Search

Background: PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have revolutionized the management of advanced ovarian carcinoma, and were investigated as forefront treatment in recurrent disease. The objective was to explore if mathematical modeling of the early longitudinal CA-125 kinetics could be used as a pragmatic indicator of the subsequent rucaparib efficacy, like it is for platinum-based chemotherapy., Methods: The datasets of ARIEL2 and Study 10 involving recurrent HGOC patients treated with rucaparib were retrospectively investigated. The same strategy as those successfully developed for platinum chemotherapy, based on CA-125 ELIMination rate constant K (KELIM™), was implemented. Individual values of rucaparib-adjusted KELIM (KELIM-PARP) were estimated based on the longitudinal CA-125 kinetics during the first 100 treatment days, and then scored as favorable (KELIM-PARP ≥1.0) or unfavorable (KELIM-PARP <1.0). The prognostic value of KELIM-PARP regarding treatment efficacy (radiological response, and progression-free survival (PFS)) was assessed using univariable/multivariable analyses, with respect to platinum-sensitivity and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status., Findings: The data from 476 patients were assessed. The CA-125 longitudinal kinetics during the first 100-treatment days could be accurately assessed using the KELIM-PARP model. In patients with platinum-sensitive diseases, BRCA mutational status KELIM-PARP score and were associated with subsequent complete/partial radiological responses (KELIM-PARP: odds-ratio = 2.81, 95% CI 1.86-4.52), and PFS (KELIM-PARP: hazard-ratio = 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.91). The patients with BRCA-wild type cancer and favorable KELIM-PARP experienced long PFS with rucaparib regardless of HRD. In platinum-resistant disease patients, KELIM-PARP was associated with subsequent radiological response (odds-ratio = 2.80, 95% CI 1.82-4.72)., Interpretation: This proof-of-concept study confirms the early CA-125 longitudinal kinetics during rucaparib in recurrent HGOC patients are assessable by mathematical modeling, to generate individual a KELIM-PARP score associated with the subsequent efficacy. This pragmatic strategy might be useful for selecting the patients for PARPi-based combination regimens, when identifying efficacy biomarker is challenging. Further assessment of this hypothesis is warranted., Funding: The present study was supported by Clovis Oncology with a grant to academic research association., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests OC: None. Employee of Lyon University Hospital. BY: Consulting for MSD, Astra-Zeneca, GSK-TESARO, BAYER, Roche-Genentech, ECS Progastrine, Novartis, LEK, Amgen, Clovis Oncology, Merck Serono, BMS, SEAGEN, Myriad. SG, KKL, LM: Employees of Clovis Oncology. Other coauthors: They disclose no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Study 10, a four-part Phase 1/2 study, evaluated oral rucaparib monotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumours. Here we report the final efficacy and safety results in heavily pretreated patients with ovarian cancer who received rucaparib in Study 10 Parts 2A and 2B., Methods: Parts 2A and 2B (Phase 2 portions) enrolled patients with relapsed, high-grade, platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant, BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer who had received 2-4 (Part 2A) or 3-4 (Part 2B) prior chemotherapies. Patients received oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily (starting dose). The primary endpoint was the investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1., Results: Fifty-four patients were enrolled: 42 in Part 2A (all had platinum-sensitive disease) and 12 in Part 2B (4 with platinum-sensitive disease; 8 with platinum-resistant disease). ORR was 59.3% (95% CI 45.0-72.4%). The median time to onset of the most common nonhaematological treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was typically early (<56 days) and was later for haematological TEAEs (53-84 days). The median duration of grade ≥3 TEAEs was ≤13 days., Conclusions: In patients with relapsed, platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant germline BRCA-mutant high-grade ovarian cancer who had received ≥2 prior chemotherapies, rucaparib had robust antitumour activity with a safety profile consistent with prior reports., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01482715., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Objective: ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) is a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma who responded to their latest line of platinum therapy. Rucaparib improved progression-free survival across all predefined subgroups. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of clinical and molecular characteristics associated with exceptional benefit from rucaparib., Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Molecular features (genomic alterations, BRCA1 promoter methylation) and baseline clinical characteristics were evaluated for association with exceptional benefit (progression-free survival ≥2 years) versus progression on first scan (short-term subgroup) and other efficacy outcomes., Results: Rucaparib treatment was significantly associated with exceptional benefit compared with placebo: 79/375 (21.1%) vs 4/189 (2.1%), respectively (p < 0.0001). Exceptional benefit was more frequent among patients with favorable baseline clinical characteristics and with carcinomas harboring molecular evidence of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). A comparison between patients who derived exceptional benefit from rucaparib and those in the short-term subgroup revealed both clinical markers (no measurable disease at baseline, complete response to latest platinum, longer penultimate platinum-free interval) and molecular markers (BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, and RAD51D alterations and genome-wide loss of heterozygosity) significantly associated with exceptional benefit., Conclusions: Exceptional benefit in ARIEL3 was more common in, but not exclusive to, patients with favorable clinical characteristics or molecular features associated with HRD. Our results suggest that rucaparib can deliver exceptional benefit to a diverse set of patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest DMO reports personal fees from consulting and/or advisory board participation from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, Agenus, Ambry, Amgen, Arquer Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Celsion Corp, Corcept Therapeutics, Eisai, Elevar, Genelux, Genentech/Roche, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, Inxmed, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Mersana, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Novocure, Regeneron, Roche Diagnostics MSA, Rubis, SeaGen, SDP Oncology (BBI), Takeda, and Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline, Toray; research funding (all funding to institution) from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, Agenus, Ajinomoto, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cerulean Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Ergomed, Genentech/Roche, GenMab, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, INC Research, inVentiv Health Clinical, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Merck, National Cancer Institute, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, Novocure, PRA International, Regeneron, SeaGen, Serono, Stemcentrx, Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline, Tracon Pharmaceuticals, VentiRx, and Yale University; and has given a presentation on ovarian cancer at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. AMO reports grants to his institution from AstraZeneca; has served on steering committees for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca (uncompensated), and Tesaro (uncompensated); has served in an advisory role for AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline (uncompensated); and has acted as a principal investigator on investigator-initiated trials with agents from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline. DL reports institutional research funding from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Corcept Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Genmab, ImmunoGen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, PharmaMar, Roche, and Seagen; consulting fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and PharmaMar; payment or honoraria for lectures from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Seagen; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Clovis Oncology, Agenus, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Roche; and serves on the board of directors for GCIG and as chair of GCA for ENGOT. CA has served on a steering committee for AbbVie and Genentech; has served as a principle investigator for studies by Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Genentech; served on advisory boards for AbbVie, AstraZeneca/Merck, Blueprint Medicine, Eisai/Merck, Mersana Therapeutics, Repare Therapeutics, and Roche/Genentech; and serves on the board of directors (unpaid) for GOG Foundation and NRG Oncology. AO reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca Farmaceutica Spain, AstraZeneca, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceutical, Eisai Europe Limited, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Got It Consulting, Immunogen, KL Logistics, Medison Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme de España, Mersana Therapeutics, Novocure GmbH, PharmaMar, prIME Oncology, Roche Farma, Shattuck Labs, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro Bio GmbH, Tesaro Bio Spain, and Tesaro; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Roche, and PharmaMar. AD has served in a consulting or advisory role for Precision Oncology Australia, Shire Pharmaceuticals, and Specialised Therapeutics Australia; and sits on the scientific advisory board for A2A Pharmaceuticals. NC reports institutional research funding from Clovis Oncology; serving in a consulting or advisory role for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mersana, Novartis, Nuvation Bio, Oncxerna, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Novartis; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca. JIW has received research support from AstraZeneca. ARC reports consulting fees for advisory boards for AstraZeneca; payment or honoraria for speakers bureaus for Clovis Oncology and Merck Sharp & Dohme; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Tesaro; and institutional research funding from Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca. GS reports royalties or licenses from Merck Sharp & Dohme Italia; consulting fees from Tesaro Bio Italy and Johnson & Johnson; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Clovis Oncology Italy. AL has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Ability Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, GamaMabs, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Gritstone, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Tesaro; steering committee for Merck Sharp & Dohme; reports institutional support for clinical trials or academic research from Clovis Oncology, Ability Pharmaceuticals, Agenus, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Inivata, Iovance, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Tesaro; and reports boarding and travel expenses for congress activities from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Roche. RWH reports consulting fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline. MAG has served on speakers' bureaus for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and PharmaMar; and reports support for attending meetings and/or travel from GlaxoSmithKline. PCF reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Merck Sharp & Dohme; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Pfizer. JCG reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Australia; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen; and stock or stock options for ICON Cancer Care, Australia. EMS reports institutional research funding from Clovis Oncology. LM, SG, KL, and TK are employees of Clovis Oncology and may own stock or have stock options in that company. JAL has received lecture fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer; served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Amgen, Artios Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nuvation, Pfizer, Regeneron, VBL Therapeutics, and Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline; and received research grants from AstraZeneca and Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme. RLC reports grants or contracts from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Gateway Foundation, Genelux, Genmab, Janssen, Merck, and Roche/Genentech; consulting fees from Clovis Oncology, Agenus, Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Deciphera, Genelux, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Janssen, OncoQuest, OncXerna, Onxeo, Regeneron, and Roche/Genentech., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: To develop a population pharmacokinetics (PPK) model for rucaparib, an oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor., Methods: The PPK analysis used PK data from patients in Study 1014 (NCT01009190, n = 35), Study 10 (NCT01482715, n = 123), and ARIEL2 (NCT01891344, n = 300), including intensive intravenous data (12-40 mg), intensive and sparse oral data (12-360 mg single-dose, 40-500 mg once daily, and 240-840 mg twice daily [BID]), and intensive single-dose oral data under fasted conditions and after a high-fat meal (40, 300, and 600 mg)., Results: Rucaparib PK was well described by a two-compartment model with sequential zero-order release and first-order absorption and first-order elimination. A high-fat meal slightly increased bioavailability at 600 mg but not at lower doses; this is not considered clinically significant, and rucaparib can be taken with or without food. Covariate effects of baseline creatinine clearance and albumin on rucaparib clearance were identified. Despite numerical increases in exposure with renal impairment, no dose adjustment is recommended for patients with mild or moderate renal impairment. No statistically significant relationships were detected for demographics, hepatic function (normal versus mild impairment), CYP1A2 and CYP2D6 phenotypes, or strong CYP1A2 or CYP2D6 inhibitors. Concomitant proton pump inhibitors showed no clinically significant effect on absorption. External validation of the model with data from ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) and TRITON2 (NCT02952534) studies showed no clinically meaningful PK differences across indications or sex., Conclusion: The PPK model adequately described rucaparib PK, and none of the covariates evaluated had a clinically relevant effect., Clinicaltrials: GOV: Study 1014 (NCT01009190), Study 10 (NCT01482715), ARIEL2 (NCT01891344), ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), and TRITON2 (NCT02952534)., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: To describe molecular and clinical characteristics of patients with high-grade recurrent ovarian carcinoma (HGOC) who had long-term responses to the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib., Methods: This post hoc analysis pooled patients from Study 10 (NCT01482715; Parts 2A and 2B; n = 54) and ARIEL2 (NCT01891344; Parts 1 and 2; n = 491). Patients with investigator-assessed complete or partial response per RECIST were classified based on duration of response (DOR): long (≥1 year), intermediate (6 months to <1 year), or short (<6 months). Next-generation sequencing was used to detect deleterious mutations and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in tumors., Results: Overall, 25.3% (138/545) of enrolled patients were responders. Of these, 27.5% (38/138) had long-term responses; 28.3% (39/138) were intermediate- and 34.8% (48/138) were short-term responders. Most of the long-term responders harbored a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation (71.1%, 27/38), and BRCA structural variants were most frequent among long-term responders (14.8%; 4/27). Responders with HGOC harboring a BRCA structural variant (n = 5) had significantly longer DOR than patients with other mutation types (n = 81; median not reached vs 0.62 years; HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.43; unadjusted p = 0.014). Among responders with BRCA wild-type HGOC, most long- and intermediate-term responders had high genome-wide LOH: 81.8% (9/11) and 76.9% (10/13), respectively, including 7 with deleterious RAD51C, RAD51D, or CDK12 mutations., Conclusion: Among patients who responded to rucaparib, a substantial proportion achieved responses lasting ≥1 year. These analyses demonstrate the relationship between DOR to PARP inhibitor treatment and molecular characteristics in HGOC, such as presence of reversion-resistant BRCA structural variants., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest E.M. Swisher has no conflicts to report. R.S. Kristeleit reports grants from MSD; reports personal fees from Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, MSD, and Roche; and received non-financial support from GSK. A.M. Oza reports grants from AstraZeneca; has served on steering committee for Clovis Oncology; and has served as a principal investigator of an investigator initiated clinical trial from GSK. A.V. Tinker received grants and honoraria from AstraZeneca. I. Ray-Coquard reports grants from BMS, GSK, and Roche; received personal fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, BMS, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Roche; and received support for travel from AstraZeneca. A. Oaknin reports grants from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie Deutchland, Ability Pharma, Advaxis, Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen SA, Aprea Therapeutics AB, BMS, Eisai, F. Hoffmann - La Roche Ltd., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Immunogen, Merck Sharp & Dohme de España SA, Millennium Pharmaceutials, PharmaMar, and Tesaro; received personal fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Deciphera Pharmarceutial, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana Therapeutic, Pharma Mar, Roche, and Tesaro; and received support for travel or accommodation from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche. R.L. Coleman reports grants from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab, Janssen, Merck, and Roche/Genentech; and has served as a consultant to Clovis Oncology, Agenus, AstraZeneca, Genmab, GSK, Janssen, OncoQuest, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Roche/Genentech. H.A. Burris reports payment for consulting services from AstraZeneca, Celgene, FORMA Therapeutics, and Incyte; has received payment for his expert testimony from Novartis; has performed non-compensated consulting services for Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, GRAIL, Novartis, and Pfizer; and his institution has received grants for conduct of clinical trials from Clovis Oncology, Agios, Arch, Array BioPharma, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BIND Therapeutics, BioAtla, BioMed Valley Discoveries, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CicloMed, CytomX Therapeutics, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Foundation Medicine, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Harpoon Therapeutics, Incyte, Janssen, Jounce Therapeutics, Kyocera, Lilly, Macrogenics, MedImmune, Merck, miRNA Therapeutics, Moderna Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Revolution Medicines, Roche/Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Takeda/Millennium, Tesaro, TG Therapeutics, Verastem, and Vertex. Dr. Burris is employed by and has a leadership position at HCA Healthcare/Sarah Cannon Research Institute and owns stock in that company. C. Aghajanian has served on steering committees for AbbVie and Genentech; has served on advisory boards for and received honoraria from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca/Merck, Eisai/Merck, Immunogen, Mersana Therapeutics, Repare, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro; has served as a National Coordinating Investigator to AstraZeneca; and reports grants from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Genentech. D.M. O’Malley reports grants, personal fees, and other from Clovis Oncology during the conduct of the study; has served on advisory boards for Agenus, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Immunogen, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Novocure, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, SeaGen, Tarveda, and Tesaro/GSK; has served on steering committees for Amgen; has served as a consultant to AbbVie, Agenus, Ambry, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Merck, Mersana, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Novocure, Seagen, and Tesaro/GSK; and his institution has received research support from AbbVie, Agenus, Ajinomoto, Amgen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Cerulean Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Ergomed Clinical Research, Genmab, Genentech/Roche, GOG Foundation, ImmunoGen, INC Research, inVentiv Health Clinical, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Merck, Mersana, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, Novocure, PRA International, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Seagen, Serono, Stemcentrx, Tesaro/GSK, TRACON Pharmaceuticals, VentiRx, and Yale University. A. Leary reports grants from Clovis Oncology, Ability Pharma, Agenus, AstraZeneca, GSK, Inivata, Iovance Biotherapeutics, MSD, Roche, Sanofi, and Tesaro; and received personal fees from Clovis Oncology, Ability Pharma, AstraZeneca, Biocad, GSK, MSD, Tesaro, and Zentalis. S. Welch has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Roche; reports institutional research support from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Merck, Regeneron, and Tesaro; and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca. D. Provencher has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche-Genentech, and Tesaro. G.I. Shapiro’s institution received reimbursement of study costs from Clovis Oncology for this clinical trial. He has received research funding from Eli Lilly, Merck KGaA/EMD-Serono, Merck, and Sierra Oncology. He has served on advisory boards for Almac, Angiex, Artios, Asana, Astex, Atrin, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Concarlo Holdings, Cybrexa Therapeutics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Fusion Pharmaceuticals, G1 Therapeutics, ImmunoMet, Ipsen, Merck KGaA/EMD-Serono, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Sierra Oncology, Syros, and Zentalis. In addition, he holds a patent entitled, “Dosage regimen for sapacitabine and seliciclib,” also issued to Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, and a pending patent, entitled, “Compositions and Methods for Predicting Response and Resistance to CDK4/6 Inhibition,” together with Liam Cornell. L.m. Chen has no conflicts to report. R. Shapira-Frommer has no conflicts to report. S.H. Kaufmann reports grants from Eli Lilly and from Cyteir outside the submitted work; In addition, Dr. Kaufmann has a patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,729,048) issued. S. Goble, L. Maloney, T. Kwan, and K.K. Lin are employees of Clovis Oncology and may own stock or have stock options in that company. I.A. McNeish has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Alkermes, AstraZeneca, GSK/Tesaro, and Roche. His institution receives funding from AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The optimal treatment strategy for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer has yet to be determined. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have demonstrated substantial improvement in progression-free survival as monotherapy maintenance treatment in the frontline setting versus active surveillance. Furthermore, preclinical and early clinical studies have shown that PARP inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors have synergistic antitumor activity and may provide an additional therapeutic option for patients in this population., Primary Objectives: In women with newly diagnosed ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer, we wish to assess the efficacy of frontline maintenance treatment with the PARP inhibitor rucaparib versus placebo following response to platinum-based chemotherapy (ATHENA-MONO), and to assess the combination of rucaparib plus nivolumab (a programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1)-blocking monoclonal antibody) versus rucaparib alone (ATHENA-COMBO)., Study Hypothesis: (1) Maintenance therapy with rucaparib monotherapy may extend progression-free survival following standard treatment for ovarian cancer in the frontline setting. (2) The combination of nivolumab plus rucaparib may extend progression-free survival following standard treatment for ovarian cancer in the frontline setting compared with rucaparib alone., Trial Design: ATHENA is an international, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial consisting of two independent comparisons (ATHENA-MONO and ATHENA-COMBO) in patients with newly diagnosed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Patients are randomized 4:4:1:1 to the following: oral rucaparib+ intravenous nivolumab (arm A); oral rucaparib + intravenous placebo (arm B); oral placebo+ intravenous nivolumab (arm C); and oral placebo + intravenous placebo (arm D). The starting dose of rucaparib is 600 mg orally twice a day and nivolumab 480 mg intravenously every 4 weeks. ATHENA-MONO compares arm B with arm D to evaluate rucaparib monotherapy versus placebo, and ATHENA-COMBO evaluates arm A versus arm B to investigate the effects of rucaparib and nivolumab in combination versus rucaparib monotherapy. ATHENA-MONO and ATHENA-COMBO share a common treatment arm (arm B) but each comparison is independently powered., Major Inclusion/exclusion Criteria: Patients ≥18 years of age with newly diagnosed advanced, high-grade epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have achieved a response after completion of cytoreductive surgery and initial platinum-based chemotherapy are enrolled. No other prior treatment for ovarian cancer, other than the frontline platinum regimen, is permitted., Primary Endpoint: The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1., Sample Size: Approximately 1000 patients have been enrolled and randomized., Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting Results: The trial completed accrual in 2020. While dependent on event rates, primary results of ATHENA-MONO are anticipated in early 2022 and results of ATHENA-COMBO are anticipated to mature at a later date., Trial Registration: This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03522246)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BJM has served as a consultant and received honoraria from Clovis Oncology, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Easai, Elevar, Genetics, Genmab/Seattle, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Karyopharm, McKesson, Merck, Mersana, Myriad, Novocure, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sorrento, Tesaro/GSK, and VBL outside the submitted work. RLC reports grants from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab, Janssen, Merck, and Roche/Genentech; and has served as a consultant for Clovis Oncology, Agenus, AstraZeneca, Genmab, GSK, Janssen, OncoQuest, Roche/Genentech, and Regeneron outside the submitted work. KF has received institutional funding from Clovis Oncology during the conduct of the study; and received traveling support from Clovis Oncology outside the submitted work. AMO has received an institutional grant from AstraZeneca; served on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards (uncompensated) for AstraZeneca and GSK; served on steering committees (uncompensated) for Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca; and served as a principal investigator on investigator-initiated trials for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and GSK. DMO has served as a consultant for Clovis Oncology, Abbvie, Agenus, Ambry, Amgen, Arquer Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Elevar, Genentech/Roche, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, InxMed, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen/J&J, Merck, Mersana, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Novocure, Regeneron, Roche Diagnostics MSA, Rubis, SDP Oncology (BBI), SeaGen, Sorrento, Takeda, Tarveda, Tesaro/GSK, and Toray; and has received research support from Clovis Oncology, Abbvie, Agenus, Ajinomoto, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cerulean Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Ergomed, Genentech/Roche, GenMab, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, INC Research, inVentiv Health Clinical, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen/J&J, Ludwig Cancer Research, Merck, Mersana, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, Novocure, PRA International, Regeneron, SDP Oncology (BBI), SeaGen, Serono, Stemcentrx, Tesaro/GSK, TRACON Pharmaceuticals, VentiRx, and Yale University outside the submitted work. DL has received institutional funding for trial development from Clovis Oncology during the conduct of the study; and has received research grants from Clovis Oncology; served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GSK, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and PharmaMar outside the submitted work. SNW has received institutional funding and served as a consultant for Clovis Oncology during the conduct of the study; received institutional funding from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bio-Path, Cotinga Pharmaceuticals, GSK/Tesaro, Mereo, NIH, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech; served as a consultant for Clovis Oncology, Agenus, AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK/Tesaro, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Zentalis; and is involved in an unpaid leadership or fiduciary role for GOG Foundation Board of Directors, Houston Gynecology and Obstetrical Society, NOCC – National Ovarian Cancer Coalition Advisory Board, OVARCOME Leadership Council, and Society of Gynecologic Oncology Board of Directors outside the submitted work. TJH has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Caris, Elsai, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Roche Genentech; and has served as a consultant for Abbvie outside the submitted work. FM reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celegene, CureVac, Eisai, GenomicHealth, Gilead/Immunomedics, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Myriad, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro, and Seagen outside the submitted work. RNE has served as a consultant for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Daiich Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Merck, and Seagen; and received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Myriad outside the submitted work. IAM has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Roche, Takeda, and Tesaro; and received institutional funding from AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. RSK has served on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Basilea, Eisai, GSK, iTeos Therapeutics, Roche, Sotio, and Tesaro; and is involved in a leadership or fiduciary role for MHRA OHEAG. KKL, DS, SG, NG, SH, and LM are employees of Clovis Oncology and may own stock or have stock options in that company. All authors received writing support from Clovis Oncology during the conduct of the study., (© IGCS and ESGO 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: A total of 1% to 3% of patients treated with a poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor for high-grade ovarian cancer (HGOC) develop therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (t-MNs), which are rare but often fatal conditions. Although the cause of these t-MNs is unknown, clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) variants can increase the risk of primary myeloid malignant neoplasms and are more frequent among patients with solid tumors., Objectives: To examine whether preexisting CHIP variants are associated with the development of t-MNs after rucaparib treatment and how these CHIP variants are affected by treatment., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective genetic association study used peripheral blood cell (PBC) samples collected before rucaparib treatment from patients in the multicenter, single-arm ARIEL2 (Study of Rucaparib in Patients With Platinum-Sensitive, Relapsed, High-Grade Epithelial Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, or Primary Peritoneal Cancer) (n = 491; between October 30, 2013, and August 9, 2016) and the multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind ARIEL3 (Study of Rucaparib as Switch Maintenance Following Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Patients With Platinum-Sensitive, High-Grade Serous or Endometrioid Epithelial Ovarian, Primary Peritoneal or Fallopian Tube Cancer) (n = 561; between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016), which tested rucaparib as HGOC therapy in the treatment and maintenance settings, respectively. The follow-up data cutoff date was September 1, 2019. Of 1052 patients in ARIEL2 and ARIEL3, PBC samples from 20 patients who developed t-MNs (cases) and 44 randomly selected patients who did not (controls) were analyzed for the presence of CHIP variants using targeted next-generation sequencing. Additional longitudinal analysis was performed on available ARIEL2 samples collected during treatment and at the end of treatment., Main Outcomes and Measures: Enrichment analysis of preexisting variants in 10 predefined CHIP-associated genes in cases relative to controls; association with clinical correlates., Results: Among 1052 patients (mean [SE] age, 61.7 [0.3] years) enrolled and dosed in ARIEL2 and ARIEL3, 22 (2.1%) developed t-MNs. The t-MNs were associated with longer overall exposure to prior platinum therapies (13.2 vs 9.0 months in ARIEL2, P = .04; 12.4 vs 9.6 months in ARIEL3, P = .003). The presence of homologous recombination repair gene variants in the tumor, either germline or somatic, was associated with increased prevalence of t-MNs (15 [4.1%] of 369 patients with HGOC associated with an HRR gene variant vs 7 [1.0%] of 683 patients with wild-type HGOC, P = .002). The prevalence of preexisting CHIP variants in TP53 but not other CHIP-associated genes at a variant allele frequency of 1% or greater was significantly higher in PBCs from cases vs controls (9 [45.0%] of 20 cases vs 6 [13.6%] of 44 controls, P = .009). TP53 CHIP was associated with longer prior exposure to platinum (mean 14.0 months of 15 TP53 CHIP cases vs 11.1 months of 49 non-TP53 CHIP cases; P = .02). Longitudinal analysis showed that preexisting TP53 CHIP variants expanded in patients who developed t-MNs., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this genetic association study suggest that preexisting TP53 CHIP variants may be associated with t-MNs after rucaparib treatment.

Objective: To evaluate correlations between rucaparib exposure and selected efficacy and safety endpoints in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma using pooled data from Study 10 and ARIEL2., Methods: Efficacy analyses were limited to patients with carcinomas harboring a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who had received ≥2 prior lines of chemotherapy. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received ≥1 rucaparib dose. Steady-state daily area under the concentration-time curve (AUC ss ) and maximum concentration (C max,ss ) for rucaparib were calculated for each patient and averaged by actual dose received over time (AUC avg,ss and C max,avg,ss ) using a previously developed population pharmacokinetic model., Results: Rucaparib exposure was dose-proportional and not associated with baseline patient weight. In the exposure-efficacy analyses (n = 121), AUC avg,ss was positively associated with independent radiology review-assessed RECIST response in the subgroup of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent disease (n = 75, p = 0.017). In the exposure-safety analyses (n = 393, 40 mg once daily to 840 mg twice daily [BID] starting doses), most patients received a 600 mg BID rucaparib starting dose, with 27% and 21% receiving 1 or ≥2 dose reductions, respectively. C max,ss was significantly correlated with grade ≥2 serum creatinine increase, grade ≥3 alanine transaminase/aspartate transaminase increase, platelet decrease, fatigue/asthenia, and maximal hemoglobin decrease (p < 0.05)., Conclusion: The exposure-response analyses provide support for the approved starting dose of rucaparib 600 mg BID for maximum clinical benefit with subsequent dose modification only following the occurrence of a treatment-emergent adverse event in patients with BRCA-mutated recurrent ovarian carcinoma., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest G.E. Konecny has served on speaker bureaus for Clovis Oncology, GSK and AstraZeneca and received research funding from Lilly and Merck. A.M. Oza reports grants from AstraZeneca; has served on steering committee for Clovis Oncology; and has served as a principal investigator of an investigator initiated clinical trial from GSK. A.V. Tinker received grants and honoraria from AstraZeneca. A. Oaknin reports grants from Clovis Oncology, Abbie Deutchland, Ability Pharma, Advaxis, Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen SA, Aprea Therapeutics AB, BMS, Bristrol Meyers Squibb, Eisai, F. Hoffmann - La Roche Ltd., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Immunogen, Merck Sharp & Dohme de España SA, Millennium Pharmaceutials, PharmaMar, and Tesaro; received personal fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Deciphera Pharmarceutial, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana Therapeutic, Pharma Mar, Roche, and Tesaro; and received support for travel or accommodation from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche. R. Shapira-Frommer has no conflicts to report. I. Ray-Coquard has reports grants from BMS, GSK, and Roche; received personal fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, BMS, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Roche; and received support for travel from AstraZeneca. C. Aghajanian has served on steering committees for AbbVie and Genentech; has served on advisory boards for and received honoraria from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca/Merck, Eisai/Merck, Immunogen, Mersana Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro; has served as a National Coordinating Investigator to AstraZeneca; and reports grants from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Genentech. R.L. Coleman reports grants from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab, Janssen, Merck, and Roche/Genentech; and has served as a consultant to Clovis Oncology, Agenus, AstraZeneca, Genmab, GSK, Janssen, OncoQuest, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Roche/Genentech. D.M. O'Malley reports grants, personal fees, and other from Clovis during the conduct of the study; has served on advisory boards for Agenus, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Immunogen, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Novocure, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, SeaGen, Tarveda, and Tesaro/GSK; has served on steering committees for Amgen; has served as a consultant to AbbVie, Agenus, Ambry, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Merck, Mersana, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Novocure, Seagen, and Tesaro/GSK; and his institution has received research support from AbbVie, Agenus, Ajinomoto, Amgen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cerulean Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Ergomed Clinical Research, Genmab, Genentech/Roche, GOG Foundation, ImmunoGen, INC Research, inVentiv Health Clinical, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Merck, Mersana, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, Novocure, PRA International, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Seagen, Serono, Stemcentrx, Tesaro/GSK, TRACON Pharmaceuticals, VentiRx, and Yale University. A. Leary reports grants from Clovis Oncology, Ability Pharma, Agenus, AstraZeneca, GSK, Inivata, Iovance Biotherapeutics, MSD, Roche, Sanofi, and Tesaro; and received personal fees from Clovis Oncology, Ability Pharma, AstraZeneca, Biocad, GSK, MSD, Tesaro, and Zentalis. L.m. Chen has no conflicts to report. D. Provencher has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Genentech, and Tesaro. L. Ma has no conflicts to report. J.D. Brenton has served as a leader to Tailor Bio; owns stock and other ownership interests in Inivata Ltd. and Tailor Bio; has received honoraria from GSK; has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for AstraZeneca; his institution has received research funding from Aprea; has patents, royalties, other intellectual property for TAm-Seq v2 method for ctDNA estimation and for enhanced detection of target DNA by fragment size analysis; and received support for travel, accommodation, and expenses from GSK. C. Castro received personal fees from Qiagen. M. Green is an employee of Certara and was a paid contractor to Clovis Oncology in connection with the analysis and development of this manuscript. A. D. Simmons, J. Beltman, T. Harding, K. K. Lin, S. Goble, L. Maloney, and J.J. Xiao are employees of Clovis Oncology and may own stock or have stock options in that company. R.S. Kristeleit reports grants from MSD; reports personal fees from Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, MSD, and Roche; and received non-financial support from GSK. I.A. McNeish has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology. E.M. Swisher has no conflicts to report., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) is a single-arm, open-label phase 2 study of the PARP inhibitor (PARPi) rucaparib in relapsed high-grade ovarian carcinoma. In this post hoc exploratory biomarker analysis of pre- and post-platinum ARIEL2 samples, RAD51C and RAD51D mutations and high-level BRCA1 promoter methylation predict response to rucaparib, similar to BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. BRCA1 methylation loss may be a major cross-resistance mechanism to platinum and PARPi. Genomic scars associated with homologous recombination deficiency are irreversible, persisting even as platinum resistance develops, and therefore are predictive of rucaparib response only in platinum-sensitive disease. The RAS, AKT, and cell cycle pathways may be additional modulators of PARPi sensitivity.

Purpose: To investigate quality-adjusted progression-free survival (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) in a post hoc exploratory analysis of the phase III ARIEL3 study of rucaparib maintenance treatment versus placebo., Patients and Methods: Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma were randomly assigned to rucaparib (600 mg twice per day) or placebo. QA-PFS was calculated as progression-free survival function × the 3-level version of the EQ-5D questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) index score function. Q-TWiST analyses were performed defining TOX as the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) or the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 2 TEAEs of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and asthenia. Q-TWiST was calculated as μTOX × TOX + TWiST, with μTOX calculated using EQ-5D-3L data., Results: The visit cutoff was Apr 15, 2017. Mean QA-PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (375 randomly assigned to rucaparib v 189 randomly assigned to placebo; difference, 6.28 months [95% CI, 4.85 to 7.47 months]); BRCA -mutant cohort (130 rucaparib v 66 placebo; 9.37 months [95% CI, 6.65 to 11.85 months]); homologous recombination deficient (HRD) cohort (236 rucaparib v 118 placebo; 7.93 months [95% CI, 5.93 to 9.53 months]); and BRCA wild-type/loss of heterozygosity (LOH) low patient subgroup (107 rucaparib v 54 placebo; 2.71 months [95% CI, 0.31 to 4.44 months]). With TOX defined using grade ≥ 3 TEAEs, the difference in mean Q-TWiST (rucaparib v placebo) was 6.88 months (95% CI, 5.71 to 8.23 months), 9.73 months (95% CI, 7.10 to 11.94 months), 8.11 months (95% CI, 6.36 to 9.49 months), and 3.35 months (95% CI, 1.66 to 5.40 months) in the ITT population, BRCA -mutant cohort, HRD cohort, and BRCA wild-type/LOH low patient subgroup, respectively. Q-TWiST with TOX defined using select grade ≥ 2 TEAEs also consistently favored rucaparib., Conclusion: The significant differences in QA-PFS and Q-TWiST confirm the benefit of rucaparib versus placebo in all predefined cohorts.

Background: In the phase 3 trial ARIEL3, maintenance treatment with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib provided clinical benefit versus placebo for patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Here, we evaluate the impact of age on the clinical utility of rucaparib in ARIEL3., Methods: Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma with ≥2 prior platinum-based chemotherapies who responded to their last platinum-based therapy were enrolled in ARIEL3 and randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Exploratory, post hoc analyses of progression-free survival (PFS), patient-centered outcomes (quality-adjusted PFS [QA-PFS] and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity [Q-TWiST]), and safety were conducted in three age subgroups (<65 years, 65-74 years, and ≥75 years)., Results: Investigator-assessed PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in patients aged <65 years (rucaparib n = 237 vs placebo n = 117; median, 11.1 vs 5.4 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.33 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.25-0.43]; P < 0.0001) and 65-74 years (n = 113 vs n = 64; median, 8.3 vs 5.3 months; HR 0.43 [95% CI 0.29-0.63]; P < 0.0001) and numerically longer in patients aged ≥75 years (n = 25 vs n = 8; median, 9.2 vs 5.5 months; HR 0.47 [95% CI 0.16-1.35]; P = 0.1593). QA-PFS and Q-TWiST were significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo across all age subgroups. Safety of rucaparib was generally similar across the age subgroups., Conclusions: Efficacy, patient-centered outcomes, and safety of rucaparib were similar between age subgroups, indicating that all eligible women with recurrent ovarian cancer should be offered this therapeutic option, irrespective of age. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01968213., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Nicoletta Colombo: Served in a consulting or advisory role for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro. Amit M. Oza: Served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Immunovaccine. Domenica Lorusso: Served in a consulting or advisory role for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, Merck, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, and Tesaro and received support for travel or accommodation from PharmaMar and Roche. Carol Aghajanian: Served on a steering committee for Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, Genentech, and Mateon Therapeutics; served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Cerulean Pharma, Eisai/Merck, ImmunoGen, and Tesaro; received research grants from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Genentech; and received honoraria from Clovis Oncology, Cerulean Pharma, Eisai/Merck, ImmunoGen, Mateon Therapeutics, and Tesaro. Ana Oaknin: Served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro; received support for travel or accommodation from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; and received research grants from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie Deutschland, Ability Pharmaceuticals, Advaxis, Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen SA, Aprea Therapeutics AB, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, ImmunoGen, Merck Sharp & Dohme de España SA, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, PharmaMar, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Tesaro. Andrew Dean: Served in a consulting or advisory role for Precision Oncology Australia, Shire Pharmaceuticals, and Specialised Therapeutics Australia. Johanne I. Weberpals: Received research support from AbbVie and AstraZeneca and served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca. Andrew R. Clamp: Served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca; received research funding from Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca; and received support for travel and accommodation for congress attendance from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Roche. Giovanni Scambia: Served in a consulting or advisory role for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro. Alexandra Leary: Served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, GamaMabs, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, PharmaMar, and Tesaro; received support for travel and accommodation from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Tesaro; and reports institutional research grant support from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GamaMabs, Inivata, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merus, Sanofi, and Tesaro. Robert W. Holloway: Served on speakers bureaus for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Tesaro. Margarita Amenedo Gancedo: Served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology and on speakers bureaus for AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche. Peter C. Fong: Served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca and received honoraria from AstraZeneca. Jeffrey C. Goh: Served in a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Tesaro; served on speakers bureaus for Ipsen and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and received support for travel or accommodation from Astellas, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. David M. O'Malley: Served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Genelux, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen, Novocure, Regeneron, and Tesaro; has served on steering committees for Clovis Oncology, Agenus, Amgen, and Novocure; has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Ambry, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Gynecologic Oncology Group Foundation, and Tesaro; has given a presentation on ovarian cancer at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network; and his institution has received research support from Clovis Oncology, AbbVie, Agenus, Amgen, Ajinomoto, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cerulean Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, ERGOMED Clinical Research, Genentech, Gynecologic Oncology Group, INC Research, inVentiv Health Clinical, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen Research and Development, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, Novocure, PRA International, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Serono, Stemcentrx, Tesaro, TRACON Pharmaceuticals, VentiRx, and Yale University. Deborah K. Armstrong: Served as a scientific advisor for Morphotek and received research funding from Clovis Oncology, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Syndax, and Tesaro. Susana Banerjee: Served on advisory boards and received honoraria from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro; received honoraria from Merck Serono and Roche; and received support for travel or accommodation from NuCana and Tesaro. Jesus García-Donas: Received research funding from AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer; received personal fees from Clovis Oncology, Astellas, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer; and received nonfinancial support from Astellas, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer. Elizabeth M. Swisher: Has nothing to disclose. Juliette Meunier: Employee of Modus Outcomes, which was contracted by Clovis Oncology to conduct these analyses. Terri Cameron, Lara Maloney, Sandra Goble, and Josh Bedel: Employees of Clovis Oncology and may own stock or have stock options in that company. Jonathan A. Ledermann: Received lecture fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and Tesaro; served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Artios Pharma, AstraZeneca, Cristal Therapeutics, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro; and received research grants from AstraZeneca and Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme. Robert L. Coleman: Reports grants from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Gateway Foundation, Janssen, Judy Reis/Albert Pisani, MD, Ovarian Cancer Research Fund, Merck, National Institutes of Health, Roche/Genentech, and V-Foundation; has served as an advisor to Clovis Oncology, Agenus, AstraZeneca, GamaMabs, Genmab, Janssen, OncoQuest, Pfizer (Medivation), Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro; and has an endowment as the Ann Rife Cox Chair in Gynecology., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo. Here, we report prespecified, investigator-assessed, exploratory post-progression endpoints and updated safety data., Methods: In this ongoing (enrolment complete) randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and responded to their last platinum-based regimen were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or placebo in 28-day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six with stratification based on homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval following penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival has been previously reported. Prespecified, exploratory outcomes of chemotherapy-free interval (CFI), time to start of first subsequent therapy (TFST), time to disease progression on subsequent therapy or death (PFS2), and time to start of second subsequent therapy (TSST) and updated safety were analysed (visit cutoff Dec 31, 2017). Efficacy analyses were done in all patients randomised to three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations, patients with homologous recombination deficiencies, and the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01968213., Findings: Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, 564 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to rucaparib (n=375) or placebo (n=189). Median follow-up was 28·1 months (IQR 22·0-33·6). In the intention-to-treat population, median CFI was 14·3 months (95% CI 13·0-17·4) in the rucaparib group versus 8·8 months (8·0-10·3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·43 [95% CI 0·35-0·53]; p<0·0001), median TFST was 12·4 months (11·1-15·2) versus 7·2 months (6·4-8·6; HR 0·43 [0·35-0·52]; p<0·0001), median PFS2 was 21·0 months (18·9-23·6) versus 16·5 months (15·2-18·4; HR 0·66 [0·53-0·82]; p=0·0002), and median TSST was 22·4 months (19·1-24·5) versus 17·3 months (14·9-19·4; HR 0·68 [0·54-0·85]; p=0·0007). CFI, TFST, PFS2, and TSST were also significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination-deficient cohorts. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event of grade 3 or higher was anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (80 [22%] patients in the rucaparib group vs one [1%] patient in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 83 (22%) patients in the rucaparib group and 20 (11%) patients in the placebo group. Two treatment-related deaths have been previously reported in this trial; there were no new treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: In these exploratory analyses over a median follow-up of more than 2 years, rucaparib maintenance treatment led to a clinically meaningful delay in starting subsequent therapy and provided lasting clinical benefits versus placebo in all three analysis cohorts. Updated safety data were consistent with previous reports., Funding: Clovis Oncology., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To report results from an integrated efficacy and safety analysis supporting the European Commission's approval of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as monotherapy treatment for relapsed, platinum-sensitive, BRCA -mutated ovarian cancer., Methods: Efficacy was analyzed in platinum-sensitive patients from Study 10 (NCT01482715) and ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) who had high-grade serous or endometrioid epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and received two or more prior chemotherapies (including two or more platinum-based therapies). The primary end point was investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response rate (visit cut-off: April 10, 2017). Safety was analyzed in patients with ovarian cancer, regardless of BRCA mutation status or lines of prior chemotherapies, who received at least one dose of rucaparib 600 mg in either study (visit cut-off: December 31, 2017)., Results: In the integrated platinum-sensitive efficacy population (n=79), objective response rate was 64.6% (95% CI, 53.0 to 75.0); 10.1% (8/79) of patients had a complete response and 54.4% (43/79) had a partial response. Median duration of response was 294 days (95% CI, 224 to 393). In the integrated safety population (n=565), the most common any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (77.7%, 439/565), asthenia/fatigue (74.7%, 422/565), vomiting (45.8%, 259/565), and hemoglobin decreased (44.2%, 250/565). Treatment-emergent adverse events led to treatment interruption, dose reduction, or discontinuation in 60.2% (340/565), 46.0% (260/565), and 16.8% (95/565) of patients., Conclusions: In patients with platinum-sensitive, BRCA -mutated ovarian cancer, rucaparib demonstrated antitumor activity and is the first and currently the only poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor approved by the European Commission as treatment for this population. The safety analysis used a more recent visit cut-off date and larger population than previously published, was consistent with prior reports, and was the basis for the treatment-indication safety population in rucaparib's recently updated European Union label., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RSK has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, Roche, and Tesaro. AO has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, ImmunoGen, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro; 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. IR-C has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, ImmunoGen, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro and received support for travel or accommodation from AstraZeneca and Roche. AL has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Gritstone, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro; reports institutional support for clinical trials from Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca; and reports boarding and travel expenses for congress activities from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Roche. JB has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and received support for travel from AstraZeneca. YD has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab, and Tesaro; serves on a trial steering committee for AstraZeneca; has received research funding from Clovis Oncology; her institution, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, has received reimbursement of study costs from Clovis Oncology for a clinical trial described in this manuscript. YD and her employer (Newcastle University) receive royalties in recognition of their role in the preclinical development of rucaparib. AMO has served on steering committees for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Tesaro. RS-F has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology. SMD has received honoraria from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and her institution has received research funding from Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca. TC, LM, and SG are employees of Clovis Oncology and may own stock or have stock options in that company. DL has served in a consulting or advisory role for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genmab, Merck, and Tesaro and received institutional research support from Clovis Oncology, Merck, PharmaMar, and Tesaro. JAL has served in an advisory role for Clovis Oncology, Artios Pharma, AstraZeneca, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro; is chair of an independent Data Monitoring Committee for Regeneron; and has served on speakers' bureaus for and received research grants from AstraZeneca and Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme. IAM has served on advisory boards for Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Takeda, and Tesaro and receives institutional funding from AstraZeneca., (© IGCS and ESGO 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: An integrated analysis was undertaken to characterize the antitumor activity and safety profile of the oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib in patients with relapsed high-grade ovarian carcinoma (HGOC)., Methods: Eligible patients from Study 10 (NCT01482715) and ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) who received a starting dose of oral rucaparib 600mg twice daily (BID) with or without food were included in these analyses. The integrated efficacy population included patients with HGOC and a deleterious germline or somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation who received at least two prior chemotherapies and were sensitive, resistant, or refractory to platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS). The integrated safety population included patients with HGOC who received at least one dose of rucaparib 600mg BID, irrespective of BRCA1/2 mutation status and prior treatments., Results: In the efficacy population (n=106), ORR was 53.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.8-63.5); 8.5% and 45.3% of patients achieved complete and partial responses, respectively. Median DOR was 9.2months (95% CI, 6.6-11.6). In the safety population (n=377), the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were nausea, asthenia/fatigue, vomiting, and anemia/hemoglobin decreased. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AE was anemia/hemoglobin decreased. Treatment-emergent AEs led to treatment interruption, dose reduction, and treatment discontinuation in 58.6%, 45.9%, and 9.8% of patients, respectively. No treatment-related deaths occurred., Conclusions: Rucaparib has antitumor activity in advanced BRCA1/2-mutated HGOC and a manageable safety profile., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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<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<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<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., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

High-grade epithelial ovarian carcinomas containing mutated BRCA1 or BRCA2 ( BRCA1/2 ) homologous recombination (HR) genes are sensitive to platinum-based chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors (PARPi), while restoration of HR function due to secondary mutations in BRCA1/2 has been recognized as an important resistance mechanism. We sequenced core HR pathway genes in 12 pairs of pretreatment and postprogression tumor biopsy samples collected from patients in ARIEL2 Part 1, a phase II study of the PARPi rucaparib as treatment for platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian carcinoma. In 6 of 12 pretreatment biopsies, a truncation mutation in BRCA1, RAD51C , or RAD51D was identified. In five of six paired postprogression biopsies, one or more secondary mutations restored the open reading frame. Four distinct secondary mutations and spatial heterogeneity were observed for RAD51C In vitro complementation assays and a patient-derived xenograft, as well as predictive molecular modeling, confirmed that resistance to rucaparib was associated with secondary mutations. Significance: Analyses of primary and secondary mutations in RAD51C and RAD51D provide evidence for these primary mutations in conferring PARPi sensitivity and secondary mutations as a mechanism of acquired PARPi resistance. PARPi resistance due to secondary mutations underpins the need for early delivery of PARPi therapy and for combination strategies. Cancer Discov; 7(9); 984-98. ©2017 AACR. See related commentary by Domchek, p. 937 See related article by Quigley et al., p. 999 See related article by Goodall et al., p. 1006 This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 920 ., (©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Rucaparib is a potent, oral, small-molecule PARP inhibitor. This phase I-II study was the first to evaluate single-agent oral rucaparib at multiple doses. Experimental Design: Part 1 (phase I) sought to determine the MTD, recommended phase II dose (RP2D), and pharmacokinetics of oral rucaparib administered in 21-day continuous cycles in patients with advanced solid tumors. Part 2A (phase II) enrolled patients with platinum-sensitive, high-grade ovarian carcinoma (HGOC) associated with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation who received two to four prior regimens and had a progression-free interval of 6 months or more following their most recent platinum therapy. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST version 1.1. Results: In part 1, 56 patients received oral rucaparib (40 to 500 mg once daily and 240 to 840 mg twice daily). No MTD was identified per protocol-defined criteria; 600 mg twice daily was selected as the RP2D based on manageable toxicity and clinical activity. Pharmacokinetics were approximately dose-proportional across all dose levels. In part 2A, 42 patients with germline BRCA1/2 -mutated HGOC received rucaparib 600 mg twice daily. Investigator-assessed ORR was 59.5%. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (all grades) were asthenia/fatigue (85.7%; 36/42), nausea (83.3%; 35/42), anemia (71.4%; 30/42), alanine transaminase and/or aspartate transaminase elevations (57.1%; 24/42), and vomiting (54.8%; 23/42). Among 98 patients, 5 (5.1%) discontinued because of an adverse event (excluding disease progression). Conclusions: Rucaparib was tolerable and had activity in patients with platinum-sensitive germline BRCA1/2 -mutated HGOC. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4095-106. ©2017 AACR ., (©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have activity in ovarian carcinomas with homologous recombination deficiency. Along with BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) mutations genomic loss of heterozygosity (LOH) might also represent homologous recombination deficiency. In ARIEL2, we assessed the ability of tumour genomic LOH, quantified with a next-generation sequencing assay, to predict response to rucaparib, an oral PARP inhibitor., Methods: ARIEL2 is an international, multicentre, two-part, phase 2, open-label study done at 49 hospitals and cancer centres in Australia, Canada, France, Spain, the UK, and the USA. In ARIEL2 Part 1, patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive, high-grade ovarian carcinoma were classified into one of three predefined homologous recombination deficiency subgroups on the basis of tumour mutational analysis: BRCA mutant (deleterious germline or somatic), BRCA wild-type and LOH high (LOH high group), or BRCA wild-type and LOH low (LOH low group). We prespecified a cutoff of 14% or more genomic LOH for LOH high. Patients began treatment with oral rucaparib at 600 mg twice per day for continuous 28 day cycles until disease progression or any other reason for discontinuation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. All patients treated with at least one dose of rucaparib were included in the safety analyses and all treated patients who were classified were included in the primary endpoint analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01891344. Enrolment into ARIEL2 Part 1 is complete, although an extension (Part 2) is ongoing., Findings: 256 patients were screened and 206 were enrolled between Oct 30, 2013, and Dec 19, 2014. At the data cutoff date (Jan 18, 2016), 204 patients had received rucaparib, with 28 patients remaining in the study. 192 patients could be classified into one of the three predefined homologous recombination deficiency subgroups: BRCA mutant (n=40), LOH high (n=82), or LOH low (n=70). Tumours from 12 patients were established as BRCA wild-type, but could not be classified for LOH, because of insufficient neoplastic nuclei in the sample. The median duration of treatment for the 204 patients was 5·7 months (IQR 2·8-10·1). 24 patients in the BRCA mutant subgroup, 56 patients in the LOH high subgroup, and 59 patients in the LOH low subgroup had disease progression or died. Median progression-free survival after rucaparib treatment was 12·8 months (95% CI 9·0-14·7) in the BRCA mutant subgroup, 5·7 months (5·3-7·6) in the LOH high subgroup, and 5·2 months (3·6-5·5) in the LOH low subgroup. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the BRCA mutant (hazard ratio 0·27, 95% CI 0·16-0·44, p<0·0001) and LOH high (0·62, 0·42-0·90, p=0·011) subgroups compared with the LOH low subgroup. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (45 [22%] patients), and elevations in alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase (25 [12%]). Common serious adverse events included small intestinal obstruction (10 [5%] of 204 patients), malignant neoplasm progression (10 [5%]), and anaemia (nine [4%]). Three patients died during the study (two because of disease progression and one because of sepsis and disease progression). No treatment-related deaths occurred., Interpretation: In patients with BRCA mutant or BRCA wild-type and LOH high platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinomas treated with rucaparib, progression-free survival was longer than in patients with BRCA wild-type LOH low carcinomas. Our results suggest that assessment of tumour LOH can be used to identify patients with BRCA wild-type platinum-sensitive ovarian cancers who might benefit from rucaparib. These results extend the potential usefulness of PARP inhibitors in the treatment setting beyond BRCA mutant tumours., Funding: Clovis Oncology, US Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Research Program, Stand Up To Cancer-Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance-National Ovarian Cancer Coalition Dream Team Translational Research Grant, and V Foundation Translational Award., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)