Olaparib as maintenance treatment for patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors were developed with the intention of treating patients with homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD), specifically for patients with tumours that harbour a BRCA mutation (BRCAm). Evidence from clinical trials to date has demonstrated that patients with a BRCAm derive the greatest benefit from PARP inhibitors. However, clinical studies have also shown that PARP inhibitors provide benefit to women with ovarian cancer who do not have a BRCAm. The recent updated approvals of olaparib, niraparib and rucaparib by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of all platinum-sensitive relapsed (PSR) ovarian-cancer populations, regardless of their BRCAm status, support this. Long-term tolerability and efficacy of olaparib have been demonstrated in patients both with and without a BRCAm, with 13% of patients receiving maintenance olaparib for at least 5 years in one study, which is unprecedented in the relapsed ovarian-cancer setting (versus 1% on placebo). Further studies should be performed to elucidate which non-BRCAm patients are deriving benefit and what molecular processes are enabling this, so that patients continue to receive optimal treatment for their disease. Here, we review clinical and molecular markers of HRD, the long-term clinical safety and efficacy of PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer, with a focus on olaparib and the current approved indications for PARP inhibitors, as well as guidance on treatment decisions for patients with PSR ovarian cancer

Molecular and clinical predictors of improvement in progression-free survival with maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy in women with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The authors performed a meta‐analysis to better quantify the benefit of maintenance poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy to inform practice in platinum‐sensitive, recurrent, high‐grade ovarian cancer for patient subsets with the following characteristics: germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm), somatic BRCA mutation (sBRCAm), wild‐type BRCA but homologous recombinant‐deficient (HRD), homologous recombinant‐proficient (HRP), and baseline clinical prognostic characteristics. METHODS: Randomized trials comparing a PARPi versus placebo as maintenance treatment were identified from electronic databases. Treatment estimates of progression‐free survival were pooled across trials using the inverse variance weighted method. RESULTS: Four trials included 972 patients who received a PARPi (olaparib, 31%; niraparib, 35%; or rucaparib, 34%) and 530 patients who received placebo. For patients who had germline BRCA1 mutation (gBRCAm1) (N = 471), the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.23‐0.37); for those who had germline BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm2) (N = 236), the HR was 0.26 (95% CI, 0.17‐0.39); and, for those who had sBRCAm (N = 123), the HR was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.12‐0.41). The treatment effect was similar between the gBRCAm and sBRCAm subsets (P = .48). In patients who had wild‐type BRCA HRD tumors (excluding sBRCAm; N = 309), the HR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31‐0.56); and, in those who had wild‐type BRCA HRP tumors (N = 346), the HR was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.49‐0.83). The relative treatment effect was greater for the BRCAm versus HRD (P = .03), BRCAm versus HRP (P < .00001), and HRD versus HRP (P < .00001) subsets. There was no difference in benefit based on age, response after recent chemotherapy, and prior bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: In platinum‐sensitive, recurrent, high‐grade ovarian cancer, maintenance PARPi improves progression‐free survival for all patient subsets. PARPi therapy has a similar magnitude of benefit for sBRCAm and gBRCAm. Although patients with BRCAm derive the greatest benefit, the absence of a BRCAm or HRD could not be used to exclude patients from maintenance PARPi therapy

Systematic Analysis of Circulating Soluble Angiogenesis-Associated Proteins in ICON7 Identifies Tie2 as a Biomarker of Vascular Progression on Bevacizumab

background: There is a critical need for predictive/resistance biomarkers for VEGF inhibitors to optimise their use. methods: Blood samples were collected during and following treatment and, where appropriate, upon progression from ovarian cancer patients in ICON7, a randomised phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab. Plasma concentrations of 15 circulating angio-biomarkers were measured using a validated multiplex ELISA, analysed through a novel network analysis and their relevance to the PFS then determined. results: Samples (n=650) were analysed from 92 patients. Bevacizumab induced correlative relationships between Ang1 and Tie2 plasma concentrations, which reduced after initiation of treatment and remained decreased until progressive disease occurred. A 50% increase from the nadir in the concentration of circulating Tie2 (or the product of circulating Ang1 and Tie2) predicted tumour progression. Combining Tie2 with GCIG-defined Ca125 data yielded a significant improvement in the prediction of progressive disease in patients receiving bevacizumab in comparison with Ca125 alone (74.1% vs 47.3%, P<1 × 10−9). conclusions: Tie2 is a vascular progression marker for bevacizumab-treated ovarian cancer patients. Tie2 in combination with Ca125 provides superior information to clinicians on progressive disease in patients with VEGFi-treated ovarian cancers

Trabectedin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in relapsed ovarian cancer: outcomes in the partially platinum-sensitive (platinum-free interval 6–12 months) subpopulation of OVA-301 phase III randomized trial

Background: OVA-301 is a large randomized trial that showed superiority of trabectedin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) over PLD alone in relapsed ovarian cancer. The optimal management of patients with partially platinum-sensitive relapse [6–12 months platinum-free interval (PFI)] is unclear

Update on rare epithelial ovarian cancers: based on the Rare Ovarian Tumors Young Investigator Conference

There has been significant progress in the understanding of the pathology and molecular biology of rare ovarian cancers, which has helped both diagnosis and treatment. This paper provides an update on recent advances in the knowledge and treatment of rare ovarian cancers and identifies gaps that need to be addressed by further clinical research. The topics covered include: low-grade serous, mucinous, and clear cell carcinomas of the ovary. Given the molecular heterogeneity and the histopathological rarity of these ovarian cancers, the importance of designing adequately powered trials or finding statistically innovative ways to approach the treatment of these rare tumors has been emphasized. This paper is based on the Rare Ovarian Tumors Conference for Young Investigators which was presented in Tokyo 2015 prior to the 5th Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG)

Phase II study of intraperitoneal recombinant interleukin-12 (rhIL-12) in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (residual disease < 1 cm) associated with ovarian cancer or primary peritoneal carcinoma

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pharmacokinetic advantages of intraperitoneal (IP) rhIL-12, tumor response to IP delivery of other cytokines as well as its potential anti-angiogenic effect provided the rationale for further evaluation of IPrhIL-12 in patients with persistent ovarian or peritoneal carcinoma.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A phase 2 multi-institutional trial (NCI Study #2251) of IP rIL-12 (300 nanogram/Kg weekly) was conducted in patients with ovarian carcinoma or primary peritoneal carcinoma.</p> <p>Patients treated with primary therapy for ovarian cancer who had no extraabdominal/parenchymal disease or bulky peritoneal disease were eligible. Four to 8 weeks from last chemotherapy, eligible patients underwent a laparotomy/laparoscopy. Patients with residual disease ≤ 1 cm were registered for the treatment phase 2–5 weeks post surgery. The effect of IP rIL-12 on the expression of TNFα , INFα , IL-10, IP-10, IL-8, FGF, VEGF was also studied.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirty-four patients were registered for the first screening phase of the study. Median age was 56.6 years (range: 31–71); 12 completed the second phase and were evaluable for response/toxicity. Performance scores of IL-12 treated patients were 0 (11 pts) and 1 (1 pt). There were no treatment related deaths, peritonitis or significant catheter related complications. Toxicities included grade 4 neutropenia (1), grade 3 fatigue (4), headache (2), myalgia (2), non-neutropenic fever (1), drug fever (1), back pain (1), and dizziness (1). The best response observed was SD. Two patients had SD and 9 had PD, and 1 was evaluable for toxicity only.</p> <p>Peritoneal fluid cytokine measurements demonstrated a ≥ 3 fold relative increase post-rhIL-12: IFN-γ, 5/5 pts; TNF-α , 1/5; IL-10, 4/5; IL-8, 5/5; and VEGF, 3/5. IP10 levels were increased in 5/5 patients. Cytokine response profiles suggest either NK or T-cell mediated effects of IP rhIL-12. Cytokine/chemokine results also suggest a pleiotropic response since proteins with potential for either anti-tumor (IFN-γ , IP-10) or pro-tumor growth effects (VEGF, IL-8) were detected.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>IP IL-12 can safely be administered at this dose and schedule to patients after first line chemotherapy for ovarian/peritoneal carcinoma. The maximum response was stable disease. Future IP therapies with rhIL-12 will require better understanding and control of pleiotropic effects of IL-12.</p

Prognostic nomogram for progression-free survival in patients with BRCA mutations and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer on maintenance olaparib therapy following response to chemotherapy

Background: The impact of maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors (PARPi) on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with BRCA mutations and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) varies widely. Individual prognostic factors do not reliably distinguish patients who progress early from those who have durable benefit. We developed and validated a prognostic nomogram to predict PFS in these patients. / Methods: The nomogram was developed using data from a training patient cohort with BRCA mutations and high-grade serous PSROC on the placebo arm of two maintenance therapy trials, Study 19 and SOLO2/ENGOT-ov21. We performed multivariable Cox regression analysis based on pre-treatment characteristics to develop a nomogram that predicts PFS. We assessed the discrimination and validation of the nomogram in independent validation patient cohorts treated with maintenance olaparib. / Results: The nomogram includes four PFS predictors: CA-125 at randomisation, platinum-free interval, presence of measurable disease and number of prior lines of platinum therapy. In the training (placebo) cohort (internal validation C-index 0.64), median PFS in the model-predicted good, intermediate and poor-risk groups was: 7.7 (95% CI 5.3–11.3), 5.4 (4.8–5.8) and 2.9 (2.8–4.4) months, respectively. In the validation (olaparib) cohort (C-index 0.71), median PFS in the model-predicted good, intermediate and poor-risk groups was: not reached, 16.6 (13.1–22.4) and 8.3 (7.1–10.8) months, respectively. The nomogram showed good calibration in the validation cohort (calibration plot). / Conclusions: This nomogram can be used to predict PFS and counsel patients with BRCA mutations and PSROC prior to maintenance olaparib and for stratification of patients in trials of maintenance therapies

Harmonising clinical trials within the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup: consensus and unmet needs from the Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (OCCC) was held in Tokyo, Japan from 7 to 9 November 2015. It provided international consensus on 15 important questions in 4 topic areas, which were generated in accordance with the mission statement to establish ‘International Consensus for Designing Better Clinical Trials’. The methodology for obtaining consensus was previously established and followed during the Fifth OCCC. All 29 clinical trial groups of GCIG participated in program development and deliberations. Draft consensus statements were discussed in topic groups as well as in a plenary forum. The final statements were then presented to all 29 member groups for voting and documentation of the level of consensus. Full consensus was obtained for 11 of the 15 statements with 28/29 groups agreeing to 3 statements, and 27/29 groups agreeing to 1 statement. The high acceptance rate of the statements among trial groups reflects the fact that we share common questions, and recognise important unmet needs that will guide future research in ovarian cancer

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

BACKGROUND: Most patients with ovarian cancer will relapse after receiving frontline platinum-based chemotherapy and eventually develop platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory disease. We report results of avelumab alone or avelumab plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) compared with PLD alone in patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. METHODS: JAVELIN Ovarian 200 was an open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 trial, done at 149 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 24 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (maximum of three previous lines for platinum-sensitive disease, none for platinum-resistant disease) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks), avelumab plus PLD (40 mg/m2 intravenously every 4 weeks), or PLD and stratified by disease platinum status, number of previous anticancer regimens, and bulky disease. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival by blinded independent central review and overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, with the objective to show whether avelumab alone or avelumab plus PLD is superior to PLD. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02580058. The trial is no longer enrolling patients and this is the final analysis of both primary endpoints. FINDINGS: Between Jan 5, 2016, and May 16, 2017, 566 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (combination n=188; PLD n=190, avelumab n=188). At data cutoff (Sept 19, 2018), median duration of follow-up for overall survival was 18·4 months (IQR 15·6-21·9) for the combination group, 17·4 months (15·2-21·3) for the PLD group, and 18·2 months (15·8-21·2) for the avelumab group. Median progression-free survival by blinded independent central review was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·3-5·1) in the combination group, 3·5 months (2·1-4·0) in the PLD group, and 1·9 months (1·8-1·9) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·78 [repeated 93·1% CI 0·59-1·24], one-sided p=0·030; avelumab vs PLD: 1·68 [1·32-2·60], one-sided p>0·99). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 12·7-18·7) in the combination group, 13·1 months (11·8-15·5) in the PLD group, and 11·8 months (8·9-14·1) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·89 [repeated 88·85% CI 0·74-1·24], one-sided p=0·21; avelumab vs PLD: 1·14 [0·95-1·58], one-sided p=0·83]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (18 [10%] in the combination group vs nine [5%] in the PLD group vs none in the avelumab group), rash (11 [6%] vs three [2%] vs none), fatigue (ten [5%] vs three [2%] vs none), stomatitis (ten [5%] vs five [3%] vs none), anaemia (six [3%] vs nine [5%] vs three [2%]), neutropenia (nine [5%] vs nine [5%] vs none), and neutrophil count decreased (eight [5%] vs seven [4%] vs none). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32 (18%) patients in the combination group, 19 (11%) in the PLD group, and 14 (7%) in the avelumab group. Treatment-related adverse events resulted in death in one patient each in the PLD group (sepsis) and avelumab group (intestinal obstruction). INTERPRETATION: Neither avelumab plus PLD nor avelumab alone significantly improved progression-free survival or overall survival versus PLD. These results provide insights for patient selection in future studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany