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 <.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: 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.