Faculty Bibliography

Introduction/Background Mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency is caused by loss of expression of MMR proteins, MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and/or MSH6, that function as heterodimers (MLH1/PMS2 and MSH2/MSH6) to mediate DNA repair. Loss of function caused by mutation or epigenetic methylation leads to defective MMR and genomic instability. MMR deficient (dMMR) tumours can respond to anti-programmed death 1 (anti-PD-1) therapy. We report a post hoc analysis of objective response rate (ORR) with loss of MMR dimers and mutation status of MMR genes in patients with dMMR endometrial cancer (EC) treated with dostarlimab. Methodology GARNET is a multicentre, open-label, single-arm phase 1 study. Cohort A1 enrolled patients with dMMR advanced/recurrent EC. Patients received 500 mg of dostarlimab intravenously Q3W for 4 cycles, then 1000 mg Q6W until disease progression, discontinuation, or withdrawal. MMR protein status (presence or loss) was determined by local immunohistochemistry. MMR gene mutation was determined by FoundationOne. MLH1 loss without MMR gene mutation was a surrogate indicator for epigenetic methylation. Results Cohort A1 included 143 patients; MMR gene mutation data were available for 101 patients (table 1). Cohort A1 ORR was 45.5%. 66% of patients had loss of MLH1/PMS2; ORR was 48.9%. 11.2% of patients had loss of MSH2/ MSH6; ORR was 56.2%. ORR was 41.7% for MLH1 loss with MMR gene mutation and 39.4% for MLH1 loss without MMR gene mutation. Conclusion Patients with dMMR advanced/recurrent EC benefitted from dostarlimab, with no noticeable difference by dimer-pair loss or MMR gene methylation/mutation status. These data suggest the route to MMR deficiency does not influence response to dostarlimab

Introduction/Background LIO-1 (NCT04042116) assesses the combination of lucitanib, an oral anti-angiogenic, multikinase inhibitor administered using safety-based dose titration, and nivolumab, an inhibitor of programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1). Here, we present phase 2 study results of this combination in 4 advanced gynaecological malignancies. Methodology LIO-1 enrolled patients with advanced, recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer (EC), cervical cancer (CC), high-grade ovarian cancer (OC) or EC/OC with clear-cell histology (EOCC). Patients with EC, CC or EOCC received >=1 prior platinum-based chemotherapies (CC, +/- bevacizumab; EOCC, + taxane); patients with OC received >=2 prior chemotherapies (including >=1 platinum doublet). Patients received lucitanib at a starting dose of 6 mg QD plus intravenous nivolumab 480 mg every 28 days. Lucitanib dose could be escalated to 8 mg then 10 mg QD. The data cutoff was 14 April 2022. Results Total treated was 124 patients; 31 (25.0%) patients are ongoing. At data cutoff, 32 (25.8%) patients escalated to lucitanib 8 mg and 20 (16.1%) to 10 mg. The confirmed best overall response rates at data cutoff were: EC cohort, 5/22 (22.7%); CC cohort, 12/46 (26.1%); OC cohort, 4/33 (12.1%); EOCC cohort, 6/23 (26.1%). Among EC-cohort patients, confirmed responses were reported for 2/5 patients who received prior PD-1 inhibitor (both were non-responders to prior PD-1 inhibitor). Among EC-cohort patients with known microsatellite status, confirmed responses were observed in 3/14 with microsatellite stability and 2/3 with high instability. Grade >=3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) considered study-treatment related were reported in 55 (44.4%) patients, with the most frequent being hypertension (n=30 [24.2%]). TEAEs leading to lucitanib dose reduction or discontinuation occurred in 21 (16.9%) and 20 (16.1%) patients, respectively. Conclusion Lucitanib + nivolumab displays anti-tumour activity in patients with advanced gynaecological malignancies, including clear-cell cancer. Effective dose titration resulted in manageable safety, similar to previous reports

Background/UNASSIGNED:placebo. Methods/UNASSIGNED: = 246). QA-PFS was defined as the PFS of patients adjusted for their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) prior to disease progression, measured using European Quality of Life Five-Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire index scores from the PRIMA trial. Q-TWiST was calculated by combining data on PFS, duration of symptomatic grade ⩾2 adverse events (fatigue or asthenia, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and abdominal bloating) prior to disease progression, and EQ-5D index scores. Analyses used data collected up to the last date of PFS assessment (May 17, 2019). Results/UNASSIGNED:placebo (mean gains of 5.9 [95% CI, 3.5-8.6] and 3.5 [95% CI, 1.7-5.6] months, respectively) in the HRd and ITT populations. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:placebo. These findings demonstrate that niraparib maintenance treatment is associated with a PFS improvement and that treatment benefit is maintained even when HRQoL and/or toxicity data are combined with PFS in a single measure. Trial registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02655016; trial registration date: January 13, 2016. Plain language summary/UNASSIGNED:

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Patients with gynecologic malignancies may have varied responses to COVID-19 infection. We aimed to describe clinical courses, treatment changes, and short-term clinical outcomes for gynecologic oncology patients with concurrent COVID-19 in the United States. METHODS:The Society of Gynecologic Oncology COVID-19 and Gynecologic Cancer Registry was created to capture clinical courses of gynecologic oncology patients with COVID-19. Logistic regression models were employed to evaluate factors for an association with hospitalization and death, respectively, within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS:Data were available for 348 patients across 7 institutions. At COVID-19 diagnosis, 125 patients (36%) had active malignancy. Delay (n = 88) or discontinuation (n = 10) of treatment due to COVID-19 infection occurred in 28% with those on chemotherapy (53/88) or recently receiving surgery (32/88) most frequently delayed. In addition to age, performance status, diabetes, and specific COVID symptoms, both non-White race (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.93, 95% CI 2.06-7.50) and active malignancy (aOR = 2.34, 95% CI 1.30-4.20) were associated with an increased odds of hospitalization. Eight percent of hospitalized patients (8/101) died of COVID-19 complications and 5% (17/348) of the entire cohort died within 30 days after diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS:Gynecologic oncology patients diagnosed with COVID-19 are at risk for hospitalization, delay of anti-cancer treatments, and death. One in 20 gynecologic oncology patients with COVID-19 died within 30 days after diagnosis. Racial disparities exist in patient hospitalizations for COVID-19, a surrogate of disease severity. Additional studies are needed to determine long-term outcomes and the impact of race.

Background: Lynch syndrome accounts for 3% of newly diagnosed endometrial cancers and colon cancers. Identifying patients with Lynch syndrome is fundamental to enable proper screening and prevention of at-risk malignancies, along with encouraging cascade testing of family members. We aimed to assess medical students' knowledge of Lynch syndrome-associated cancers and screening and prevention measures to decrease malignancy risk in patients with Lynch syn-drome. Methods: An anonymous, voluntary, multiple-choice survey was emailed to 14 medical schools throughout the US to evaluate medical students"™ knowledge of Lynch syndrome. Results: We surveyed 342 medical students, and 65% were third or fourth-year medical students. Ninety-three percent knew that colon cancer is one of two most commonly diagnosed cancers in Lynch syndrome; however, only 37% knew endometrial cancer was the other most common malignancy in Lynch syndrome patients. Fifty-nine percent of students recognized that 2-5% of all newly diagnosed endometrial and colon cancers are due to Lynch syndrome. Ninety-one percent recognized a family history that would indicate evaluation for Lynch syndrome, but only 49% knew that all patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer prior to age 50 should be evaluated for Lynch syndrome as per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines regardless of other risk fac-tors. Conclusion: Almost two-thirds of medical students did not recognize endometrial cancer as a common Lynch syndrome malignancy and less than 50% were aware of when to evaluate patients with endometrial cancer for Lynch syndrome; comparatively almost all students recognized the link between colon cancer and Lynch syndrome. Curriculum change with targeted education regarding en-dometrial cancer and Lynch syndrome during medical school obstetrics and gynecology clinical ro-tations should be implemented. This call to action is critical in improving the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome, evaluation, screening, and prevention of cancers in both patients and family members to reduce mortality.

OBJECTIVE:Progression-free survival (PFS) is an important early efficacy endpoint in ovarian cancer (OC) and its relevance to patients should be assessed. PRIMA, a phase III trial, assessed niraparib in patients with OC; this post hoc analysis examined the relationship between disease progression in OC and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS:The PRIMA trial randomized patients with advanced OC responsive to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy to once daily maintenance oral niraparib or placebo. This post hoc analysis evaluated the impact of disease progression on HRQoL by comparing HRQoL at the last visit pre-progression to end of treatment (EoT), and after 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks. Assessments included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI), the European Quality of Life Five Dimension Five Level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and EQ Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS), the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30), and the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Ovarian Cancer module (EORTC-QLQ-OV28). RESULTS:This post hoc analysis included 733 patients. Mean FOSI, EQ-5D-5L, and EQ-VAS scores deteriorated from last visit pre-progression to EoT and remained low up to 24-week follow-up. Least squares mean changes from last visit pre-progression to EoT were -2.1 (95% confidence interval -2.4, -1.7) for FOSI, -4.6 (-5.6, -3.5) for the EQ-5D-5L index, and -7.9 (-9.6, -6.3) for EQ-VAS. CONCLUSIONS:Disease progression negatively impacted HRQoL in patients with OC. PFS is clinically relevant, and prolonging PFS may preserve HRQoL.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Patients with germline mutations in mismatch repair genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2) associated with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an increased lifetime risk of endometrial cancer (EC). Multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) is a recent hereditary cancer risk tool enabling next-generation sequencing of numerous genes in parallel. We determined the prevalence of actionable cancer predisposition gene mutations identified through MGPT in an EC patient cohort. METHODS:A single center retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients with EC who had a clinical indication for genetic testing and who underwent MGPT as part of standard of care treatment between 2012 and 2021. Pathogenic mutations were identified and actionable mutations were defined as those with clinical management implications. Additionally, the number of individuals identified with LS was compared between MGPT and tumor-based screening. RESULTS:The study included a total of 224 patients. Thirty-three patients [14.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 10.4-20.1] had actionable mutations. Twenty-one patients (9.4%, 95% CI = 5.9-14.0) had mutations in LS genes (4 MLH1, 5 MSH2, 7 MSH6, 4 PMS2, 1 Epcam-MSH2). MGPT revealed two patients with LS (9.5% of LS cases) not identified through routine tumor-based screening. Thirteen patients (5.8%, 95% CI = 3.1-9.7) had at least one actionable mutation in a non-Lynch syndrome gene (6 CHEK2, 2 BRCA2, 2 ATM, 2 APC, 1 RAD51C, 1 BRCA1). CONCLUSIONS:Germline MGPT is both feasible and informative as it identifies LS cases not found on tumor testing as well as additional actionable mutations in patients with EC.

OPINION STATEMENT/UNASSIGNED:Poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are a class of anti-cancer drugs that target DNA repair pathways and have shown promising efficacy in patients with ovarian cancer in recent clinical trials. To date, there have been 9 FDA PARPi approvals/indications in ovarian cancer since 2014, highlighting the importance of this class of agents in the treatment of ovarian cancer. BRCA1/2-mutated tumors or other forms of homologous recombination deficient (HRD) tumors are particularly susceptible to PARP inhibition and have seen the greatest benefits of improvement in response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) in clinical trials. Patients with homologous recombination-proficient tumors also receive benefit, especially when a nice response to paltinum is noted, but to a lesser extent. PARP inhibitors now have FDA approval and indications in first-line and recurrent maintenance, and treatment. PARP inhibitor use as maintenance therapy in the front-line setting is now considered the standard of care in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations based on the SOLO-1/GOG-3004/ENGOT study. PARP inhibitors are also recommended per ASCO guidelines in all patients with ovarian cancer as front-line maintenance therapy based on the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial. The combination of PARP inhibitor, olaparib, and the anti-angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab is also approved as maintenance therapy after front-line chemotherapy treatment in patients with HRD tumors and is an option for patients who have initiated bevacizumab with their chemotherapy treatment. PARPi are also FDA approved and can be utilized as a treatment in third-line and beyond in recurrent ovarian cancer patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and HRD tumors. In this review, we will cover in detail when PARP inhibitor use is appropriate in ovarian cancer, as well as the various clinical factors to take into consideration when selecting a PARP inhibitor regimen.