Expanding Treatment Options for Ovarian Cancer
My name is Brian Slomovitz. I'm a gynecologic oncologist and I look forward to presenting some of the recent trends in ovarian cancer management, what we're doing to better treat our patients, and some of the latest updates from the ASCO 2025 meeting.
Let's talk about surgery. Until now, studies haven't shown a statistical difference between neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking and upfront primary debulking surgery for the management of this disease.
At this year's ASCO meeting, the TRUST trial was presented. It looked at furthering the role of upfront surgery vs neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This was a well-balanced study conducted at leading surgical centers throughout Europe and the United States, with overall survival as the primary endpoint.
Unfortunately, the trial was negative: There was no improvement in overall survival for patients who underwent primary debulking surgery compared to those who had interval debulking surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. There was a benefit in progression-free survival, but that wasn't the primary endpoint. We're looking forward to future research that may further answer this question, but as of now, primary debulking surgery hasn't demonstrated a survival advantage. We'll have to see how this continues to evolve.
Turning to primary systemic therapy, there have been several recent studies looking at the addition of checkpoint inhibitors to standard chemotherapy — with or without bevacizumab and PARP inhibitors — to determine whether this could improve outcomes.
One of the key studies presented at this year's meeting was the FIRST trial. It was a well-designed trial, with an appropriate control arm using standard therapies and adding immunotherapy in the experimental arm. This study did show a statistically significant improvement. However, when we talk about clinically meaningful, are we going to put that into our practice? The difference was only 1 month. Although this was statistically significant, it is unclear whether this finding will change clinical practice at this point.
In the recurrent setting, a great unmet need is better treatment options for our patients with platinum-resistant disease. One recent advance is mirvetuximab, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting the folate receptor alpha. This therapy demonstrated a positive overall survival benefit, but it applies only to a subset of patients who overexpress this receptor protein.
Also at this year's ASCO meeting, results from the ROSELLA trial were presented. All patients received nab-paclitaxel, an active agent for recurrent ovarian cancer, and the experimental arm included the addition of relacorilant, a glucocorticoid receptor. The study showed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival among patients treated with relacorilant.
There was also a clinically meaningful trend toward improved overall survival associated with the addition of relacorilant. Although the data are not yet mature, we may see this combination become increasingly significant over time. The findings were published on the same day in The Lancet . If the sponsors move forward with a regulatory strategy, this could become part of the standard of care — potentially making a real, day-to-day difference for our patients.
Another exciting development in the management of recurrent disease is IL-2 gene therapy. At this meeting, Dr Premal Thaker presented results from the OVATION 2 trial, which showed a strong response rate and a promising signal in patients with ovarian cancer. I think the logical next step would be a phase 3 registrational trial to determine whether this IL-2 gene therapy can ultimately be incorporated into the standard of care for our patients.
We're making significant strides in the management of ovarian cancer, and I believe ongoing and future studies will continue to improve outcomes and help our patients live longer with a good quality of life.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cognitive warfare: why wars without bombs or bullets are a legal blind spot
Imagine waking up to the news that a deadly new strain of flu has emerged in your city. Health officials are downplaying it, but social media is flooded with contradictory claims from 'medical experts' debating its origin and severity. Hospitals are filled with patients showing flu-like symptoms, preventing other patients from accessing care and ultimately leading to deaths. It gradually emerges that a foreign adversary orchestrated this panic by planting false information – such as the strain having a very high death rate. Yet despite the casualties, no rules define this as an act of war. This is cognitive warfare, or cog war for short, where the cognitive domain is used on battlefields or in hostile attacks below the threshold of war. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. A classical example of cog war is a concept called 'reflexive control' – an art refined by Russia over many decades. It involves shaping an adversary's perceptions to your own benefit without them understanding that they have been manipulated. In the context of the Ukraine conflict, this has included narratives about historical claims to Ukrainian land and portraying the west as morally corrupt. Cog war serves to gain advantage over an adversary by targeting attitudes and behaviour at the individual, group or population level. It is designed to modify perceptions of reality, making 'human cognition shaping' into a critical realm of warfare. It is therefore a weapon in a geopolitical battle that plays out by interactions across human minds rather than across physical realms. Because cog war can be waged without the physical damage regulated by the current laws of war, it exists in a legal vacuum. But that doesn't mean it cannot ultimately incite violence based on false information or cause injury and death by secondary effects. Battle of minds, bodily damage The notion that war is essentially a mental contest, where cognitive manipulation is central, harks back to the strategist Sun Tzu (fifth century BC), author of The Art of War. Today, the online domain is the main arena for such operations. The digital revolution has allowed ever-more tailored content to play into biases mapped through our digital footprint, which is called 'microtargeting'. Machine intelligence can even feed us targeted content without ever taking a picture or recording a video. All it takes is a well-designed AI prompt, supporting bad actors' pre-defined narrative and goals, while covertly misleading the audience. Such disinformation campaigns increasingly reach into the physical domain of the human body. In the war in Ukraine, we see continued cog war narratives. These include allegations that the Ukrainian authorities were concealing or purposefully inciting cholera outbreaks. Allegations of US-supported bioweapons labs also formed part of false-flag justifications for Russia's full-scale invasion. During COVID, false information led to deaths when people refused protective measures or used harmful remedies to treat it. Some narratives during the pandemic were driven as part of a geopolitical battle. While the US engaged in covert information operations, Russian and Chinese state-linked actors coordinated campaigns that used AI-generated social media personas and microtargeting to shape opinions at the level of communities and individuals. The capability of microtargeting may evolve rapidly as methods for brain-machine coupling become more proficient at collecting data on cognition patterns. Ways of providing a better interface between machines and the human brain range from advanced electrodes that you can put on your scalp to virtual reality goggles with sensory stimulation for a more immersive experience. Darpa's Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology (N3) program illustrates how these devices may become capable of reading from and writing to multiple points in the brain at once. However, these tools might also be hacked or fed poisoned data as a part of future information manipulation or psychological disruption strategies. Directly linking the brain to the digital world in this way will erode the line between the information domain and the human body in a way never done before. Legal gap Traditional laws of war assume physical force such as bombs and bullets as the primary concern, leaving cognitive warfare in a legal grey zone. Is psychological manipulation an 'armed attack' that justifies self-defence under the UN charter? Currently, no clear answer exists. A state actor could potentially use health disinformation to create mass casualties in another country without formally starting a war. Similar gaps exist in situations where war, as we traditionally see it, is actually ongoing. Here, cog war can blur the line between permitted military deception (ruses of war) and prohibited perfidy. Imagine a humanitarian vaccination programme secretly collecting DNA, while covertly used by military forces to map clan-based insurgent networks. This exploitation of medical trust would constitute perfidy under humanitarian law – but only if we start recognising such manipulative tactics as part of warfare. Developing regulations So, what can be done to protect us in this new reality? First, we need to rethink what 'threats' mean in modern conflict. The UN charter already outlaws 'threats to use force' against other nations, but this makes us stuck in a mindset of physical threats. When a foreign power floods your media with false health alerts designed to create panic, isn't that threatening your country just as effectively as a military blockade? While this issue was recognised as early as 2017, by the groups of experts who drafted the Tallinn Manual on cyberwarfare (Rule 70), our legal frameworks haven't caught up. Second, we must acknowledge that psychological harm is real harm. When we think about war injuries, we picture physical wounds. But post-traumatic stress disorder has long been recognised as a legitimate war injury – so why not the mental health effects of targeted cognitive operations? Finally, traditional laws of war might not be enough – we should look to human rights frameworks for solutions. These already include protections for freedom of thought, freedom of opinion and prohibitions against war propaganda that could shield civilians from cognitive attacks. States have obligations to uphold these rights both within their territory and abroad. The use of increasingly sophisticated tactics and technologies to manipulate cognition and emotion poses one of the most insidious threats to human autonomy in our time. Only by adapting our legal frameworks to this challenge can we foster societal resilience and equip future generations to confront the crises and conflicts of tomorrow. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. David Gisselsson Nord receives funding from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Childhood Cancer Foundation. He has also received a travel grant from the US Department of Defence. Alberto Rinaldi has received funding from the The Raoul Wallenberg Visiting Chair in Human Rights and Humanitarian Law and the Swedish Research Council.
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Testosterone gel: what happens if it rubs off on other people
A case that first appeared in a medical journal several years ago has recently resurfaced in the media, highlighting an unexpected risk of hormone therapies: a baby girl in Sweden developed unusually large genitals after lying on her father's bare chest, accidentally exposed to his testosterone gel. The incident is a reminder that hormone treatments, while safe when used correctly, can pose risks to others if proper precautions aren't followed. Testosterone is a powerful sex hormone that plays a crucial role in male development. In the early months of life, babies undergo rapid development, making their bodies, and hormones, extremely sensitive. Even small amounts of testosterone absorbed through the skin can affect a baby's development, particularly with repeated exposure. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. During 'mini-puberty' – a short surge in hormone levels occurring a few months after birth – boys experience rising testosterone levels that help complete reproductive system development and prime it for adulthood. This process also influences brain development. In girls, oestrogen rises slightly during this period, but testosterone remains very low. When a girl is exposed to external testosterone, such as from hormone gel, it can cause unexpected changes, including enlarged clitoris or fusion of the labia. This is precisely what occurred in the Swedish case. Testosterone gels are commonly prescribed to treat men with low testosterone deficiency. The gel is typically applied once daily to clean, dry skin on the shoulders, upper arms or stomach. These alcohol-based gels help the hormone absorb into the skin. While the gel dries within minutes, residue can remain on the skin for an hour or two after application. If someone touches the treated area too soon, or rests directly on it, they can inadvertently absorb some of the hormone. This risk is particularly significant for babies and children, whose thinner, more absorbent skin and developing bodies make them more vulnerable. Testosterone gels are also increasingly used off-label in women to treat menopause symptoms (such as low libido, low mood and fatigue) and at around one-tenth of the dose given to men. This lower dose is achieved by applying a smaller amount of the same male product — this time to the lower abdomen, buttocks or outer thighs. This means there's much less hormone overall, but incidental exposure from women is also possible, for example, when holding a child soon after application. Some perspective While stories like this understandably cause concern, it's crucial to understand the actual risk level. In the UK, around 50,000 to 100,000 people are prescribed testosterone on the NHS, with gel formulations popular due to their ease of application. If accidental exposure were common, we would see far more cases than the small number reported in medical journals. The instructions accompanying these gels are clear: apply only to specified areas, wash hands immediately, cover the skin once dry and avoid close skin contact for several hours. When these guidelines are followed, transfer is very unlikely. In the case of the Swedish child, when the father stopped resting the baby on his bare chest, the genital changes reversed over time. This pattern holds true for other reported cases – if exposure stops early, many effects can fade naturally. However, in more severe or prolonged cases, children may need medical treatment. This could include hormonal tests, continued monitoring, anti-hormone treatment, or even surgery if physical changes don't resolve. Early intervention is key, making it essential to consult a doctor if there's any concern. For those with babies, young children, or pregnant partners at home, the solution is straightforward planning. Apply the gel when you won't be in direct contact immediately afterwards, or consider alternative application methods such as injections, skin patches, or tablets (available in the US), which carry lower risks of unintentional exposure to others. This case serves as a valuable reminder that testosterone therapy, like all medications, comes with responsibilities. When used properly, it's an effective treatment for men with diagnosed testosterone deficiency, improving sexual function and mood, with evidence suggesting it can also support muscle mass, bone health, and metabolism. There is no need to fear these treatments, but if you are prescribed this medication, use it responsibly and follow the instructions carefully. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Daniel Kelly does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GSK's Blenrep faces setback as FDA cancer committee votes against approval
The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) has voted against the benefit/risk profile of GSK's Blenrep (belantamab mafodotin) just days before the drug's Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) date. This marks a significant setback for the UK-based pharma company, which is aiming to regain approval of the therapy after it was pulled from the US market in 2022 due to concerns raised by late-stage trial data. Blenrep was approved under the FDA accelerated approval process in 2020 to treat multiple myeloma (MM). It is an antibody drug conjugate (ADC) that combines a humanised BCMA monoclonal antibody with the cytotoxic agent auristatin F, linked together by a non-cleavable linker. The ODAC committee had a 7–1 split against the combination of Blenrep plus pomalidomide and steroid dexamethasone and a 5-3 split against the combination of Blenrep with bortezomib and dexamethasone. GSK states it remains confident in the benefit/risk profile of Blenrep as a combination therapy and will continue to work closely with the FDA as they complete the review of the drug in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (r/r MM). The FDA will consider the recommendation of the committee as it finalises its review on Blenrep in advance of the 23 July PDUFA date. The concern of ocular toxicity was first highlighted in a document published ahead of the ODAC meeting that took place on 17 July. The recommendation given by ODACs is usually followed by the FDA when deciding if a drug should be approved. Data supporting the drug's approval comes from the DREAMM-7 (NCT04246047) and DREAMM-8 (NCT04484623) studies. In the studies, many patients experienced keratopathy and Visual Acuity (KVA) events. All grade KVAs occurred in 92% and 93% of patients in DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8, respectively, while more serious grade 3-4 events were found in 77% and 78% of patients in the same two studies. Blenrep combinations are approved in r/r MM in the UK and Japan, as well as other markets, including Switzerland, based on the results of DREAMM-8. Applications for approval in the European Union (EU) and China are ongoing, based on the results of the DREAMM-7 study. "GSK's Blenrep faces setback as FDA cancer committee votes against approval" was originally created and published by Pharmaceutical Technology, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
