Search

PURPOSE: The OlympiA randomized phase III trial compared 1 year of olaparib (OL) or placebo (PL) as adjuvant therapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2, high-risk human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early breast cancer after completing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy ([N]ACT), surgery, and radiotherapy. The patient-reported outcome primary hypothesis was that OL-treated patients may experience greater fatigue during treatment. METHODS: Data were collected before random assignment, and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The primary end point was fatigue, measured with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale. Secondary end points, assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, Core 30 item, included nausea and vomiting (NV), diarrhea, and multiple functional domains. Scores were compared between treatment groups using mixed model for repeated measures. Two-sided P values

BackgroundPoly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors target cancers with defects in homologous recombination repair by synthetic lethality. New therapies are needed to reduce recurrence in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation-associated early breast cancer.MethodsWe conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial involving patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and high-risk clinicopathological factors who had received local treatment and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to 1 year of oral olaparib or placebo. The primary end point was invasive disease-free survival.ResultsA total of 1836 patients underwent randomization. At a prespecified event-driven interim analysis with a median follow-up of 2.5 years, the 3-year invasive disease-free survival was 85.9% in the olaparib group and 77.1% in the placebo group (difference, 8.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.5 to 13.0; hazard ratio for invasive disease or death, 0.58; 99.5% CI, 0.41 to 0.82; P

In the primary analysis of the phase III OlympiAD trial, olaparib significantly prolonged progression‐free survival (PFS) vs chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with germline BRCA‐mutated (gBRCAm), HER2‐negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We report subgroup analyses for the final analysis at a median OS follow‐up of 18.9 months (olaparib) and 15.5 months (TPC). Patients (N = 302) with gBRCAm, HER2‐negative mBC and ≤2 previous lines of chemotherapy for mBC were randomized 2:1 to open‐label olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or TPC. All subgroup analyses were prespecified except site of metastases. Investigator‐assessed median PFS was 8.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.8‐8.4; 176/205 events) for olaparib and 3.8 months (95% CI 2.8‐4.2; 83/97 events) for TPC (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.39‐0.66). In subgroup analyses, median PFS hazard ratios (95% CI) favored olaparib: hormone receptor status (triple‐negative: 0.47, 0.32‐0.69; hormone receptor‐positive: 0.52, 0.36‐0.75); gBRCAm (BRCA1: 0.49, 0.35‐0.71; BRCA2: 0.49, 0.33‐0.74); site of metastases (visceral/CNS: 0.53, 0.40‐0.71; non‐visceral: 0.45, 0.23‐0.98); prior chemotherapy for mBC (yes: 0.51, 0.38‐0.70; no: 0.49, 0.30‐0.82); prior platinum‐based chemotherapy for BC (yes: 0.49, 0.30‐0.83; no: 0.50, 0.37‐0.69); progressive disease at randomization (yes: 0.48, 0.35‐0.65; no: 0.61, 0.36‐1.07). Investigator‐assessed objective response rates were higher across all subgroups with olaparib (35‐68%) vs TPC (5‐40%). Global health status/health‐related quality of life increased in all subgroups with olaparib vs decreased/no change with TPC. These data confirm the consistency of olaparib benefit across patient subgroups in OlympiAD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Olaparib, a potent oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, is partially renally cleared. We investigated the pharmacokinetics and safety of olaparib in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment to provide dosing recommendations.Methods: This phase I open-label study assessed the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of single-dose, oral 300-mg olaparib tablets in adults (aged 18-75 years) with solid tumours. Patients had normal renal function, or mild or moderate renal impairment (estimated creatinine clearance ≥ 81, 51-80 or 31-50 mL/min, respectively). Blood was collected for 96 h, and urine samples collected for 24 h post-dose. Patients could continue taking olaparib 300 mg twice daily for a long-term safety assessment.Results: Overall, 44 patients received one or more doses of olaparib and 38 were included in the pharmacokinetic assessment. Patients with mild renal impairment had an area under the curve geometric least-squares mean ratio of 1.24 (90% confidence interval 1.06-1.47) and a geometric least-squares mean maximum plasma concentration ratio of 1.15 (90% confidence interval 1.04-1.27) vs. those with normal renal function. In patients with moderate renal impairment, the geometric least-squares mean ratio for the area under the curve was 1.44 (90% confidence interval 1.10-1.89) and for the maximum plasma concentration was 1.26 (90% confidence interval 1.06-1.48) vs. those with normal renal function. No new safety signals were detected in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment.Conclusions: In patients with mild renal impairment, the small increase in exposure to olaparib was not considered clinically relevant. In patients with moderate renal impairment, exposure to olaparib increased by 44%; thus, these patients should be carefully monitored and the tablet dose should be adjusted to 200 mg twice daily.Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01894256. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Study 19, maintenance monotherapy with olaparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival vs placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer.Methods: Study 19 was a randomised, placebo-controlled, Phase II trial enrolling 265 patients who had received at least two platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and were in complete or partial response to their most recent regimen. Patients were randomised to olaparib (capsules; 400 mg bid) or placebo. We present long-term safety and final mature overall survival (OS; 79% maturity) data, from the last data cut-off (9 May 2016).Results: Thirty-two patients (24%) received maintenance olaparib for over 2 years; 15 (11%) did so for over 6 years. No new tolerability signals were identified with long-term treatment and adverse events were generally low grade. The incidence of discontinuations due to adverse events was low (6%). An apparent OS advantage was observed with olaparib vs placebo (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.55‒0.95, P = 0.02138) irrespective of BRCA1/2 mutation status, although the predefined threshold for statistical significance was not met.Conclusions: Study 19 showed a favourable final OS result irrespective of BRCA1/2 mutation status and unprecedented long-term benefit with maintenance olaparib for a subset of platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:Maintenance monotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib significantly prolongs progression-free survival over placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer, with greatest benefit seen in patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCAm). Preservation of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important during maintenance therapy; we evaluated the effect of olaparib on HRQoL in this Phase II trial (NCT00753545, Study 19).Methods:Patients received olaparib 400 mg b.i.d. (capsules) or placebo until progression. Patient-reported HRQoL and disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the FACT-Ovarian (FACT-O) questionnaire (completed at baseline and every 28 days until progression), the FACT/NCCN Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI) and the Trial Outcome Index (TOI). TOI of the FACT-O was the primary measure.Results:Overall, 265 women were randomised to maintenance olaparib (n=136) or placebo (n=129). Compliance for HRQoL assessment was high (∼80% over time). Most patients in both arms reported a best response of 'no change' on TOI (81%) and other HRQoL measures. There were no statistically significant differences in time to worsening or improvement rates of TOI, FOSI and FACT-O scores in the overall, BRCAm and germline BRCAm populations.Conclusions:Maintenance treatment with olaparib was well tolerated and had no adverse impact on HRQoL in this study of patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer who had responded to their most recent platinum-based therapy (partial or complete response). Interpretation of the HRQoL results in this population may differ from patients who have not responded to their most recent platinum-based therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Maintenance treatment with the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) in Study 19 (study number, D0810C00019; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00753545) significantly improved progression-free survival in comparison with a placebo for patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed serous ovarian cancer with a BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCAm), but an interim analysis revealed no statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit. However, 23% of the patients receiving the placebo switched to a PARP inhibitor after progression. To investigate whether this had a confounding effect on OS, this article reports an exploratory post hoc analysis that excluded all patients from sites where 1 or more placebo patients received postprogression PARP inhibitor treatment.Methods: In Study 19, 136 of the 265 patients receiving olaparib or a placebo had a BRCAm. Sixteen patients treated at 11 of the 82 investigational sites received a PARP inhibitor after progression; these sites were excluded from this analysis, and 97 BRCAm patients at 50 sites were included. OS was assessed with a Cox proportional hazards model analogous to the primary study analysis. A supporting rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model analysis was undertaken for all 136 BRCAm patients.Results: The OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.97) for the 97 BRCAm patients, whereas for the interim OS analysis with all 136 BRCAm patients, it was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.45-1.17). The supportive RPSFT analysis HR was approximately 0.66.Conclusions: The numerical improvement in the OS HR suggests that in Study 19, postprogression PARP inhibitor treatment had a confounding influence on the interim OS analysis for BRCAm patients. There is a degree of uncertainty due to the small sample size and the lack of data maturity. Cancer 2016;122:1844-52. © 2016 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Effective new agents for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) with disease progression during standard therapy regimens are needed. We hypothesized that poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy in patients with CRC and inefficient tumor DNA repair mechanisms, such as those with high-level microsatellite instability (MSI-H), would result in synthetic lethality. Methods. This was an open-label phase II trial testing olaparib 400 mg p.o. b.i.d. for patients with disseminated, measurable CRC failing standard therapies with centrally confirmed tumor MSI status. The primary endpoint was the tumor response, assessed by RECIST, version 1.0.The secondary endpoints were safety/toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results. Thirty-three patients (20 microsatellite stable [MSS], 13 MSI-H) were enrolled. The median age for all patients was 57 years and for MSS and MSI-H patients was 51 and 61 years, respectively. All patients received at least one 28-day cycle of olaparib. No patient had a complete or partial response. Nausea (48%), fatigue (36%), and vomiting (33%)were the most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events. The median PFS for all patients was 1.84 months. No statistically significant differences were found in the median PFS or OS for the MSS group compared with the MSI-H group. Conclusion. Single-agent olaparib delivered after failure of standard systemic therapy did not demonstrate activity for CRC patients, regardless of microsatellite status. Future trials, testing PARP in hibitors in patients with CRC should focus on the use of DNA-damaging chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, combined with PARP inhibitors, remembering the toxicity reported in the present study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The OlympiA randomized phase III trial compared 1 year of olaparib (OL) or placebo (PL) as adjuvant therapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2 , high-risk human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early breast cancer after completing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy ([N]ACT), surgery, and radiotherapy. The patient-reported outcome primary hypothesis was that OL-treated patients may experience greater fatigue during treatment., Methods: Data were collected before random assignment, and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The primary end point was fatigue, measured with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale. Secondary end points, assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, Core 30 item, included nausea and vomiting (NV), diarrhea, and multiple functional domains. Scores were compared between treatment groups using mixed model for repeated measures. Two-sided P values <.05 were statistically significant for the primary end point. All secondary end points were descriptive., Results: One thousand five hundred and thirty-eight patients (NACT: 746, ACT: 792) contributed to the analysis. Fatigue severity was statistically significantly greater for OL versus PL, but not clinically meaningfully different by prespecified criteria (≥3 points) at 6 months (diff OL v PL: NACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.4 to -0.2]; P = .022; ACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.3 to -0.2]; P = .017) and 12 months (NACT: -1.6 [95% CI, -2.8 to -0.3]; P = .017; ACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.4 to -0.2]; P = .025). There were no significant differences in fatigue severity between treatment groups at 18 and 24 months. NV severity was worse in patients treated with OL compared with PL at 6 months (NACT: 6.0 [95% CI, 4.1 to 8.0]; ACT: 5.3 [95% CI, 3.4 to 7.2]) and 12 months (NACT: 6.4 [95% CI, 4.4 to 8.3]; ACT: 4.5 [95% CI, 2.8 to 6.1]). During treatment, there were some clinically meaningful differences between groups for other symptoms but not for function subscales or global health status., Conclusion: Treatment-emergent symptoms from OL were limited, generally resolving after treatment ended. OL- and PL-treated patients had similar functional scores, slowly improving during the 24 months after (N)ACT and there was no clinically meaningful persistence of fatigue severity in OL-treated patients.

Purpose: In clinical research, eligibility criteria promote patient safety and optimize the evidence generated from clinical trials. However, overly stringent eligibility criteria, including laboratory requirements, may limit enrollment, resulting in delayed trial completion and potentially limiting applicability of trial results to a general practice population., Experimental Design: Starting in 2018, a working group consisting of experts in direct patient care, the FDA, industry, and patient advocacy developed recommendations to guide the optimal use of laboratory reference ranges and testing intervals in clinical trial eligibility criteria and study procedures. The working group evaluated current eligibility criteria across different clinical trial phases and performed a literature review to evaluate the impact of and justification for laboratory test eligibility requirements and testing intervals in clinical trials. Recommendations were developed on the basis of the goals of promoting safety and optimizing the evidence generated, while also expanding eligibility and applicability, and minimizing excess burden of trial participation., Results: In general, we found little variation over time and trial phase in laboratory test requirements, suggesting that these eligibility criteria are not refined according to ongoing clinical experience. We propose recommendations to optimize the use of laboratory tests when considering eligibility criteria., Conclusions: Tailoring the use of laboratory test requirements and testing intervals may increase the number and diversity of patients in clinical trials and provide clinical data that more closely represent the general practice populations. See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369 ., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

To gain a better understanding of the role of somatic mutations in olaparib response, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of BRCA1 and BRCA2 was performed as part of a planned retrospective analysis of tumors from a randomized, double-blind, Phase II trial (Study 19; D0810C00019; NCT00753545) in 265 patients with platinum-sensitive high-grade serous ovarian cancer. BRCA1/2 loss-of-function mutations were found in 55% (114/209) of tumors, were mutually exclusive, and demonstrated high concordance with Sanger-sequenced germline mutations in matched blood samples, confirming the accuracy (97%) of tumor BRCA1/2 NGS testing. Additionally, NGS identified somatic mutations absent from germline testing in 10% (20/209) of the patients. Somatic mutations had >80% biallelic inactivation frequency and were predominantly clonal, suggesting that BRCA1/2 loss occurs early in the development of these cancers. Clinical outcomes between placebo- and olaparib-treated patients with somatic BRCA1/2 mutations were similar to those with germline BRCA1/2 mutations, indicating that patients with somatic BRCA1/2 mutations benefit from treatment with olaparib.

Purpose: Gastric cancer cell lines, particularly those with low levels of ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM), a key activator of DNA damage response, are sensitive to the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib. We compared the efficacy of olaparib plus paclitaxel (olaparib/paclitaxel) with paclitaxel alone in patients with recurrent or metastatic gastric cancer and assessed whether low ATM expression is predictive of improved clinical outcome for olaparib/paclitaxel., Patients and Methods: In this phase II, double-blind study (Study 39; NCT01063517), patients were randomly assigned to oral olaparib 100 mg twice per day (tablets) plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2) per day intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle) or placebo plus paclitaxel (placebo/paclitaxel), followed by maintenance monotherapy with olaparib (200 mg twice per day) or placebo. The study population was enriched to 50% for patients with low or undetectable ATM levels (ATMlow). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: One hundred twenty-three of 124 randomly assigned patients received treatment (olaparib/paclitaxel, n = 61; placebo/paclitaxel, n = 62). The screening prevalence of ATMlow patients was 14%. Olaparib/paclitaxel did not lead to a significant improvement in PFS versus placebo/paclitaxel (overall population: hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; median PFS, 3.91 v 3.55 months, respectively; ATMlow population: HR, 0.74; median PFS, 5.29 v 3.68 months, respectively). However, olaparib/paclitaxel significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus placebo/paclitaxel in both the overall population (HR, 0.56; 80% CI, 0.41 to 0.75; P = .005; median OS, 13.1 v 8.3 months, respectively) and the ATMlow population (HR, 0.35; 80% CI, 0.22 to 0.56; P = .002; median OS, not reached v 8.2 months, respectively). Olaparib/paclitaxel was generally well tolerated, with no unexpected safety findings., Conclusion: Olaparib/paclitaxel is active in the treatment of patients with metastatic gastric cancer, with a greater OS benefit in ATMlow patients. A phase III trial in this setting is under way., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

PURPOSE Hypertension is a commonly reported adverse effect after administration of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors. Cediranib is a highly potent and selective VEGF signaling inhibitor of all three VEGFRs. This study prospectively investigated hypertension management to help minimize dose interruptions/reductions to maximize cediranib dose intensity. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients (n = 126) with advanced solid tumors were randomly assigned to one of four groups: cediranib 30 or 45 mg/d with or without antihypertensive prophylaxis. All patients developing hypertension on cediranib treatment were treated with a standardized, predefined hypertension management protocol. Results Cediranib was generally well tolerated, and all groups achieved high-dose intensities in the first 12 weeks (> 74% in all groups). Antihypertensive prophylaxis did not result in fewer dose reductions or interruptions. Increases in blood pressure, including moderate and severe readings of hypertension, were seen early in treatment in all groups and successfully managed. Severe hypertension occurred in one patient receiving prophylaxis versus 18 in the nonprophylaxis groups. Overall, there were nine partial responses, and 38 patients experienced stable disease >/= 8 weeks. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this is the first prospective investigation of hypertension management during administration of a VEGF signaling inhibitor. All four regimens were well tolerated with high-dose intensities and no strategy was clearly superior. The current cediranib hypertension management protocol appears to be effective in managing hypertension compared with previous cediranib studies where no plan was in place, and early recognition and treatment of hypertension is likely to reduce the number of severe hypertension events. This protocol is included in all ongoing cediranib clinical studies.