Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The treatment of high-grade serous ovarian cancer and high-grade endometrioid ovarian cancer has seen significant improvements in recent years, with BRCA1/2 and homologous recombination status guiding a personalized approach which has resulted in improved patient outcomes. However, for other epithelial ovarian cancer subtypes, first-line treatment remains unchanged from the platinum–paclitaxel trials of the early 2000s. In this review, we explore novel therapeutic approaches being adopted in the treatment of clear cell, mucinous, carcinosarcoma and low-grade serous ovarian cancer and the biological rational behind them. We discuss why such disparities exist, the challenges faced in conducting dedicated trials in these rarer histologies and look towards new approaches being adopted to overcome them.

Keywords

clear-cell ovarian cancer clinical trials epithelial ovarian cancer low-grade serous ovarian cancer mucinous ovarian cancer novel therapeutics

Introduction

Cancer treatment has undergone rapid advancements in recent years, with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) and high-grade endometrioid ovarian cancer (HGEOC) being the exemplars of this phenomenon in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). SOLO1 demonstrated a significant reduction in disease progression or death in patients with HGSOC/HGEOC who harboured a BRCA1/2 mutation and were treated with the poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib following first-line treatment.¹ Following on from this, PAOLA-1 demonstrated that the maintenance combination of olaparib and bevacizumab [a humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) ligand] improved progression-free survival (PFS) for HGSOC/HGEOC that are homologous recombination deficient (HRD), either due to the presence of a BRCA1/2 mutation and/or a high genomic stability score.² No benefit was observed with the addition of olapairb to bevacizumab in the HRD test negative patients leading to EMA/FDA approval for HRD-positive EOC only. In contrast, in the PRIMA trial, a benefit from PARP inhibition with niraparib was observed in the HRD test negative patients, albeit to a lesser magnitude.³ This has resulted is a personalized treatment paradigm for first-line maintenance therapy based on BRCA1/2 and HRD status, leading to improved outcomes for patients with HGSOC/HGEOC.

However, for other EOC subtypes, such as clear-cell ovarian cancer (CCOC), mucinous ovarian cancer (MOC), low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC) and ovarian carcinosarcoma (OCS), the current standard of care remains largely unchanged since the platinum–paclitaxel trials of the early 2000s,^4–6 studies in which these pathologies were under represented. In this review, we will evaluate the emerging therapeutic approaches to the treatment of these histologies, which to date, have lagged behind in the personalized medicine revolution.

Why such discrepancies exist

It is important to appreciate why such discrepancies in personalized treatments exist as it highlights the challenges faced in the development of new therapeutics. As shown in Figure 1, rather than being a single pathology, EOC comprises a number of distinct disease entities which arise from separate precursor lesions, each one being molecularly unique.⁷ Both high- and low-grade serous carcinomas are thought to arise from within the fallopian tubes,^8–11 whereas the pathogenesis of CCOC has links to both endometriosis and, less frequently, clear-cell adenofibromas.¹² Mucinous ovarian cancers (MOCs) demonstrate a stepwise progression from benign ovarian tumours through to a mucinous borderline tumours and eventually MOC.¹³ OCS are biphasic, with a high-grade carcinomatous and high-grade sarcomatous populations, thought to arise from a shared malignant ancestor cell.¹⁴ The majority of OCS harbour an epithelial component of HGSOC (79.3%), with the remaining being endometrioid. Within the sarcomatous compartments, the pathology can either be homologous or heterologous, with chondrosarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma being the most common.¹⁴ The clinical consequences of such diversity can be observed in our current standard of care treatments, with CCOC, LGSOC, OCS and MOC displaying a significantly lower response rate and PFS to platinum–paclitaxel compared to HGSOC/HGEOC.^15,16

Figure 1.

The genesis of different epithelial ovarian cancer histologies.

Compounding this histological and molecular diversity is the frequency and FIGO stage that each pathology presents with. HGSOC is the most common subtype, accounting for 80% of advanced EOC cases. This results in a large population of patients with advanced disease who can enter into clinical trials, particularly when compared to other histologies which are much less common and are more likely to present at an early stage. In addition, HGSOC patients survive longer, often allowing for entry into multiple clinical studies, whereas the overall survival (OS) of advanced non-HGSOC pathologies such as CCOC is significantly shorter,¹⁷ which may be due to the innate biology of the disease or due to the current lack of effective first-line treatments. The cumulative result is that it is more difficult to run clinical trials for rarer histologies. This was illustrated in the GOG0241 trial, a phase III study which aimed to explore the use of colorectal chemotherapy regimens in the first-line treatment of MOC, which closed early due to slow accural¹⁸ and in the GOG study which explored the role of cisplatin in OCS, and took over 20 years to recruit 136 patients.¹⁹

Clear-cell ovarian cancer

ARID1A (the AT-rich interaction domain 1A, BAF250) is a sub-unit of the SWItch/Sucrose Non-Fermentable (SWI/SNF) chromatin remodelling complex and mutated in up to 67% of patients with CCOC.²⁰ While ARID1A is the most frequently mutated subunit of the SWI/SNF complex, other mutations in this complex also occur; ARID1B, which is mutually exclusive with ARID1A, is mutated in 10–18% of CCOC^21,22; SMARCA2 and SMARCA4 are mutated in 2%²² and 6.25%,²³ respectively, and SMARCC1 is mutated in 2% of CCOC.²²

The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)-AKT pathway is the most frequently dysregulated pathway in human cancer. This pathway is activated in response to insulin, growth factors and cytokines and regulates key cellular processes such as metabolism, motility, growth and proliferation.^24,25 In CCOC, mutations can occur at multiple points in this pathway. PIK3CA, which codes for the PI3K catalytic subunit (p110) is mutated in 20–50% of CCOC,^{20–22,26–30} while PIK3R1 which encodes the regulatory subunit (p85) is mutated in 7%. On whole genome sequencing, phosphatase and tensin (PTEN) homolog mutation was noted in 2% of cases in a Japanese study,²² while whole exome sequencing of a Korean cohort found mutations in 13.3% of cases.²⁷ Mutations of AKT1 and AKT2 were found in 4% and 9% of cases, respectively.²² The PI3K pathway is interconnected with the MAP kinase pathway through RAS proteins, which can interact directly with the catalytic structure of PI3K. Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS), one of the three RAS protein homologues, is mutated in up to 20% of CCOC.²⁷

Molecular-guided therapies

In a pre-clinical study, loss of ARID1A resulted in topoisomerase 2A and cell-cycle defects, which subsequently caused an increased reliance on the Ataxia-Telangiectasia Mutated and Rad3-related protein kinase (ATR). By inhibiting ATR in ARID1A-deficient cell lines, cell death occurred due to premature mitotic entry and genomic instability.³¹ The clinical trial ATARI³² is currently exploring the efficacy of the ATR inhibitor AZD6738 either as monotherapy or in combination with the olaparib in patients with ARID1A mutant clear-cell gynaecological malignancies.

A series of high-throughput cell-based drug screens in ARID1A mutant CCOC identified sensitivity to the YES1 kinase inhibitor dasatinib, which may be due to the drug reversal of p21 dysregulation that is caused by ARID1A deficiency.³³ There has been no CCOC-specific studies exploring this therapeutic approach; however, two patients with CCOC were included in a phase II study of dasatinib in recurrent EOC; although histology-specific outcomes were not given, this study reported no objective responses.³⁴

Chromatin is made more accessible by two major mechanisms; displacement of histones (the major proteins in chromatin) by chromatin remodelling complexes like SWI/SNF or by the modification of these histones by the addition of acetyl, methyl or phosphate groups, with histone deacetylases (HDAC) being critical to histone acetylation and deacetylation.³⁵ Inhibition of HDAC6 promotes apoptosis in ARID1A mutant cell lines in 2D and improved survival in nude mice with orthotopically transplanted CCOC. HDAC inhibition also reduced tumour size in a genetic mouse model of CCOC.³⁶ The combination of carboplatin with the HDAC inhibitor belinostat in platinum-resistant EOC saw a response rate of 7.4% (2/27) in a phase II study and did not proceed to a larger study.³⁷ Another HDAC inhibitor, entinostat, in combination with olaparib was being evaluated in a phase I/II study³⁸ which included patients with clear-cell gynaecological malignancies; however, this was terminated early in 2022 having enrolled 3 patients of a planned 73.

Targeting angiogenesis

Angiogenesis plays a central role in the tumour development of EOC with pre-clinical studies demonstrating that inhibition of VEGF can stall tumour progression.

Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody that targets VEGFR ligand and is licenced for the treatment of EOC.^39,40 Two phase III trials explored the addition of bevacizumab to carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line treatment of EOC. GOG218⁴¹ used a treatment dose of bevacizumab of 15 mg/kg while ICON7,⁴² dosed at 7.5 mg/kg. Both studies reported a modest improvement in PFS with the addition of bevacizumab (GOG218; 4.1 months, ICON7; 1.5 months), with no improvement in OS. Neither study reported CCOC-specific outcomes. In the prospective observational study JGOG3022,⁴³ bevacizumab was administered at 15 mg/kg and started concurrently with carboplatin–paclitaxel. Within this study, 36/293 patients had CCOC, 11 of which had measurable disease. Using RECIST 1.1,⁴⁴ the response rate to treatment was 63.6%. The median PFS for CCOC of 12.3 months (8.3–15.3) was lower than serous 17.1 (14.7–19.8) and endometrioid 13.1 (12–not estimable). A separate retrospective study of CCOC outcomes in Japan before and after the approval of first-line bevacizumab for advanced CCOC compared the survival of patients treated with carboplatin–taxane chemotherapy with patients who also received bevacizumab. This study reported an improved PFS from 12.5 to 29.7 months (p = 0.023) with the addition of bevacizumab, with multivariate analysis showing bevacizumab use was an independent prognostic factor for PFS (p = 0.011) and OS (p = 0.019).⁴⁵ While this is encouraging, the authors do note that patients with thrombus were excluded from the bevacizumab arm but not the chemotherapy only arm; given that thrombus is associated with a worse prognosis in CCOC⁴⁶ this introduces selection bias favouring improved outcomes in the bevacizumab arm from the outset.

A phase II study (ENGOT-GYN1) investigated the benefit of nintedanib (a kinase inhibitor of VEGFR1-3, PDGFR-α and -β and FGFR1-3) in recurrent CCOC. The response rate was 2.1% with nintedanib and 0% with chemotherapy with no survival benefit in terms of PFS; however, the authors reported a disease control rate at 16 weeks of 23.4% with nintedanib (compared to 9.1% with chemotherapy; p = 0.0276), suggesting biological activity of nintedanib that could be augmented with a combination approach.⁴⁷

Immunotherapy-based approaches

KEYNOTE-100 was a phase II open label multicentre study of the efficacy and safety of the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab in patients with advanced recurrent EOC. This study contained 19 patients CCOC with an overall response rate 15.8% (3.4–39.6 months) which was higher than other histological subtypes.⁴⁸ Subsequent to this, a number of CCOC-specific studies have explored the role of checkpoint inhibition as a treatment for this cancer following first-line chemotherapy, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Recently published sub-type-specific clinical trials exploring novel therapeutic approaches in the treatment of CCOC, LGSOC and OCS.

Histological type	Trial agents	Phase	Primary endpoint	Comments	Trial ID
CCOC	Nintedanib versus chemotherapy	II	PFS	• mPFS 2.3 months nintedanib versus 1.9 months with chemotherapy• ORR was 2.1% with nintedanib versus 0% with chemotherapy• mOS 9 months nintedanib versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy	NCT02866370
	Pembrolizumab	II	PFS at 12 weeks	• PFS at 12 weeks was 43.8%• ORR 25%• mOS 71 weeks	NCT03425565
	Durvalumab versus chemotherapy	II	PFS	• mPFS 7.4 weeks durvalumab versus 14 weeks with chemotherapy• ORR 10.7% durvalumab versus 18.8% chemotherapy	NCT03405454
	Nivolumab and ipilimumab	II	PFS	• mPFS 2.7 months nivolumab versus 5.1 months with combination• ORR 14.2% nivolumab versus 26.7% with combination	NCT03355976
	PD1 and bevacizumab	II	ORR	Preliminary results following enrolment of 23 of planned 38 patients; • ORR 40%	NCT04735861
LGSOC	Ribociclib and letrozole	II	PFS at 12 weeks	Of three LGSOC patients included in this study, all responded to treatment (1 complete, 2 partial) with responses lasting over 2 years	NCT02657928
	Binimetinib versus chemotherapy	III	PFS	• mPFS 9.1 months with binimetinib versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy• ORR 16% binimetinib versus 13% chemotherapy• mOS 25.3 months binimetinib versus 20.8 months	NCT01849874
	Trametinib versus Chemotherapy	II/III	PFS	• mPFS 13 months trametinib versus 7.2 months with chemotherapy	NCT02101788
OCS	Paclitaxel with either carboplatin (TC) or ifosfamide (TI)	III	OS	• OS 30 months TC versus 25 months TI• mPFS 15 months TC versus 10 months TI	NCT00954174

This table provides an overview of some of the recent key trials in less common epithelial ovarian cancers. The trial agents are listed alongside the primary endpoint, key outcomes and trial identifier for clinicaltrials.gov.

CCOC, clear-cell ovarian cancer; LGSOC, low-grade serous ovarian cancer; mOS, median overall survival; mPFS, median progression-free survival; PD1, programmed death receptor 1; OCS, ovarian carcinosarcoma; ORR, overall response rate.

PEACOCC was a phase II study exploring treatment of clear-cell gynaecological malignancies with pembrolizumab, with the majority of patients having an ovarian primary. This study reported an overall response rate of 25% and disease control rate of 45.8% with median overall survival of 71 weeks.⁴⁹ BrUOG 354 explored the activity of the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab with and without ipilimumab (anti-CTLA4) in ovarian or extra-renal clear-cell pathologies; the stage 1 results of this study reported an overall response rate of 26.6% (n = 4/15) in the combination arm compared to 16.7% (n = 2/12) for nivolumab alone and so stage 2 will focus on dual treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab.⁵⁰ In comparison to these two studies, MOCCA was a phase II study exploring the role of the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab against physicians choice of chemotherapy; this study was negative with an overall response rate to durvalumab of 10.7% and no significant difference in OS.⁵¹ INOVA is a phase II study that is currently exploring the use of sintilimab (anti-PD1) in combination with bevacizumab in the treatment of recurrent CCOC; although this trial is still ongoing, preliminary results following the recruitment of 20 evaluable patients (out of a planned accrual of 38) have reported an overall response rate of 40%.⁵² As shown in Table 2, a number of other studies are also currently ongoing exploring the role of checkpoint inhibition in CCOC, the results of which are awaited.

Table 2.

Ongoing clinical trials in the treatment of rare epithelial ovarian cancers.

Histological type	Trial agents	Mechanism of action	Phase	Trial ID
CCOC	AZD6738 and olaparib	ATR inhibitor and PARP inhibitor	II	NCT04065269
	Nivolumab and ipilimumab	PD1 inhibitor and CTLA4 inhibitor	II	NCT02834013
	Pembrolizumab and lenvatinib	PD1 inhibitor and VEGFR1-3 inhibitor	II	NCT04699071
	Sintilimab and bevacizumab	PD1 inhibitor and VEGFR inhibitor	II	NCT04735861
	Durvalumab and tremelimumab	PDL1 inhibitor and CTLA4 inhibitor	II	NCT02879162
LGSOC	Ribociclib and letrozole	CD4/6 inhibitor and aromatase inhibitor	II	NCT03673124
	VS-6766 and defactinib	RAF/MEK inhibitor and FAK inhibitor	II	NCT04625270
OCS	Niraparib and dostarlimab	PARP inhibitor and PD1 inhibitor	II/III	NCT03651206
	Cabozantinib, nivolumab and ipilimumab	TKI inhibitor, PD1 inhibitor and CTLA4 inhibitor	II	NCT04149275
All rare EOC	Multiple therapeutic agents	Biomarker-driven selection of agent	II	NCT04931342

This table details a number of ongoing clinical trials exploring novel therapeutic approaches in the treatment of rarer epithelial ovarian cancers.

The trial agents are listed alongside their mechanism of action and trial identifier for clinicaltrials.gov.

CCOC, clear-cell ovarian cancer; CTLA4, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4; EOC, epithelial ovarian cancer; LGSOC, low-grade serous ovarian cancer; PARP, poly-ADP ribose polymerase; PD1, programmed death receptor 1; PDL1, programmed cell death ligand 1; OCS, ovarian carcinosarcoma; VEGFR, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor.

The early results of these immunotherapy studies are encouraging and the focus will now be on identifying biomarkers which can help select which patients are more or less likely to benefit from checkpoint inhibition. The difference in the outcomes between PEACOCC and BrUOG when compared to MOCCA may be down to the differences in PD-1 ligand expression and the investigator choice of checkpoint inhibitor, with CCOC having high levels of PD-L2 expression⁵³ but low or absent PD-L1^53–55 which may have resulted in MOCCA targeting a less critical part of the PD-1 axis; however, the translational analysis of all three studies is awaited. Of the potential candidate markers, ARID1A is particularly of note. ARID1A has been linked to the effective functioning of the mismatch repair protein MSH2⁵⁶ and when compared to ARID1A wildtype, ARID1A mutant CCOC had significant differences in immune cell populations, cytokine and checkpoint expression, many of which are predictive of response to checkpoint inhibition in other malignancies.⁵³

Mucinous ovarian cancer

Mutations in KRAS are the most common observed mutation in MOC, occurring in up to 65% of cases,⁵⁷ with some evidence of racial variation impacting incidence.⁵⁸ There are mixed reports regarding the mutual exclusivity of KRAS and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) aberrations in MOC.^57,59 HER2 amplifications are observed in 35% of MOC,⁶⁰ although as with KRAS mutation, the incidence may vary racially.^58,61 Mutations in c-MYC are also common in MOC, with a reported incidence of up to 65%.⁶² The protein c-MYC impacts a wide variety of cellular pathways and in non-transformed cells levels are typically low.⁶³

Similar to other EOCs, TP53 mutations are common in MOC, occurring in up to 57% of cases.⁶⁴ Mutations in CDKN2A occur in up to 18.9% of MOC⁵⁷ and encodes for two different proteins – p16 and p14ARF.⁶⁵ Both these genes play essential roles in protecting against genomic instability by facilitating normal function of the cell cycle checkpoints. The protein encoded for by TP53 (p53) is key in the regulation of the G1 checkpoint and tumours with a TP53 mutation become reliant on the G2 checkpoint. Normally, the levels of p53 are kept low via a negative feedback loop with murine double minute 2 (MDM2); p14ARF helps abrogate MDM2 inhibition and facilitates the action of p53.^65,66 Wildtype p16 arrests cells in late G1 and loss of normal p16 function results in the inability to induce cell-cycle arrest.⁶⁷

Molecular-guided therapies

MOCs have a similar mutational pattern to mucinous colorectal carcinomas⁶⁸ with histological similarities resulting in metastatic deposits from other gastrointestinal mucinous carcinomas being frequently mistaken for primary MOC.⁶⁹ This observation lay behind GOG0241, a phase III study which aimed to explore the use of colorectal chemotherapy regimens in the first-line treatment of MOC.¹⁸ Unfortunately, this study closed early due to slow accrual, illustrating the difficultly of undertaking large studies in this rare subtype. In the absence of large phase III studies, potential therapeutic approaches can be extrapolated from smaller studies of MOC alongside trials in malignancies with a similar genetic landscape, such as colorectal carcinoma.

KRAS was previously considered an undruggable target; however, the success of agents such as sotorasib⁷⁰ and adagrasib⁷¹ (small molecules that selectively and irreversibly inhibit the G12C KRAS mutation) have demonstrated that for a subset of patients this is no longer the case. Ongoing clinical trials such as CodeBreak300⁷² and KRYSTAL-10⁷³ are now exploring these drugs in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. It remains to be tested whether this treatment is effective in a subset of KRAS mutant MOC, but this may merit further evaluation.

There are case reports of HER2 amplified MOC responding following treatment with trastuzumab (a HER2 targeting monoclonal antibody) alone⁷⁴ or in combination with lapatinib (a tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting HER2 and the epithelial growth factor receptor).⁷⁵

Pre-clinical work in MYC amplified oesophageal cancer cell lines demonstrating a sensitivity to the BTK/HER2 inhibitor ibrutinib.⁷⁶ Leading on from this, ibrutinib is currently being evaluated in the treatment of c-MYC and HER2 amplified gastro-oesophageal cancer.⁷⁷ An alternative therapeutic approach targeting c-MYC mutant malignancies is to reduce the levels of the c-MYC protein, with a phase I study currently evaluating WB100, an oral molecule glue that pre-clinically selectively degraded c-MYC protein over other proteins.^78,79

Wee1 is a tyrosine kinase essential to the successful execution of the G2 checkpoint and by inhibiting it, cells dependant on this checkpoint (such as those with a TP53 mutation) become sensitized to DNA damage.⁸⁰ Adavosertib, a Wee1 inhibitor, is currently being explored in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of platinum-resistant EOC. The interim analysis of this study has reported an overall response rate of 67% with mPFS of 10.1 months when adavosertib was given in combination with carboplatin⁸¹ with the final results awaited. Aurora kinases are essential for many aspects of cell division and essential for the normal transition into the G2 checkpoint.^82,83 Ilorasertib is an inhibitor of aurora kinases (alongside VEGFRs and PDGFRs) and has been used in clinical trials for tumours with are CDKN2A deficient, the results of which are awaited.^84,85

Immunotherapy-based approaches

Despite a reported incidence of mismatch repair deficiency (MMRd) of 17%, over twice that of HGSOC,⁸⁶ patients with MOC were excluded from the KEYNOTE100 trial.⁴⁸ Patients with MMRd colorectal cancers who received pembrolizumab within the KEYNOTE-177 study were found to have an improved PFS when compared to chemotherapy⁸⁷ and given that pembrolizumab has tissue/site-agnostic approval for MMRd tumours, checkpoint inhibition remains an option for a subset of MOC patients. Mismatch repair deficiency however remains only one predictor of response to checkpoint inhibition, with studies in urothelial cancer suggesting that harbouring a CDKN2A mutation reduces benefit from checkpoint inhibition, although this may be tumour specific as a second study in melanoma found no link between either CDKN2A or TP53 and clinical outcome following immunotherapy.^88,89

Low-grade serous ovarian cancer

Both oestrogen and progesterone are known drivers in the tumorigenesis of LGSOC, with up to 85% of cases oestrogen/progesterone receptor positive.⁹⁰ As such, hormonal therapy has found a role in the treatment of patients with this malignancy either in favour of chemotherapy as a first line treatment,⁹¹ as a maintenance therapy following first-line chemotherapy⁹² or in the recurrent setting.⁹³ Cyclin-dependant kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) promote resistance to hormonal treatment in breast cancer⁹⁴ with the combination of ribociclib (a CDK4/6 inhibitor) plus hormone treatment (letrozole) generating durable responses in all three patients with LGSOC given this combination within a phase II study.⁹⁵ This combination is currently being explored as a treatment for LGSOC in an ongoing phase II study.⁹⁶

Mutations in the RAS/RAF pathway occur in 47% of patients LGSOC.⁹⁰ The MILO/ENGOT-ov11 study which investigated inhibition of this pathway using binimetinib (a MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor) compared to investigators choice of treatment demonstrated activity of binimetinib but did not demonstrate superiority to chemotherapy and was therefore stopped early due to the prespecified futility boundary.⁹⁷ A second study, LOGS, explored the use of the MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor trametinib compared to investigators choice of treatment and demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS from 7.2 to 13 months (p ⩽ 0.0001), heralding a new standard of care option for patients with this histology.⁹⁸ Building on this success, other studies are currently exploring treatments exploiting this pathway in LGSOC, such as RAMP-201, a study of the dual RAF/MEK inhibitor VS-6766 alone or in combination with the FAK inhibitor defactinib.⁹⁹

Ovarian carcinosarcoma

Due to the rarity of this tumour, information on the tumour microenvironment tends to be inferred from translational work performed on the relatively more common uterine and endometrial carcinosarcomas. The duality of its histological composition makes it additionally challenging to design personalized trials.¹⁰⁰

Chemotherapy

While the GOG0241 study demonstrated the clinical activity of cisplatin in the treatment of OCS¹⁹ and more recent translational work found platinum-containing agents were associated with a prolonged OS in OCS,¹⁴ the phase III study GOG261 failed to demonstrate the superiority of a platinum containing regimen. Although patients treated with paclitaxel–carboplatin had a longer overall survival (30 months versus 25 months) and PFS (15 months versus 10 months) when compared to paclitaxel–ifosfamide, these differences were not statistically significant.¹⁰¹ A high glucocorticoid receptor (GR) expression can identify patients who are less likely to derive benefit from nab-paclitaxel¹⁰² and given the high expression of GR in OCS,¹⁰³ it may have a role as a biomarker for this patient population. These high GR levels may also mean that the GR modulator relacorilant could be beneficial in the treatment of OSC patients with recurrent disease.

Immunotherapy-based approaches

Although OCS demonstrate a copy number high phenotype in 15/17 cases,¹⁰⁴ PD-L1 expression and CD8+ T-cell infiltration are a feature of this disease,¹⁰⁵ with whole exome sequencing of a single OCS sample demonstrating the presence of multiple tumour specific neo-antigens.¹⁰⁶ Within the CA209-538 study, one PR and one SD were reported in five patients with OCS who received treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab¹⁰⁷ with an additional case report of a PR in recurrent OCS following treatment with pembrolizumab.¹⁰⁸

Evidence of HRD was found in 15/25 patients with OCS¹⁰⁹ with case reports of durable response to PARP inhibition.^110,111 The ROSCAN phase II/III (NCT03651206) study will explore the role of PARP and checkpoint inhibition in the treatment of OCS using niraparib with and without concurrent dostarlimab (anti-PD1) in recurrent OCS.¹¹² A second study is combining dual checkpoint blockade in the form of ipilimumab and nivolumab alongside the tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitor cabozantinib¹¹³; the use of cabozantinib has primary been in carcinosarcomas originating from other gynaecological sites¹¹⁴; however, VEGFR overexpression is reported 44% of OCS,¹¹⁵ indicating a rationale for this combination in OCS.

Conclusions

Given the rarity of these tumours, particularly at an advanced stage, delivering high-quality phase III studies can be difficult, as illustrated by the GOG0241 study. A collaborative mobilization of patients via multi-centre, international studies is required if we are to improve patient outcomes. One example of this is the BOUQUET study (NCT04931342); a phase II basket study evaluating biomarker driven therapies in patients with rare EOCs, such as CCOC, MOC and LGSOC.¹¹⁶ Although to date HGSOC and HGEOC remain the only two EOC histologies to have a molecularly guided, personalized approach to systemic treatment, there is encouraging signs that other subtypes are moving this direction.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Declarations

References

Moore

Colombo

Scambia

, et al. Maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2018; 379: 2495–2505.

Ray-Coquard

Pautier

Pignata

, et al. Olaparib plus bevacizumab as first-line maintenance in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2019; 381: 2416–2428.

González-Martín

Pothuri

Vergote

, et al. Niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2019; 381: 2391–2402.

Neijt

Engelholm

Tuxen

, et al. Exploratory phase III study of paclitaxel and cisplatin versus paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 3084–3092.

du Bois

Lück

H-J

Meier

, et al. A randomized clinical trial of cisplatin/paclitaxel versus carboplatin/paclitaxel as first-line treatment of ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95: 1320–1329.

Ozols

Bundy

Greer

, et al. Phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel compared with cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with optimally resected stage III ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 3194–3200.

Rojas

Hirshfield

Ganesan

, et al. Molecular characterization of epithelial ovarian cancer: implications for diagnosis and treatment. Int J Mol Sci 2016; 17: 2113.

Labidi-Galy

Papp

Hallberg

, et al. High grade serous ovarian carcinomas originate in the fallopian tube. Nat Commun 2017; 8: 1093.

Kindelberger

Lee

Miron

, et al. Intraepithelial carcinoma of the fimbria and pelvic serous carcinoma: evidence for a causal relationship. Am J Surg Pathol 2007; 31: 161–169.

10.

Kuhn

Kurman

Vang

, et al. TP53 mutations in serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma and concurrent pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma-evidence supporting the clonal relationship of the two lesions. J Pathol 2012; 226: 421–426.

11.

Abushahin

Pang

, et al. Tubal origin of ‘ovarian’ low-grade serous carcinoma. Mod Pathol 2011; 24: 1488–1499.

12.

Zhao

LSF

Barner

Pathogenesis of ovarian clear cell adenofibroma, atypical proliferative (borderline) tumor, and carcinoma: clinicopathologic features of tumors with endometriosis or adenofibromatous components support two related pathways of tumor development. J Cancer 2011; 2: 94–106.

13.

Cheasley

Wakefield

Ryland

, et al. The molecular origin and taxonomy of mucinous ovarian carcinoma. Nat Commun 2019; 10: 3935.

14.

Hollis

Croy

Churchman

, et al. Ovarian carcinosarcoma is a distinct form of ovarian cancer with poorer survival compared to tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma. Br J Cancer 2022; 127: 1034–1042.

15.

C-M

Huang

Y-J

Chen

T-C

, et al. Pure-type clear cell carcinoma of the ovary as a distinct histological type and improved survival in patients treated with paclitaxel-platinum-based chemotherapy in pure-type advanced disease. Gynecol Oncol 2004; 94: 197–203.

16.

Karabuk

Kose

Hizli

, et al. Comparison of advanced stage mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer and serous epithelial ovarian cancer with regard to chemosensitivity and survival outcome: a matched case-control study. J Gynecol Oncol 2013; 24: 160–166.

17.

Lee

Y-Y

Kim

T-J

Kim

M-J

, et al. Prognosis of ovarian clear cell carcinoma compared to other histological subtypes: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2011; 122: 541–547.

18.

Gore

Hackshaw

Brady

, et al. An international, phase III randomized trial in patients with mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer (mEOC/GOG 0241) with long-term follow-up: and experience of conducting a clinical trial in a rare gynecological tumor. Gynecol Oncol 2019; 153: 541–548.

19.

Tate Thigpen

Blessing

DeGeest

, et al. Cisplatin as initial chemotherapy in ovarian carcinosarcomas: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 2004; 93: 336–339.

20.

Shibuya

Tokunaga

Saito

, et al. Identification of somatic genetic alterations in ovarian clear cell carcinoma with next generation sequencing. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2018; 57: 51–60.

21.

Murakami

Matsumura

Brown

, et al. Exome sequencing landscape analysis in ovarian clear cell carcinoma shed light on key chromosomal regions and mutation gene networks. Am J Pathol 2017; 187: 2246–2258.

22.

Itamochi

Oishi

Oumi

, et al. Whole-genome sequencing revealed novel prognostic biomarkers and promising targets for therapy of ovarian clear cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer 2017; 117: 717–724.

23.

Maru

Tanaka

Ohira

, et al. Identification of novel mutations in Japanese ovarian clear cell carcinoma patients using optimized targeted NGS for clinical diagnosis. Gynecol Oncol 2017; 144: 377–383.

24.

Janku

Yap

Meric-Bernstam

Targeting the PI3K pathway in cancer: are we making headway?

Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2018; 15: 273–291.

25.

Hoxhaj

Manning

BD.

The PI3K-AKT network at the interface of oncogenic signalling and cancer metabolism. Nat Rev Cancer 2020; 20: 74–88.

26.

Jones

Wang

T-L

Shih

I-M

, et al. Frequent mutations of chromatin remodeling gene ARID1A in ovarian clear cell carcinoma. Science 2010; 330: 228–231.

27.

Kim

Lee

, et al. Genomic landscape of ovarian clear cell carcinoma via whole exome sequencing. Gynecol Oncol 2018; 148: 375–382.

28.

Willner

Wurz

Allison

, et al. Alternate molecular genetic pathways in ovarian carcinomas of common histological types. Hum Pathol 2007; 38: 607–613.

29.

Campbell

Russell

Choong

DYH

, et al. Mutation of the PIK3CA gene in ovarian and breast cancer. Cancer Res 2004; 64: 7678–7681.

30.

Kuo

K-T

Mao

T-L

Jones

, et al. Frequent activating mutations of PIK3CA in ovarian clear cell carcinoma. Am J Pathol 2009; 174: 1597–1601.

31.

Williamson

Miller

Pemberton

, et al. ATR inhibitors as a synthetic lethal therapy for tumours deficient in ARID1A. Nat Commun 2016; 7: 13837.

32.

Institute of Cancer Research UK. ATr inhibitor in combination with olaparib in gynaecological cancers with ARId1A loss or no loss (ATARI), https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04065269 (2019, accessed 5 October 2022).

33.

Miller

Brough

Bajrami

, et al. Synthetic lethal targeting of ARID1A-mutant ovarian clear cell tumors with dasatinib. Mol Cancer Ther 2016; 15: 1472–1484.

34.

Schilder

Brady

Lankes

, et al. Phase II evaluation of dasatinib in the treatment of recurrent or persistent epithelial ovarian or primary peritoneal carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 2012; 127: 70–74.

35.

Fischle

Wang

Allis

CD.

Histone and chromatin cross-talk. Curr Opin Cell Biol 2003; 15: 172–183.

36.

Bitler

Park

, et al. ARID1A-mutated ovarian cancers depend on HDAC6 activity. Nat Cell Biol 2017; 19: 962–973.

37.

Dizon

Blessing

Penson

, et al. A phase II evaluation of belinostat and carboplatin in the treatment of recurrent or persistent platinum-resistant ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 2012; 125: 367–371.

38.

Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Centre. Olaparib and entinostat in patients with recurrent, platinum-refractory, resistant ovarian, primary peritoneal, fallopian tube cancers, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03924245 (2019).

39.

Burger

RA.

Experience with bevacizumab in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 2902–2908.

40.

Rossi

Verrico

Zaccarelli

, et al. Bevacizumab in ovarian cancer: a critical review of phase III studies. Oncotarget 2017; 8: 12389–12405.

41.

Burger

Brady

Bookman

, et al. Incorporation of bevacizumab in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 2473–2483.

42.

Oza

Cook

Pfisterer

, et al. Standard chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer (ICON7): overall survival results of a phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 928–936.

43.

Komiyama

Kato

Inokuchi

, et al. Bevacizumab combined with platinum-taxane chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective observational study of safety and efficacy in Japanese patients (JGOG3022 trial). Int J Clin Oncol 2019; 24: 103–114.

44.

Eisenhauer

Therasse

Bogaerts

, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 228–247.

45.

Seki

Tate

Nishikimi

, et al. Bevacizumab in first-line chemotherapy to improve the survival outcome for advanced ovarian clear cell carcinoma: a multicenter, retrospective analysis. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40: 5502.

46.

Takasaki

Miyamoto

Takano

, et al. Thrombotic events induce the worse prognosis in ovarian carcinomas and frequently develop in ovarian clear cell carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol 2019; 24: 1273–1283.

47.

Glasspool

Mcneish

Westermann

, et al. 596 a randomised phase II study of nintedanib (BIBF1120) compared to chemotherapy in patients with recurrent clear cell carcinoma of the ovary or endometrium. (NICCC/ENGOT-OV36). Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020; 30: A127–A128.

48.

Matulonis

Shapira-Frommer

Santin

, et al. Antitumor activity and safety of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced recurrent ovarian cancer: results from the phase II KEYNOTE-100 study. Ann Oncol 2019; 30: 1080–1087.

49.

Kristeleit

Clamp

Gourley

, et al. 521MO efficacy of pembrolizumab monotherapy (PM) for advanced clear cell gynaecological cancer (CCGC): phase II PEACOCC trial. Ann Oncol 2022; 33: S783.

50.

Dizon

Robison

MacLaughlan David

, et al. Stage 1 results of BrUOG 354: a randomized phase II trial of nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab for people with ovarian and other extra-renal clear cell carcinomas (NCT03355976). J Clin Oncol 2022; 40: 5598.

51.

Tan

DSP

Choi

Ngoi

, et al. A multicenter phase II randomized trial of durvalumab (D) versus physician’s choice chemotherapy (PCC) in patients (pts) with recurrent ovarian clear cell adenocarcinoma (MOCCA/APGOT-OV2/GCGS-OV3). J Clin Oncol 2022; 40: 5565.

52.

Liu

Xia

Zhang

, et al. 522MO preliminary results of sintilimab (Sin)+bevacizumab (Bev) in recurrent/persistent ovarian clear cell carcinoma (INOVA): a multicenter, single-arm, phase II trial. Ann Oncol 2022; 33: S783.

53.

Devlin

M-J

Miller

Laforets

, et al. The tumour microenvironment of clear cell ovarian cancer. Cancer Immunol Res 2022; 10: 1326–1339.

54.

Webb

Milne

Kroeger

, et al. PD-L1 expression is associated with tumor-infiltrating T cells and favorable prognosis in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2016; 141: 293–302.

55.

Willis

Sloan

Atkins

, et al. Mismatch repair status and PD-L1 expression in clear cell carcinomas of the ovary and endometrium. Mod Pathol 2017; 30: 1622–1632.

56.

Shen

Zhao

, et al. ARID1A deficiency promotes mutability and potentiates therapeutic antitumor immunity unleashed by immune checkpoint blockade. Nat Med 2018; 24: 556–562.

57.

Mackenzie

Kommoss

Winterhoff

, et al. Targeted deep sequencing of mucinous ovarian tumors reveals multiple overlapping RAS-pathway activating mutations in borderline and cancerous neoplasms. BMC Cancer 2015; 15: 415.

58.

Chay

Kwok

Tiong

, et al. Mutational aberrations detected in mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer of Asian women. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2018; 28: 428–436.

59.

Anglesio

Kommoss

Tolcher

, et al. Molecular characterization of mucinous ovarian tumours supports a stratified treatment approach with HER2 targeting in 19% of carcinomas. J Pathol 2013; 229: 111–120.

60.

Yan

Choo

Mulyadi

, et al. Dual-colour HER2/chromosome 17 chromogenic in situ hybridisation enables accurate assessment of HER2 genomic status in ovarian tumours. J Clin Pathol 2011; 64: 1097–1101.

61.

Chay

W-Y

Chew

S-H

Ong

W-S

, et al. HER2 amplification and clinicopathological characteristics in a large Asian cohort of rare mucinous ovarian cancer. PLoS One 2013; 8: e61565.

62.

Sun

XL.

Expression of c-myc and mutation of the KRAS gene in patients with ovarian mucinous tumors. Genet Mol Res 2015; 14: 10752–10759.

63.

Miller

Thomas

Islam

, et al. c-Myc and cancer metabolism. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18: 5546–5553.

64.

Rechsteiner

Zimmermann

A-K

Wild

, et al. TP53 mutations are common in all subtypes of epithelial ovarian cancer and occur concomitantly with KRAS mutations in the mucinous type. Exp Mol Pathol 2013; 95: 235–241.

65.

McWilliams

Wieben

Rabe

, et al. Prevalence of CDKN2A mutations in pancreatic cancer patients: implications for genetic counseling. Eur J Hum Genet 2011; 19: 472–478.

66.

Nag

Qin

Srivenugopal

, et al. The MDM2-p53 pathway revisited. J Biomed Res 2013; 27: 254–271.

67.

Lukas

Parry

Aagaard

, et al. Retinoblastoma-protein-dependent cell-cycle inhibition by the tumour suppressor p16. Nature 1995; 375: 503–506.

68.

Kelemen

Köbel

Mucinous carcinomas of the ovary and colorectum: different organ, same dilemma. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 1071–1080.

69.

Zaino

Brady

Lele

, et al. Advanced stage mucinous adenocarcinoma of the ovary is both rare and highly lethal: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 2011; 117: 554–562.

70.

Skoulidis

, et al. Sotorasib for lung cancers with KRAS p.G12C mutation. N Engl J Med 2021; 384: 2371–2381.

71.

S-HI

Jänne

Leal

, et al. First-in-human phase I/IB dose-finding study of adagrasib (MRTX849) in patients with advanced KRAS G12C solid tumors (KRYSTAL-1). J Clin Oncol 2022; 40: 2530–2538.

72.

Amgen. Sotorasib and panitumumab versus investigator’s choice for participants with Kirsten Rat Sarcoma (KRAS) p.G12C mutation (CodeBreak 300), clinicaltrials.gov. NCT05198934, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05198934 (2022).

73.

Mirati Therapeutics Inc. Phase 3 study of MRTX849 with cetuximab vs chemotherapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer with KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-10), clinicaltrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04793958 (2021).

74.

McAlpine

Wiegand

Vang

, et al. HER2 overexpression and amplification is present in a subset of ovarian mucinous carcinomas and can be targeted with trastuzumab therapy. BMC Cancer 2009; 9: 433.

75.

Jain

Ryan

Seiden

MV.

Metastatic mucinous ovarian cancer and treatment decisions based on histology and molecular markers rather than the primary location. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2012; 10: 1076–1080.

76.

Chong

Aronson

Bryant

, et al. Mapping genetic vulnerabilities reveals BTK as a novel therapeutic target in oesophageal cancer. Gut 2018; 67: 1780–1792.

77.

Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Proof-of-concept study of ibrutinib in c-MYC and HER2 amplified oesophagogastric carcinoma (iMYC), clinicaltrials.gov. NCT02884453, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02884453 (2016, accessed 5 October 2022).

78.

Wang

, et al. A selective small-molecule c-Myc degrader potently regresses lethal c-Myc overexpressing tumors. Adv Sci (Weinh) 2022; 9: e2104344.

79.

Zhejiang University. Clinical trial of WB100 on advanced solid tumor, clinicaltrials.gov. NCT05100251, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05100251 (2021, accessed 5 October 2022).

80.

Hirai

Iwasawa

Okada

, et al. Small-molecule inhibition of Wee1 kinase by MK-1775 selectively sensitizes p53-deficient tumor cells to DNA-damaging agents. Mol Cancer Ther 2009; 8: 2992–3000.

81.

Moore

Chambers

Hamilton

, et al. Adavosertib with chemotherapy (CT) in patients (pts) with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PPROC): an open label, four-arm, phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37: 5513.

82.

Marumoto

Hirota

Morisaki

, et al. Roles of aurora-a kinase in mitotic entry and G2 checkpoint in mammalian cells. Genes Cells 2002; 7: 1173–1182.

83.

Carmena

Earnshaw

WC.

The cellular geography of aurora kinases. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2003; 4: 842–854.

84.

University of Chicago. Ilorasertib in treating patients with CDKN2A-deficient advanced or metastatic solid cancers that cannot be removed by surgery, clinicaltrials.gov. NCT02540876, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02540876 (2015, accessed 5 October 2022).

85.

Center MDAC. Phase II study of ilorasertib (ABT348) in patients with CDKN2A deficient solid tumors, clinicaltrials.gov. NCT02478320, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02478320 (2015, accesssed 5 October 2022).

86.

Murphy

Wentzensen

Frequency of mismatch repair deficiency in ovarian cancer: a systematic review this article is a US Government work and, as such, is in the public domain of the United States of America. Int J cancer 2011; 129: 1914–1922.

87.

André

Shiu

K-K

Kim

, et al. Pembrolizumab in microsatellite-instability-high advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2020; 383: 2207–2218.

88.

Adib

Nassar

Akl

, et al. CDKN2A alterations and response to immunotherapy in solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2021; 27: 4025–4035.

89.

DeLeon

Almquist

Kipp

, et al. Assessment of clinical outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in melanoma patients with CDKN2A and TP53 pathogenic mutations. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0230306.

90.

Cheasley

Nigam

Zethoven

, et al. Genomic analysis of low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma to identify key drivers and therapeutic vulnerabilities. J Pathol 2021; 253: 41–54.

91.

Fader

Bergstrom

Jernigan

, et al. Primary cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant hormonal monotherapy in women with advanced low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma: reducing overtreatment without compromising survival? Gynecol Oncol 2017; 147: 85–91.

92.

Gershenson

Bodurka

Coleman

, et al. Hormonal maintenance therapy for women with low-grade serous cancer of the ovary or peritoneum. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 1103–1111.

93.

Gershenson

Sun

Iyer

, et al. Hormonal therapy for recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum. Gynecol Oncol 2012; 125: 661–666.

94.

Thangavel

Dean

Ertel

, et al. Therapeutically activating RB: reestablishing cell cycle control in endocrine therapy-resistant breast cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer 2011; 18: 333–345.

95.

Colon-Otero

Zanfagnin

Hou

, et al. Phase II trial of ribociclib and letrozole in patients with relapsed oestrogen receptor-positive ovarian or endometrial cancers. ESMO Open 2020; 5: e000926.

96.

Gynecologic Oncology Group. Ribociclib and letrozole treatment in ovarian cancer, clinicaltrials.gov. NCT03673124, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03673124 (2018, accessed 5 October 2022).

97.

Monk

Grisham

Banerjee

, et al. MILO/ENGOT-ov11: binimetinib versus physician’s choice chemotherapy in recurrent or persistent low-grade serous carcinomas of the ovary, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneum. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38: 3753–3762.

98.

Gershenson

Miller

Brady

, et al. Trametinib versus standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer (GOG 281/LOGS): an international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet 2022; 399: 541–553.

99.

Verastem, Inc. A study of VS-6766 v. VS-6766 + defactinib in recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer with and without a KRAS mutation (RAMP-201), clinicaltrials.gov. NCT04625270, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04625270 (2020 accessed 5 October 2022).

100.

Brackmann

Stasenko

Uppal

, et al. Comparison of first-line chemotherapy regimens for ovarian carcinosarcoma: a single institution case series and review of the literature. BMC Cancer 2018; 18: 172.

101.

Powell

Filiaci

Hensley

, et al. Randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel and carboplatin versus paclitaxel and ifosfamide in patients with carcinosarcoma of the uterus or ovary: an NRG oncology trial. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40: 968–977.

102.

Lorusso

Greenstein

Wadekar

, et al. 524MO glucocorticoid receptor expression and activity in a phase II ovarian cancer trial of the glucocorticoid receptor modulator relacorilant in combination with nab-paclitaxel. Ann Oncol 2022; 33: S784–S785.

103.

Kurnit

Steiner

Lastra

, et al. High glucocorticoid receptor expression in the sarcomatous versus carcinomatous elements of mullerian carcinosarcomas. Gynecol Oncol Reports 2022; 41: 100987.

104.

Gotoh

Sugiyama

Takazawa

, et al. Clinically relevant molecular subtypes and genomic alteration-independent differentiation in gynecologic carcinosarcoma. Nat Commun 2019; 10: 4965.

105.

Zhu

Wen

, et al. Clinical significance of programmed death ligand‑1 and intra-tumoral CD8+ T lymphocytes in ovarian carcinosarcoma. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0170879.

106.

Faridi

, et al. EPV003/#326 an integrated genomic, proteomic and immunopeptidomic approach to discover novel tumour neoantigens in an immunologically cold ovarian cancer for personalised T-cell receptor therapy. In: Int J Gynecol Cancer 2021; 31: A31.

107.

Klein

Kee

Gao

, et al. Combination immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with rare gynecological malignancies: results of the CA209-538 clinical trial. J Immunother Cancer 2021; 9: e003156.

108.

Zibetti Dal Molin

Abrahão

Coleman

, et al. Response to pembrolizumab in a heavily treated patient with metastatic ovarian carcinosarcoma. Gynecol Oncol Res Pract 2018; 5: 6.

109.

Tymon-Rosario

Manara

Manavella

, et al. Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) signature-3 in ovarian and uterine carcinosarcomas correlates with preclinical sensitivity to olaparib, a poly (adenosine diphosphate [ADP]- ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor. Gynecol Oncol 2022; 166: 117–125.

110.

Management of a rare ovarian carcinosarcoma: a case report and literature review. Exp Ther Med 2022; 24: 583.

111.

Magalhães

Bartosch

Abreu

MH.

Do not forget poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in ovarian carcinosarcoma. Cureus 2022; 14: e26662.

112.

ARCAGY/GINECO GROUP. Recurrent Ovarian CarcinoSarcoma Anti-pd-1 Niraparib (ROCSAN), clinicaltrials.gov, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03651206 (2018, accessed 5 October 2022).

113.

University of Alabama at Birmingham. Cabozantinib plus nivolumab and ipilimumab in women with recurrent gynecologic carcinosarcoma, clinicaltrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04149275 (2019, accessed 5 October 2022).

114.

Dhani

Hirte

Wang

, et al. Phase II trial of cabozantinib in recurrent/metastatic endometrial cancer: a study of the Princess Margaret, Chicago, and California Consortia (NCI9322/PHL86). Clin Cancer Res 2020; 26: 2477–2486.

115.

Zorzou

M-P

Markaki

Rodolakis

, et al. Clinicopathological features of ovarian carcinosarcomas: a single institution experience. Gynecol Oncol 2005; 96: 136–142.

116.

Roche

H-L

. A study evaluating the efficacy and safety of biomarker-driven therapies in patients with persistent or recurrent rare epithelial ovarian tumors (BOUQUET), clinicaltrials.gov. NCT04931342, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04149275 (2019, accessed 5 October 2022).

Disparity in the era of personalized medicine for epithelial ovarian cancer

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Why such discrepancies exist

Clear-cell ovarian cancer

Molecular-guided therapies

Targeting angiogenesis

Immunotherapy-based approaches

Mucinous ovarian cancer

Molecular-guided therapies

Immunotherapy-based approaches

Low-grade serous ovarian cancer

Ovarian carcinosarcoma

Chemotherapy

Immunotherapy-based approaches

Conclusions

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declarations

References