lines (most recent including platinum) and had a treatment-free interval since last platinum (TFIp) of >6 months. Patients were stratified by investigator-selected carboplatin doublet, TFIp, BRCA status, and PD-L1 status in de novo biopsy and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either atezolizumab or placebo throughout standard therapy comprising six cycles of a carboplatin doublet followed (in patients with response/stable disease) by maintenance niraparib until progression. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: Between November 2018 and January 2022, 417 patients were randomly assigned (15% BRCA- mutated, 36% PD-L1–positive, 66% TFIp >12 months, 11% previous poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase inhibitor after frontline CT, and 53% previous bevacizumab). Median follow-up was 28.6 months (95% CI, 26.6 to 30.5 months). Atezolizumab did not significantly improve PFS (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.71 to 1.10]; P = .28). Median PFS was 11.2 months (95% CI, 10.1 to 12.1 months) with atezolizumab versus 10.1 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 11.2 months) with standard therapy. Subgroup analyses generally showed consistent results, including analyses by PD-L1 status. The objective response rate (ORR) was 45% (95% CI, 39 to 52) with atezolizumab and 43% (95% CI, 36 to 49) with standard therapy. The safety profile was as expected from previous experience of these drugs. CONCLUSION: Combining atezolizumab with CT and maintenance niraparib for late-relapsing recurrent ovarian cancer did not significantly improve PFS or the ORR.

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the second most common gynecological malignancy worldwide, the first in developed countries [Sung et al. in CA Cancer J Clin 71:209–249, 2021]. Although a majority is diagnosed at an early stage with a low risk of relapse, an important proportion of patients will relapse. Better knowledge of molecular abnormalities is crucial to identify high-risk groups in early stages as well as for recurrent or metastatic disease for whom adjuvant treatment must be personalized. The objective of this guide is to summarize the current evidence for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of EC, and to provide evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice.

(1) OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of CA125, HE4, ROMA index and CPH-I index to preoperatively identify epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) or metastatic cancer in the ovary (MCO). (2) METHODS: single center retrospective study, including women with a diagnosis of adnexal mass. We obtained the AUC, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were of HE4, CA125, ROMA and CPH-I for the diagnosis of EOC and MCO. Subgroup analysis for women harboring adnexal masses with inconclusive diagnosis of malignancy by ultrasound features and Stage I EOC was performed. (3) RESULTS: 1071 patients were included, 852 (79.6%) presented benign/borderline tumors and 219 (20.4%) presented EOC/MCO. AUC for HE4 was higher than for CA125 (0.91 vs. 0.87). No differences were seen between AUC of ROMA and CPH-I, but they were both higher than HE4 AUC. None of the tumor markers alone achieved a sensitivity of 90%; HE4 was highly specific (93.5%). ROMA showed a sensitivity and specificity of 91.1% and 84.6% respectively, while CPH-I showed a sensitivity of 91.1% with 79.2% specificity. For patients with inconclusive diagnosis of malignancy by ultrasound features and with Stage I EOC, ROMA showed the best diagnostic performance (4) CONCLUSIONS: ROMA and CPH-I perform better than tumor markers alone to identify patients harboring EOC or MCO. They can be helpful to assess the risk of malignancy of adnexal masses, especially in cases where ultrasonographic diagnosis is challenging (stage I EOC, inconclusive diagnosis of malignancy by ultrasound features).

Background: Despite impressive progression-free survival (PFS) results from PARP inhibitors (PARPi) in ovarian cancer, concerns about their effect on post-progression treatment outcomes have recently arisen, particularly when administered in the relapsed setting. Overlapping mechanisms of resistance between PARPi and platinum have been described, and optimal therapies upon progression to PARPi are unknown. We communicate real-world data (RWD) on outcomes of subsequent chemotherapy upon progression to PARPi used as maintenance in ovarian cancer relapses, particularly focusing on platinum rechallenge, according to BRCA status. Methods: Data from high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer patients who received subsequent chemotherapy after progression to maintenance PARPi in the relapsed setting, in 16 Catalan hospitals between August 2016 and April 2021, and who were followed-up until July 2021, were included. Endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), and PFS and overall survival (OS) measured from the subsequent chemotherapy starting date. Results: 111 patients were included [46 (41.4%) presented pathological BRCA1/2 mutations, 8 (7.5%) in other homologous recombination-related genes]. Sixty-four patients (57.7%) had received two prior chemotherapy lines, including the one immediately prior to PARPi. PARPi were niraparib (n = 60, 54.1%), olaparib (n = 49, 44.1%), and rucaparib (n = 2, 1.8%). A total of 81 patients remained platinum-sensitive (PS population) after progression to PARPi (when progression-free interval [PFI] was >6 months after the last cycle of prior platinum) [median PFI 12.0 months (interquartile range, IQR, 8.8–17.1)]. Of those, 74 were treated with subsequent platinum regimens, with the following results: ORR of 41.9%, median PFS (mPFS) of 6.6 months (95% CI 6–9.2), and median OS (mOS) of 20.6 months (95% CI 13.6–28.9). Analysis of these 74 patients according to BRCA status showed that PFIs for BRCA mutant and non BRCA-mutant patients were 13.6 [IQR11.2–22.2] and 10.3 [IQR 7.4–14.9] months, respectively (p = 0.010); ORR were 40.0% versus 43.6%, respectively; Rates of progression (as best response) to subsequent platinum were 45.7% versus 17.9%, respectively (p = 0.004); mPFS and mOS were 3.5 (95% CI 2.5–8.6) versus 7.5 months (95% CI 6.5–10.1, p = 0.03), and 16.4 (95% CI 9.3–27.5) versus 24.2 months (95% CI 17.2–NR, p = 0.036), respectively. Conclusion: This is the largest series of real-world data on ovarian cancer patients retreated with platinum in the post-PARPi scenario, separately analyzing BRCA mutant and non-mutant patients, to our knowledge. In our platinum-sensitive population, rechallenge with platinum after progression upon PARPi in the 3rd or later lines for ovarian cancer relapses shows relevant ORR and similar PFS outcomes to historical series of the prePARPi era. However, BRCA mutant patients presented significantly higher rates of progression under subsequent platinum and worse survival outcomes associated with subsequent platinum than non-BRCA-mutant patients.

In recent years, the incorporation of new strategies to the therapeutic armamentarium has completely changed the outcomes of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). The identification of new predictive and prognostic biomarkers has also enabled the selection of those patients more likely to respond to targeted agents. Nevertheless, EOC is still a highly lethal disease and resistance to many of these new agents is common. The objective of this guideline is to summarize the most relevant strategies to manage EOC, to help the clinician throughout the challenging diagnostic and therapeutic processes and to provide evidence-based recommendations.