Temkin, Sarah M.

Abstract Sex and gender influence every aspect of human health; thus, sex- and gender-related topics should be incorporated in all aspects of health education curricula. Sex and gender health education (SGHE) is the rigorous, intersectional, data-driven integration of sex and gender into all elements of health education. A multisectoral group of thought leaders has collaborated to advance SGHE since 2012. This cross-sector collaboration to advance SGHE has been successful on several fronts, primarily developing robust interprofessional SGHE programs, hosting a series of international SGHE summits, developing sex- and gender-specific resources, and broadening the collaboration beyond medical education. However, other deeply entrenched challenges have proven more difficult to address, including accurate and consistent sex and gender reporting in research publications, broadening institutional support for SGHE, and the development and implementation of evaluation plans for assessing learner outcomes and the downstream effects of SGHE on patient care. This commentary reflects on progress made in SGHE over the first decade of the current collaboration (2012–2022), articulates a vision for next steps to advance SGHE, and proposes 4 benchmarks to guide the next decade of SGHE: (1) integrate sex, gender, and intersectionality across health curricula; (2) develop sex- and gender-specific resources for health professionals; (3) improve sex and gender reporting in research publications; and (4) develop evaluation plans to assess learner and patient outcomes.

Background Combining immunotherapy and antiangiogenic agents is a promising treatment strategy in endometrial cancer. To date, no biomarkers for response have been identified and data on post-immunotherapy progression are lacking. We explored the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor (nivolumab) and an antiangiogenic agent (cabozantinib) in immunotherapy-naïve endometrial cancer and in patients whose disease progressed on previous immunotherapy with baseline biopsy for immune profiling. Patients and methods In this phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03367741, registered December 11, 2017), women with recurrent endometrial cancer were randomized 2:1 to nivolumab with cabozantinib (Arm A) or nivolumab alone (Arm B). The primary endpoint was Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors-defined progression-free survival (PFS). Patients with carcinosarcoma or prior immune checkpoint inhibitor received combination treatment (Arm C). Baseline biopsy and serial peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples were analyzed and associations between patient outcome and immune data from cytometry by time of flight (CyTOF) and PBMCs were explored. Results Median PFS was 5.3 (90% CI 3.5 to 9.2) months in Arm A (n=36) and 1.9 (90% CI 1.6 to 3.4) months in Arm B (n=18) (HR=0.59, 90% CI 0.35 to 0.98; log-rank p=0.09, meeting the prespecified statistical significance criteria). The most common treatment-related adverse events in Arm A were diarrhea (50%) and elevated liver enzymes (aspartate aminotransferase 47%, alanine aminotransferase 42%). In-depth baseline CyTOF analysis across treatment arms (n=40) identified 35 immune-cell subsets. Among immunotherapy-pretreated patients in Arm C, non-progressors had significantly higher proportions of activated tissue-resident (CD103+CD69+) ɣδ T cells than progressors (adjusted p=0.009). Conclusions Adding cabozantinib to nivolumab significantly improved outcomes in heavily pretreated endometrial cancer. A subgroup of immunotherapy-pretreated patients identified by baseline immune profile and potentially benefiting from combination with antiangiogenics requires further investigation.

256 Background: Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of gynecologic cancer mortality in the US. Given the high burden of disease and complexities in the provision of quality care, a multidisciplinary team approach is critical to optimal care delivery. In 2019, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) launched a multiphase, stakeholder-driven initiative to improve care for this patient population. Results of a national survey of cancer programs to identify the needs of patients are reported here. Methods: A 20 question survey was developed by an expert steering committee including gynecologic oncologists, pathologists, genetic counselors, a nurse navigator, and cancer center administrators. The instrument was designed to collect data about cancer programs, key ovarian cancer patient needs, and barriers to and opportunities for improving ovarian cancer care. The online survey was open for participation for 4 weeks using the Qualtrics platform and distributed via email to ACCC and Society of Gynecologic Oncology members. Results: We received 26 total responses from Comprehensive Community (26%), NCI-Designed Comprehensive (22%), Academic Comprehensive (22%), and Integrated Network (13%) Cancer Programs. Annual ovarian cancer cases ranged from 22 to 190 (median: 50.5). 85% of programs has a multidisciplinary team for ovarian cancer and 61% were part of a referral network. On average, programs has 1.5 phase II and 2 phase III clinical trials currently available for ovarian cancer (all programs had at least 1 trial available). Palliative care and comprehensive symptom management was integrated into the first appointment (15%), integrated at the time of recurrence (4%), and most frequently, available by consult (81%). We assessed genetic testing practices at each program. Aggregated across programs, 79% of patients received germline multipanel testing, 71% germline BRCA only, 50% somatic multigene, and 51% somatic BRCA only. The frequency of consultations included: genetic counseling (75%), nurse navigation (75%), social work (50%), dietetics (40%), financial counseling (25%). Genetic evaluations were typically ordered by Gynecologic Oncology (88%), genetic counseling (4%), or both (8%). When asked what topic they would choose for a quality improvement project, genetic testing and counseling was the most frequent choice (46%), followed by clinical trials enrollment and availability (23%), multidisciplinary team care (19%), education on best practices (15%), palliative care (15%), and ancillary services (15%). Conclusions: Multidisciplinary care for ovarian cancer was common across a range of cancer programs but integration of palliative care, social work, dietetics, and financial counseling could be improved. Expanding clinical trials and genetic testing and counseling were the most frequently identified opportunities to improve ovarian cancer care.

6010 Background: The efficacy of treatment for recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) remains limited. Vascular endothelial growth factor and inflammatory chemokines are proangiogenic factors and immune modulators involved in immune suppression. Reprogramming the tumor microenvironment by combining antiangiogenic and immunotherapy (IO) could enhance antitumor responses. Methods: A 2:1 randomized phase 2 trial compared the combination of cabozantinib and nivolumab (Arm A) versus nivolumab (Arm B) in recurrent EC. Primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS) assessed by RECIST 1.1 (NCT03367741). Women with recurrent measurable EC were eligible. There were no limits on prior therapy, but at least one prior platinum-based chemotherapy was required. Patients (pts) were stratified according to MSI status and assessed by CT every 8 weeks. Cabozantinib was given at 40 mg daily (Arm A) and nivolumab at 240 mg, on D1 and D15 of a 28-day cycle for 4 cycles, followed by 480 mg every 4 weeks (Arms A & B). Pts with carcinosarcoma or prior IO were enrolled in an exploratory cohort and received combination treatment (Arm C). A baseline biopsy was required for all pts. CyTOF analysis was performed on fresh biopsies. Results: 76 evaluable pts were enrolled (Arm A: 36, Arm B: 18, Arm C: 9 carcinosarcoma, and 20 post IO including 7 pts crossed over from Arm B). 55% of pts had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy. Two pts were MSI high in Arm A and none in Arm B. The Kaplan-Meier estimated median PFS was 5.3 (95% CI: 3.5-9.5) months in Arm A and 1.9 (95% CI: 1.6-3.8) months in Arm B, with a log-rank p = 0.07, which met the significance level of 0.1 used for sample size calculation. Objective response rate (ORR) was 25% for Arm A and 16.7% for Arm B; stable disease (SD) was seen in 44.4% vs 11.1%, respectively. Clinical benefit (ORR+SD) was significantly higher in arm A vs B (p < 0.001). In Arm C-carcinosarcoma, one patient had a partial response (11.9 months duration) and four SD. In Arm C-prior IO, six pts responded and eight had SD. The most common related AEs in Arm A were diarrhea (47.2%), elevated liver enzymes (44.4%), fatigue (38.9%), anorexia, hypertension, and nausea (30.6%), mainly grade 1/2. Preliminary CyTOF analysis across treatment arms identified multiple immune subsets for further interrogation including activated CD8+ and CD4+ T cells. Conclusions: Cabozantinib plus nivolumab demonstrates improved PFS compared to nivolumab in heavily pre-treated women with recurrent EC. In-depth CyTOF analysis of the tumor microenvironment to identify predictive immune biomarkers of response is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03367741.