PURPOSE: In SOLO1/GOG 3004 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01844986 ), maintenance therapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib provided a sustained progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation. We report overall survival (OS) after a 7-year follow-up, a clinically relevant time point and the longest follow-up for any poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the first-line setting. METHODS: This double-blind phase III trial randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in clinical response to platinum-based chemotherapy to maintenance olaparib (n = 260) or placebo (n = 131) for up to 2 years. A prespecified descriptive analysis of OS, a secondary end point, was conducted after a 7-year follow-up. RESULTS: The median duration of treatment was 24.6 months with olaparib and 13.9 months with placebo, and the median follow-up was 88.9 and 87.4 months, respectively. The hazard ratio for OS was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.76; P = .0004 [ P < .0001 required to declare statistical significance]). At 7 years, 67.0% of olaparib patients versus 46.5% of placebo patients were alive, and 45.3% versus 20.6%, respectively, were alive and had not received a first subsequent treatment (Kaplan-Meier estimates). The incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia remained low, and new primary malignancies remained balanced between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Results indicate a clinically meaningful, albeit not statistically significant according to prespecified criteria, improvement in OS with maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation and support the use of maintenance olaparib to achieve long-term remission in this setting; the potential for cure may also be enhanced. No new safety signals were observed during long-term follow-up.

Objective To investigate whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery is superior to primary debulking surgery in terms of perioperative complications and progression-free survival, in advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer patients with high tumor load. Methods Patients with advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer (stage IIIC-IV) underwent laparoscopy. Patients with high tumor load assessed by a standardized laparoscopic predictive index were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to undergo either primary debulking surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (arm A), or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy (arm B). Co-primary outcome measures were progression-free survival and post-operative complications; secondary outcomes were overall survival, and quality of life. Survival analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat population. Results 171 patients were randomly assigned to primary debulking surgery (n=84) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=87). Rates of complete resection (R0) were different between the arms (47.6% in arm A vs 77.0% in arm B; p=0.001). 53 major postoperative complications were registered, mainly distributed in arm A compared with arm B (25.9% vs 7.6%; p=0.0001). All patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. With an overall median follow-up of 59 months (95% CI 53 to 64), 142 (83.0%) disease progressions/recurrences and 103 deaths (60.2%) occurred. Median progression-free and overall survival were 15 and 41 months for patients assigned to primary debulking surgery, compared with 14 and 43 months for patients assigned to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, respectively (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.44, p=0.73; HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.65, p=0.56). Conclusions Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and primary debulking surgery have the same efficacy when used at their maximal possibilities, but the toxicity profile is different.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the addition of the humanized monoclonal antiprogrammed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) antibody, atezolizumab, to platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab in newly diagnosed stage III or IV ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: This multicenter placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03038100 ) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed untreated International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III or IV OC who either had undergone primary cytoreductive surgery with macroscopic residual disease or were planned to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval surgery. Patients were stratified by FIGO stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, tumor immune cell PD-L1 staining, and treatment strategy and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 3-weekly cycles of atezolizumab 1,200 mg or placebo (day 1, cycles 1-22), with paclitaxel plus carboplatin (day 1, cycles 1-6) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (day 1, cycles 2-22), omitting perioperative bevacizumab in neoadjuvant patients. The co-primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat and PD-L1–positive populations. RESULTS: Between March 8, 2017, and March 26, 2019, 1,301 patients were enrolled. The median progression-free survival was 19.5 versus 18.4 months with atezolizumab versus placebo, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.07; stratified log-rank P = .28), in the intention-to-treat population and 20.8 versus 18.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.99; P = .038), in the PD-L1–positive population. The interim (immature) overall survival results showed no significant benefit from atezolizumab. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (21% with atezolizumab v 21% with placebo), hypertension (18% v 20%, respectively), and anemia (12% v 12%). CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not support the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in newly diagnosed OC. Insight from this trial should inform further evaluation of immunotherapy in OC.

Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE), also called hand-foot syndrome or hand-to-foot syndrome, is a distinctive and relatively frequent dermatologic toxic reaction associated with certain chemotherapeutic agents. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), a long-circulating formulation of doxorubicin in which doxorubicin hydrochloride is encapsulated within pegylated liposomes, is approved to treat patients with metastatic breast cancer, advanced ovarian cancer, and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-related Kaposi's sarcoma. The incidence of PPE is increased in patients receiving PLD compared with conventional doxorubicin. In studies that utilized the currently approved dose of PLD (50 mg/m² every 4 weeks), ∼50% of all patients receiving PLD experienced PPE, and ∼20% experienced grade 3 PPE. The pathophysiology of PPE, as it occurs with any drug with which it is associated, is not well understood. Studies evaluating the development of PPE specifically associated with PLD have not fully elucidated the mechanism; however, data support the roles of drug excretion in sweat and local pressure as contributors. When PPE develops, clinical interventions with respect to altering PLD administration include dose reduction, less frequent dosing, and ultimately, drug withdrawal with several consequences on treatment efficacy. This article will review the available data regarding the etiology and potential management strategies of PPE associated with PLD.

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecological malignancy in Europe and its management involves a variety of health professionals. In recent years, big discoveries were made concerning the management of patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer, particularly in the field of molecular biology and minimally invasive surgery. This requires the continuous updating of guidelines and protocols over the years. In this paper, we aim to summarize and compare common points and disparities among protocols for management of patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer by leading international gynecological oncological societies. We therefore systematically report the parallel among the guidelines based on the various steps patients with endometrial cancer usually undergo. The comparison between American and European protocols revealed some relevant disparities, in particular regarding surgical staging, molecular biology application as a prognostic tool and follow up regimens. This could possibly cause differences in interpreting and applying protocols in clinical practice in small centers, leading to a lack of adherence to guidelines or even prompting a confusing mix of them.