Safety and tolerability of mirvetuximab soravtansine monotherapy for folate receptor alpha-expressing recurrent ovarian cancer: An integrated safety summary.

Mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx (MIRV) is a novel antibody-drug conjugate targeting folate receptor alpha (FRα), which is overexpressed in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), with limited expression on normal tissues. This integrated safety summary sought to characterize the safety profile of MIRV monotherapy in participants with FRα-expressing recurrent EOC. Safety data were retrospectively analyzed from 4 clinical studies (phase 1 trial [NCT01609556], phase 3 FORWARD I [NCT02631876], phase 2 SORAYA [NCT04296890], phase 3 MIRASOL [NCT04209855]) that evaluated participants with FRα-expressing recurrent EOC who received ≥1 dose of MIRV 6 mg/kg adjusted ideal body weight every 3 weeks. In this analysis of 682 participants, 94 % had platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). Blurred vision (43 %), nausea (41 %), diarrhea (39 %), and fatigue (35 %) were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and were primarily grade 1-2 in severity. Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs occurred in 48 % of participants, with the most common being keratopathy and blurred vision (5 % each). Most TEAEs were managed with supportive care and dose modifications, and only 12 % of participants experienced a TEAE leading to discontinuation (1 % due to ocular events). No corneal ulcerations or perforations have been reported. Median time to onset of blurred vision and keratopathy was 5.9 and 6.7 weeks, respectively. Most blurred vision events and keratopathy events resolved completely (71 % and 66 %, respectively) or partially (15 % and 14 %, respectively). As demonstrated among 682 participants, the safety profile of MIRV is well tolerated and consists primarily of low-grade gastrointestinal, fatigue, headache, peripheral neuropathy, and resolvable ocular adverse events.

Moore KN ，Lorusso D ，Oaknin A ，Oza A ，Colombo N ，Van Gorp T ，O'Malley DM ，Banerjee S ，Murphy CG ，Harter P ，Konecny GE ，Pautier P ，Method M ，Wang Y ，Coleman RL ，Birrer M ，Matulonis UA ... -  《-》

Exposure-response relationships of mirvetuximab soravtansine in patients with folate receptor-α-positive ovarian cancer: Justification of therapeutic dose regimen.

Tu YP ，Lagraauw HM ，Method M ，Wang Y ，Hanze E ，Li L ，Parrott T ，Sloss CM ，Westin EH ... -  《-》

Mirvetuximab Soravtansine in solid tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mirvetuximab Soravtansine (MIRV) is a promising antibody‒drug conjugate (ADC) that targets folate receptor alpha (FRα), which is overexpressed in several types of solid tumors. In November 2022, MIRV was approved in the USA for the treatment of adult patients with FRα-positive, platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer who received 1-3 prior systemic treatment regimens. Therefore, high-quality evidence for its efficacy and safety in different cancers is urgently needed. A systematic search (e.g., PubMed, Embase, Web Of Science, Cochrane Library) was conducted to identify all relevant clinical trials of MIRV alone or in combination with chemo- and/or target-therapies in solid tumors. The primary end-point was median progression-free survival (mPFS). The secondary endpoints were the Objective response rate (ORR) and adverse effects (AEs). A random-effects model was applied. The study included nine research studies with a total of 682 patients. The pooled mPFS and pooled ORR were 6.70 months (95% CI 4.54-8.86, I2 = 96.21%) and 36% (95% CI: 28% to 44%, I2 = 76.79%), respectively. Significant differences were observed among intervention regimens and response to platinum. The pooled mPFS of MIRV monotherapy and MIRV+ Bevacizumab (BEV) combined therapy was 4.28 (95% CI 3.90-4.65, I2 = 0.00%) and 7.78 (95% CI 6.62-8.95, I2 = 0.00%), respectively. The pooled ORRs of MIRV monotherapy and MIRV+BEV combined therapy were 25% (95% CI 21%-29%, I2 = 25.20%) and 43% (95% CI 36%-50%, I2 = 0.01%), respectively. The pooled ORRs of the platinum-sensitive, platinum-resistant groups were 59% (95% CI 36%-81%, I2 = 61.88%), 33% (95% CI 25%-40%, I2 = 69.73%), respectively. In addition, we conducted supplementary subgroup analyses to explore the influence of FRα receptor expression levels and the number of prior treatments on treatment outcomes. The most common adverse effects were blurred vision (45.20%), nausea (40.13%), diarrhea (39.52%), fatigue (33.84%) and keratopathy (31.20%). MIRV has significant therapeutic effects in solid tumors, especially when combined with BEV. In platinum-tolerant tumors, the efficacy of MIRV is also considerable. Overall, MIRV is relatively safe in solid tumors, and adverse reactions are relatively rare and mild.

Rehim S ，Yuan S ，Wang H 《PLoS One》

The efficacy and safety of mirvetuximab soravtansine in FRα-positive, third-line and later, recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: the single-arm phase II PICCOLO trial.

Mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx (MIRV) is a first-in-class, folate receptor alpha (FRα)-targeting antibody-drug conjugate with United States Food and Drug Administration approval for FRα-positive platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. PICCOLO is a phase II, global, open-label, single-arm trial of MIRV as third-line or greater (≥3L) treatment in patients with FRα-positive (≥75% of cells with ≥2+ staining intensity) recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (PSOC). Participants received MIRV (6 mg/kg adjusted ideal body weight every 3 weeks) until progressive disease (PD), unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). Key secondary endpoint was investigator-assessed duration of response (DOR). Additional endpoints included investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Analyses of subgroups by disease characteristics (e.g. platinum-free interval) and treatment history [e.g. prior bevacizumab and poly (adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) treatment] were exploratory. Seventy-nine participants were enrolled and efficacy assessable. The primary endpoint was met; ORR was 51.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 40.4% to 63.3%]. Median DOR was 8.25 months (95% CI 5.55-10.78 months) and median PFS was 6.93 months (95% CI 5.85-9.59 months). OS was not mature at data cut-off. ORR was 45.8% (95% CI 32.7% to 59.2%) in participants with PD while on/within 30 days of prior PARPi (n = 59) and 60.0% (95% CI 14.7% to 94.7%) in those without PD with prior PARPi (n = 5). No new safety signals occurred; most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were gastrointestinal, neurosensory, and resolvable ocular events. TEAEs led to discontinuation in 13 participants (16%) and death in 2 participants (3%). MIRV as ≥3L treatment in heavily pretreated recurrent FRα-positive PSOC demonstrated notable efficacy and tolerable safety, including among those with prior PD on or within 30 days of PARPi (NCT05041257).

Alvarez Secord A ，Lewin SN ，Murphy CG ，Cecere SC ，Barquín A ，Gálvez-Montosa F ，Mathews CA ，Konecny GE ，Ray-Coquard I ，Oaknin A ，Rubio Pérez MJ ，Bonaventura A ，Diver EJ ，Ayuk SM ，Wang Y ，Corr BR ，Salutari V ... -  《-》

Impact of residual disease as a prognostic factor for survival in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer after primary surgery.

Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common cancer among women and a leading cause of death from gynaecological malignancies. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common type, accounting for around 90% of all ovarian cancers. This specific type of ovarian cancer starts in the surface layer covering the ovary or lining of the fallopian tube. Surgery is performed either before chemotherapy (upfront or primary debulking surgery (PDS)) or in the middle of a course of treatment with chemotherapy (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and interval debulking surgery (IDS)), with the aim of removing all visible tumour and achieving no macroscopic residual disease (NMRD). The aim of this review is to investigate the prognostic impact of size of residual disease nodules (RD) in women who received upfront or interval cytoreductive surgery for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). To assess the prognostic impact of residual disease after primary surgery on survival outcomes for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer. In separate analyses, primary surgery included both upfront primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS). Each residual disease threshold is considered as a separate prognostic factor. We searched CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), MEDLINE via Ovid (to 30 August 2021) and Embase via Ovid (to 30 August 2021). We included survival data from studies of at least 100 women with advanced EOC after primary surgery. Residual disease was assessed as a prognostic factor in multivariate prognostic models. We excluded studies that reported fewer than 100 women, women with concurrent malignancies or studies that only reported unadjusted results. Women were included into two distinct groups: those who received PDS followed by platinum-based chemotherapy and those who received IDS, analysed separately. We included studies that reported all RD thresholds after surgery, but the main thresholds of interest were microscopic RD (labelled NMRD), RD 0.1 cm to 1 cm (small-volume residual disease (SVRD)) and RD > 1 cm (large-volume residual disease (LVRD)). Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data in meta-analysis. To assess the adequacy of adjustment factors used in multivariate Cox models, we used the 'adjustment for other prognostic factors' and 'statistical analysis and reporting' domains of the quality in prognosis studies (QUIPS) tool. We also made judgements about the certainty of the evidence for each outcome in the main comparisons, using GRADE. We examined differences between FIGO stages III and IV for different thresholds of RD after primary surgery. We considered factors such as age, grade, length of follow-up, type and experience of surgeon, and type of surgery in the interpretation of any heterogeneity. We also performed sensitivity analyses that distinguished between studies that included NMRD in RD categories of < 1 cm and those that did not. This was applicable to comparisons involving RD < 1 cm with the exception of RD < 1 cm versus NMRD. We evaluated women undergoing PDS and IDS in separate analyses. We found 46 studies reporting multivariate prognostic analyses, including RD as a prognostic factor, which met our inclusion criteria: 22,376 women who underwent PDS and 3697 who underwent IDS, all with varying levels of RD. While we identified a range of different RD thresholds, we mainly report on comparisons that are the focus of a key area of clinical uncertainty (involving NMRD, SVRD and LVRD). The comparison involving any visible disease (RD > 0 cm) and NMRD was also important. SVRD versus NMRD in a PDS setting In PDS studies, most showed an increased risk of death in all RD groups when those with macroscopic RD (MRD) were compared to NMRD. Women who had SVRD after PDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (hazard ratio (HR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 2.29; I2 = 50%; 17 studies; 9404 participants; moderate-certainty). The analysis of progression-free survival found that women who had SVRD after PDS had nearly twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.16; I2 = 63%; 10 studies; 6596 participants; moderate-certainty). LVRD versus SVRD in a PDS setting When we compared LVRD versus SVRD following surgery, the estimates were attenuated compared to NMRD comparisons. All analyses showed an overall survival benefit in women who had RD < 1 cm after surgery (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 5 studies; 6000 participants; moderate-certainty). The results were robust to analyses of progression-free survival. SVRD and LVRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting The one study that defined the categories as NMRD, SVRD and LVRD showed that women who had SVRD and LVRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women who had NMRD (HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.66; 310 participants; I2 = 56%, and HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.34; 343 participants; I2 = 35%; very low-certainty, for SVRD versus NMRD and LVRD versus NMRD, respectively). LVRD versus SVRD + NMRD in an IDS setting Meta-analysis found that women who had LVRD had a greater risk of death and disease progression compared to women who had either SVRD or NMRD (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.11; 6 studies; 1572 participants; I2 = 58% for overall survival and HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.52; 1145 participants; I2 = 60% for progression-free survival; very low-certainty). However, this result is biased as in all but one study it was not possible to distinguish NMRD within the < 1 cm thresholds. Only one study separated NMRD from SVRD; all others included NMRD in the SVRD group, which may create bias when comparing with LVRD, making interpretation challenging. MRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting Women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.29, I2 = 81%; 906 participants; very low-certainty). In a PDS setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that the amount of RD after primary surgery is a prognostic factor for overall and progression-free survival in women with advanced ovarian cancer. We separated our analysis into three distinct categories for the survival outcome including NMRD, SVRD and LVRD. After IDS, there may be only two categories required, although this is based on very low-certainty evidence, as all but one study included NMRD in the SVRD category. The one study that separated NMRD from SVRD showed no improved survival outcome in the SVRD category, compared to LVRD. Further low-certainty evidence also supported restricting to two categories, where women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had a significantly greater risk of death compared to women with NMRD. Therefore, the evidence presented in this review cannot conclude that using three categories applies in an IDS setting (very low-certainty evidence), as was supported for PDS (which has convincing moderate-certainty evidence).

Bryant A ，Hiu S ，Kunonga PT ，Gajjar K ，Craig D ，Vale L ，Winter-Roach BA ，Elattar A ，Naik R ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》