Line by Line, a companion to The Inner Lining

Most women with advanced ovarian, tubal or peritoneal cancer take drugs for years, one line of treatment after another. Platinum, PARP inhibitors, bevacizumab, antibody-drug conjugates: what each does, and what the trials show.

The Inner Lining described the surgery for cancers of the peritoneum: remove everything visible, sometimes wash the abdomen with heated chemotherapy. For the most common of these cancers, high-grade cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube or the peritoneum itself, surgery is only half of the treatment. The other half is drugs, and for many women it goes on for years.

Doctors count these drugs in lines. A line is one treatment plan, from the day it starts until the cancer grows again or the plan ends; several drugs given together are one line, and so are all their cycles. The first line follows surgery. If the cancer comes back, as it often does after advanced disease, a second line follows, then a third. A 2019 review in the Lancet put the stakes plainly: recurrence “is usually incurable, and patient symptom control and quality of life are key considerations at this stage”.[1] Each line is chosen to control the disease for as long as possible, at a price the patient can accept.

This essay follows those lines: the platinum drugs that have anchored treatment for decades, the PARP inhibitors that turned a genetic weakness into a target, bevacizumab, the antibody-drug conjugates now arriving, and the immune drugs that did not work here. It describes what studies have found; it is not medical advice.

67%of women with a BRCA mutation alive seven years after starting olaparib maintenance, against 46.5% with placebo

6months: the usual line between platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant cancer

+4months of median survival, about, added by the best recent treatments for platinum-resistant cancer

2large trials of checkpoint immunotherapy, neither with a significant survival benefit

Fig. 1 — Sixty years of drugs for ovarian cancer, from the trials and laboratory papers cited in this essay. Black: older milestones; pink: since 2018.

The backbone

A metal that stops cells dividing

The story starts with an accident. In 1965 the biophysicist Barnett Rosenberg and colleagues reported that running an electric current through platinum electrodes stopped the bacterium Escherichia coli from dividing; the culprit was not the current but platinum compounds released from the electrodes.[2] One of them, cisplatin, became a cancer drug. Platinum drugs bind to DNA and tie its strands together, and a cell that cannot copy its DNA cleanly dies when it tries to divide.

The partner came next. In a trial published in 1996, 410 women with advanced ovarian cancer and tumour left after surgery received cisplatin with either the older drug cyclophosphamide or paclitaxel, a drug first extracted from the bark of the Pacific yew that freezes the scaffolding a cell needs to divide. With paclitaxel, 73% of women whose disease could be measured responded, against 60%; median time without progression rose from 13 to 18 months, and median survival from 24 to 38 months.[3] Seven years later a trial of 792 women showed that carboplatin, a gentler relative of cisplatin, worked as well, with less damage to the stomach and kidneys: median survival 57.4 months against 48.7.[4] Carboplatin and paclitaxel every three weeks, usually for six cycles, has been the first line since.

Attempts to improve the schedule show how hard progress is. A Japanese trial of 631 women gave paclitaxel weekly instead of every three weeks and found a striking gain: median time without progression of 28.0 months against 17.2.[5] An American trial of 692 women could not repeat it. Overall, weekly paclitaxel did not help (14.7 against 14.0 months); it helped only in the minority not also receiving bevacizumab.[6]

The price

Why healthy cells suffer, and why the cancer suffers more

Chemotherapy does not recognise cancer. Cisplatin and carboplatin bind to the DNA of any cell they enter, cross-linking its bases so that the cell cannot copy it cleanly; the damage triggers the cell’s own self-destruct programme.[7] Paclitaxel locks the internal scaffolding that a dividing cell needs to pull its chromosomes apart. Both do most harm where cells divide most, and in the body that means a few tissues that renew themselves constantly.

• The bone marrow, which makes blood. Fewer white cells means a risk of infection; fewer platelets, bleeding; fewer red cells, tiredness. Low blood counts are the main reason doses are delayed or reduced.
• The lining of the mouth and gut, renewed every few days: sores and diarrhoea. The damage is not only the loss of dividing cells; it sets off inflammation, which studies in rats have traced through the signal NF-κB and inflammatory cytokines.[8]
• Hair follicles, among the fastest-dividing cells in the body: hair loss, usually starting a few weeks into treatment and reversible after it ends.

That is why chemotherapy comes in cycles. Blood counts fall in the week or two after a dose and recover before the next; the gap lets healthy tissue regrow, while the hope is that the cancer, dose after dose, loses more than it can replace (Figure 2).

Fig. 2 — Why chemotherapy comes in cycles. A schematic, not data: healthy blood-forming cells dip after each dose and recover; cancer cells, ideally, fall step by step. When the cancer becomes resistant, its line stops falling.

Not every side effect comes from dividing cells. Several appear in cells that never divide, through other routes (Figure 3).

• Nerves. Paclitaxel often causes numbness, tingling or pain in the fingers and toes. Nerve cells do not divide, but their long fibres, up to a metre from the spine to the foot, rely on the same scaffolding as rails to carry supplies to their far ends; the leading explanation is that freezing those rails disrupts that transport, though the mechanism is not fully understood and there is still no effective way to prevent it.[9] It builds up with each cycle, which is why it often limits how much paclitaxel a woman can receive.
• Kidneys and inner ear. Cisplatin is taken up by kidney cells and by the sensory hair cells of the inner ear, through transport channels, and damages them: kidney injury and permanent hearing loss.[7][10] Carboplatin causes much less of both, which is one reason it replaced cisplatin; in the 2003 trial, stomach, kidney and metabolic side effects were all more frequent with cisplatin.[4]
• Nausea. Chemotherapy makes cells in the gut release serotonin, which signals the brain’s vomiting centre; that drives the nausea of the first day, which drugs blocking the serotonin receptor 5-HT3 largely prevent. The delayed nausea of the following days depends more on another signal, substance P, blocked by a second class of drugs.[11]
• Allergy. Reactions to paclitaxel usually happen at the first infusion and are blamed mainly on the castor-oil solvent the drug is dissolved in; medicines given beforehand and slower infusions made them rare enough for the drug to be used.[12] Carboplatin is the opposite: the allergy builds with exposure. In one series of 205 women, 12% developed it, after a median of eight courses, mostly during their second or third platinum treatment, and half of the reactions were at least moderately severe.[13] That is one practical reason platinum is sometimes “saved”.

Fig. 3 — Where the side effects of platinum and paclitaxel come from. Left: tissues that divide often. Right: effects in cells that need not divide, through other mechanisms. Below: why high-grade serous cancer is more vulnerable than healthy tissue. Sources: Dasari & Tchounwou 2014; Shin 2023; Wang et al. 2023; Rojas & Slusher 2012; Price & Castells 2002; Markman et al. 1999; the Cancer Genome Atlas 2011.

Why, then, does the cancer suffer more than the gut or the marrow? Not mainly because it divides faster: many tumours divide more slowly than the lining of the gut. The difference is in the brakes. A healthy cell that detects damaged DNA stops, repairs it and divides later. High-grade serous ovarian cancer has almost always lost the main brake: in the Cancer Genome Atlas, the gene TP53 was mutated in 96% of 316 tumours, and pathway analyses suggested that about half could not repair broken DNA properly by the route that depends on BRCA and related genes.[14] Such cells push on into division with damage they cannot fix, and die. This is the same weakness that PARP inhibitors exploit, and it shows in the clinic: in an Australian study of 1,001 women, those with an inherited BRCA mutation responded more often to platinum and to other drugs at relapse, even when the cancer had come back early.[15]

Resistance is the other side of the same coin. Each course kills the cells the drug can kill; those that survive, because they repair DNA better, pump the drug out or refuse to die, seed the next recurrence. Over successive lines the cancer is, in effect, bred for resistance.

The newer drugs have side effects of their own, from different mechanisms again: PARP inhibitors affect the bone marrow, rarely causing marrow cancers;[16] bevacizumab acts on blood vessels and raises blood pressure;[17] and antibody-drug conjugates can harm healthy tissues that carry a little of their target, or where their payload escapes, such as the eyes and the lungs.[18][19] They are described in the sections that follow.

The six-month line

Sensitive and resistant

When the cancer returns, the first question is how long it has been since the last platinum. If six months or more, the cancer is called platinum-sensitive and platinum usually works again. If less, it is platinum-resistant, and platinum is usually set aside. The cut-off is a convention, but it sorts patients into groups with very different prospects, and most trials are built around it. Figure 4 shows the usual sequence.

Fig. 4 — The usual sequence of treatment for advanced high-grade ovarian, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer. Details vary between patients and countries; the six-month cut-off is a convention, and doctors also weigh side effects, earlier drugs and the tumour’s genetics.

Because each course selects for resistant cells, as described above, doctors have sometimes tried to “save” platinum, giving another drug first so that the interval since the last platinum grows longer. A European trial tested this directly in women whose cancer had returned six to twelve months after platinum. Platinum first was better: median time without progression 9 months against 5, and tumours shrank in 52% against 19%.[20] There can still be good reasons to delay platinum, such as an allergy to carboplatin or nerve damage from paclitaxel, but lengthening the interval on purpose does not help.

A broken repair kit

PARP inhibitors

Many high-grade ovarian cancers have a fault in the machinery that repairs broken DNA, often in the genes BRCA1 or BRCA2, sometimes elsewhere; doctors test for it as BRCA status and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). In one large trial, 51% of tumours were HRD.[21] In 2005 two laboratories, publishing side by side in Nature, showed how to turn that fault into a target. Cells lacking BRCA depend on a second repair enzyme, PARP; block PARP, and they die, while normal cells, which still have BRCA, mostly survive.[22][23] Figure 5 shows the logic, which biologists call synthetic lethality.

Fig. 5 — Why PARP inhibitors work best in BRCA-deficient tumours. A schematic after Farmer et al. and Bryant et al. (2005): a cell survives with either repair route, and dies when both are lost.

PARP inhibitors are tablets, given as maintenance: after chemotherapy has shrunk the cancer, to keep it from growing back. The first big test came in platinum-sensitive relapse. With olaparib, median time without progression after chemotherapy was 8.4 months against 4.8 with placebo.[24] In women with a BRCA mutation, a later trial found a median survival of 51.7 months with olaparib against 38.8, although the difference narrowly missed statistical significance, partly because many women on placebo later received a PARP inhibitor.[16]

The largest effect came when PARP inhibitors moved to the first line. In women with a BRCA mutation, after their first chemotherapy, 60% of those on olaparib were free of progression at three years, against 27% on placebo.[25] Seven years on, 67% were alive against 46.5%, and 45.3% were alive without having needed any further treatment, against 20.6%.[26] For a disease in which recurrence was almost the rule, that is a real change. Niraparib, in a broader group, doubled the median time without progression in HRD tumours, from 10.4 to 21.9 months.[21] Olaparib added to bevacizumab did best in HRD-positive tumours: 37.2 months against 17.7.[27]

The costs are real too. Anaemia is common, and a small number of patients develop bone-marrow cancers: in the relapse trial, six deaths on olaparib were judged treatment-related, from myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukaemia.[16]

The blood supply

Bevacizumab

Bevacizumab is a biological medicine of the kind described in One Signal at a Time: an antibody made to order. It mops up VEGF, a signal tumours use to grow new blood vessels. In the first line, given with chemotherapy and then continued, it lengthened median time without progression from 10.3 to 14.1 months in a trial of 1,873 women, without a significant difference in overall survival.[28] A European trial of 1,528 women found a smaller average gain, larger in women at high risk of progression.[29]

Its main role now is in recurrent disease, including resistant disease. In the AURELIA trial, adding it to a single chemotherapy drug doubled the median time without progression, from 3.4 to 6.7 months, and tumours shrank in 27% against 12%; overall survival, 16.6 against 13.3 months, was not significantly different, partly because women on chemotherapy alone could switch to bevacizumab later. It raises blood pressure, and the bowel perforated in 2.2% of those who received it.[17] That risk is why women with a history of bowel obstruction were excluded from the trial, and why doctors use it cautiously in women with bowel problems.

After platinum

When platinum stops working

Platinum-resistant cancer is where treatment is hardest. The standard is one chemotherapy drug at a time: weekly paclitaxel, liposomal doxorubicin or topotecan, often with bevacizumab. On those drugs alone, in AURELIA, tumours shrank in about one woman in eight, and the median time without progression was three to four months.[17] The aim is to control symptoms and buy time with a treatment the patient can live with, and it is here that most new drugs are being tested.

One recent success came from an unexpected direction. Relacorilant blocks the receptor for cortisol, the stress hormone; the trial tested whether blocking that signal makes chemotherapy work better. In 381 women with platinum-resistant cancer, all previously treated with bevacizumab, 61% with a PARP inhibitor and 44% after three earlier lines, adding relacorilant to nab-paclitaxel raised median survival from 11.9 to 16.0 months; at 18 months, 46% were alive against 27%.[30][31]

Guided chemotherapy

Antibody-drug conjugates

The newest family joins the two ideas above: an antibody that recognises a protein on cancer cells, carrying a chemotherapy drug on a chemical linker. The antibody finds the cell; the cell swallows it; the linker is cut inside; the drug is released where it is needed. Some drugs also leak into neighbouring cells, which helps when not every cancer cell carries the target. Figure 6 shows the steps.

Fig. 6 — How an antibody-drug conjugate works. A schematic; the bystander effect has been shown for drugs whose payload crosses cell membranes, such as the DXd payload of raludotatug deruxtecan.

The first to prove its worth in ovarian cancer was mirvetuximab soravtansine, which targets folate receptor alpha, a protein many ovarian cancers carry in large amounts. In the MIRASOL trial, 453 women with platinum-resistant cancer whose tumours had high levels of the receptor, after one to three lines, received it or chemotherapy. Tumours shrank in 42.3% against 15.9%, median survival was 16.46 months against 12.75, and severe side effects were less frequent: 41.7% against 54.1%.[32] It is approved for this group of patients; antibody-drug conjugates as a class can affect the eyes, lungs and nerves, which need watching.[18]

Others are in trials. Trastuzumab deruxtecan, already used in breast cancer, targets HER2; in 40 women with HER2-expressing ovarian cancer, tumours shrank in 45%, but inflammation of the lungs occurred in 10.8% of 120 women with gynaecological cancers, and one died of it.[19] Raludotatug deruxtecan targets CDH6, a protein expressed by some ovarian and kidney cancers; in laboratory models it shrank tumours, entered the cancer cells and affected their neighbours,[33] and a phase 2/3 trial in platinum-resistant cancer, planned for 860 women worldwide, is comparing it with chemotherapy, with results expected from 2028.[34] Sacituzumab tirumotecan (target TROP2) is being tested as maintenance in platinum-sensitive relapse,[35] and ifinatamab deruxtecan (target B7-H3) in early-phase trials across several cancers.[36] The pattern is clear: find a protein the cancer carries more of than normal tissue, and use it as an address.

What did not work

The brakes that did not release

The checkpoint drugs described in The Brakes Released, which transformed melanoma and lung cancer, have so far failed in ovarian cancer. In platinum-resistant disease, avelumab alone did worse than chemotherapy (median time without progression 1.9 months against 3.5), and added to chemotherapy it did not significantly improve survival (15.7 against 13.1 months).[37] In the first line, atezolizumab added to chemotherapy and bevacizumab in 1,301 women made no significant difference (19.5 against 18.4 months without progression).[38] Why ovarian cancer resists these drugs is not settled.

The shrinking gain

What each line adds

Put the trials side by side and a pattern appears (Figure 7). In the first line, maintenance can add a year or more to the time without progression. In platinum-sensitive relapse, months. In platinum-resistant disease, the best recent treatments add one to three months without progression and about three to four months of median survival: 12.75 to 16.46 months with mirvetuximab, 11.9 to 16.0 with relacorilant.[32][31] Those months matter, and some women gain far more than the median; but the further along the lines, the smaller the average gain.

Fig. 7 — Median months without progression, control (black) against the new treatment (pink), in the trials discussed. The trials enrolled different patients and measured from different starting points (Study 19, for instance, from the end of chemotherapy), so the chart shows the pattern across settings, not a comparison between drugs. Sources: Ray-Coquard et al. 2019; González-Martín et al. 2019; Ledermann et al. 2012; Pujade-Lauraine et al. 2014 and 2021; Moore et al. 2023; Olawaiye et al. 2025.

There is a second reason for caution. The trials that produced these numbers enrolled women fit enough to take part, usually without bowel obstruction and with a limited number of earlier lines: AURELIA excluded women with more than two earlier regimens or a history of bowel obstruction,[17] and MIRASOL took women after one to three lines.[32] After four or five lines the evidence is much thinner, which is one reason clinical trials are often offered at that point.

The balance

What is known and what is not

Known. Carboplatin and paclitaxel remain the backbone of the first line, three decades on. Testing for BRCA and HRD matters, because PARP inhibitor maintenance after the first chemotherapy has a large, lasting benefit in BRCA-mutated cancer. The six-month platinum-free interval sorts patients and treatments, and deliberately lengthening it does not help. In platinum-resistant disease, mirvetuximab (for tumours with high folate receptor alpha) and relacorilant with nab-paclitaxel have each extended median survival by about four months in randomised trials. Checkpoint inhibitors have not worked.

Not known. The best order of treatments after the first relapse, now that there are more options. Whether antibody-drug conjugates work better earlier, or in combination. Which tumours will respond to which conjugate: target levels help, but not perfectly. How well these results apply to women after many lines, or with bowel problems, who are mostly excluded from trials. And the trials measure time; fewer measure how that time is lived.

Next

Where this could go

The direction is towards more addresses. Each antibody-drug conjugate needs a protein that the cancer carries more of than healthy tissue, and the list for ovarian cancer is growing: folate receptor alpha, HER2, CDH6, TROP2, B7-H3 and others in trials.[18] Testing a tumour for these proteins, as it is already tested for BRCA and HRD, is likely to become routine, so that each woman’s next line is chosen for her cancer rather than from a fixed list. The lung and eye side effects of these drugs will decide how far they spread.

For patients, two practical things follow from the trials. Ask which markers the tumour has been tested for, because they open or close options. And ask about clinical trials early, while the lines are still few: eligibility often depends on how many there have been, and on being well enough to take part.

On method and tools

This essay was researched and written with Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic): human specification, editorial direction and critical review; machine research, drafting and figure generation. The subject was Luis’s choice. Every reference was checked against its PubMed record, and the figures and quotations come from the abstracts; the three trials still under way are described from their records on ClinicalTrials.gov. The general statements about how paclitaxel acts, which tissues renew fastest, the timing of falls in blood counts and of hair loss, and the reasons for giving chemotherapy in cycles are textbook background, not taken from the papers cited; the cycles figure is a schematic with invented shapes. The figures are drawn by scripts/linebyline.py from the published numbers named in their captions; the medians are listed in docs/linebyline-results.json. There is no model in this essay. The cover is a drawing, not data. This essay describes what studies have found; it is not medical advice.

Authored by: Luis Matos Ferreira — Physicist, Developer, Writer

Related essays on this blog

1. The Inner Lining — cancers of the peritoneum, and what surgery with heated chemotherapy can do.
2. The Brakes Released — cancer immunotherapy: checkpoint drugs, CAR-T cells and personalised vaccines.
3. One Signal at a Time — the biological medicines, antibodies made to order, used in autoimmune disease.

Sources

1. S. Lheureux, C. Gourley, I. Vergote et al., “Epithelial ovarian cancer”, Lancet (London, England) 393, 1240–1253 (2019), doi.org.
2. B. Rosenberg, L. VanCamp & T. Krigas, “Inhibition of cell division in Escherichia coli by electrolysis products from a platinum electrode”, Nature 205, 698–699 (1965), doi.org.
3. W. P. McGuire, W. J. Hoskins, M. F. Brady et al., “Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin compared with paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer”, The New England Journal of Medicine 334, 1–6 (1996), doi.org.
4. R. F. Ozols, B. N. Bundy, B. E. 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”, Journal of Clinical Oncology 21, 3194–3200 (2003), doi.org.
5. N. Katsumata, M. Yasuda, F. Takahashi et al., “Dose-dense paclitaxel once a week in combination with carboplatin every 3 weeks for advanced ovarian cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial”, Lancet (London, England) 374, 1331–1338 (2009), doi.org.
6. J. K. Chan, M. F. Brady, R. T. Penson et al., “Weekly vs. Every-3-Week Paclitaxel and Carboplatin for Ovarian Cancer”, The New England Journal of Medicine 374, 738–748 (2016), doi.org.
7. S. Dasari & P. B. Tchounwou, “Cisplatin in cancer therapy: molecular mechanisms of action”, European Journal of Pharmacology 740, 364–378 (2014), doi.org.
8. R. M. Logan, A. M. Stringer, J. M. Bowen et al., “Is the pathobiology of chemotherapy-induced alimentary tract mucositis influenced by the type of mucotoxic drug administered?”, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology 63, 239–251 (2009), doi.org.
9. G. J. Shin, “Towards a mechanistic understanding of axon transport and endocytic changes underlying paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy”, Experimental Neurology 359, 114258 (2023), doi.org.
10. X. Wang, Y. Zhou, D. Wang et al., “Cisplatin-induced ototoxicity: From signaling network to therapeutic targets”, Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & Pharmacotherapie 157, 114045 (2023), doi.org.
11. C. Rojas & B. S. Slusher, “Pharmacological mechanisms of 5-HT₃ and tachykinin NK₁ receptor antagonism to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting”, European Journal of Pharmacology 684, 1–7 (2012), doi.org.
12. K. S. Price & M. C. Castells, “Taxol reactions”, Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 23, 205–208 (2002), pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
13. M. Markman, A. Kennedy, K. Webster et al., “Clinical features of hypersensitivity reactions to carboplatin”, Journal of Clinical Oncology 17, 1141 (1999), doi.org.
14. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, “Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma”, Nature 474, 609–615 (2011), doi.org.
15. K. Alsop, S. Fereday, C. Meldrum et al., “BRCA mutation frequency and patterns of treatment response in BRCA mutation-positive women with ovarian cancer: a report from the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group”, Journal of Clinical Oncology 30, 2654–2663 (2012), doi.org.
16. A. Poveda, A. Floquet, J. A. Ledermann et al., “Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): a final analysis of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial”, The Lancet Oncology 22, 620–631 (2021), doi.org.
17. E. Pujade-Lauraine, F. Hilpert, B. Weber et al., “Bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: The AURELIA open-label randomized phase III trial”, Journal of Clinical Oncology 32, 1302–1308 (2014), doi.org.
18. J. He, M. Chen, L. Jia et al., “Antibody-drug conjugates in gynecologic cancer: current landscape, clinical data, and emerging targets”, International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 35, 101978 (2025), doi.org.
19. J. Y. Lee, A. Oaknin, L. Manso et al., “Trastuzumab deruxtecan in HER2-expressing gynecologic cancers from DESTINY-PanTumor02: antitumor activity, safety, and exploratory biomarker analyses”, Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 37, e65 (2026), doi.org.
20. M. C. Piccirillo, G. Scambia, A. Bologna et al., “Quality-of-life analysis of the MITO-8, MaNGO, BGOG-Ov1, AGO-Ovar2.16, ENGOT-Ov1, GCIG study comparing platinum-based versus non-platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with partially platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer”, Annals of Oncology 29, 1189–1194 (2018), doi.org.
21. A. González-Martín, B. Pothuri, I. Vergote et al., “Niraparib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer”, The New England Journal of Medicine 381, 2391–2402 (2019), doi.org.
22. H. Farmer, N. McCabe, C. J. Lord et al., “Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy”, Nature 434, 917–921 (2005), doi.org.
23. H. E. Bryant, N. Schultz, H. D. Thomas et al., “Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase”, Nature 434, 913–917 (2005), doi.org.
24. J. Ledermann, P. Harter, C. Gourley et al., “Olaparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer”, The New England Journal of Medicine 366, 1382–1392 (2012), doi.org.
25. K. Moore, N. Colombo, G. Scambia et al., “Maintenance Olaparib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer”, The New England Journal of Medicine 379, 2495–2505 (2018), doi.org.
26. P. DiSilvestro, S. Banerjee, N. Colombo et al., “Overall Survival With Maintenance Olaparib at a 7-Year Follow-Up in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer and a BRCA Mutation: The SOLO1/GOG 3004 Trial”, Journal of Clinical Oncology 41, 609–617 (2023), doi.org.
27. I. Ray-Coquard, P. Pautier, S. Pignata et al., “Olaparib plus Bevacizumab as First-Line Maintenance in Ovarian Cancer”, The New England Journal of Medicine 381, 2416–2428 (2019), doi.org.
28. R. A. Burger, M. F. Brady, M. A. Bookman et al., “Incorporation of bevacizumab in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer”, The New England Journal of Medicine 365, 2473–2483 (2011), doi.org.
29. T. J. Perren, A. M. Swart, J. Pfisterer et al., “A phase 3 trial of bevacizumab in ovarian cancer”, The New England Journal of Medicine 365, 2484–2496 (2011), doi.org.
30. A. B. Olawaiye, L. Gladieff, D. M. O'Malley et al., “Relacorilant and nab-paclitaxel in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (ROSELLA): an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial”, Lancet (London, England) 405, 2205–2216 (2025), doi.org.
31. D. Lorusso, L. Gladieff, D. M. O'Malley et al., “Overall survival with relacorilant and nab-paclitaxel in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (ROSELLA): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial”, Lancet (London, England) 407, 1513–1524 (2026), doi.org.
32. K. N. Moore, A. Angelergues, G. E. Konecny et al., “Mirvetuximab Soravtansine in FRα-Positive, Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer”, The New England Journal of Medicine 389, 2162–2174 (2023), doi.org.
33. H. Suzuki, S. Nagase, C. Saito et al., “Raludotatug Deruxtecan, a CDH6-Targeting Antibody-Drug Conjugate with a DNA Topoisomerase I Inhibitor DXd, Is Efficacious in Human Ovarian and Kidney Cancer Models”, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics 23, 257–271 (2024), doi.org.
34. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06161025, “A Phase 2/3, Multicenter, Randomized Study of Raludotatug Deruxtecan (R-DXd), a CDH6-directed Antibody-drug Conjugate, in Subjects With Platinum-resistant, High-grade Ovarian, Primary Peritoneal, or Fallopian Tube Cancer” (record consulted 2 November 2026), clinicaltrials.gov.
35. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06824467, TroFuse-022: sacituzumab tirumotecan maintenance versus standard of care in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (record consulted 2 November 2026), clinicaltrials.gov.
36. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06330064, IDeate-PanTumor02: ifinatamab deruxtecan in recurrent or metastatic solid tumours (record consulted 2 November 2026), clinicaltrials.gov.
37. E. Pujade-Lauraine, K. Fujiwara, J. A. Ledermann et al., “Avelumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer (JAVELIN Ovarian 200): an open-label, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 study”, The Lancet Oncology 22, 1034–1046 (2021), doi.org.
38. K. N. Moore, M. Bookman, J. Sehouli et al., “Atezolizumab, Bevacizumab, and Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed Stage III or IV Ovarian Cancer: Placebo-Controlled Randomized Phase III Trial (IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39)”, Journal of Clinical Oncology 39, 1842–1855 (2021), doi.org.