O'Cearbhaill, Roisin E

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE To provide updated guidance regarding neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS) among patients with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (epithelial ovarian cancer [EOC]). METHODS A multidisciplinary Expert Panel convened and updated the systematic review. RESULTS Sixty-one studies form the evidence base. RECOMMENDATIONS Patients with suspected stage III-IV EOC should be evaluated by a gynecologic oncologist, with cancer antigen 125, computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis, and chest imaging included. All patients with EOC should be offered germline genetic and somatic testing at diagnosis. For patients with newly diagnosed advanced EOC who are fit for surgery and have a high likelihood of achieving complete cytoreduction, PCS is recommended. For patients fit for PCS but deemed unlikely to have complete cytoreduction, NACT is recommended. Patients with newly diagnosed advanced EOC and a high perioperative risk profile should receive NACT. Before NACT, patients should have histologic confirmation of invasive ovarian cancer. For NACT, a platinum-taxane doublet is recommended. Interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS) should be performed after ≤four cycles of NACT for patients with a response to chemotherapy or stable disease. For patients with stage III disease, good performance status, and adequate renal function treated with NACT, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy may be offered during ICS. After ICS, chemotherapy should continue to complete a six-cycle treatment plan with the optional addition of bevacizumab. Patients with EOC should be offered US Food and Drug Administration–approved maintenance treatments. Patients with progressive disease on NACT should have diagnosis reconfirmed via tissue biopsy. Patients without previous comprehensive genetic or molecular profiling should be offered testing. Treatment options include alternative chemotherapy regimens, clinical trials, and/or initiation of end-of-life care. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines . This guideline has been endorsed by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

PURPOSEThe purpose of this phase II study was to evaluate hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with carboplatin for recurrent ovarian cancer during secondary cytoreductive surgery.MATERIALS AND METHODSPatients were intraoperatively randomly assigned to carboplatin HIPEC (800 mg/m2for 90 minutes) or no HIPEC, followed by five or six cycles of postoperative IV carboplatin-based chemotherapy, respectively. Based on a binomial single-stage pick-the-winner design, an arm was considered winner if ≥ 17 of 49 patients were without disease progression at 24 months post-surgery. Secondary objectives included postoperative toxicity and HIPEC pharmacokinetics.RESULTSOf 98 patients, 49 (50%) received HIPEC. Complete gross resection was achieved in 82% of the HIPEC patients and 94% of the standard-arm patients. Bowel resection was performed in 37% of patients in the HIPEC arm compared with 65% in the standard ( P = .008). There was no perioperative mortality and no difference in use of ostomies, length of stay, or postoperative toxicity. At 24 months, eight patients (16.3%; 1-sided 90% CI, 9.7 to 100) were without progression or death in the HIPEC arm and 12 (24.5%; 1-sided 90% CI, 16.5 to 100) in the standard arm. With a medium follow-up of 39.5 months, 82 patients progressed and 37 died. The median progression-free survival in the HIPEC and standard arms were 12.3 and 15.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% CI, 1 to 2.37; P = .05). There was no significant difference in median overall survival (52.5 v 59.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.73 to 2.67; P = .31). These analyses were exploratory.CONCLUSIONHIPEC with carboplatin was well tolerated but did not result in superior clinical outcomes. This study does not support the use of HIPEC with carboplatin during secondary cytoreductive surgery for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) to date have demonstrated limited activity in advanced ovarian cancer (OC). Folate receptor alpha (FRα) is overexpressed in the majority of OCs and presents an attractive target for a combination immunotherapy to potentially overcome resistance to ICI in OCs. The current study sought to examine clinical and immunologic responses to TPIV200, a multiepitope FRα vaccine administered with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab in patients with advanced platinum-resistant OC. Methods Following Simon two-stage phase II trial design, 27 patients were enrolled. Treatment was administered in 28-day cycles (intradermal TPIV200 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) for 6 cycles and intravenous durvalumab for 12 cycles). Primary endpoints included overall response rate and progression-free survival at 24 weeks. Translational parameters focused on tumor microenvironment, PD-L1 and FRα expression, and peripheral vaccine-specific immune responses. Results Treatment was well tolerated, with related grade 3 toxicity rate of 18.5%. Increased T cell responses to the majority of peptides were observed in all patients at 6 weeks (p<0.0001). There was one unconfirmed partial response (3.7%) and nine patients had stable disease (33.3%). Clinical benefit was not associated with baseline FRα or PD-L1 expression. One patient with prolonged clinical benefit demonstrated loss of FRα expression and upregulation of PD-L1 in a progressing lesion. Despite the low overall response rate, the median overall survival was 21 months (13.5–∞), with evidence of benefit from postimmunotherapy regimens. Conclusions Combination of TPIV200 and durvalumab was safe and elicited robust FRα-specific T cell responses in all patients. Unexpectedly durable survival in this heavily pretreated population highlights the need to investigate the impact of FRα vaccination on the OC biology post-treatment.

6040 Background: FRα is overexpressed on > 90% of high-grade EOC. We conducted a randomized double-blind multicenter phase II clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TPIV200 (a multi-epitope FRα peptide vaccine admixed with GM-CSF adjuvant) versus GM-CSF alone as a control in patients with stage III-IV high-grade platinum-sensitive epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma in first complete or partial remission, irrespective of baseline level of FRα expression. Methods: Patients with stage III-IV high-grade serous, high-grade endometrioid, carcinosarcoma or poorly differentiated EOC who had previously completed standard upfront therapy without evidence of disease progression and who were within a year of last platinum were randomized 1:1 to intradermal vaccination of TPIV200 versus intradermal GM-CSF alone. The vaccination period included 6 administrations of the study drug at 4-week intervals. Up to 6 booster vaccinations at 12-week intervals were permitted for patients who did not have disease progression. AEs were assessed using CTCAE. Tumor response was assessed via RECIST every 12 weeks. The primary endpoint, progression free survival (PFS), was calculated from date of first vaccination to the date of progression, death or study termination. Results: Of 120 patients randomized, 63 (53%) were treated on the TPIV200 arm. The median age at study entry was 63 years (range 37-88). AEs were generally mild. Injection site reaction was more frequent in the TPIV200 (63%) versus GM-CSF arm (39%). The other most common AEs, abdominal pain (25%) and fatigue (23%), were comparable in both arms. At study termination with a median follow-up of 15.2 months (range: 1.2-28.3 months), 68 of 119 intention-to-treat patients had progressed (55% in the TPIV200 arm and 59% in the GM-CSF arm). The median PFS was 11.1 months (95% CI: 8.3-16.6 months) and there was no statistically significant difference in median PFS between the arms (10.9 months with TPIV200 versus 11.1 months with GM-CSF, HR = 0.85 [upper 90% CI = 1.17]). Conclusions: Although TPIV200 had a manageable safety profile, the study was terminated for futility after the planned interim analysis. Future development of FRα-targeted therapy will likely focus on the careful selection of patients whose cancers show high FRα expression. Clinical trial information: NCT02978222.

6016 Background: The role of HIPEC for recurrent EOC is not well defined. The aim of this phase II study was to determine the proportion of pts without evidence of disease progression at 24 months post SCS +/- intraoperative carboplatin HIPEC. Methods: After SCS to ≤ 0.5 cm residual visible disease pts were intraoperatively randomized to carboplatin HIPEC (800mg/m2 for 90 minutes) or no HIPEC. The HIPEC arm received 5 additional and the standard arm received 6 postoperative cycles of IV platinum-based chemotherapy without maintenance treatment. Based on an exact binomial single stage “pick the winner” design, each arm is considered “winner” if ≥ 17/49 pts are without evidence of disease progression at 24 months post SCS. Secondary objectives include postoperative grade ≥ 3 toxicity and complications within 4 weeks post SCS, and pharmacokinetics of carboplatin HIPEC. Results: Of 98 pts, 49 (50%) were randomized to the HIPEC arm. The arms were well balanced for age, stage, histology, BRCA mutation status, prior chemotherapy, and disease-free interval. Complete gross SCS was achieved in 94% of the standard and 82% of the HIPEC arm (p = 0.12). Bowel resection was performed more frequently in the standard (65%) compared to the HIPEC arm (37%; p = 0.008). Median operative time was shorter in the standard (296 minutes) compared to the HIPEC arm (475 minutes; p < 0.001). There was no perioperative mortality and no difference in use of ostomies, length of stay or postoperative toxicity. At a median follow-up of 27.7 months (range: 8.8-81.8 months) 70 of 98 pts progressed and 26 died with a median progression free survival (PFS) of 14.3 months (12.1-16 months) and a median overall survival (OS) of 55.2 months (47.7-not reached). At 24 months post SCS 32 pts progressed within 24 months in the standard versus 35 in the HIPEC arm. There was no statistically significant difference in median PFS (15.4 vs 12.3 months, p = 0.173) or median OS (69.2 vs 53.1 months, p = 0.317) between arms. These are preliminary efficacy estimates as 83/98 pts have a minimum of 24 months follow-up. Conclusions: The HIPEC arm did not reach the predefined “winner” endpoint; the standard arm is still undetermined as 6 pts did not reach 24 months follow-up. No perioperative mortality, and no increased perioperative morbidity or toxicity was seen with HIPEC. SCS with carboplatin HIPEC followed by 5 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy was not superior to SCS without HIPEC followed by 6 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01767675.