Sehouli, Jalid

AbstractBackgroundBRCA1 methylation has been associated with homologous recombination deficiency, a biomarker of platinum sensitivity. Studies evaluating BRCA1-methylated tubal and ovarian cancer (OC) do not consistently support improved survival following platinum chemotherapy. We examine the characteristics of BRCA1-methylated OC in a meta-analysis of individual participant data.MethodsData of 2636 participants across 15 studies were analyzed. BRCA1-methylated tumors were defined according to their original study. Associations between BRCA1 methylation and clinicopathological characteristics were evaluated. The effects of methylation on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were examined using mixed-effects models. All statistical tests were 2-sided.Results430 (16.3%) tumors were BRCA1-methylated. BRCA1 methylation was associated with younger age and advanced-stage, high-grade serous OC. There were no survival differences between BRCA1-methylated and non–BRCA1-methylated OC (median PFS = 20.0 vs 18.5 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.16; P = .98; median OS = 46.6 vs 48.0 months, HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.18; P = .96). Where BRCA1/2 mutations were evaluated (n = 1248), BRCA1 methylation displayed no survival advantage over BRCA1/2-intact (BRCA1/2 wild-type non–BRCA1-methylated) OC. Studies used different methods to define BRCA1 methylation. Where BRCA1 methylation was determined using methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction and gel electrophoresis (n = 834), it was associated with improved survival (PFS: HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.97; P = .02; OS: HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.63 to 1.00; P = .05) on mixed-effects modeling.ConclusionBRCA1-methylated OC displays similar clinicopathological features to BRCA1-mutated OC but is not associated with survival. Heterogeneity within BRCA1 methylation assays influences associations. Refining these assays may better identify cases with silenced BRCA1 function and improved patient outcomes.

5593 Background: We conducted an international survey to evaluate the differences in the systemic, radiotherapeutic and operative management of endometrial cancer (EC) in different regions of the world. Methods: In 2009 avalidated 15-item-questionnaire regarding surgical and adjuvant procedures of EC was sent to all German gynaecological clinics and in 2010 the English adapted questionnaire was set online as well as sent per post in most major gynaecological cancer societies. Results: 316 German institutions and 302 Institutions from 24 countries participated. We combined the different countries into regional groups: Central Europe (CE), southern Europe (SE), Asia and USA/UK. In Asian countries and in CE a lymph node dissection (LND) was performed routinely in 72.8% and in 55.6% of the cases, whereas in the USA/UK and in SE a LND was done mainly in selected cases when specific risk factors such as high-grade or non-endometrioid-histology applied (62.8% and 72.5%) than routinely (p < 0.001). A systematic pelvic and paraaortic LND was performed most frequently in CE 91.0%, in SE 76.9%, in Asia 70.9% and in USA/UK 68.6% (p < 0.001). A systematic LND with the intention of both adequate staging and for therapeutic value was performed in countries of central Europe to 74.6% and in Asia to 67.2%. In USA/UK the LND was seen merely as a staging instrument by 53.5% (p < 0.001). The LND was performed up to renal veins in CE in 86.8%, in Asia in 80.8%, in USA/UK in 51.2% and in SE in 45.1 %. A significant difference war found in the treatment for FIGO stage I (high risk factors (high grade, L1,V1)) and stage II disease between the countries: chemotherapy was applied in 84.8% of the participated centers in Asia,42.3% in SE, 21.2% in CE and only 13.6% in USK/UK (p<0.001).Vaginal brachytherapy was indicated as follows: USA/UK 84.1%, CE 78.8%, SE 78.8%, Asia 5.6% (p < 0.001). Conclusions: There is a large variety in the operative therapy and the clinical management of EC in different regions of the world. Future international prospective trials, will be necessary to improve and harmonize the evidence based treatment guidelines for EC- disease.

5087 Background: Indication, technique and extent of lymph-node-dissection (LND) in endometrial cancer (EC) remains controversial and is strongly debated in cancer community. We conducted a national- and at a second step an international-survey evaluating the current status-quo of the surgical and medical management of EC. Methods: A validated 15-item-questionnaire regarding surgical and adjuvant procedures of EC was sent to all major gynaecological cancer societies and study groups worldwide. The questionnaire could also be answered online. Results: In a phase-I-national trial, the questionnaire was validated on basis of 316 German institutions. On the phase-II-international survey a total of 302 questionnaires were answered from 24 countries, mainly from Japan (38.7%), Spain (8.3%), Austria (7%), United-Kingdom (6.3%), Italy (6%), USA (4.3%) and Canada (4%). The vast majority of the participating clinics were academic (62.8%), while 75.2% of them belonged to gynaecology. Only 0.7% of the clinics internationally reported never performing LND in EC. 62.3% of the clinics perform both a pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection. 59.1% of the participants performed a systematic lymph node dissection with the intention of both adequate staging and for therapeutic value. 15.05% of the clinics perform LND up to the common-iliac-arteries, 9.03% up to the inferior-mesenteric-artery and 70.6% up to the renal-veins. The most common risk-factors to indicate LND were: high-grading (93%), non-endometrioid-histology (90.1%), lymphovascular-invasion (55.3%), blood-vessel invasion (45.4%) and tumor-diameter >2cm (38.4%). For advanced stage III&IV disease the vast majority (60% and 80%, respectively) of the physicians indicated systemic chemotherapy alone. Conclusions: This study presents the large variety in clinical management of EC worldwide, underlining so the high need of future prospective randomised trials which will establish standard and evidence based treatment guidelines for EC- disease.

Abstract Purpose: Predicting surgical outcome could improve individualizing treatment strategies for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. It has been suggested earlier that gene expression signatures (GES) might harbor the potential to predict surgical outcome. Experimental Design: Data derived from high-grade serous tumor tissue of FIGO stage IIIC/IV patients of AGO-OVAR11 trial were used to generate a transcriptome profiling. Previously identified molecular signatures were tested. A theoretical model was implemented to evaluate the impact of medically associated factors for residual disease (RD) on the performance of GES that predicts RD status. Results: A total of 266 patients met inclusion criteria, of those, 39.1% underwent complete resection. Previously reported GES did not predict RD in this cohort. Similarly, The Cancer Genome Atlas molecular subtypes, an independent de novo signature and the total gene expression dataset using all 21,000 genes were not able to predict RD status. Medical reasons for RD were identified as potential limiting factors that impact the ability to use GES to predict RD. In a center with high complete resection rates, a GES which would perfectly predict tumor biological RD would have a performance of only AUC 0.83, due to reasons other than tumor biology. Conclusions: Previously identified GES cannot be generalized. Medically associated factors for RD may be the main obstacle to predict surgical outcome in an all-comer population of patients with advanced ovarian cancer. If biomarkers derived from tumor tissue are used to predict outcome of patients with cancer, selection bias should be focused on to prevent overestimation of the power of such a biomarker. See related commentary by Handley and Sood, p. 9

TPS5602 Background: Primary cytoreductive surgery (PDS) followed by chemotherapy has been considered as standard management for advanced ovarian cancer patients (pts) over decades. An alternative approach of interval debulking surgery (IDS) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) was subsequently reported by two randomized phase III trials (EORTC‐GCG, CHORUS). Owing to important limitations of these studies, especially regarding surgical quality, optimal timing of surgical therapy in advanced ovarian cancer is still unclear. Methods: TRUST is an international open, randomized, controlled multicenter trial investigating overall survival (OS; primary endpoint) after PDS vs NACT and subsequent IDS in pts with FIGO stage IIIB‐IVB ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal carcinoma. Secondary objectives are safety of complete tumor resection, progression‐free survival and quality of life (QoL) as well as surgical morbidity. In order to guarantee adequate surgical quality, participating centers need to fulfill specific quality assurance criteria (e.g. ≥50% complete resection rate in upfront surgery for FIGO IIIB-IV pts, ≥36 debulking-surgeries/year) and agree to independent audits by TRUST Quality committee delegates. A 1:1 randomization to PDS or NACT followed by IDS stratified by center and age‐ECOG combination (ECOG 0 and age ≤65 years vs ECOG > 0 or age > 65 years) is performed. Pts in the PDS arm will undergo surgery followed by 6 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy, whereas pts in the IDS arm will be treated with 3 cycles of NACT after histologic confirmation of the disease, followed by IDS and subsequently 3 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. Intention of surgery for both groups will be complete tumor resection as per guideline recommendations. Health related QoL will be assessed using the EORTC QLQ‐C30, QLQ‐OV28, and EQ‐5D‐3L questionnaires. For sample size planning, we considered a prolongation of median OS from 45 months in the IDS arm to 60 months in the PDS arm (HR 0.75) as clinically relevant. 380 events are needed to obtain a power of 80% in two‐sided log-rank test with significance level of 0.05. The primary analysis will be done in the ITT‐population of 686 randomized pts. By Feb 3 2017, 46 pts were randomized. Clinical trial information: NCT02828618.