Niraparib Maintenance Therapy in Platinum-Sensitive, Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

BACKGROUND Niraparib is an oral poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) 1/2 inhibitor that has shown clinical activity in patients with ovarian cancer. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of niraparib versus placebo as maintenance treatment for patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, patients were categorized according to the presence or absence of a germline BRCA mutation (gBRCA cohort and non-gBRCA cohort) and the type of non-gBRCA mutation and were randomly assigned in a 2: 1 ratio to receive niraparib (300 mg) or placebo once daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS Of 553 enrolled patients, 203 were in the gBRCA cohort (with 138 assigned to niraparib and 65 to placebo), and 350 patients were in the non-gBRCA cohort (with 234 assigned to niraparib and 116 to placebo). Patients in the niraparib group had a significantly longer median duration of progression-free survival than did those in the placebo group, including 21.0 vs. 5.5 months in the gBRCA cohort (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17 to 0.41), as compared with 12.9 months vs. 3.8 months in the non-gBRCA cohort for patients who had tumors with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.59) and 9.3 months vs. 3.9 months in the overall non-gBRCA cohort (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.61; P < 0.001 for all three comparisons). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were reported in the niraparib group were thrombocytopenia (in 33.8%), anemia (in 25.3%), and neutropenia (in 19.6%), which were managed with dose modifications. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer, the median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer among those receiving niraparib than among those receiving placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of gBRCA mutations or HRD status, with moderate bone marrow toxicity. (Funded by Tesaro; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01847274.)Tesaro; Amgen; Genentech; Roche; AstraZeneca; Myriad Genetics; Merck; Gradalis; Cerulean; Vermillion; ImmunoGen; Pfizer; Bayer; Nu-Cana BioMed; INSYS Therapeutics; GlaxoSmithKline; Verastem; Mateon Therapeutics; Pharmaceutical Product Development; Clovis Oncology; Janssen/Johnson Johnson; Eli Lilly; Merck Sharp DohmeThis article was published on October 8, 2016; 6 Month Embargo.This 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]

The effect of systemic therapy on local-regional control in locally advanced breast cancer

One hundred and seven patients with locally advanced breast cancer were prospectively referred for multimodality treatment on protocol using chemohormonal therapy to maximal response followed by local treatment and maintenance therapy. Forty-eight patients (45%) were diagnosed with Stage IIIA disease, 46 (43%) with Stage IIIB inflammatory cancer, and 13 (12%) with Stage IIIB non-inflammatory disease. Induction therapy consisted of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil with hormonal synchronization using tamoxifen and conjugated estrogens. Local treatment was determined by response to chemotherapy. Patients with a clinical partial response underwent mastectomy followed by local-regional radiotherapy while patients with a clinical complete response were biopsied for pathologic correlation. Those with residual disease received mastectomy followed by radiotherapy while those with a pathologic complete response received radiation only to the intact breast and regional nodes. With a median follow-up of 64 months, patients with IIIA disease had a significantly lower local-regional failure rate compared to IIIB inflammatory patients, with the 5-year actuarial local-regional failure rate as only site of first failure 3% for IIIA disease versus 21% for IIIB inflammatory cancer ( p = .02), and local-regional failure as any component of first failure 12% versus 36% ( p = .01), respectively. When local-regional failure was analyzed by repeat biopsy, 5 31 (16%) patients with a pathologic complete response treated with radiation only developed a local-regional failure versus 2 53 (4%) with residual disease treated with mastectomy and postoperative radiotherapy. The 5-year actuarial local-regional failure rate as first site of failure was 23% for radiation only versus 5% for mastectomy and post-operative radiotherapy ( p = .07). The response to chemotherapy did not reliably predict local-regional control. Both relapse-free survival and overall survival were significantly better for IIIA versus IIIB patients; stratification by repeat biopsy did not, however, significantly affect either relapse-free or overall survival