Background: Recurrent gynecological clear cell carcinoma (rGCCC) has a low objective response rate (ORR) to chemotherapy. Previous preclinical and clinical data suggest a potential synergy between immune checkpoint inhibitors and bevacizumab in rGCCC.Dostarlimab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), combined with the anti-angiogenic bevacizumab, presents a novel therapeutic approach. This study will investigate the efficacy of dostarlimab +/− bevacizumab in rGCCC. Methods DOVE is a global, multicenter, international, open-label, randomized phase 2 study of dostarlimab +/− bevacizumab with standard chemotherapy in rGCCC. We will enroll 198 patients with rGCCC and assign them to one of three groups in a 1:1:1 ratio: arm A (dostarlimab monotherapy), B (dostarlimab + bevacizumab), and C (investigator’s choice of chemotherapy [weekly paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, doxorubicin, or gemcitabine]). Patients with disease progression in arm A or C will be allowed to cross over to arm B. Stratification factors include prior bevacizumab use, prior lines of therapy (1 vs. >1), and primary site (ovarian vs. non-ovarian). Key inclusion criteria are histologically proven recurrent or persistent clear cell carcinoma of the ovary, endometrium, cervix, vagina, or vulva; up to five prior lines of therapy; disease progression within 12 months after platinumbased chemotherapy; and measurable disease. Key exclusion criteria are prior treatment with an anti–PD-1, anti–programmed death-ligand 1, or anti–programmed death-ligand 2 agent.The primary endpoint is progression-free survival determined by investigators. Secondary endpoints are ORR, disease control rate, clinical benefit rate, progression-free survival 2, overall survival, and toxicity. Exploratory objectives include immune biomarkers.

Background: Recurrent gynecological clear cell carcinoma (rGCCC) has a low objective response rate (ORR) to chemotherapy. Previous preclinical and clinical data suggest a potential synergy between immune checkpoint inhibitors and bevacizumab in rGCCC.Dostarlimab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), combined with the anti-angiogenic bevacizumab, presents a novel therapeutic approach. This study will investigate the efficacy of dostarlimab +/− bevacizumab in rGCCC. Methods DOVE is a global, multicenter, international, open-label, randomized phase 2 study of dostarlimab +/− bevacizumab with standard chemotherapy in rGCCC. We will enroll 198 patients with rGCCC and assign them to one of three groups in a 1:1:1 ratio: arm A (dostarlimab monotherapy), B (dostarlimab + bevacizumab), and C (investigator’s choice of chemotherapy [weekly paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, doxorubicin, or gemcitabine]). Patients with disease progression in arm A or C will be allowed to cross over to arm B. Stratification factors include prior bevacizumab use, prior lines of therapy (1 vs. >1), and primary site (ovarian vs. non-ovarian). Key inclusion criteria are histologically proven recurrent or persistent clear cell carcinoma of the ovary, endometrium, cervix, vagina, or vulva; up to five prior lines of therapy; disease progression within 12 months after platinumbased chemotherapy; and measurable disease. Key exclusion criteria are prior treatment with an anti–PD-1, anti–programmed death-ligand 1, or anti–programmed death-ligand 2 agent.The primary endpoint is progression-free survival determined by investigators. Secondary endpoints are ORR, disease control rate, clinical benefit rate, progression-free survival 2, overall survival, and toxicity. Exploratory objectives include immune biomarkers.

Background: Recurrent gynecological clear cell carcinoma (rGCCC) has a low objective response rate (ORR) to chemotherapy. Previous preclinical and clinical data suggest a potential synergy between immune checkpoint inhibitors and bevacizumab in rGCCC.Dostarlimab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), combined with the anti-angiogenic bevacizumab, presents a novel therapeutic approach. This study will investigate the efficacy of dostarlimab +/− bevacizumab in rGCCC. Methods DOVE is a global, multicenter, international, open-label, randomized phase 2 study of dostarlimab +/− bevacizumab with standard chemotherapy in rGCCC. We will enroll 198 patients with rGCCC and assign them to one of three groups in a 1:1:1 ratio: arm A (dostarlimab monotherapy), B (dostarlimab + bevacizumab), and C (investigator’s choice of chemotherapy [weekly paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, doxorubicin, or gemcitabine]). Patients with disease progression in arm A or C will be allowed to cross over to arm B. Stratification factors include prior bevacizumab use, prior lines of therapy (1 vs. >1), and primary site (ovarian vs. non-ovarian). Key inclusion criteria are histologically proven recurrent or persistent clear cell carcinoma of the ovary, endometrium, cervix, vagina, or vulva; up to five prior lines of therapy; disease progression within 12 months after platinumbased chemotherapy; and measurable disease. Key exclusion criteria are prior treatment with an anti–PD-1, anti–programmed death-ligand 1, or anti–programmed death-ligand 2 agent.The primary endpoint is progression-free survival determined by investigators. Secondary endpoints are ORR, disease control rate, clinical benefit rate, progression-free survival 2, overall survival, and toxicity. Exploratory objectives include immune biomarkers.

Objective: In the global phase 3 Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 (NCT03517449) at the first interim analysis, lenvatinib+pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) versus treatment of physician’s choice chemotherapy (TPC) in patients with previously treated advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). This exploratory analysis evaluated outcomes in patients enrolled in East Asia at the time of prespecified final analysis. Methods: Women ≥18 years with histologically confirmed advanced, recurrent, or metastatic EC with progressive disease after 1 platinum-based chemotherapy (2 if 1 given in neoadjuvant/ adjuvant setting) were enrolled. Patients were randomized 1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (≤35 cycles) or TPC (doxorubicin or paclitaxel). Primary endpoints were PFS per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review and OS. No alpha was assigned for this subgroup analysis. Results: Among 155 East Asian patients (lenvatinib+pembrolizumab, n=77; TPC, n=78), median follow-up time (data cutoff: March 1, 2022) was 34.3 (range, 25.1–43.0) months.Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS (lenvatinib+pembrolizumab vs. TPC) were 0.74 (0.49–1.10) and 0.64 (0.44–0.94) in the mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) and all-comer populations, respectively. HRs (95% CI) for OS were 0.68 (0.45–1.02) and 0.61 (0.41–0.90), respectively. ORRs were 36% with lenvatinib+pembrolizumab and 22% with TPC (pMMR) and 39% and 21%, respectively (all-comers). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97% and 96% (grade 3–5, 74% and 72%), respectively. Conclusion Lenvatinib+pembrolizumab provided clinically meaningful benefit with manageable safety compared with TPC, supporting its use in East Asian patients with previously treated advanced/recurrent EC.

Objective: In the global phase 3 Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 (NCT03517449) at the first interim analysis, lenvatinib+pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) versus treatment of physician’s choice chemotherapy (TPC) in patients with previously treated advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). This exploratory analysis evaluated outcomes in patients enrolled in East Asia at the time of prespecified final analysis. Methods: Women ≥18 years with histologically confirmed advanced, recurrent, or metastatic EC with progressive disease after 1 platinum-based chemotherapy (2 if 1 given in neoadjuvant/ adjuvant setting) were enrolled. Patients were randomized 1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (≤35 cycles) or TPC (doxorubicin or paclitaxel). Primary endpoints were PFS per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review and OS. No alpha was assigned for this subgroup analysis. Results: Among 155 East Asian patients (lenvatinib+pembrolizumab, n=77; TPC, n=78), median follow-up time (data cutoff: March 1, 2022) was 34.3 (range, 25.1–43.0) months.Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS (lenvatinib+pembrolizumab vs. TPC) were 0.74 (0.49–1.10) and 0.64 (0.44–0.94) in the mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) and all-comer populations, respectively. HRs (95% CI) for OS were 0.68 (0.45–1.02) and 0.61 (0.41–0.90), respectively. ORRs were 36% with lenvatinib+pembrolizumab and 22% with TPC (pMMR) and 39% and 21%, respectively (all-comers). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97% and 96% (grade 3–5, 74% and 72%), respectively. Conclusion Lenvatinib+pembrolizumab provided clinically meaningful benefit with manageable safety compared with TPC, supporting its use in East Asian patients with previously treated advanced/recurrent EC.

Objective: In the global phase 3 Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 (NCT03517449) at the first interim analysis, lenvatinib+pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) versus treatment of physician’s choice chemotherapy (TPC) in patients with previously treated advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). This exploratory analysis evaluated outcomes in patients enrolled in East Asia at the time of prespecified final analysis. Methods: Women ≥18 years with histologically confirmed advanced, recurrent, or metastatic EC with progressive disease after 1 platinum-based chemotherapy (2 if 1 given in neoadjuvant/ adjuvant setting) were enrolled. Patients were randomized 1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (≤35 cycles) or TPC (doxorubicin or paclitaxel). Primary endpoints were PFS per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review and OS. No alpha was assigned for this subgroup analysis. Results: Among 155 East Asian patients (lenvatinib+pembrolizumab, n=77; TPC, n=78), median follow-up time (data cutoff: March 1, 2022) was 34.3 (range, 25.1–43.0) months.Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS (lenvatinib+pembrolizumab vs. TPC) were 0.74 (0.49–1.10) and 0.64 (0.44–0.94) in the mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) and all-comer populations, respectively. HRs (95% CI) for OS were 0.68 (0.45–1.02) and 0.61 (0.41–0.90), respectively. ORRs were 36% with lenvatinib+pembrolizumab and 22% with TPC (pMMR) and 39% and 21%, respectively (all-comers). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97% and 96% (grade 3–5, 74% and 72%), respectively. Conclusion Lenvatinib+pembrolizumab provided clinically meaningful benefit with manageable safety compared with TPC, supporting its use in East Asian patients with previously treated advanced/recurrent EC.

Objective: Geriatric patients requiring gynecological surgery is increasing worldwide. However, older patients are at higher risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality, particularly cardiopulmonary complications. Laparoscopic surgery is widely used as a minimally invasive method for reducing postoperative morbidities. We compared the outcomes of open and laparoscopic gynecologic surgeries in patients older than 55 years. Methods: We included patients aged >55 years who underwent gynecological surgery at a single tertiary center between 2010 and 2020, excluding vaginal or ovarian cancer surgeries were excluded. Surgical outcomes were compared between the open surgery and laparoscopic groups, with age cutoff was set at 65 years for optimal discriminative power. We performed linear or logistic regression analyses to compare the surgical outcomes according to age and operation type. Results: Among 2,983 patients, 28.6% underwent open surgery and 71.4% underwent laparoscopic surgery. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic surgery were better than those of open surgery in all groups. In both the open and laparoscopic surgery groups, the older patients showed worse overall surgical outcomes. However, age-related differences in perioperative outcomes were less severe in the laparoscopic group. In the linear regression analysis, the differences in estimated blood loss, transfusion, and hospital stay between the age groups were smaller in the laparoscopy group. Similar results were observed in cancer-only and benign-only cohorts. Conclusion Although the surgical outcomes were worse in the older patients, the difference between age groups was smaller for laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic surgery offers more advantages and safety in patients aged >65 years.

Objective: The real-world INFORM study analyzed sociodemographics, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in Australia, South Korea (S.Korea) and Taiwan preceding incorporation of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors into clinical practice. Methods: Retrospective data from patients diagnosed with EOC (high-grade serous EOC for Taiwan) between January 2014 and December 2018 with ≥12 months follow-up from diagnosis were analyzed descriptively. Survival was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier with two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Of the 987 patients (Australia, 223; S.Korea, 513; Taiwan, 251), 98% received platinum-based chemotherapy (CT). In S.Korea and Taiwan 76.0% and 78.9% respectively underwent primary cytoreductive surgery; in Australia, 56.5% had interval debulking surgery. Bevacizumab was included in primary/maintenance therapy for 22.4%, 14.6% and 6.8% of patients in Australia, S.Korea and Taiwan, respectively. Patients receiving bevacizumab were high-risk (reimbursement policy) and achieved similar real-world progression-free survival (PFS) compared with CT only. Overall, the median real-world PFS (months; 95% CI) was similar across Australia (16.0 [14.63–18.08]), S.Korea (17.7 [16.18–19.27]) and Taiwan (19.1 [17.56–22.29]). Conclusion This study reveals poor prognosis despite differences in demographics and treatment patterns for patients with EOC across Asia-Pacific suggesting the need for biomarker-driven novel therapies to improve outcomes.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of waiting time, from diagnosis to initiation of definitive concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT), on overall survival in cervical cancer patients. Materials and Methods: Patients with cervical cancer who were treated with definitive CCRT between 2000 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Time from initial pathological diagnosis to definitive CCRT was analyzed both as a continuous variable (per day) and as a categorical variable in two groups (group 1 ≤ median, group 2 > median). Patients with a waiting time of more than 60 days were excluded. Results: The median waiting time was 14 days (0-60). There were differences between group 1 and group 2 in age and chemotherapy regimens. However, no significant difference was found in the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, cell type, or the number of cycles of chemotherapy received during CCRT. A longer waiting time was associated with poorer overall survival on the Kaplan-Meier curve (group 1 vs. group 2, p=0.042). On multivariate analysis, intervals as either a continuous variable (hazard ratio [HR], 1.023; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.006 to 1.040; p=0.007) or a categorical variable (HR, 1.513; 95% CI, 1.073 to 2.134; p=0.018), FIGO stage, cell type, and the number of cycles of chemotherapy received during CCRT were significant independent prognostic factors for overall survival. Conclusion A shorter waiting time from pathological diagnosis to definitive CCRT showed benefit on overall survival. Our findings suggest that an effort to minimize waiting times should be recommended in cervical cancer patients who are candidates for CCRT.