Maintenance treatment with rucaparib for recurrent ovarian carcinoma in ARIEL3, a randomized phase 3 trial: The effects of best response to last platinum-based regimen and disease at baseline on efficacy and safety

Assaigs clínics; Oncologia ginecològica; Càncer de les donesEnsayos clínicos; Oncología ginecológica; Cáncer de las mujeresClinical trials; Gynecological oncology; Women's cancerBackground The efficacy and safety of rucaparib maintenance treatment in ARIEL3 were evaluated in subgroups based on best response to most recent platinum-based chemotherapy and baseline disease. Methods Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either oral rucaparib at a dosage of 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutated, homologous recombination deficient (HRD; BRCA mutated or wild-type BRCA/high loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results Median PFS for patients in the ITT population with a complete response to most recent platinum-based chemotherapy was 11.1 months in the rucaparib arm (126 patients) versus 5.6 months in the placebo arm (64 patients) (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.23–0.48]), and in patients with a partial response (249 vs. 125), it was 9.0 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.38 [0.30–0.49]). In subgroups of the ITT population based on baseline disease, median PFS was 8.2 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.40 [0.28–0.57]) in patients with measurable disease (141 rucaparib vs. 66 placebo), 10.4 versus 4.5 months (HR, 0.31 [0.20–0.48]) in those with nonmeasurable but evaluable disease (104 vs. 56), and 14.1 versus 7.3 months (HR, 0.35 [0.24–0.51]) in those with no residual disease (130 vs. 67). Across subgroups, significantly longer median PFS was observed with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA-mutated and HRD cohorts. Objective responses were reported in patients with measurable disease and in patients with nonmeasurable but evaluable baseline disease. Safety was consistent across subgroups. Conclusion Rucaparib maintenance treatment provided clinically meaningful efficacy benefits across subgroups based on response to last platinum-based chemotherapy or baseline disease.A.O. has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Deciphera, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline/Tesaro, ImmunoGen, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mersana Therapeutics, PharmaMar, and Roche; has received support for travel or accommodation from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; and reports institutional research grant support from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie Deutschland, Ability Pharmaceuticals, Advaxis, Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen, Aprea Therapeutics, Eisai, ImmunoGen, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro

Randomized phase II trial of bevacizumab plus everolimus versus bevacizumab alone for recurrent or persistent ovarian, fallopian tube or peritoneal carcinoma: An NRG oncology/gynecologic oncology group study

PURPOSE: Bevacizumab (BV) monotherapy leads to compensatory upregulation of multiple signaling pathways, resulting in mTOR activation. We evaluated combining BV and everolimus (EV), an mTOR kinase inhibitor, to circumvent BV-resistance in women with recurrent or persistent ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer (OC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible OC patients had measurable (RECIST1.1) or detectable disease, 1-3 prior regimens, performance status (PS) 0-2, and no prior m-TOR inhibitor. All patients received BV 10 mg/kg IV every 2wks. Patients were randomized (1:1) to oral EV (10 mg daily) or placebo stratified by platinum-free interval (PFI), measurable disease and prior BV. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included safety and response. RESULTS: 150 patients were randomized to BV with (n = 75) and without (n = 75) EV. Arms were well-balanced for age (median 63: range 28-92), PS (0: 73%, 1-2: 27%), prior regimens (1: 37%, 2: 47%, 3: 16%), prior BV (11%), PFI (<6mos: 65%) and measurable disease (81%). The BV + EV vs BV median PFS was 5.9 vs 4.5 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.95 (95% CI, 0.66-1.37, p = 0.39)). Median OS was 16.6 vs 17.3 months (HR 1.16 (95% CI, 0.72-1.87, p = 0.55). Objective measurable responses were higher with BV + EV (22% vs 12%). Study removal due to toxicity was higher with BV + EV (29% vs 12%). Toxicity (≥grade 3) from BV + EV were "other GI (mucositis)" (23 vs 1%) and "metabolic/nutrition" (19 vs. 7%); common ≥ grade 2 toxicities with BV + EV were cytopenia, nausea, fatigue and rash. CONCLUSION: The combination regimen (BV + EV) did not significantly reduce the hazard of progression or death relative to BV and was associated with higher rates of adverse events and study discontinuation when compared to BV alone

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab in Patients With Advanced Endometrial Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma have limited treatment options. We report final primary efficacy analysis results for a patient cohort with advanced endometrial carcinoma receiving lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in an ongoing phase Ib/II study of selected solid tumors. METHODS: Patients took lenvatinib 20 mg once daily orally plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks, in 3-week cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks (ORR RESULTS: At data cutoff, 108 patients with previously treated endometrial carcinoma were enrolled, with a median follow-up of 18.7 months. The ORR CONCLUSION: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed promising antitumor activity in patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma who have experienced disease progression after prior systemic therapy, regardless of tumor MSI status. The combination therapy had a manageable toxicity profile

Tolerability of maintenance olaparib in newly diagnosed patients with advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in the randomized phase III SOLO1 trial

OBJECTIVES. In the phase III SOLO1 trial (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation who were in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analyzed the timing, duration and grade of the most common hematologic and non-hematologic adverse events in SOLO1. METHODS. Eligible patients were randomized to olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily (N = 260)or placebo (N = 131), with a 2-year treatment cap in most patients. Safety outcomes were analyzed in detail in randomized patients who received at least one dose of study drug (olaparib, n = 260; placebo, n = 130). RESULTS. Median time to first onset of the most common hematologic (anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematologic (nausea, fatigue/asthenia, vomiting) adverse events was <3 months in olaparibtreated patients. The first event of anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting lasted a median of <2 months and the first event of fatigue/asthenia lasted a median of 3.48 months in the olaparib group. These adverse events were manageable with supportive treatment and/or olaparib dose modification in most patients, with few patients requiring discontinuation of olaparib. Of 162 patients still receiving olaparib at month 24, 64.2% were receiving the recommended starting dose of olaparib 300 mg twice daily. CONCLUSIONS. Maintenance olaparib had a predictable and manageable adverse event profile in the newly diagnosed setting with no new safety signals identified. Adverse events usually occurred early, were largely manageable and led to discontinuation in a minority of patients

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

In SOLO1/GOG 3004 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01844986), maintenance therapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib provided a sustained progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation. We report overall survival (OS) after a 7-year follow-up, a clinically relevant time point and the longest follow-up for any poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the first-line setting. METHODS: This double-blind phase III trial randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in clinical response to platinum-based chemotherapy to maintenance olaparib (n = 260) or placebo (n = 131) for up to 2 years. A prespecified descriptive analysis of OS, a secondary end point, was conducted after a 7-year follow-up. RESULTS: The median duration of treatment was 24.6 months with olaparib and 13.9 months with placebo, and the median follow-up was 88.9 and 87.4 months, respectively. The hazard ratio for OS was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.76; P = .0004 [P < .0001 required to declare statistical significance]). At 7 years, 67.0% of olaparib patients versus 46.5% of placebo patients were alive, and 45.3% versus 20.6%, respectively, were alive and had not received a first subsequent treatment (Kaplan-Meier estimates). The incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia remained low, and new primary malignancies remained balanced between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Results indicate a clinically meaningful, albeit not statistically significant according to prespecified criteria, improvement in OS with maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation and support the use of maintenance olaparib to achieve long-term remission in this setting; the potential for cure may also be enhanced. No new safety signals were observed during long-term follow-up

Randomized Trial of Intravenous Versus Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Plus Bevacizumab in Advanced Ovarian Carcinoma: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group Study

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of two different intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy regimens on progression-free survival (PFS) among women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian carcinoma. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned to six cycles of IV paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) once per week with intravenous (IV) carboplatin area under the curve 6 (IV carboplatin) versus IV paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) once per week with IP carboplatin area under the curve 6 (IP carboplatin) versus once every 3 weeks IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m(2) over 3 hours day 1, IP cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) day 2, and IP paclitaxel 60 mg/m(2) day 8 (IP cisplatin). All participants received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks in cycles 2 to 22. RESULTS: A total of 1,560 participants were enrolled and had 84.8 months of follow-up. The median PFS duration was 24.9 months in the IV carboplatin arm, 27.4 months in the IP carboplatin arm, and 26.2 months in the IP cisplatin arm. For the subgroup of 1,380 patients with stage II/III and residual disease of 1 cm or less, median PFS was 26.9 (IV-carboplatin), 28.7 (IP-carboplatin), and 27.8 months (IP cisplatin), respectively. Median PFS for patients with stage II/III and no residual disease was 35.9, 38.8, and 35.5 months, respectively. Median overall survival for all enrolled was 75.5, 78.9, and 72.9 months, respectively, and median overall survival for stage II/III with no gross residual disease was 98.8 months, 104.8 months, and not reached. Mean patient-reported Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy neurotoxicity scores (Gynecologic Oncology Group) were similar for all arms, but the mean Trial Outcome Index of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovary scores during chemotherapy were statistically worse in the IP cisplatin arm. CONCLUSION: Compared with the IV carboplatin reference arm, the duration of PFS was not significantly increased with either IP regimen when combined with bevacizumab and was better tolerated than IP cisplatin.National Cancer Institute (NCI) [U10 CA180822, U10 CA180868]; NCI [UG1 CA189867]; NSC [704865]; IND [7921]6 month embargo; published online 19 April 2019This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

SWOG 1815: A phase III randomized trial of gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine and cisplatin in newly diagnosed, advanced biliary tract cancers

Background: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are a heterogeneous group of malignancies with a dismal prognosis. Gemcitabine-based regimens are the standard of care in advanced disease, but median overall survival (OS) is roughly 12 months. The addition of albumin-bound paclitaxel to gemcitabine and cisplatin (GAP) demonstrated promising efficacy in a 60 patient, single-arm phase II study (Shroff et al, JAMA Oncol 2019), with observed median OS of 19.2 months. Methods: SWOG 1815 is a randomized, open-label, phase III trial comparing GAP to gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC). The study included newly diagnosed advanced BTC patients (pts), randomized 2:1 to GAP vs. GC. GAP included gemcitabine at 800 mg/m2, cisplatin at 25 mg/m2 and albumin-bound paclitaxel at 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. GC included standard dosing of gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m2 and cisplatin at 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Pts were treated until progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) with a target hazard ratio of 0.7 with 90% power and a 1-sided alpha of 0.025; randomization was stratified by disease site (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma [CCA] vs gallbladder adenocarcinoma [GBC] vs extrahepatic CCA), disease stage (locally advanced vs metastatic), and Zubrod PS 0 vs 1. Results: Of 441 eligible pts randomized, 55% were female. 67% of patients had intrahepatic CCA, 16% had GBC and 17% had extrahepatic CCA. Most pts had metastases (73%). Median OS with GAP vs. GC was 14 vs. 12.7 mo respectively (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74-1.19, p=0.58), ORR (confirmed and unconfirmed) 34% vs25% (p=0.11) and median PFS 8.2 vs 6.4 mo (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72-1.16, p=0.47), respectively. Grade 3 and 4 treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) in ≥10% of pts for GAP and GC were anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. GAP had more ≥ grade 3 hematologic AEs compared to the GC arm (60% vs. 45%, p=0.003). Discontinuation due to toxicity was at 24% vs 19% (p=0.26) with GAP vs GC. In exploratory subset analyses, GAP vs GC improved OS in pts with locally advanced disease (medians 19.2 vs 13.7 mo; HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.42- 1.06, p=0.09) and in GBC pts (medians 17.0 vs 9.3 mo; HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41-1.35, p=0.33). ORR for GAP vs GC in GBC was 50% vs 24% (p=0.09) and for locally advanced disease 28 vs 21% p=0.74. Conclusions: SWOG 1815 did not result in a statistically significant improvement in median OS with GAP vs. GC. The GAP regimen had higher rates of TRAEs without a statistically significant difference in discontinuation rates. Pts with locally advanced disease and GBC may benefit from the use of GAP. Further analyses are ongoing to understand potential benefit of GAP in subsets of BTC pts. Funding: NIH/National Cancer Institute grants CA180888, CA180819, CA180820, CA180821, and CA180868; and in part by Celgene Corporation, Summit, NJ (subsidiary of Bristol Myer Squibb)

A Phase Ib/II Study of Lenvatinib and Pembrolizumab in Advanced Endometrial Carcinoma (Study 111/KEYNOTE-146): Long-Term Efficacy and Safety Update.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.The open-label phase Ib/II Study 111/KEYNOTE-146 of daily lenvatinib 20 mg plus pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks showed promising efficacy and tolerable safety in patients with previously treated advanced endometrial carcinoma (EC; primary data cutoff date: January 10, 2019). This updated analysis reports long-term follow-up efficacy and safety data from 108 patients with previously treated EC included in the primary analysis. End points included objective response rate, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Investigators performed tumor assessments per immune-related RECIST. At the updated data cutoff date (August 18, 2020), the median study follow-up duration was 34.7 months (95% CI, 30.9 to 41.2), the objective response rate was 39.8% (95% CI, 30.5 to 49.7), and the median duration of response was 22.9 months (95% CI, 10.2 to not estimable). The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.2 to 8.7) and 17.7 months (95% CI, 15.5 to 25.8), respectively. Treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade occurred in 104 (96.3%) patients. The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events were hypertension (33.3%), elevated lipase (9.3%), fatigue (8.3%), and diarrhea (7.4%). The results demonstrate extended efficacy and tolerability of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in this cohort of patients with previously treated advanced EC

Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma after response to platinum therapy (ARIEL3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Rucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, has anticancer activity in recurrent ovarian carcinoma harbouring a BRCA mutation or high percentage of genome-wide loss of heterozygosity. In this trial we assessed rucaparib versus placebo after response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with high-grade, recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma. Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 87 hospitals and cancer centres across 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma, had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, had achieved complete or partial response to their last platinum-based regimen, had a cancer antigen 125 concentration of less than the upper limit of normal, had a performance status of 0–1, and had adequate organ function. Patients were ineligible if they had symptomatic or untreated central nervous system metastases, had received anticancer therapy 14 days or fewer before starting the study, or had received previous treatment with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. We randomly allocated patients 2:1 to receive oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo in 28 day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six, stratified by homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval after the penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to the most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival evaluated with use of an ordered step-down procedure for three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations (carcinoma associated with deleterious germline or somatic BRCA mutations), patients with homologous recombination deficiencies (BRCA mutant or BRCA wild-type and high loss of heterozygosity), and the intention-to-treat population, assessed at screening and every 12 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01968213; enrolment is complete. Findings: Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, we randomly allocated 564 patients: 375 (66%) to rucaparib and 189 (34%) to placebo. Median progression-free survival in patients with a BRCA-mutant carcinoma was 16·6 months (95% CI 13·4–22·9; 130 [35%] patients) in the rucaparib group versus 5·4 months (3·4–6·7; 66 [35%] patients) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·23 [95% CI 0·16–0·34]; p&lt;0·0001). In patients with a homologous recombination deficient carcinoma (236 [63%] vs 118 [62%]), it was 13·6 months (10·9–16·2) versus 5·4 months (5·1–5·6; 0·32 [0·24–0·42]; p&lt;0·0001). In the intention-to-treat population, it was 10·8 months (8·3–11·4) versus 5·4 months (5·3–5·5; 0·36 [0·30–0·45]; p&lt;0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in the safety population (372 [99%] patients in the rucaparib group vs 189 [100%] in the placebo group) were reported in 209 (56%) patients in the rucaparib group versus 28 (15%) in the placebo group, the most common of which were anaemia or decreased haemoglobin concentration (70 [19%] vs one [1%]) and increased alanine or aspartate aminotransferase concentration (39 [10%] vs none). Interpretation: Across all primary analysis groups, rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer who had achieved a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. ARIEL3 provides further evidence that use of a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the maintenance treatment setting versus placebo could be considered a new standard of care for women with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer following a complete or partial response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy. Funding: Clovis Oncology