1. Introduction
Ovarian cancer is the second cause of death from gynecological malignancies, and the seventh most common cause of cancer death worldwide [ 1 ]. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for advanced ovarian cancer range between 12 and 24 months and 29 and 65 months, respectively [ 2 , 3 ]. The most common ovarian neoplasm is a high-grade serous histological subtype, accounting for about 70% of cases and causing the majority (90%) of ovarian cancer deaths.
Other histologic subtypes include low-grade serous, endometrioid, clear-cell, and mucinous ovarian cancers ( Table 1 ) [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Mucinous ovarian cancer is a rare tumor, probably accounting for 3% of all epithelial ovarian cancers. Stage III or IV mucinous ovarian cancer patients have a poorer prognosis than women with other, more common subtypes (particularly serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer), and may be related to a poorer response to chemotherapy [ 7 ].
High-grade serous ovarian cancer is frequently associated with DNA repair deficiencies [ 8 ]. Alterations in DNA repair pathways represent a common feature of carcinogenesis, as they can drive malignant transformation with the accumulation of genomic alterations in cancer cells [ 9 ]. Conversely, the presence of multiple DNA repair systems allows cancer cells to have a compensating mechanism to avoid non-viable amounts of genotoxic stress that would ultimately lead to cell death [ 10 ].
In around 18% of ovarian cancer patients, it is possible to identify germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 , especially in those with high-grade serous carcinoma [ 11 , 12 ]. When combined with BRCA deficiencies resulting from somatic mutations or epigenetic silencing, it appears that up to half of all high-grade serous ovarian cancers have a BRCA dysfunction [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. About 10%–14% of ovarian endometrioid carcinomas present deficiencies in mismatch repair proteins by immunohistochemistry, accounting for the microsatellite instability phenotype [ 17 ]. Conversely to high-grade serous ovarian cancer, mucinous ovarian cancers are not associated with BRCA mutations or defects in homologous recombination. The most frequent alterations are KRAS mutations (in 40% to 65% of cases), c-MYC amplifications (65% of cases), HER2 amplifications (20% to 38% of cases), and TP53 mutations (50% to 75% of cases). In addition, other alterations have been identified at lower frequencies, such as homozygous deletions in CDKN2A/B (in 25% of cases), mutations in PI3KCA (13%), and mutations in PTEN , BRAF , FGFR , KIT , or STK11 (2% to 5% of cases) [ 18 ].
Although the tumor stage, residual disease after surgical debulking, response to chemotherapy, and BRCA1/2 -mutation status all affect the outcome of ovarian cancer, the variability in PFS and OS among patients with similar clinical and pathological characteristics makes it difficult to reliably predict outcome. In 2003, Coukos and coworkers reported for the first time that the presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) CD3+ correlated with improved clinical outcome in advanced ovarian carcinoma [ 19 ].
Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is the major cause of treatment failure in the management of ovarian cancer. However, the finding that ovarian-related PC is a regional disease rather than a systemic disease has led to the development of locoregional approaches to improve ovarian cancer patient outcome. In this context, intraperitoneal chemotherapy, endowing direct exposure of chemotherapy to the peritoneal surface plus intravenous chemotherapy, compared with intravenous chemotherapy alone after complete or optimal primary cytoreductive surgery (CRS), showed a 16-month increase in survival. Nevertheless, this strategy is limited in clinical practice by increased side effects, including catheter-related complications, and the inconvenience of administering therapy intraperitoneally [ 3 ]. Even if intraperitoneal chemotherapy has shown benefits as a primary treatment of ovarian cancer [ 3 ], this route of administration has not been explored carefully in the context of interval CRS. The results of the randomized trial of interval CRS, with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), in ovarian cancer patients who had at least stable disease after three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel, demonstrated a median overall survival longer in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group than in the surgery group by nearly a year (45.7 versus 33.9 months; HR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.94; stratified p = 0.02) [ 20 , 21 ]. Interestingly, hyperthermia has been shown to increase the cytotoxic effect of cisplatin in preclinical trials, by increasing the tumor penetration, promoting DNA cross-linking, impairing DNA repair pathways, and consequently promoting apoptosis [ 22 ].
Thus, in this review, we analyze the strict interplay between DNA repair pathway alterations, the immune system, and inflammation in an attempt to identify unique challenges and opportunities for new treatment strategies.
2. DNA Repair Systems
Potentially harmful agents, comprising oxidative stress, ultraviolet light and ionizing radiation, and the use of alkylating and anti-tumor agents, continuously interact with human DNA. Five DNA repair mechanisms are exploited by cells: base excision repair (BER), mismatch repair (MMR), nucleotide excision repair (NER), homologous recombination (HR), and non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ). We briefly described the main characteristics of DNA repair mechanisms below.
BER protects against single-base DNA damage caused by spontaneous depurinations, methylating and oxidizing agents, or other genotoxicants [ 23 ]. BER consists of the removal of damaged bases by DNA glycosylases. There are 11 of these enzymes in humans, and each identifies specific lesions; they bind the altered deoxynucleoside in an extrahelical position and catalyze the cleavage of the base–sugar bond. APE-1 is a protein with an endonuclease activity that makes a 5’ nick in the DNA structure and a 3’ hydroxyl that is recognized by DNA repair polymerase β. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 (PARP1) binds to the 5’ nick, acting as a nick surveillance protein. PARP1 is one of the BER complex proteins involved in DNA interruption detection and DNA repair [ 24 ]. BER consists of different steps: excision of the base, incision, end processing, and repair synthesis (gap filling and ligation).
Slyskova et al. found that DNA repair capacity (DRC) linked to BER is similar in tumor tissues and adjacent healthy epithelium, suggesting that alterations of BER may be not the crucial events in malignant transformation; however, they could be involved in chemical sensitivity of tumor cells to drugs [ 25 ].
The MMR system acts against DNA damaging agents in post-replication correction of extra-helical loops and nucleotide mispairs. MMR includes the MLH1 , PMS2 , MSH2 , and MSH6 genes. Alterations in MMR genes cause microsatellite instability, a mutator phenotype, and a predisposition to colorectal cancer [ 26 ]. Moreover, tumors with MMR deficiency show significantly more somatic alterations than MMR efficiency, resulting in an increased neoantigen burden and immunogenicity. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that tumors with MMR deficiency are responsive to anti PD-1 antibodies like pembrolizumab and nivolumab [ 27 ].
NER consists of about 30 peptides and is involved in the repair of DNA with helix distorting damages, including that caused by UV light, environmental mutagens, and chemotherapeutic agents [ 28 ]. The main steps in NER are as follows: recognition of a DNA defect; recruitment of a repair complex; involvement of helicases for DNA repair; incision of the damaged strand, which results in a single-strand fragment of 24–32 nucleotides; DNA synthesis to fill in the gap; and ligation to form the final phosphodiester bond [ 29 ]. Indeed, lesions are recognized by XPC-RAD23B, which interacts with TFIIH, a transcription initiation complex, prying the DNA open with an XPD subunit. XPB recruits XPA, RPA, and XPG, allowing the formation of a pre-incision complex. XPA interacts with ERCC1-XPF, making a 5’ incision of the lesion. DNA ligase IIIa/XRCC1 or DNA ligase I concludes the NER process [ 30 ].
Slyskova et al. identified alterations of DRC in sporadic colorectal cancer and hypothesized a role of NER in carcinogenesis [ 31 , 32 ].
A double strand break (DSB) is the most lethal damage to the genome that can derive from anti-cancer treatments (e.g., ionizing radiation or the topoisomerase inhibitors) [ 33 ] or physiologic pathways (e.g., genetic recombination during meiosis) [ 34 ].
The HR system is an error-free mechanism that repairs DSBs using a homologous DNA template; during the S/G2 phase of the cell cycle, cyclin-dependent kinases stimulate DNA end resection and activate the HR pathway. The HR process initiates by the end resection generating a long stretch of single-strand DNA from DNA break ends. The HR pathway includes BRCA1 as part of BASC, a large complex linked to genome surveillance composed of MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 (mismatch repair proteins), an MRN (Mre11–Rad50–Nbs1) complex, and ATM and Bloom (BLM) syndrome helicase [ 35 ]. The HR system also involves BRCA2, which forms a complex with Rad51, binding the exposed DNA and permitting Rad51 to load onto the break and assemble the presynaptic filament [ 36 ]. The main reactions in HR are catalyzed by the Rad51/RecA family DNA recombinases [ 37 ].
RAD51 mutations have been identified in ovarian cancer; specifically, deleterious variants were shown in RAD51B , RAD51C , and RAD51D (nonsense, frameshift, and splice), with a predominance for RAD51C and RAD51D mutations [ 38 ]. Literature data shows that tumors with RAD51C and RAD51D mutations presented sensitivity to PARP inhibitors, suggesting a novel therapeutic option for this setting of patients [ 39 , 40 ].
The NHEJ system is active during all phases of the cell cycle and ligates DSBs ends without a template. In NHEJ, the DSBs are first recognized by a heterodimer consisting of Ku70 and Ku80 (Ku). The degradation of short regions of the 5’ or 3’ ends by both exonuclease or endonuclease enzymes (e.g., Artemis) is included in the end resection that generates or exposes small regions of microhomology (≤4 nucleotides) between the strands, facilitating end joining. Artemis is recruited with DNA-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunits, which have a high affinity for DNA ends. Nucleotide addition can occur by the Pol X family polymerases. The DNA ligase IV complex, consisting of XRCC4, XLF, and perhaps PAXX, performs the ligation step for either strand of the DSBs. Alternative joining pathways can be involved in DSBs: backup NHEJ (B-NHEJ) makes use of PARP1, PARP2, and ligase III; and microhomology-mediated end-joining (MMEJ) can be considered as a form of B-NHEJ other than alternative end joining (Alt-EJ) [ 41 ]. PARP1 could compete with RAD51 and BRCA2 for the further processing of resected ends at DSBs, after the initial phase of end resection. The activation of Alt-EJ is mediated by PARP1, and this determines the aligning of short homologous sequences (i.e., microhomology) in the broken ends of DSBs. The repair pathway mediated by microhomology translates into the generation of small deletions, surrounded by microhomologies. The activity of PARP inhibitors inducing synthetic lethality in BRCA1/2-null cells suggests that PARP1-mediated Alt-EJ compensates for HR in HR-deficient cells [ 42 ].
Checkpoints in G1/S, intra-S, and G2/M phases control the progression of cell cycle. The type of DNA lesions activates different DNA damage response proteins [ 43 ]. NHEJ is prevalent throughout the cell cycle, whereas HR is dominant during the S and G2 phases, when factors promoting extensive end resection are more effective [ 44 ]. Cyclin-dependent kinases favor extensive resection during cell cycle, through enzymes and DNA damage response checkpoint proteins, such as ATM and ataxia telangiectasia and Rad-3 related. Moreover, ATM phosphorylation is demonstrated to be involved in the pathway that allows HR or NHEJ activation [ 45 ]. In this context, end processing developing a long 3’ single strand DNA depends on how long DSBs remain unrepaired, which leads to activation of single-strand annealing (SSA). SSA consists of a non-conservative, homology-directed repair pathway that necessitates >20 bp of homology and presents a loss of nucleotides [ 46 ]. RAD52 protein is required for the annealing of complementary single strand DNA in the SSA pathway.
Direct DNA repair of base alkylations lesions involves MGMT protein, which repairs the O 6 -methylguanine (highly mutagenic) and human AlkB homologues ( ALKBH1 , ALKBH2 , and ALKBH3 ). These kinds of lesions can occur during all phases of the cell cycle, so there is no cell cycle regulation for the genes involved in direct repair [ 47 ].
Germ line mutations in genes of repair cause a predisposition to cancer. In particular, germ line mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are associated mainly with ovarian and breast carcinoma [ 48 ], but sporadic cancers also show alterations in BRCA genes. Indeed, BRCA1 interacts with BRCA2 , and similar phenotypic effects result from BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations [ 49 ]. Thus, BRCA1 and BRCA2 are two genes that are crucial for repairing DNA damage and for ensuring genomic stability, preventing the accumulation of gross chromosomal rearrangements that would ultimately lead to either cellular apoptosis or tumor formation [ 50 ].
3. Consequence of DNA Repair Deficiencies in Ovarian Cancer
Based on epidemiologic studies, about 65% to 75% of all cases of hereditary ovarian cancer are caused by gene mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 . The third major cause of hereditary ovarian cancer is hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) syndrome, which accounts for an additional 10% to 15% of all inherited cases [ 51 ]. HNPCC is caused by mutations in genes involved in the MMR system.
It is widely acknowledged that HR-deficient ovarian cancers are enriched for high-grade serous histology ( Table 1 ). BRCA abnormalities seldom occur in non-high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma subtypes [ 52 ]. HR deficiency endows ovarian cancers with a clinical phenotype that is characterized by visceral relapse, a slightly younger age at diagnosis, and a better response to platinum-based chemotherapy, PARP inhibitors, and anthracyclines [ 42 ].
Usually, only one mutated allele results from inherited germline defects (typically mutations), and loss of the other allele occurs somatically, as in Lynch syndrome (or HNPCC), an autosomal dominant condition that predisposes the patient to cancer development (especially colorectal, ovarian, and endometrial cancer) [ 53 ]. Alternatively, sporadic MMR deficient tumors are often due to hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter resulting in epigenetic silencing [ 54 ].
The distribution of ovarian cancer histotypes in MMR-deficient patients differs considerably from that generally observed: non-serous histologies are more common, and often show endometrioid or a clear cell differentiation ( Table 1 ) [ 55 ]. Ovarian endometrioid cancers, accounting for ~10%–25% of all ovarian carcinomas, is predominantly seen in perimenopausal women, and arises from endometriosis, which appears to act as a precursor. Endometrioid histology frequently harbors AT-rich interactive domain 1A ( ARID1A ) mutations, leading to loss of ARID1A protein expression, B-catenin ( CTNNB1 ) somatic mutations, PTEN mutations, and microsatellite instability [ 56 , 57 ]. In particular, defective mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry, accounting for the microsatellite instability phenotype, has been reported in 10%–14% of ovarian endometrioid carcinomas. Primarily, loss of MSH2 and/or MSH6 accounts for over 50% of MMR-deficient ovarian endometrioid carcinomas [ 17 , 58 ].
Clear-cell ovarian cancer is a rare subtype characterized by a worse prognosis when diagnosed at an advanced stage, due to low chemosensitivity. Howitt and coworkers demonstrated that 10% of clear-cell ovarian cancer exhibited microsatellite instability and roughly 27% ARID1A loss [ 59 ].
Immune-Consequence of DNA Repair Defects
The first evidence of a relationship between ovarian cancer and the immune environment was reported by Zhang and coworkers in 2003. The authors demonstrated that the presence of intratumoral T cells correlated with the clinical outcome of advanced ovarian carcinoma [ 19 ]. Of note, TIL are more frequently present in serous carcinomas, compared to either endometrioid or clear-cell carcinomas ( Table 1 ). Clarke and coworkers also performed an exploratory analysis in a small case series, observing a significant association between intraepithelial TIL and BRCA1 mutations or promoter methylation causing loss of expression, mainly in high-grade serous ovarian cancer [ 60 ]. Since then, others authors have identified “prominent intraepithelial lymphocytes” as a distinguishing feature of BRCA1/2 -mutated tumors, with a higher mutational load [ 61 ].
Although both genes encode proteins that participate in the HR pathway, the reason why germline BRCA1 mutations seem to confer a higher risk of developing ovarian cancer than germline BRCA2 mutations is probably related to their earlier and more substantial role in DNA damage response and cell-cycle regulation. Indeed, BRCA1 -mutant, high-grade serous ovarian cancers present a specific molecular subtype with a distinct gene expression signature, which seems related to specific amplification events at 8q24 and on the X chromosome. Conversely, BRCA2 -mutant tumors more closely resemble “wild-type” high-grade serous ovarian cancer [ 62 ]. Consequently, it seems that BRCA2 -disrupted tumors, although harboring similar numbers of point mutations, are less immunogenic than BRCA1 -disrupted tumors [ 63 ].
Strickland and coworkers demonstrated that a higher neoantigen load in the BRCA1/2 -mutated ovarian cancers compared to HR-proficient tumors translates to a significantly higher number of CD3+ TILs compared to HR-proficient tumors. Moreover, HR-proficient tumors showed a lower PD-L1 expression on the surface of intraepithelial and peritumoral immune cells compared to the BRCA1/2 -mutated tumors, supporting a link between BRCA1/2 -mutation status, immunogenicity, and improved survival in high grade serous ovarian cancer [ 64 ].
With regard to defects in the MMR system, it has been demonstrated that mismatch repair–deficient cancers are associated with 10- to 100-fold more somatic mutations as MMR–proficient cancers, and contain prominent lymphocyte infiltrates, a finding consistent with an immune response. In an unselected series of ovarian clear cell carcinoma, with around 6% of MMR deficiency, peritumoral lymphocytes were more frequent in MMR-deficient tumors [ 65 ]. Indeed, it has been seen that an MMR–deficient tumor microenvironment strongly expresses several immune checkpoint ligands, (e.g., PD-1, PD-L1, CTLA-4, LAG-3, and IDO), indicating an immune escape process where their active immune microenvironment is counterbalanced by immune inhibitory signals [ 66 ].
MMR-deficient tumors were shown to be more frequently resistant to chemotherapy, and in particular to methylating agents and platinum compounds [ 67 ]. A possible explanation may be related to the incapability of MMR proteins involved in DNA damage response to recruit ATM/ATR, which in turn leads to cell cycle arrest, DNA repair, or apoptosis [ 68 ].
Alterations in DNA repair pathways are not the only events that may have immune consequences. In fact, inflammation is the process where reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (RONS) and other mediators, including cytokines, metalloproteinases (MMPs), and PGE2, are produced by inflammatory cells. The same inflammatory signals may, in turn, amplify and perpetuate the inflammatory cascade—e.g., MMPs induce reactive oxygen intermediates, whereas cytokines induce PGE2. The cGAS/STING pathway consists of the activation of a cGAS enzyme by aberrant cytosolic DNA that produces cGAMP, activating the STING protein, leading to the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as type I interferon (IFN), that boost the immune response [ 69 ].
Inflammation has the capability to induce the production of HIF-1α in cancer cells, as a consequence of inflammatory cytokines (TNF and IL-1β), prostaglandin (PGE2), and RONS. HIF-1α in turn downregulates MMR proteins, such as MSH2 and MSH6, by displacing c-Myc from MSH2 / MSH6 promoters. A potent RONS, hydrogen peroxide, may damage several proteins and enzymes, including MMR members, disrupting their function and ultimately inactivating this DNA-repair pathway. The BER pathway, which serves to repair DNA damage caused by UV exposure and chemotherapeutic agents, appears to be affected by IL-6, which induces hypermethylation in multiple myeloma cells, leading to dysfunction of the key nucleotide excision repair component hHR23B [ 70 ]. Moreover, HIF-1α induces microRNA-373, which downregulates the expression of the NER component RAD23B [ 71 ].
4. Effect of Locoregional Therapeutic Approaches on the Immune System
The aim of locoregional treatments is to deliver higher concentrations of chemotherapy (e.g., cisplatin or paclitaxel) to the peritoneal cavity than that measured in plasma after intravenous administration [ 72 , 73 ], permitting continuous and prolonged exposure of high drug concentrations with lower peak plasma levels over time [ 74 ], and thus causing fewer adverse events. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy has been shown to enhance OS and PFS with respect to intravenous administration [ 75 , 76 ], and HIPEC plus complete or optimal interval CRS resulted in longer OS than CRS alone [ 20 ].
The proposed advantages of HIPEC over intraperitoneal administration are a single-dose approach with direct observation of intraoperative drug exposure, without the risk of barriers due to postoperative adhesions, and a high-proportion cisplatin dose absorbed by target tumor cells; hyperthermia that has been shown to increase tumor penetration of chemotherapy, and thus enhances cyotoxicity synergistically [ 77 ]. This was confirmed by the presence of cisplatin-induced DNA adducts in tumor samples treated with HIPEC [ 22 ].
The results obtained with this procedure in terms of improvement in OS can be attributed to the potential interaction between intraperitoneal chemotherapy, the immune system, and inflammatory processes [ 78 , 79 , 80 ]. In vivo and in vitro studies have shown that the hyperthermic phase of the procedure is characterized by a sharp and predictable increase of inflammatory markers. Cisplatin is a DNA damaging agent, known to cause G2 arrest. It has been seen that HIPEC leads to an increase in Cyclin A1 (up to 53-fold more) and in SSX-4 (up to 30-fold more), with respect to intravenous chemotherapy [ 79 ]. Thus, HIPEC causes cell cycle arrest thanks to CDKN1A expression, which in response to DNA damage through p53 activation, binds and inhibits the CDK2/cyclin E complex, preventing the phosphorylation of Rb and thus arresting cancer cells in the G1 phase [ 81 ]. Furthermore, serum levels of Interleukine-6 and procalcitonin showed clinically relevant variation during HIPEC [ 80 ].
Systemic inflammatory indexes, such as the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and systemic inflammatory index (SII) (calculated as (platelet count × neutrophil count)/lymphocyte count) have been investigated in several tumors, displaying a potential prognostic and predictive role [ 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 ]. In ovarian cancer patients, elevated baseline levels of NLR are associated with a poor prognosis [ 86 , 87 ]. Interestingly, it has been observed that inflammatory markers, such as NLR and SII, may also be predictors of treatment efficacy in ovarian cancer. However, their role has not yet been evaluated in patients undergoing HIPEC [ 88 ].
Hypertermia and surgery are stressful procedures for cancer and mesothelial cells. In fact, even if a CA-125 serum marker significantly increases during the peritoneal perfusate, as a consequence of the production of mesothelial cells, it has been demonstrated that there is a trend in its reduction, even if not statistically significant, after this procedure. These data confirm the effectiveness of peritoneal plasma barrier [ 89 , 90 ] in confining the harm produced by the intra-abdominal process to the abdominal cavity [ 80 ].
Zunino and coworkers investigated the role of hyperthermia mitomycin C and HIPEC (hyperthermia and mitomycin C) in the anticancer immune response. Using murine colon carcinoma cell line CT26, they showed that CT26 cells were killed with all these procedures. However, although mitomycin C and HIPEC treatment caused an activation of dendritic cells (DCs), hyperthermia alone did not. The activated DCs activated T cells in a tumor antigen-dependent manner. The authors also observed a permanent antitumor immune response in mice vaccinated with mitomycine- or HIPEC-treated CT26 cells, through the exposure of Heat Shock Protein 90 (HSP90) on the cell surface of the dying cells [ 91 , 92 ]. These findings showed that the HIPEC procedure not only killed tumor cells, but also induced an efficient anticancer immune response, providing a rationale for using a combination of HIPEC and immunotherapy or intraperitoneal immunotherapy to improve clinical outcome.
5. Immune-Modulating Treatment Rationale in Ovarian Cancer
Immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies, have proven effective in cancers with a high mutational load, including lung cancer, melanoma, and bladder cancer. A higher mutational load in urothelial cancer was shown to be an independent predictive factor of response to anti-PD-L1 [ 93 , 94 ]. This is a result of bladder tumors producing more tumor-specific neoantigens, which leads to TIL stimulation and PD-1/PD-L1 overexpression. Higher-neoantigen intratumor heterogeneity may result in lower antigen dosage compared to homogeneous tumors with a high clonal neoantigen burden, thus reducing the possibility of identifying T cells reactive to sub-clonal neoantigens and responsive to immune checkpoint inhibitors [ 95 ]. In this context, tumors harboring BRCA mutations or with a BRCA-like phenotype have a higher probability of producing new neoantigens and a higher mutational load, resulting in more immunogenic tumors. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that PD-1 and PD-L1 are more highly expressed in BRCA -mutated tumors than in HR-proficient tumors [ 64 ], providing a rationale for treating these tumors with immune checkpoint inhibitors either alone or in combination with PARP inhibitors. Similarly, MMR-deficient tumors are associated with a higher mutational load than MMR-proficient tumors. Indeed, Le and coworkers demonstrated that an immune checkpoint inhibitor, specifically a PD-1 inhibitor, was active against MMR–deficient colorectal cancers [ 27 ]. Of note, PD-L1 expression in tumor cells or immune cells is observed in all cases of clear-cell ovarian cancers with microsatellite instability [ 59 ], suggesting the usefulness of routine testing of MMR-deficiency in ovarian cancer and opening an alternative therapeutic avenue with immune checkpoint inhibitors for selected ovarian cancer patients. Again, an ARID1A-deficient ovarian cancer cell line, because ARID1A cannot interact anymore with MSH2 during DNA replication, results in increased mutagenesis, increased mutation load, elevated numbers of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and PD-L1 expression. Notably, treatment with anti-PD-L1 antibody seems efficacious in preclinical models bearing ARID1A-deficient but not ARID1A-wild-type ovarian tumors [ 96 ].
Promising studies have also been conducted with intraperitoneal immunotherapy. In April 2009, EMA approved the use of intraperitoneal catumaxomab for malignant ascites in patients with epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM)-positive ovarian and non-gynecological carcinomas after studies confirmed a prolongation in the time of first deterioration of quality of life, median paracentesis-free survival, and overall survival [ 97 , 98 ].
Of note, other recent studies focusing on IP immunotherapy with dendritic cell vaccine and cytokine-induced killer cells have demonstrated a significant improvement in quality of life and control of the production of malignant ascites in patients with unresectable peritoneal carcinomatosis [ 99 ]. The role of chimeric antigen receptor-engineered T cells (CAR-T cells) in controlling peritoneal carcinomatosis has also been investigated by targeting antigen-specific tumors [ 100 ]. A study in mice by Katz and coworkers evaluated tumor response by CAR-T therapy via intraperitoneal or tail-vein injection. The authors reported a 37-fold reduction in peritoneal carcinomatosis in intraperitoneal-treated mice as compared with the tail-vein injection group [ 101 ]. Similarly, other studies focusing on peritoneal carcinomatosis from ovarian cancer reported an eradication of tumor growth and a significant improvement in survival in the intraperitoneal CAR-T cell-treated mice models compared with control groups [ 102 , 103 , 104 ].
6. Conclusions
Substantial progress has been achieved in understanding the biology of ovarian cancer in the last few years. Ovarian cancer is strongly linked to defects in DNA repair mechanisms. It was recently demonstrated that different ovarian cancer histotypes may have different immunogenicity, following the recognition of six molecular subgroups, including an “immunoreactive” subtype, by the Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network (TCGA) [ 13 ]. In this context, the combination of immunotherapy and PARP inhibition in HR- or MMR-deficient ovarian cancers is a potentially interesting hypothesis. Moreover, there is evidence to show that HIPEC has an effect on immune response by activating the mediators of the non-specific innate immune system to kill tumor cells. However, HIPEC also induces the adaptive immune system to create an efficient anticancer immune response, protecting patients on a long-term basis. Within this context, it would be interesting to carry out studies on intraperitoneal immunotherapy, including combinations with PARP inhibitors, in patients harboring defects in DNA repair pathways.
Author Contributions
A.F. has contributed to the writing of the paper, has approved the submitted version, and agrees to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature. G.G. has contributed to the writing of the paper, has approved the submitted version and agrees to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature. P.F. has revised literature data, approved the submitted version, and agrees to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature. S.L.B. has revised literature data, approved the submitted version, and agrees to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature. C.C. has revised the manuscript, approved the submitted version, and agrees to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature. G.R. has revised the manuscript, approved the submitted, and agrees to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature. A.A. (Amelia Altavilla) has revised the manuscript, approved the submitted version, and agrees to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature. M.C. has revised the manuscript, approved the submitted version, and agrees to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature. A.A. (Andrea Amadori) has revised the manuscript, approved the submitted version, and agrees to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature. M.F. has revised the manuscript, approved the submitted version, and agrees to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature. L.A. has revised the manuscript, approved the submitted version, and agrees to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature. U.D.G. has contributed to the design of the work, approved the submitted version, and agrees to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. GLOBOCAN Available online: http://gco.iarc.fr/ (accessed on 18 April 2019)
2. Vergote I. Trope C.G. Amant F. Kristensen G.B. Ehlen T. Johnson N. Verheijen R.H. van der Burg M.E. Lacave A.J. Panici P.B. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2010 363 943 953 10.1056/NEJMoa0908806 20818904
3. Armstrong D.K. Bundy B. Wenzel L. Huang H.Q. Baergen R. Lele S. Copeland L.J. Walker J.L. Burger R.A. Intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel in ovarian cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2006 354 34 43 10.1056/NEJMoa052985 16394300
4. Prat J. D’Angelo E. Espinosa I. Ovarian carcinomas: At least five different diseases with distinct histological features and molecular genetics Hum. Pathol. 2018 80 11 27 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.06.018 29944973
5. McCluggage W.G. Morphological subtypes of ovarian carcinoma: A review with emphasis on new developments and pathogenesis Pathology 2011 43 420 432 10.1097/PAT.0b013e328348a6e7 21716157
6. Kurman R.J. Carcangiu M.L. Herrington C.S. Young R.H. WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs, 4th ed International Agency for Research on Cancer Lyon, France 2014 10 40
7. Karabuk E. Kose M.F. Hizli D. Taşkin S. Karadağ B. Turan T. Boran N. Ozfuttu A. Ortaç U.F. Comparison of advanced stage mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer and serous epithelial ovarian cancer with regard to chemosensitivity and survival outcome: A matched case-control study J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2013 24 160 166 10.3802/jgo.2013.24.2.160 23653834 PMC3644693
8. Risch H.A. McLaughlin J.R. Cole D.E. Rosen B. Bradley L. Fan I. Tang J. Li S. Zhang S. Shaw P.A. Narod S.A. Population BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation frequencies and cancer penetrances: A kin-cohort study in Ontario, Canada J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2006 98 1694 1706 10.1093/jnci/djj465 17148771
9. Hanahan D. Weinberg R.A. Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation Cell 2011 144 646 674 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013 21376230
10. Dietlein F. Thelen L. Reinhardt H.C. Cancer-specific defects in DNA repair pathways as targets for personalized therapeutic approaches Trends Genet. 2014 30 326 339 10.1016/j.tig.2014.06.003 25017190
11. Press J.Z. De Luca A. Boyd N. Young S. Troussard A. Ridge Y. Kaurah P. Kalloger S.E. Blood K.A. Smith M. Ovarian carcinomas with genetic and epigenetic BRCA1 loss have distinct molecular abnormalities BMC Cancer 2008 8 17 10.1186/1471-2407-8-17 18208621 PMC2245962
12. Hennessy B.T. Timms K.M. Carey M.S. Gutin A. Meyer L.A. Flake D.D. 2nd Abkevich V. Potter J. Pruss D. Glenn P. Somatic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 could expand the number of patients that benefit from poly (ADP ribose) polymerase inhibitors in ovarian cancer J. Clin. Oncol. 2010 28 3570 3576 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.2997 20606085 PMC2917312
13. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network Integrated Genomic Analyses Of Ovarian Carcinoma Nature 2011 474 609 615 10.1038/nature10166 21720365 PMC3163504
14. Hilton J.L. Geisler J.P. Rathe J.A. Rathe J.A. Hattermann-Zogg M.A. DeYoung B. Buller R.E. Inactivation of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in ovarian cancer J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2002 94 1396 1406 10.1093/jnci/94.18.1396 12237285
15. Geisler J.P. Hatterman-Zogg M.A. Rathe J.A. Buller R.E. Frequency of BRCA1 dysfunction in ovarian cancer J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2002 94 61 67 10.1093/jnci/94.1.61 11773283
16. Mukhopadhyay A. Curtin N. Plummer R. Edmondson R.J. PARP inhibitors and epithelial ovarian cancer: An approach to targeted chemotherapy and personalised medicine Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2011 118 429 432 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02838.x 21244617
17. Aysal A. Karnezis A. Medhi I. Grenert J.P. Zaloudek C.J. Rabban J.T. Ovarian endometrioid adenocarcinoma: Incidence and clinical significance of the morphologic and immunohistochemical markers of mismatch repair protein defects and tumor microsatellite instability Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2012 36 163 172 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31823bc434 22189970
18. Morice P. Gouy S. Leary A. Mucinous Ovarian Carcinoma N. Engl. J. Med. 2019 380 1256 1266 10.1056/NEJMra1813254 30917260
19. Zhang L. Conejo-Garcia J.R. Katsaros D. Katsaros D. Gimotty P.A. Massobrio M. Regnani G. Makrigiannakis A. Gray H. Schlienger K. Intratumoral T cells, recurrence, and survival in epithelial ovarian cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2003 348 203 213 10.1056/NEJMoa020177 12529460
20. Van Driel W.J. Koole S.N. Sikorska K. Schagen van Leeuwen J.H. Schreuder H.W.R. Hermans R.H.M. de Hingh I.H.J.T. van der Velden J. Arts H.J. Massuger L.F.A.G. Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Ovarian Cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2018 378 230 240 10.1056/NEJMoa1708618 29342393
21. Spiliotis J. Halkia E. Lianos E. Kalantzi N. Grivas A. Efstathiou E. Giassas S. Cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC in recurrent epithelial ovariancancer: A prospective randomized phase III study Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015 22 1570 1575 10.1245/s10434-014-4157-9 25391263
22. Zivanovic O. Abramian A. Kullmann M. Fuhrmann C. Coch C. Hoeller T. Ruehs H. Keyver-Paik M.D. Rudlowski C. Weber S. HIPEC ROC I: A phase I study of cisplatin administered as hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemoperfusion followed by postoperative intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer Int. J. Cancer 2015 136 699 708 10.1002/ijc.29011 24895230
23. Evans A.R. Limp-Foster M. Kelley M.R. Going APE over ref-1 Mutat. Res. 2000 461 83 108 10.1016/S0921-8777(00)00046-X 11018583
24. Carter R.J. Parsons J.L. Base Excision Repair, a Pathway Regulated by Posttranslational Modifications Mol. Cell. Biol. 2016 36 1426 1437 10.1128/MCB.00030-16 26976642 PMC4859697
25. Slyskova J. Korenkova V. Collins A.R. Prochazka P. Vodickova L. Svec J. Lipska L. Levy M. Schneiderova M. Liska V. Functional, genetic, and epigenetic aspects of base and nucleotide excision repair in colorectal carcinomas Clin. Cancer Res. 2012 18 5878 5887 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-1380 22966016
26. Bernstein C. Bernstein H. Payne C.M. Garewal H. DNA repair/pro-apoptotic dual-role proteins in five major DNA repair pathways: Fail-safe protection against carcinogenesis Mutat. Res. 2002 511 145 178 10.1016/S1383-5742(02)00009-1 12052432
27. Le D.T. Uram J.N. Wang H. Bartlett B.R. Kemberling H. Eyring A.D. Skora A.D. Luber B.S. Azad N.S. Laheru D. PD-1 Blockade in Tumors with Mismatch-Repair Deficiency N. Engl. J. Med. 2015 372 2509 2520 10.1056/NEJMoa1500596 26028255 PMC4481136
28. Geske F.J. Nelson A.C. Lieberman R. Strange R. Sun T. Gerschenson L.E. DNA repair is activated in early stages of p53-induced apoptosis Cell Death Differ. 2000 7 393 401 10.1038/sj.cdd.4400663 10773824
29. Spivak G. Nucleotide excision repair in humans DNA Repair 2015 36 13 18 10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.09.003 26388429 PMC4688078
30. Schärer O.D. Nucleotide excision repair in eukaryotes Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2013 5 a012609 10.1101/cshperspect.a012609 24086042 PMC3783044
31. Slyskova J. Naccarati A. Pardini B. Polakova V. Vodickova L. Smerhovsky Z. Levy M. Lipska L. Liska V. Vodicka P. Differences in nucleotide excision repair capacity between newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients and healthy controls Mutagenesis 2012 27 225 232 10.1093/mutage/ger088 22294771
32. Slyskova J. Cordero F. Pardini B. Korenkova V. Vymetalkova V. Bielik L. Vodickova L. Pitule P. Liska V. Matejka Post-treatment recovery of suboptimal DNA repair capacity and gene expression levels in colorectal cancer patients Mol. Carcinog. 2015 54 769 778 10.1002/mc.22141 24585457
33. Helleday T. Petermann E. Lundin C. Hodgson B. Sharma R.A. DNA repair pathways as targets for cancer therapy Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2008 8 193 204 10.1038/nrc2342 18256616
34. Neale M.J. Keeney S. Clarifying the mechanics of DNA strand exchange in meiotic recombination Nature 2006 442 153 158 10.1038/nature04885 16838012 PMC5607947
35. Gudmundsdottir K. Ashworth A. The roles of BRCA1 and BRCA2 and associated proteins in the maintenance of genomic stability Oncogene 2006 25 5864 5874 10.1038/sj.onc.1209874 16998501
36. Yang H. Jeffrey P.D. Miller J. Kinnucan E. Sun Y. Thoma N.H. Zheng N. Chen P.L. Lee W.H. Pavletich N.P. BRCA2 function in DNA binding and recombination from a BRCA2-DSS1-ssDNA structure Science 2002 297 1837 1848 10.1126/science.297.5588.1837 12228710
37. Kowalczykowski S.C. An overview of the molecular mechanisms of recombinational DNA repair Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2015 7 10.1101/cshperspect.a016410 PMC4632670 26525148
38. Golmard L. Castéra L. Krieger S. Moncoutier V. Abidallah K. Tenreiro H. Laugé A. Tarabeux J. Millot G.A. Nicolas A. Contribution of germline deleterious variants in the RAD51 paralogs to breast and ovarian cancers Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2017 25 1345 1353 10.1038/s41431-017-0021-2 29255180 PMC5865182
39. Loveday C. Turnbull C. Ramsay E. Hughes D. Ruark E. Frankum J.R. Bowden G. Kalmyrzaev B. Warren-Perry M. Snape K. Germline mutations in RAD51D confer susceptibility to ovarian cancer Nat. Genet. 2011 43 879 882 10.1038/ng.893 21822267 PMC4845885
40. Min A. Im S.A. Yoon Y.K. Song S.H. Nam H.J. Hur H.S. Kim H.P. Lee K.H. Han S.W. Oh D.Y. RAD51C-deficient cancer cells are highly sensitive to the PARP inhibitor olaparib Mol. Cancer Ther. 2013 12 865 877 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-12-0950 23512992
41. Durante M. Bedford J.S. Chen D.J. Conrad S. Cornforth M.N. Natarajan A.T. van Gent D.C. Obe G. From DNA damage to chromosome aberrations: Joining the break Mutat. Res. 2013 756 5 13 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2013.05.014 23707699
42. Vanderstichele A. Busschaert P. Olbrecht S. Lambrechts D. Vergote I. Genomic signatures as predictive biomarkers of homologous recombination deficiency in ovarian cancer Eur. J. Cancer 2017 86 5 14 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.08.029 28950147
43. Cimprich K.A. Cortez D. ATR: An essential regulator of genome integrity Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2008 9 616 627 10.1038/nrm2450 18594563 PMC2663384
44. Chang H.H.Y. Pannunzio N.R. Adachi N. Lieber M.R. Non-homologous DNA end joining and alternative pathways to double-strand break repair Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2017 18 495 506 10.1038/nrm.2017.48 28512351 PMC7062608
45. Zhou Y. Lee J.H. Jiang W. Crowe J.L. Zha S. Paull T.T. Regulation of the DNA damage response by DNA-PKcs inhibitory phosphorylation of ATM Mol. Cell 2017 65 91 104 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.11.004 27939942 PMC5724035
46. Bhargava R. Onyango D.O. Stark J.M. Regulation of single-strand annealing and its role in genome maintenance Trends Genet. 2016 32 566 575 10.1016/j.tig.2016.06.007 27450436 PMC4992407
47. Mjelle R. Hegre S.A. Aas P.A. Slupphaug G. Drabløs F. Saetrom P. Krokan H.E. Cell cycle regulation of human DNA repair and chromatin remodeling genes DNA Repair 2015 30 53 67 10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.03.007 25881042
48. Goyal G. Fan T. Silberstein P.T. Hereditary cancer syndromes: Utilizing DNA repair deficiency as therapeutic target Fam. Cancer 2016 15 359 366 10.1007/s10689-016-9883-7 26873719 PMC4901091
49. Welcsh P.L. Owens K.N. King M.C. Insights into the functions of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Trends Genet. 2000 16 69 74 10.1016/S0168-9525(99)01930-7 10652533
50. Yu V.P. Koehler M. Steinlein C. Schmid M. Hanakahi L.A. van Gool A.J. West S.C. Venkitaraman A.R. Gross chromosomal rearrangements and genetic exchange between nonhomologous chromosomes following BRCA2 inactivation Genes Dev. 2000 14 1400 1406 10837032 PMC316655
51. Bewtra C. Watson P. Conway T. Conway T. Read-Hippee C. Lynch H.T. Hereditary ovarian cancer: A clinicopathological study Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 1992 11 180 187 10.1097/00004347-199207000-00003 1399227
52. McAlpine J.N. Porter H. Köbel M. Nelson B.H. Prentice L.M. Kalloger S.E. Senz J. Milne K. Ding J. Shah S.P. Huntsman D.G. Gilks C.B. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations correlate with TP53 abnormalities and presence of immune cell infiltrates in ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma Mod. Pathol. 2012 25 740 750 10.1038/modpathol.2011.211 22282309
53. Peltomäki P. Peltomäki. Lynch syndrome genes Familial Cancer 2005 4 227 232 16136382 10.1007/s10689-004-7993-0
54. Beggs A.D. Domingo E. Abulafi M. Hodgson S.V. Tomlinson I.P.M. A study of genomic instability in early preneoplastic colonic lesions Oncogene 2013 32 5333 5337 10.1038/onc.2012.584 23246972 PMC3898108
55. Ketabi Z. Bartuma K. Bernstein I. Malander S. Grönberg H. Björck E. Holck S. Nilbert M. Ovarian cancer linked to Lynch syndrome typically presents as early-onset, non-serous epithelial tumors Gynecol. Oncol. 2011 121 462 465 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.02.010 21388660
56. Wiegand K.C. Shah S.P. Al-Agha O.M. Zhao Y. Tse K. Zeng T. Senz J. McConechy M.K. Anglesio M.S. Kalloger S.E. ARID1A mutations in endometriosis-associated ovarian carcinomas N. Engl. J. Med. 2010 363 1532 1543 10.1056/NEJMoa1008433 20942669 PMC2976679
57. Parra-Herran C. Lerner-Ellis J. Xu B. Khalouei S. Bassiouny D. Cesari M. Ismiil N. Nofech-Mozes S. Molecular-based classification algorithm for endometrial carcinoma categorizes ovarian endometrioid carcinoma into prognostically significant groups Mod. Pathol. 2017 30 1748 1759 10.1038/modpathol.2017.81 28776572
58. Rambau P.F. Duggan M.A. Ghatage P. Warfa K. Steed H. Perrier R. Kelemen L.E. Köbel M. Significant frequency of MSH2/MSH6 abnormality in ovarian endometrioid carcinoma supports histotype-specific Lynch syndrome screening in ovarian carcinomas Histopathology 2016 69 288 297 10.1111/his.12934 26799366
59. Howitt B.E. Strickland K.C. Sholl L.M. Rodig S. Ritterhouse L.L. Chowdhury D. D’Andrea A.D. Matulonis U.A. Konstantinopoulos P.A. Clear cell ovarian cancers with microsatellite instability: A unique subset of ovarian cancers with increased tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and PD-1/PDL1 expression Oncoimmunology 2017 6 e1277308 10.1080/2162402X.2016.1277308 28344892 PMC5353914
60. Clarke B. Tinker A.V. Lee C.H. Subramanian S. van de Rijn M. Turbin D. Kalloger S. Han G. Ceballos K. Cadungog M.G. Intraepithelial T cells and prognosis in ovarian carcinoma: Novel associations with stage, tumor type, and BRCA1 loss Mod. Pathol. 2009 22 393 402 10.1038/modpathol.2008.191 19060844
61. Birkbak N.J. Kochupurakkal B. Izarzugaza J.M. Eklund A.C. Li Y. Liu J. Szallasi Z. Matulonis U.A. Richardson A.L. Iglehart J.D. Tumor mutation burden forecasts outcome in ovarian cancer with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations PLoS ONE 2013 8 e80023 10.1371/journal.pone.0080023 24265793 PMC3827141
62. George J. Alsop K. Etemadmoghadam D. Hondow H. Mikeska T. Dobrovic A. deFazio A. Smyth G.K. Levine D.A. Mitchell G. Non equivalent gene expression and copy number alterations in high-grade serous ovarian cancers with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations Clin. Cancer Res. 2013 19 3474 3484 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0066 23633455
63. Nelson B.H. New insights into tumor immunity revealed by the unique genetic and genomic aspects of ovarian cancer Curr. Opin. Immunol. 2015 33 93 100 10.1016/j.coi.2015.02.004 25710852
64. Strickland K.C. Howitt B.E. Shukla S.A. Rodig S. Ritterhouse L.L. Liu J.F. Garber J.E. Chowdhury D. Wu C.J. D’Andrea A.D. Matulonis U.A. Konstantinopoulos P.A. Association and prognostic significance of BRCA1/2-mutation status with neoantigen load, number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and expression of PD-1/PD-L1 in high grade serous ovarian cancer Oncotarget 2016 7 13587 13598 10.18632/oncotarget.7277 26871470 PMC4924663
65. Bennett J.A. Morales-Oyarvide V. Campbell S. Longacre T.A. Oliva E. Mismatch Repair Protein Expression in Clear Cell Carcinoma of the Ovary: Incidence and Morphologic Associations in 109 Cases Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2016 40 656 663 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000602 26813747
66. Llosa N.J. Cruise M. Tam A. Wicks E.C. Hechenbleikner E.M. Taube J.M. Blosser R.L. Fan H. Wang H. Luber B.S. The vigorous immune microenvironment of microsatellite instable colon cancer is balanced by multiple counter-inhibitory checkpoints Cancer Discov. 2015 5 43 51 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-14-0863 25358689 PMC4293246
67. Hewish M. Lord C.J. Martin S.A. Cunningham D. Ashworth A. Mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer in the era of personalized treatment Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2010 7 197 208 10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.18 20177404
68. Viale G. Trapani D. Curigliano G. Mismatch Repair Deficiency as a Predictive Biomarker for Immunotherapy Efficacy Biomed. Res. Int. 2017 2017 4719194 10.1155/2017/4719194 28770222 PMC5523547
69. Bose D. cGAS/STING Pathway in Cancer: Jekyll and Hyde Story of Cancer Immune Response Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017 18 2456 10.3390/ijms18112456 PMC5713423 29156566
70. Peng B. Hodge D.R. Thomas S.B. Cherry J.M. Munroe D.J. Pompeia C. Xiao W. Farrar W.L. Epigenetic silencing of the human nucleotide excision repair gene, hHR23B, in interleukin-6-responsive multiple myeloma KAS-6/1 cells J. Biol. Chem. 2005 280 4182 4187 10.1074/jbc.M412566200 15550378
71. Colotta F. Allavena P. Sica A. Garlanda C. Mantovani A. Cancer-related inflammation, the seventh hallmark of cancer: Links to genetic instability Carcinogenesis 2009 30 1073 1081 10.1093/carcin/bgp127 19468060
72. Lopez J.A. Krikorian J.G. Reich S.D. Smyth R.D. Lee F.H. Issell B.F. Clinical pharmacology of intraperitoneal cisplatin Gynecol. Oncol. 1985 20 1 9 10.1016/0090-8258(85)90118-0 4038390
73. Francis P. Rowinsky E. Schneider J. Hakes T. Hoskins W. Markman M. Phase I feasibility and pharmacologic study of weekly intraperitoneal paclitaxel: A Gynecologic Oncology Group pilot study J. Clin. Oncol. 1995 13 2961 2967 10.1200/JCO.1995.13.12.2961 8523061
74. Tummala M.K. Alagarsamy S. McGuire W.P. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy: Standard of care for patients with minimal residual stage III ovarian cancer? Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 1987 8 1135 1147 10.1586/14737140.8.7.1135 18588458
75. Tewari D. Java J.J. Salani R. Armstrong D.K. Markman M. Herzog T. Monk B.J. Chan J.K. Long-term survival advantage and prognostic factors associated with intraperitoneal chemotherapy treatment in advanced ovarian cancer: A gynecologic oncology group study J. Clin. Oncol. 2015 33 1460 1466 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.9898 25800756 PMC4404424
76. Jaaback K. Johnson N. Lawrie T.A. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the initial management of primary epithelial ovarian cancer Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016 1 10.1002/14651858.CD005340.pub4 PMC8602974 26755441
77. Panteix G. Beaujard A. Garbit F. Chaduiron-Faye C. Guillaumont M. Gilly F. Baltassat P. Bressolle F. Population pharmacokinetics of cisplatin in patients with advanced ovarian cancer during intraperitoneal hyperthermia chemotherapy Anticancer Res. 2002 22 1329 1336 12168946
78. Yu H. Dong R. Lu Y. Yang X. Chen C. Zhang Z. Peng M. Short-term postoperative cognitive disfunction and inflammatory response in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: A pilot study Mediat. Inflamm. 2017 2017 3605350 10.1155/2017/3605350 PMC5700480 29249869
79. Roth L. Breuer E. Gupta A. Graf R. Clavien P. Lehmann K. The impact of HIPEC on anticancer immune response Proceedings of the ESMO Immuno-Oncology Congress 2018 Geneva, Switzerland 13–16 December 2018
80. Coccolini F. Corbella D. Finazzi P. Brambillasca P. Benigni A. Prussiani V. Ceresoli M. Manfredi R. Poiasina E. Bertoli P. Time course of cytokines, hemodynamic and metabolic parameters during hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy Minerva Anestesiol. 2016 82 310 319 26184701
81. Muenyi C.S. Trivedi A.P. Helm C.W. States J.C. Cisplatin plus sodium arsenite and hyperthermia induces pseudo-G1 associated apoptotic cell death in ovarian cancer cells Toxicol. Sci. 2014 139 74 82 10.1093/toxsci/kfu029 24519527 PMC4038788
82. Lolli C. Caffo O. Scarpi E. Aieta M. Conteduca V. Maines F. Bianchi E. Massari F. Veccia A. Chiuri V.E. Facchini G. de Giorgi U. Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index Predicts the Clinical Outcome in Patients with mCRPC Treated with Abiraterone Front. Pharmacol. 2016 7 376 10.3389/fphar.2016.00376 27790145 PMC5062111
83. Rossi L. Santoni M. Crabb S.J. Scarpi E. Burattini L. Chau C. Bianchi E. Savini A. Burgio S.L. Conti A. High neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio persistent during first-line chemotherapy predicts poor clinical outcome in patients with advanced urothelial cancer Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015 22 1377 1384 10.1245/s10434-014-4097-4 25234022
84. Lolli C. Basso U. Derosa L. Scarpi E. Sava T. Santoni M. Crabb S.J. Massari F. Aieta M. Conteduca V. Systemic immune-inflammation index predicts the clinical outcome in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer treated with sunitinib Oncotarget 2016 7 54564 54571 10.18632/oncotarget.10515 27409344 PMC5342364
85. Passardi A. Scarpi E. Cavanna L. Dall’Agata M. Tassinari D. Leo S. Bernardini I. Gelsomino F. Tamberi S. Brandes A.A. Tenti E. Inflammatory indexes as predictors of prognosis and bevacizumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer Oncotarget 2016 7 33210 33219 10.18632/oncotarget.8901 27120807 PMC5078087
86. Yang Z. Gu J.H. Guo C.S. Li X.H. Yang W.C. Preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is a predictor of survival of epithelial ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies Oncotarget 2017 8 46414 46424 10.18632/oncotarget.16793 28423365 PMC5542277
87. Huang Q.T. Zhou L. Zeng W.J. Ma Q.Q. Wang W. Zhong M. Yu Y.H. Prognostic Significance of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies Cell. Physiol. Biochem. 2017 41 2411 2418 10.1159/000475911 28467978
88. Farolfi A. Petrone M. Scarpi E. Gallà V. Greco F. Casanova C. Longo L. Cormio G. Orditura M. Bologna A. Inflammatory indexes as predictive of prognosis and bevacizumab efficacy in ovarian cancer. A multicentre retrospective analysis from the MITO group (MITO 24) Target Oncol. 2018 13 469 479 10.1007/s11523-018-0574-1 29948780
89. Glehen O. Stuart O.A. Mohamed F. Sugarbaker P.H. Hyperthermia modifies pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution of intraperitoneal melphalan in a rat model Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2004 54 79 84 10.1007/s00280-004-0779-0 15048586
90. Chabner B.A. Collins J.M. Cancer Chemotherapy: Principles and Practice Lippincott Company Philadelphia, PA, USA 1990 16 31
91. Zunino B. Ricci J.E. Hyperthermic intra-peritoneal chemotherapy and anticancer immune response Oncoimmunology 2016 5 e1060392 10.1080/2162402X.2015.1060392 26942072 PMC4760280
92. Zunino B. Rubio-Patiño C. Villa E. Meynet O. Proics E. Cornille A. Pommier S. Mondragón L. Chiche J. Bereder J.M. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy leads to an anticancer immune response via exposure of cell surface heat shock protein 90 Oncogene 2016 35 261 268 10.1038/onc.2015.82 25867070
93. Rosenberg J.E. Hoffman-Censits J. Powles T. van der Heijden M.S. Balar A.V. Necchi A. Dawson N. O’Donnell P.H. Balmanoukian A. Loriot Y. Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: A single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial Lancet 2016 387 1909 1920 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00561-4 26952546 PMC5480242
94. Balar A.V. Galsky M.D. Rosenberg J.E. Powles T. Petrylak D.P. Bellmunt J. Loriot Y. Necchi A. Hoffman-Censits J. Perez-Gracia J.L. Atezolizumab as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma: A single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial Lancet 2016 387 1909 1920 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32455-2 27939400 PMC5568632
95. McGranahan N. Furness A.J. Rosenthal R. Ramskov S. Lyngaa R. Saini S.K. Jamal-Hanjani M. Wilson G.A. Birkbak N.J. Hiley C.T. Clonal neoantigens elicit T cell immunoreactivity and sensitivity to immune checkpoint blockade Science 2016 351 1463 1469 10.1126/science.aaf1490 26940869 PMC4984254
96. Shen J. Ju Z. Zhao W. Wang L. Peng Y. Ge Z. Nagel Z. Zou J. Wang C. Kapoor P. ARID1A deficiency promotes mutability and potentiates therapeutic antitumor immunity unleashed by immune checkpoint blockade Nat. Med. 2018 24 556 562 10.1038/s41591-018-0012-z 29736026 PMC6076433
97. Wimberger P. Gilet H. Gonschior A.K. Heiss M.M. Moehler M. Oskay-Oezcelik G. Al-Batran S.E. Schmalfeldt B. Schmittel A. Schulze E. Deterioration in quality of life (QoL) in patients with malignant ascites: Results from a phase II/III study comparing paracentesis plus catumaxomab with paracentesis alone Ann. Oncol. 2012 23 1979 1985 10.1093/annonc/mds178 22734013 PMC3403730
98. Heiss M.M. Murawa P. Koralewski P. Kutarska E. Kolesnik O.O. Ivanchenko V.V. Dudnichenko A.S. Aleknaviciene B. Razbadauskas A. Gore M. The trifunctional antibody catumaxomab for the treatment of malignant ascites due to epithelial cancer: Results of a prospective randomized phase II/III trial Int. J. Cancer 2010 127 2209 2221 10.1002/ijc.25423 20473913 PMC2958458
99. Ai Y.Q. Cai K. Hu J.H. Jiang L.W. Gao Y.R. Zhao H. Jia S.C. The clinical effects of dendritic cell vaccines combined with cytokine-induced killer cells intraperitoneal injected on patients with malignant ascites Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2014 7 4272 4281 25550942 PMC4276200
100. Morano W.F. Aggarwal A. Love P. Richard S.D. Esquivel J. Bowne W.B. Intraperitoneal immunotherapy: Historical perspectives and modern therapy Cancer Gene Ther. 2016 23 373 381 10.1038/cgt.2016.49 27834358
101. Katz S.C. Point G.R. Cunetta M. Thorn M. Guha P. Espat N.J. Boutros C. Hanna N. Junghans R.P. Regional CAR-T cell infusions for peritoneal carcinomatosis are superior to systemic delivery Cancer Gene Ther. 2016 23 142 148 10.1038/cgt.2016.14 27080226 PMC5153580
102. Koneru M. Purdon T.J. Spriggs D. Koneru S. Brentjens R.J. IL-12 secreting tumor-targeted chimeric antigen receptor T cells eradicate ovarian tumors in vivo Oncoimmunology 2015 4 e994446 10.4161/2162402X.2014.994446 25949921 PMC4404840
103. Hong H. Brown C.E. Ostberg J.R. Priceman S.J. Chang W.C. Weng L. Lin P. Wakabayashi M.T. Jensen M.C. Forman S.J. Cell Adhesion Molecule-Specific Chimeric Antigen Receptor-Redirected Human T Cells Exhibit Specific and Efficient Antitumor Activity against Human Ovarian Cancer in Mice PLoS ONE 2016 11 e0146885 10.1371/journal.pone.0146885 26761817 PMC4711972
104. Dobrzanski M.J. Rewers-Felkins K.A. Quinlin I.S. Samad K.A. Phillips C.A. Robinson W. Dobrzanski D.J. Wright S.E. Autologous MUC1-specific Th1 effector cell immunotherapy induces differential levels of systemic TReg cell subpopulations that result in increased ovarian cancer patient survival Clin. Immunol. 2009 133 333 352 10.1016/j.clim.2009.08.007 19762283 PMC2805085