Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:With the global incidence of ovarian cancer set to rise by 55% to 371 000 per year by 2035, current 5-year survival rates below 50%, and 15% of women with ovarian cancer dying within 2 months of diagnosis, urgent action is required to improve survival and quality of life. OBJECTIVE:To deal with the evidence gap relating to the experience of women with the disease around the globe and identify opportunities to drive progress. METHODS:The study included a review of global trends in incidence, mortality, and survival (October 2017); qualitative interviews with women and clinicians in 16 countries (December 2017); and an online survey for women available in 15 different languages (open for 2 months, March to early May 2018). Women were eligible to participate if they had been diagnosed in the previous 5 years and were proficient in one of the 15 languages offered. RESULTS:A total of 1531 women from 44 countries took part in the analysis. On average, 69.1% of women were not aware of ovarian cancer before their own diagnosis, varying from 50.9% (Hungary) to 86.4% (Brazil). A total of 78.3% of symptomatic women sought medical help, varying from 62.8% (Japan) to 87.7% (UK). Fewer than half of the women visited a doctor within 1 month (46.3%) of experiencing symptoms, varying from 38.5% (USA) to 77.3% (Germany), and a quarter of women waited 3 months or more. On average, 43.2% of women were diagnosed within 1 month of visiting a doctor, ranging from 30% (UK) to 62.3% (Italy). The average estimated time from experiencing symptoms to diagnosis was 31 weeks, but this ranged from 21.3 (Germany) to 39.7 (Brazil). Rates of post-diagnosis genetic testing ranged from 5.0% (Japan) to 79.1% (USA). Clinicians indicated that access to specialist treatment in high-volume centers varies greatly by country and region. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The findings of this study identify some of the major challenges and opportunities to improve the time to diagnosis and management of women with ovarian cancer. These problems vary widely by country, and reducing the variability is an important first step towards improving outcomes for women with ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND:The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented challenges for people living with cancer, impacting not only physical health but psychological well-being. The psychological response affects the individual as well as the community and can persist long after the outbreak. We aim to assess coping strategies employed by women with ovarian cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:Women with a current or prior diagnosis of ovarian cancer completed an online survey which included a query about coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was distributed from March 30th through April 13, 2020 through survivor networks and social media. RESULTS:Six hundred and three women visited the survey website during the study period and 555 (92.0%) completed the survey. Four hundred and eight (73.5%) provided information on coping strategies utilized during COVID-19. Among those who responded, the median age was 58 years (range 20-85) and 150 participants (40.8%) were undergoing active cancer treatment. Commonly utilized adaptive coping strategies included emotional support (159, 39.0%), self care (148, 36.3%), hobbies (139, 34.1%), planning (87, 21.3%), positive reframing (54, 13.2%), religion (50, 12.3%) and instrumental support (38, 9.3%). Many participants also relied on avoidance coping strategies including self distraction (111, 27.2%) and substance use (19, 4.7%). CONCLUSIONS:Most ovarian cancer survivors are using adaptive, problem-focused coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic, however many are practicing avoidance strategies as well. As coping mechanisms profoundly impact quality of life, oncology providers must assist patients in identifying coping strategies that optimize physical and psychological well-being.

Microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumors are characterized by high tumor mutation burden and responsiveness to checkpoint blockade. We identified tumor-specific frameshifts encoding multiple epitopes that originated from indel mutations shared among patients with MSI-H endometrial, colorectal, and stomach cancers. Epitopes derived from these shared frameshifts have high population occurrence rates, wide presence in many tumor subclones, and are predicted to bind to the most frequent MHC alleles in MSI-H patient cohorts. Neoantigens arising from these mutations are distinctly unlike self and viral antigens, signifying novel groups of potentially highly immunogenic tumor antigens. We further confirmed the immunogenicity of frameshift peptides in T cell stimulation experiments using blood mononuclear cells isolated from both healthy donors and MSI-H cancer patients. Our study uncovers the widespread occurrence and strong immunogenicity of tumor-specific antigens derived from shared frameshift mutations in MSI-H cancer and Lynch syndrome patients, suitable for the design of common "off-the-shelf" cancer vaccines.

OBJECTIVE:Elevated inflammatory markers are predictive of COVID-19 infection severity and mortality. It is unclear if these markers are associated with severe infection in patients with cancer due to underlying tumor related inflammation. We sought to further understand the inflammatory response related to COVID-19 infection in patients with gynecologic cancer. METHODS:Patients with a history of gynecologic cancer hospitalized for COVID-19 infection with available laboratory data were identified. Admission laboratory values and clinical outcomes were abstracted from electronic medical records. Severe infection was defined as infection requiring ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or resulting in death. RESULTS:86 patients with gynecologic cancer were hospitalized with COVID-19 infection with a median age of 68.5 years (interquartile range (IQR), 59.0-74.8). Of the 86 patients, 29 (33.7%) patients required ICU admission and 25 (29.1%) patients died of COVID-19 complications. Fifty (58.1%) patients had active cancer and 36 (41.9%) were in remission. Patients with severe infection had significantly higher ferritin (median 1163.0 vs 624.0 ng/mL, p < 0.01), procalcitonin (median 0.8 vs 0.2 ng/mL, p < 0.01), and C-reactive protein (median 142.0 vs 62.3 mg/L, p = 0.02) levels compared to those with moderate infection. White blood cell count, lactate, and creatinine were also associated with severe infection. D-dimer levels were not significantly associated with severe infection (p = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS:The inflammatory markers ferritin, procalcitonin, and CRP were associated with COVID-19 severity in gynecologic cancer patients and may be used as prognostic markers at the time of admission.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented challenges for the oncology community. For people living with cancer, treatments are interrupted, surgeries cancelled and regular oncology evaluations rescheduled. People with cancer and their physicians must balance plausible fears of COVID-19 and cancer treatment with the consequences of delaying cancer care. We aim to evaluate the experience of women with ovarian cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:Women with a current or prior diagnosis of ovarian cancer completed an online survey focusing on treatment interruptions and quality of life (QOL). QOL was measured with the Cancer Worry Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. The survey was distributed through survivor networks and social media. Univariate and multivariable linear regression analysis were utilized to evaluate the effect of participant characteristics on QOL survey scores. RESULTS:Six hundred and three women, from 41 states, visited the survey website between March 30 and April 13, 2020 and 555 (92.0%) completed the survey. The median age was 58 years (range 20-85). Two hundred and seventeen participants (43.3%) were in active treatment at the time of survey completion. One hundred and seventy-five participants (33%) experienced a delay in some component of their cancer care. Ten (26.3%) of the 38 participants scheduled for surgery experienced a delay and 18 (8.3%) of the 217 participants scheuled for nonsurgical cancer treatment. One hundred and thirty-three participants (24.0%) had a delayed physician appointment, 84 (15.1%) laboratory test and 53 (9.6%) cancer related imaging. Among the cohort, 88.6% (489) reported significant cancer worry, 51.4% (285) borderline or abnormal anxiety and 26.5% (147) borderline or abnormal depression. On univariate analysis, age less than 65 years, being scheduled for cancer treatment or cancer surgery, delay in oncology care, self-described as immunocompromised and use of telemedicine were all associated with higher levels of cancer worry. Higher anxiety scores were associated with age less than 65 years and self-described as immunocompromised. Higher depression scores were associated with age less than 65 years, being scheduled for cancer surgery, delay in oncology care, self-described as immunocompromised and use of telemedicine. On multivariable linear regression analysis, age less than 65 and being self-described as immunocompromised were independently predictive of greater cancer worry, anxiety and depression and delay in cancer care was predictive of anxiety and depression. CONCLUSIONS:The COVID-19 crisis is impacting care of ovarian cancer patients: surgeries, treatments, scheduled physician appointments, laboratory tests and imaging are cancelled or delayed. Younger age, presumed immunocompromise and delay in cancer care were associated with significantly higher levels of cancer worry, anxiety and depression. Providers must work with patients to balance competing risks of COVID-19 and cancer, recognizing that communication is a critical clinical tool to improve quality of life in these times.

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged our ability to provide timely surgical care for our patients. In response, the U.S. Surgeon General, the American College of Srugeons, and other surgical professional societies recommended postponing elective surgical procedures and proceeding cautiously with cancer procedures that may require significant hospital resources and expose vulnerable patients to the virus. These challenges have particularly distressing for women with a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and their providers. Currently, circumstances vary greatly by region and by hospital, depending on COVID-19 prevalence, case mix, hospital type, and available resources. Therefore, COVID-19-related modifications to surgical practice guidelines must be individualized. Special consideration is necessary to evaluate the appropriateness of procedural interventions, recognizing the significant resources and personnel they require. Additionally, the pandemic may occur in waves, with patient demand for surgery ebbing and flowing accordingly. Hospitals, cancer centers and providers must prepare themselves to meet this demand. The purpose of this white paper is to highlight all phases of gynecologic cancer surgical care during the COVID-19 pandemic and to illustrate when it is best to operate, to hestitate, and reintegrate surgery. Triage and prioritization of surgical cases, preoperative COVID-19 testing, peri-operative safety principles, and preparations for the post-COVID-19 peak and surgical reintegration are reviewed.

BACKGROUND:Postdischarge nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery is a common problem that is not adequately addressed in current practice. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study was designed to test the hypothesis that oral olanzapine is superior to placebo at preventing postdischarge nausea and vomiting. METHODS:In a single-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, the authors compared a single preoperative dose of olanzapine 10 mg to placebo, in adult female patients 50 years old or less, undergoing ambulatory gynecologic or plastic surgery with general anesthesia. All patients received standard antiemetic prophylaxis with dexamethasone and ondansetron. The primary composite outcome was nausea and/or vomiting in the 24 h after discharge. Secondary outcomes included severe nausea, vomiting, and side effects. RESULTS:A total of 140 patients were randomized and evaluable. The primary outcome occurred in 26 of 69 patients (38%) in the placebo group and in 10 of 71 patients (14%) in the olanzapine group (relative risk, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.72; P = 0.003). Severe nausea occurred in 14 patients (20%) in the placebo group and 4 patients (6%) in the olanzapine group (relative risk, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.80). Vomiting occurred in eight patients (12%) in the placebo group and two patients (3%) in the olanzapine group (relative risk, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.05 to 1.10). The median score for sedation (scale 0 to 10, with 10 being highest) in the 24 h after discharge was 4 (interquartile range, 2 to 7) in the placebo group and 6 (interquartile range, 3 to 8) in the olanzapine group (P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS:When combined with ondansetron and dexamethasone, the addition of olanzapine relative to placebo decreased the risk of nausea and/or vomiting in the 24 hafter discharge from ambulatory surgery by about 60% with a slight increase in reported sedation. : WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: Nausea and vomiting after discharge from ambulatory surgery remains common despite use of current antiemetics. WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW/UNASSIGNED:The authors randomized women having day surgery to olanzapine 10 mg or placebo. All were also given both dexamethasone and ondansetron.Olanzapine reduced nausea and vomiting in the 24 h after hospital discharge from 38% to 14%, corresponding to a number-needed-to-treat of just four patients.

BACKGROUND:Timely genetic testing at ovarian cancer diagnosis is essential as results impact front line treatment decisions. Our objective was to determine rates of genetic counseling and testing with an expedited genetics referral pathway wherein women with newly-diagnosed ovarian cancer are contacted by a genetics navigator to facilitate genetic counseling. METHODS:Patients were referred for genetic counseling by their gynecologic oncologist, contacted by a genetics navigator and offered appointments for genetic counseling. Patients completed quality of life (QoL) surveys immediately pre- and post-genetic assessment and 6 months later. The primary outcome was feasibility of this pathway defined by presentation for genetic counseling. RESULTS:From 2015 to 2018, 100 patients were enrolled. Seventy-eight had genetic counseling and 73 testing. Median time from diagnosis to genetic counseling was 34 days (range 10-189). Among patients who underwent testing, 12 (16%) had pathogenic germline mutations (BRCA1-7, BRCA2-4, MSH2-1). Sixty-five patients completed QoL assessments demonstrating stress and anxiety at time of testing, however, scores improved at 6 months. Despite the pathway leveling financial and logistical barriers, patients receiving care at a public hospital were less likely to present for genetic counseling compared to private hospital patients (56% versus 84%, P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS:Facilitated referral to genetic counselors at time of ovarian cancer diagnosis is effective, resulting in high uptake of genetic counseling and testing, and does not demonstrate a long term psychologic toll. Concern about causing additional emotional distress should not deter clinicians from early genetics referral as genetic testing can yield important prognostic and therapeutic information.

OBJECTIVE:Poly(ADP-ribosyl) polymerases (PARPs) are nuclear enzymes with roles in DNA damage recognition and repair. PARP1 inhibition enhances the effects of DNA-damaging agents like doxorubicin. We sought to determine the recommended phase two dose (RP2D) of veliparib with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in breast and recurrent gynecologic cancer patients. METHODS:on day 1 of a 28-day cycle. Dose escalation proceeded in two strata: A (prior PLD exposure) and B (no prior PLD exposure). Patients underwent limited pharmacokinetic (PK) sampling; an expansion PK cohort was added. RESULTS:44 patients with recurrent ovarian or triple negative breast cancer were enrolled. Median age 56 years; 23 patients BRCA mutation carriers; median prior regimens four. Patients received a median of four cycles of veliparib/PLD. Grade 3/4 toxicities were observed in 10% of patients. Antitumor activity was observed in both sporadic and BRCA-deficient cancers. Two BRCA mutation carriers had complete responses. Two BRCA patients developed oral squamous cell cancers after completing this regimen. PLD exposure was observed to be higher when veliparib doses were > 200 mg BID. CONCLUSIONS:PLD on day 1 of a 28-day cycle. Anti-tumor activity was seen in both strata. However, given development of long-term squamous cell cancers and the PK interaction observed, efforts should focus on other targeted combinations to improve efficacy.