Purpose: Considering the current lack of consensus on post–poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) treatment strategies, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of subsequent therapy and compare the outcomes of regimes in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer after PARPi treatment. Materials and Methods: This multi-center retrospective cohort study analyzed data on patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer between January 2012 and June 2023 who had previously used PARPi after first- to fourth-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), which was the interval between recurrence after using PARPi and subsequent recurrence in the case of recurrence. Results: Of 318 patients, 147/318 (46.2%) recurred after the PARPi maintenance. Patients were categorized into groups based on subsequent therapy except non-treated (11/147, 7.5%): platinum-based chemotherapy (89/147, 60.5%), non-platinum-based chemotherapy (21/147, 14.3%), other treatments (26/147, 17.7%), and the median PFS (mPFS) for each group were 7.3, 4.8, and 11.4 months, respectively. Among the platinum-based chemotherapy group, the gemcitabine+carboplatin regimen demonstrated a longer mPFS (10.1 months) than the other regimens (6.6 months, p=0.019). In non-platinum-based chemotherapy, no statistically significant differences were observed among the regimens. And, in the other therapy group, where the proportion of patients with oligometastasis was as high as 88.5%, no significant differences were observed among the therapies, including other modalities. Conclusion In the subsequent chemotherapy of recurrent ovarian cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy and PARPi, the gemcitabine+carboplatin regimen demonstrated a potential to delay recurrence more effectively compared to other therapies.

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: We aimed to compare tumor response and treatment outcomes between human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated (HPVA) and HPV-independent (HPVI) endocervical adenocarcinomas (ADCs) treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) and to identify prognostic factors. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 40 patients with endocervical ADCs treated with definitive CCRT (stages I–IVA) between 2011 and 2022. Based on pathological review the cases were categorized as HPVA or HPVI ADCs. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the characteristics, complete response (CR) rates, and survival outcomes. Results: Of 40 patients, 22 (55.0%) had HPVA and 18 (45.0%) had HPVI ADCs. HPVI patients had significantly higher rates of parametrial invasion (94.4% vs. 45.5%, p=0.001). CR was achieved in 57.5% of patients and was significantly more common in the HPVA group (81.8% vs. 27.8%, p=0.001). Patients with HPVI had higher recurrence rates (88.9% vs. 50.0%, p=0.016) and lower 3-year progression-free survival (PFS, 16.7% vs. 49.8%, p=0.001), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS, 38.1% vs. 80.8%, p=0.001), and overall survival (OS, 42.3% vs. 90.7%, p=0.002) rates. HPVA remained a significant factor for PFS (hazard ratio [HR]=3.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.09–10.81; p=0.035) and OS rates (HR=6.83; 95% CI=1.17–39.80; p=0.033) in multivariate analysis. Conclusion HPVI ADC was associated with a lower response to definitive CCRT and worse prognosis than HPVA ADC. These findings suggest the need for tailored treatment strategies based on the HPV status.

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: 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.