Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) represent a new class of therapeutic agents designed to target specific antigens on tumor cells, combining the specificity of monoclonal antibodies to the cytotoxicity of classic chemotherapy agents. These drugs have been extensively studied both in solid and hematologic malignancies, leading to substantial improvement in the therapeutic landscape for several tumors. Despite no ADC have been yet approved for the treatment of gynecological malignancies, some agents have shown promising results and might have the potential to become part of the standard of care. Among them, mirvetuximab soravtansine has shown activity in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer with high folate-α receptor expression, as a single agent and in combination. Tisotumab vedotin is active in patients with pre-treated cervical cancer, and further investigation is ongoing. The purpose of this review is to summarize the structural and functional characteristics of ADCs and analyze the most recent and promising data regarding the clinical development of ADCs in gynecological malignancies. The available data on the efficacy of the more studied ADCs in ovarian, endometrial, and cervical cancers will be discussed along with toxicities of special interest, the mechanisms of resistance, and future possible drugs combination.

Background: The primary objective of this study was to assess the associations of computed tomography (CT)-based whole-body composition values with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients. The secondary objective was the association of body composition with chemotherapy-related toxicity. Methods: Thirty-four patients (median age 64.9 years; interquartile range 55.4–75.4) with EOC and thorax and abdomen CT scans were included. Clinical data recorded: age; weight; height; stage; chemotherapy-related toxicity; and date of last contact, progression and death. Automatic extraction of body composition values was performed by dedicated software. Sarcopenia was defined according to predefined cutoffs. Statistical analysis included univariate tests to investigate associations of sarcopenia and body composition with chemotoxicity. Association of body composition parameters and OS/PFS was evaluated by log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard model. Multivariate models were adjusted for FIGO stage and/or age at diagnosis. Results: We found significant associations of skeletal muscle volume with OS (p = 0.04) and PFS (p = 0.04); intramuscular fat volume with PFS (p = 0.03); and visceral adipose tissue, epicardial and paracardial fat with PFS (p = 0.04, 0.01 and 0.02, respectively). We found no significant associations between body composition parameters and chemotherapy-related toxicity. Conclusions: In this exploratory study, we found significant associations of whole-body composition parameters with OS and PFS. These results open a window to the possibility to perform body composition profiling without approximate estimations.

Purposes: The primary objective of this retrospective study was to assess whether the CT dose delivered to oncologic patients was different in a subspecialty radiology department, compared to a general radiology department. The secondary explorative objective was to assess whether the objective image quality of CT examinations was different in the two settings. Materials and methods: Chest and abdomen CT scans performed for oncologic indications were selected from a general radiology department and a subspecialty radiology department. By using a radiation dose management platform, we extracted and compared CT dose index (CTDI_vol) and dose length product (DLP) both for each phase and for the entire CT exams. For objective image quality evaluation, we calculated the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) at the level of the liver and of the aorta. A P-value < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: A total of 7098 CT examinations were included. CTDI_vol was evaluated in 12,804 phases; DLP in 10,713 phases and in 6714 examinations. The CTDI_vol and DLP overall were significantly lower in the subspecialty radiology department compared to the general radiology department CTDI median (IQR) 5.19 (3.91–7.00) and 5.51 (4.17–7.72), DLP median and IQR of 490.0 (342.4–710.6) and 503.4 (359.9–728.8), p < 0.001 and p = 0.01, respectively. The objective image quality showed no significant difference in the general and subspecialty radiology departments, with median and IQR of 4.03 (2.82–5.51) and 3.84 (3.09–4.94) for SNR_Liv (p = 0.58); 4.81 (2.70–7.62) and 4.34 (3.05–6.25) for SNR_Ao (p = 0.30); 0.83 (0.20–1.89) and 1.00 (0.35–1.57) for CNR_Liv (p = 0.99); 2.23 (0.09–3.83) and 1.01 (0.15–2.84) for CNR_Ao (p = 0.24) with SNR_Liv (p = 0.58), SNR_Ao (p = 0.30), CNR_Liv (p = 0.99) and CNR_Ao (p = 0.24). Conclusion: In a subspecialty radiology department, CT protocols are optimized compared to a general radiology department leading to lower doses to oncologic patients without significant objective image quality degradation.

Background: The main objective was to assess whether CT reports of radiologists subspecialized in oncologic imaging respond better to oncological referrals than reports from general radiologists. The secondary objective was to assess differences in ratings between a senior and junior oncologist. Two hundred radiological reports pertaining to oncological patients were retrospectively selected of which 100 each were written by subspecialized radiologists and general radiologists, respectively. The senior and junior oncologists each rated all CT reports using a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (1 = very poor, 5 = excellent) for the following information: anatomical details; interpretation of findings; need for further explanations; appropriateness of conclusions; overall satisfaction. Comparisons between ratings assigned to reports from generalist radiologists and subspecialty radiologists were performed using the Mann–Whitney U test. Agreement between both oncologists was assessed through Gwet's coefficient. Results: For all but two of the five items obtained from the senior oncologist, oncologists' ratings were significantly higher for subspecialty radiologists' reports (p < 0.01); mean values from both oncologists were generally higher for subspecialty reports (p < 0.001). Agreement between the senior and junior oncologist in the rating of reports from general and subspecialty radiologists was either moderate to substantial (0.5986–0.6788) or substantial to almost perfect (0.6958–0.8358). Conclusions: According to a senior and junior oncologist, CT reports performed by subspecialized radiologists in oncologic imaging are clearer, more accurate, and more appropriate in the interpretation and conclusions compared to reports written by general radiologists. Likewise, the overall satisfaction of the oncologist from a subspecialized radiologist report is higher.

LBA10066 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstracts.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Saturday, June 3, 2017, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2017, issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Saturday edition of ASCO Daily News.