Mahner, Sven�

Abstract Purpose: Gene expression–based molecular subtypes of high-grade serous tubo-ovarian cancer (HGSOC), demonstrated across multiple studies, may provide improved stratification for molecularly targeted trials. However, evaluation of clinical utility has been hindered by nonstandardized methods, which are not applicable in a clinical setting. We sought to generate a clinical grade minimal gene set assay for classification of individual tumor specimens into HGSOC subtypes and confirm previously reported subtype-associated features. Experimental Design: Adopting two independent approaches, we derived and internally validated algorithms for subtype prediction using published gene expression data from 1,650 tumors. We applied resulting models to NanoString data on 3,829 HGSOCs from the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium. We further developed, confirmed, and validated a reduced, minimal gene set predictor, with methods suitable for a single-patient setting. Results: Gene expression data were used to derive the predictor of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma molecular subtype (PrOTYPE) assay. We established a de facto standard as a consensus of two parallel approaches. PrOTYPE subtypes are significantly associated with age, stage, residual disease, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and outcome. The locked-down clinical grade PrOTYPE test includes a model with 55 genes that predicted gene expression subtype with >95% accuracy that was maintained in all analytic and biological validations. Conclusions: We validated the PrOTYPE assay following the Institute of Medicine guidelines for the development of omics-based tests. This fully defined and locked-down clinical grade assay will enable trial design with molecular subtype stratification and allow for objective assessment of the predictive value of HGSOC molecular subtypes in precision medicine applications. See related commentary by McMullen et al., p. 5271

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.

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.

Abstract Purpose: Recent progress in understanding the molecular biology of epithelial ovarian cancer has not yet translated into individualized treatment for these women or improvements in their disease outcome. Gene expression has been utilized to identify distinct molecular subtypes, but there have been no reports investigating whether or not molecular subtyping is predictive of response to bevacizumab in ovarian cancer. Experimental Design: DASL gene expression arrays were performed on FFPE tissue from patients enrolled on the ICON7 trial. Patients were stratified into four TCGA molecular subtypes. Associations between molecular subtype and the efficacy of randomly assigned therapy with bevacizumab were assessed. Results: Molecular subtypes were assigned as follows: 122 immunoreactive (34%), 96 proliferative (27%), 73 differentiated (20%), and 68 mesenchymal (19%). In univariate analysis patients with tumors of proliferative subtype obtained the greatest benefit from bevacizumab with a median PFS improvement of 10.1 months [HR, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34–0.90), P = 0.016]. For the mesenchymal subtype, bevacizumab conferred a nonsignificant improvement in PFS of 8.2 months [HR 0.78 (95% CI, 0.44–1.40), P = 0.41]. Bevacizumab conferred modest improvements in PFS for patients with immunoreactive subtype (3.8 months; P = 0.08) or differentiated subtype (3.7 months; P = 0.61). Multivariate analysis demonstrated significant PFS improvement in proliferative subtype patients only [HR, 0.45 (95% CI, 0.27–0.74), P = 0.0015]. Conclusions: Ovarian carcinoma molecular subtypes with the poorest survival (proliferative and mesenchymal) derive a comparably greater benefit from treatment that includes bevacizumab. Validation of our findings in an independent cohort could enable the use of bevacizumab for those patients most likely to benefit, thereby reducing side effects and healthcare cost. Clin Cancer Res; 23(14); 3794–801. ©2017 AACR.