Alopecia represents a multifaceted challenge with distinct etiologies and consequences. Transposed to the world of oncology, different types of alopecia and molecular pathways have been characterized, allowing a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms. In patients with cancer, alopecia can be iatrogenic (i.e., due to conventional chemotherapies, endocrine therapies, targeted therapies, immunotherapies, radiotherapy and surgery) or a direct consequence of the disease itself (e.g., malnutrition, scalp metastases and paraneoplastic syndromes). Identification of the actual incriminated mechanism(s) is therefore essential in order to deliver appropriate supportive care, whether preventive or curative. On the preventive side, the last few years have seen the advent of the automated cooling cap, a prophylactic approach supported by several randomized clinical trials. On the curative side, although the treatments currently available are limited, several promising therapeutic approaches are under development. Appropriate alopecia management is essential, particularly regarding its psychological repercussions with significant consequences on the quality of life of patients and their family and with a potential impact on treatment compliance.

High-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), the most frequent and lethal form of ovarian cancer, exhibits homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) in 50% of cases. In addition to mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are the best known thus far, defects can also be caused by diverse alterations to homologous recombination-related genes or epigenetic patterns. HRD leads to genomic instability (genomic scars) and is associated with PARP inhibitor (PARPi) sensitivity. HRD is currently assessed through BRCA1/2 analysis, which produces a genomic instability score (GIS). However, despite substantial clinical achievements, FDA-approved companion diagnostics (CDx) based on GISs have important limitations. Indeed, despite the use of GIS in clinical practice, the relevance of such assays remains controversial. Although international guidelines include companion diagnostics as part of HGSOC frontline management, they also underscore the need for more powerful and alternative approaches for assessing patient eligibility to PARP inhibitors. In these companion reviews, we review and present evidence to date regarding HRD definitions, achievements and limitations in HGSOC. Part 1 is dedicated to technical considerations and proposed perspectives that could lead to a more comprehensive and dynamic assessment of HR, while Part 2 provides a more integrated approach for clinicians.

High-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) is the most frequent and aggressive form of ovarian cancer, representing an important challenge for clinicians. Half of HGSOC cases have homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which has specific causes (mainly alterations in BRCA1/2, but also other alterations encompassed by the BRCAness concept) and consequences, both at molecular (e.g., genomic instability) and clinical (e.g., sensitivity to PARP inhibitor) levels. Based on its prevalence and clinical impact, HRD status merits investigation. To date, three PARP inhibitors have received FDA/EMA approval. For some approvals, the presence of specific molecular alterations is required. Three companion diagnostic (CDx) assays based on distinct technical and medical considerations have received FDA approval to date. However, their use remains controversial due to their technical and medical limitations. In this companion and integrated review, we take a “bench-to-bedside” perspective on HRD definition and evaluation in the context of HGSOC. Part 1 of the review adopts a molecular perspective regarding technical considerations and the development of CDx. Part 2 focuses on the clinical impact of HRD evaluation, primarily through currently validated CDx and prescription of PARP inhibitors, outlining achievements, limitations and medical perspectives.

In spite of tremendous advances in advanced ovarian cancer management through the past decade, notably owing to surgical expertise and novel combination molecules (including bevacizumab and PARP inhibitors), the optimal initial sequential strategy remains a major concern. Indeed, following seminal clinical trials, primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS) followed by adjuvant systemic therapy and interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) have been positioned as validated alternatives with distinct pros and cons, although a definite response is still unassessed. In clinical practice, decisions between PCS and ICS rely on multilayer parameters: the tumor itself, the patient, and the health structure. In this state-of-the-art review, we will discuss the current evidence based on clinical trials and real-world data and highlight the remaining questions, including the fittest positioning of PCS vs. ICS and the optimal number of NACT cycles; subsequently, we will discuss current axes of research such as dedicated clinical trials and more global perspectives. These ongoing strategies and perspectives could contribute to improving the patient journey through personalized medicine.

Background: a specific subset of metastatic triple-negative breast cancers (mTNBC) is characterized by homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), leading to enhanced sensitivity to platinum-based chemotherapy. Apart from mutations in BRCA1/2 genes, the evaluation of other HRD-related alterations has been limited to date. As such, we analyzed data from mTNBC patients enrolled in the ProfiLER-01 study to determine the prevalence of alterations in homologous recombination-related (HRR) genes and their association with platinum sensitivity. Methods: next-generation sequencing and promoter methylation of BRCA1 and RAD51C were performed on tumors from patients with mTNBC, using a panel of 19 HRR genes. Tumors were separated into three groups based on their molecular status: mutations in BRCA1/2, mutations in other HRR genes (BRCA1/2 excluded) or BRCA1/RAD51C promoter methylation and the absence of molecular alterations in HRR genes (groups A, B and C, respectively). Sensitivity to platinum-based chemotherapy was evaluated through the radiological response. Results: mutations in BRCA1/2 were detected in seven (13.5%) patients, while alterations in other HRR genes or hypermethylation in BRCA1 or RAD51C were reported in 16 (30.7%) patients; furthermore, no alteration was found in the majority of patients (n = 29; 55.8%). Among 27 patients who received platinum-based chemotherapy, the disease control rate was 80%, 55% and 18% (groups A, B and C, respectively; p = 0.049). Regarding group B, patients with disease control exhibited mutations in FANCL, FANCA and the RAD51D genes or RAD51C methylation; Conclusion: mutations in HRR genes and epimutations in RAD51C were associated with disease control through platinum-based chemotherapy. As such, apart from well-characterized alterations in BRCA1/2, a more comprehensive evaluation of HRD should be considered in order to enlarge the selection of patients with mTNBC that could benefit from platinum-based chemotherapy.

Background: Maintenance niraparib at an individualized starting dose (ISD) is established in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC). However, patients’ perspectives on the burden of prolonged maintenance therapy have not been reported in prospective trials or routine practice. Methods: In the real-life multicenter NiQoLe study, patients with PSROC received ISD maintenance niraparib. The primary objective was to describe physician-reported adverse events (AEs) leading to treatment modification during the first 3 months. Secondary endpoints included patient-reported outcomes (symptomatic AEs using PRO-CTCAE, self-reported fatigue, and impact on daily activities/function using FACT-F) collected remotely weekly using a specifically designed electronic device. Results: Most (80%) of 139 treated patients (median age = 70 years) began niraparib at 200 mg/day. Median treatment duration was 5.7 (range = 0.2-21.4) months. During the first 3 months, 86 patients (62%) required treatment modification (median = 27 days to modification). Physician-reported grade ≥3 niraparib-related AEs occurred in 34 patients (24%); 68 patients (49%) had treatment modification for AEs, predominantly thrombocytopenia. The most frequent patient-reported AEs (PRO-CTCAE) were fatigue, insomnia, constipation, and dry mouth. Self-reported AEs were severe in 66% of patients. At baseline, 33% of patients reported severe fatigue (FACT-F), which generally persisted during niraparib. Physicians systematically underestimated major patient-reported symptoms. Conclusions: In routine practice, niraparib dose modification was often required during the first 3 months despite individualized dosing. Physicians underestimated the burden of fatigue and symptomatic AEs. Digital self-reporting of AEs is feasible, provides patient-centered information complementing physician-reported AEs, and allows fuller appreciation of toxicity in real-world studies. Clinical trial information: NCT03752216