Gaillard, Stéphanie

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Vaginal Cancer outline the recommended diagnostic workup, staging considerations, and treatment options for this rare malignancy. Because vaginal cancer is uncommon and shares many biologic and clinical characteristics with cervical cancer, several management recommendations, particularly systemic therapy, are extrapolated from evidence and practices established for cervical cancer. This guideline excerpt summarizes key components of management, including diagnostic evaluation and workup, principles of staging, pathology considerations, radiation therapy principles, and primary treatment recommendations for both early-stage and advanced disease. It also details approaches to manage relapses, including locoregional recurrence and distant metastases, and provides an in-depth overview of systemic therapy recommendations for vaginal cancer.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Cervical Cancer provide diagnostic workup, staging, and various treatment recommendations for cervical cancer based on clinical and surgical staging. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for cervical cancer specifically focuses on diagnosis and workup, principles of staging and surgery, and primary treatment recommendations for early-stage and advanced disease and provides a detailed overview of systemic therapy recommendations for cervical cancer.

The NCCN Guidelines for Uterine Neoplasms provide recommendations for diagnostic workup, clinical staging, and treatment options for patients with endometrial cancer and uterine sarcoma. The NCCN Cervical Uterine Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions; examine relevant new data from publications, abstracts, and recent FDA approvals; and reevaluate and update recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s deliberations on the new FIGO 2023 staging system and updates on the new systemic therapy recommendations for the management of endometrial cancer.

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.

PURPOSE To report the results of OPAL (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03574779 ) cohort A, a single-arm substudy of niraparib plus dostarlimab and bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). METHODS Participants with PROC who received 1-2 previous lines of therapy were treated with niraparib (200 or 300 mg once daily), dostarlimab (500 mg once every 3 weeks for four 21-day cycles, followed by 1,000 mg once every 6 weeks), and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg once every 3 weeks). The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Safety was also assessed. Exploratory biomarker end points included evaluation of changes in the tumor molecular profile and microenvironment using baseline and on-treatment tumor samples. RESULTS Of 41 enrolled participants (median age, 66.0 years [range, 37-83 years]), 9.8% had tumors that were BRCA-mutated, 19.5% were homologous recombination (HR)–deficient, and 17.1% were HR repair (HRR)–mutated. As of the cutoff date, all participants discontinued treatment. The ORR was 17.1% (80% CI, 9.8 to 27.0), including one complete response (2.4%); the disease control rate was 73.2% (80% CI, 62.3 to 82.2). Two participants withdrew before first postbaseline scan because of adverse events (AEs). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs were reported in 92.7% of participants, with the most common being hypertension (26.8%). Response was not correlated with BRCA, HRR, HR deficiency (HRD), or PD-L1 status. Changes suggesting immune activation were observed in on-treatment samples after triplet therapy. CONCLUSION Results demonstrated modest activity of niraparib, dostarlimab, and bevacizumab in participants with PROC, many of whom had prognostic factors for poor treatment response. Most participants with response were bevacizumab-naïve. No association was found with HRD, BRCA, or PD-L1 status. AEs were consistent with previous monotherapy reports, except that hypertension was reported more frequently.

Vulvar cancer is annually diagnosed in an estimated 6,470 individuals and the vast majority are histologically squamous cell carcinomas. Vulvar cancer accounts for 5% to 8% of gynecologic malignancies. Known risk factors for vulvar cancer include increasing age, infection with human papillomavirus, cigarette smoking, inflammatory conditions affecting the vulva, and immunodeficiency. Most vulvar neoplasias are diagnosed at early stages. Rarer histologies exist and include melanoma, extramammary Paget’s disease, Bartholin gland adenocarcinoma, verrucous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, and sarcoma. This manuscript discusses recommendations outlined in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for treatments, surveillance, systemic therapy options, and gynecologic survivorship.

The NCCN Guidelines for Cervical Cancer provide recommendations for all aspects of management for cervical cancer, including the diagnostic workup, staging, pathology, and treatment. The guidelines also include details on histopathologic classification of cervical cancer regarding diagnostic features, molecular profiles, and clinical outcomes. The treatment landscape of advanced cervical cancer is evolving constantly. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of recent updates regarding the systemic therapy recommendations for recurrent or metastatic disease.

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.

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.