Search

Purpose: In SOLO1/GOG 3004 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01844986), maintenance therapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib provided a sustained progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation. We report overall survival (OS) after a 7-year follow-up, a clinically relevant time point and the longest follow-up for any poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the first-line setting., Methods: This double-blind phase III trial randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in clinical response to platinum-based chemotherapy to maintenance olaparib (n = 260) or placebo (n = 131) for up to 2 years. A prespecified descriptive analysis of OS, a secondary end point, was conducted after a 7-year follow-up., Results: The median duration of treatment was 24.6 months with olaparib and 13.9 months with placebo, and the median follow-up was 88.9 and 87.4 months, respectively. The hazard ratio for OS was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.76; P = .0004 [ P < .0001 required to declare statistical significance]). At 7 years, 67.0% of olaparib patients versus 46.5% of placebo patients were alive, and 45.3% versus 20.6%, respectively, were alive and had not received a first subsequent treatment (Kaplan-Meier estimates). The incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia remained low, and new primary malignancies remained balanced between treatment groups., Conclusion: Results indicate a clinically meaningful, albeit not statistically significant according to prespecified criteria, improvement in OS with maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation and support the use of maintenance olaparib to achieve long-term remission in this setting; the potential for cure may also be enhanced. No new safety signals were observed during long-term follow-up.

Purpose: The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of cediranib plus olaparib (cedi/ola) were investigated in patients with nongermline-BRCA-mutated (non-gBRCAm) platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer., Patients and Methods: PARP inhibitor-naïve women aged ≥18 years with platinum-resistant non-gBRCAm ovarian cancer, ECOG performance status of 0-2, and ≥3 prior lines of therapy received cediranib 30 mg once daily plus olaparib 200 mg twice daily in this single-arm, multicenter, phase IIb trial. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by independent central review (ICR) using RECIST 1.1. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety and tolerability were also examined., Results: Sixty patients received cedi/ola, all of whom had confirmed non-gBRCAm status. Patients had received a median of four lines of chemotherapy; most (88.3%) had received prior bevacizumab. ORR by ICR was 15.3%, median PFS was 5.1 months, and median OS was 13.2 months. Forty-four (73.3%) patients reported a grade ≥3 adverse event (AE), with one patient experiencing a grade 5 AE (sepsis), considered unrelated to the study treatment. Dose interruptions, reductions, and discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 55.0%, 18.3%, and 18.3% of patients, respectively. Patients with high global loss of heterozygosity (gLOH) had ORR of 26.7% [4/15; 95% confidence interval (CI), 7.8-55.1], while ORR was 12.5% (4/32; 95% CI, 3.5-29.0) in the low gLOH group., Conclusions: Clinical activity was shown for the cedi/ola combination in heavily pretreated, non-gBRCAm, platinum-resistant patients with ovarian cancer despite failing to meet the target ORR of 20%, highlighting a need for further biomarker studies., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Olaparib has significantly improved outcome and patient-centered endpoints in BRCA1/2-mutated patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (PSOC). Specific information on efficacy and safety of olaparib for older patients appears of special interest., Methods: 295 patients from the SOLO2 trial randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo were categorized according to age-cutoff at 65 years. Efficacy, tolerability, and quality of life (QoL) of olaparib relative to placebo within in each age group was analyzed., Results: Baseline characteristics were similar in patients ≥65 years (N = 62;21.0%) compared to patients <65 years (N = 233;78.9%). No significant difference in the magnitude of progression-free survival (PFS) benefit from olaparib for older patients (N = 40, hazard ratio [HR] ≥65 0.43, 95%-confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.81) as compared with younger patients (N = 155, HR <65 0.31 (95%-CI 0.22-0.43) was seen (interaction P = 0.33). The overall survival (OS)benefit seen in younger patients in the olaparib arm was not observed in older patients. Older and younger patients had comparable safety profiles and QoL scores although higher discontinuation rates for toxicity, and higher frequency of AML/MDS were noted in the older subset. TWiST analysis revealed clinically meaningful duration of good QoL on olaparib for both age groups (≥65: 13.5 vs <65: 18.4 months, P = 0.05)., Conclusions: Results of this large phase III cohort of BRCA1/2-mutated PSOC patients treated with olaparib underline impressive efficacy of olaparib maintenance irrespective of age. Although toxicity and tolerability did not raise significant concerns, some caution, close monitoring, and follow-up needs to be exercised for older patients given higher discontinuation rates, frequency of AML/MDS, and no clear effects on OS., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Trillsch reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Medac, MSD, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro/GSK, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mahner reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Medac, Novartis, Olympus Europe, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Roche, Sensor Kinesis, Tesaro/GSK, and Teva, outside the submitted work. Dr. Ataseven, Dr. Asher, Dr. Aryal, Dr. Dubot have nothing to disclose. Dr. Clamp reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AstraZenca, Clovis Oncology, outside the submitted work. Dr. Penson reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Array BioPharma Inc., AstraZenca, Cancer Panels, Care4ward, Eisai, Genetech, Merck & Co., Roche Pharma, Sutro Biopharma, GSK Inc., Vascular Biogenics Ltd., WebMD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Oza, Dr. Dr. Amit, and Dr. Huzarski have nothing to disclose. Dr. Casado reports grants and personal fees from AstraZenca, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro, outside the submitted work. Dr. Scambia has nothing to disclose. Dr. Friedlander reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZenca, Beigene, MSD, GSK, Takeda, Novartis, Lilly, outside the submitted work. Dr. Colombo reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Immonogen, Mersana, MSD, Novartis, Oncxerna, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro, outside the submitted work. Dr. Fujiwara reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Genmab, Nano Carrier, Regenerone, Seagen, Zeria, outside the submitted work. Dr. Sonke reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Biovica, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Denys reports grants and personal fees from Pfizer, Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro, GSK, Teva, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lowe reports other from AstraZeneca (full time employee), outside the submitted work. Dr. Lee reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Pujade-Lauraine reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, GSK, Roche, Incyte, ARCAGY Research, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is a high unmet need for treatment regimens that increase the chance of long-term remission and possibly cure for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. In the primary analysis of SOLO1/GOG 3004, the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with a BRCA mutation; median progression-free survival was not reached. Here, we report an updated, post-hoc analysis of progression-free survival from SOLO1, after 5 years of follow-up., Methods: SOLO1 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, done across 118 centres in 15 countries, that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 and with BRCA-mutated, newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer with a complete or partial clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via a web-based or interactive voice-response system to receive olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo tablets orally as maintenance monotherapy for up to 2 years; randomisation was by blocks and was stratified according to clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients, treatment providers, and data assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Efficacy is reported in the intention-to-treat population and safety in patients who received at least one dose of treatment. The data cutoff for this updated, post-hoc analysis was March 5, 2020. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01844986) and is ongoing but closed to new participants., Findings: Between Sept 3, 2013, and March 6, 2015, 260 patients were randomly assigned to olaparib and 131 to placebo. The median treatment duration was 24·6 months (IQR 11·2-24·9) in the olaparib group and 13·9 months (8·0-24·8) in the placebo group; median follow-up was 4·8 years (2·8-5·3) in the olaparib group and 5·0 years (2·6-5·3) in the placebo group. In this post-hoc analysis, median progression-free survival was 56·0 months (95% CI 41·9-not reached) with olaparib versus 13·8 months (11·1-18·2) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·33 [95% CI 0·25-0·43]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were anaemia (57 [22%] of 260 patients receiving olaparib vs two [2%] of 130 receiving placebo) and neutropenia (22 [8%] vs six [5%]), and serious adverse events occurred in 55 (21%) of 260 patients in the olaparib group and 17 (13%) of 130 in the placebo group. No treatment-related adverse events that occurred during study treatment or up to 30 days after discontinuation were reported as leading to death. No additional cases of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukaemia were reported since the primary data cutoff, including after the 30-day safety follow-up period., Interpretation: For patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation, after, to our knowledge, the longest follow-up for any randomised controlled trial of a PARP inhibitor in this setting, the benefit derived from 2 years' maintenance therapy with olaparib was sustained beyond the end of treatment, extending median progression-free survival past 4·5 years. These results support the use of maintenance olaparib as a standard of care in this setting., Funding: AstraZeneca; Merck Sharpe & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SB reports clinical trial support paid to her institution from AstraZeneca for this study; grants to her institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Tesaro; personal consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Mersana, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Merck Serono, Oncxerna, Pfizer, and Roche; personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Takeda, and Tesaro; support for attending a meeting or travel from Nucana; unpaid participation on a Epsilogen advisory board; and an unpaid role as director of membership for the European Society of Medical Oncology. KNM reports clinical trial support paid to her institution for this study; contracts from Genentech/Roche, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, and PTC Therapeutics for ovarian cancer investigator-initiated trials; consulting fees from IMab; payment to her institution for educational content in gynaecological cancers from Onc Live, Physician Education Resource (PER), PRIME Oncology, and Research to Practice; payment to her institution for advisory boards for use of assets in gynaecological cancers from Alkemeres, Aravive, Blueprint Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Immunogen, Mersana, Mereo, and VBL Therapeutics; participation on a data safety monitoring board for Incyte; and payments to her institution for being an associate director of GOG partners and committee chair for NRG Ovarian Cancer. NC reports grants from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; personal consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mersana, Oncxerna, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro; and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Tesaro. GS reports grants and research support from Merck Sharpe & Dohme Italia; consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson and Tesaro Bio Italy; and speakers bureau fees and honoraria from Clovis Oncology Italy. AOa reports grants paid to her institution from AbbVie Deutschland, Abililty Pharmaceuticals, Advaxis, Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen, Aprea Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Immunogen, Merck Sharp & Dohme de España, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Pharmamar, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Tesaro; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera Pharmarceutia, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Mersana Therapeutic, PharmaMar, Roche, Sutro, and Tesaro; and support for attending meetings or travel, or both from AstraZeneca, Pharmamar, and Roche. MF reports personal advisory board and lecture fees, support to travel to a meeting and a grant to his institution from AstraZeneca; personal advisory board fees and a grant to his institution from Novartis; personal advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Takeda; personal lecture fees from Act Genomics and GlaxoSmithKline; research support to his institution from BeiGene; consulting for AbbVie (not renumerated); and participation on the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group Independent Data Monitoring and Safety Committee. AF reports support for attending a medical congress from AstraZeneca. ALe reports grants from AstraZeneca and Sanofi; consulting fees from Seattle Genetics; honoraria or reimbursement and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca; advisory board fees or continuing medical education from Ability Pharma, Biocad, Clovis Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Medscape, Merck Serono, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, TouchCongress, and Zentalis; and support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for ARIEL4 and TROPHIMMUNE. GSS reports institutional research support from AstraZeneca and Merck for this study; institutional research support from Novartis and Roche; and consulting fees paid to his institution from Biovica and Seagen. CG reports clinical trial funding for this study to his institution from AstraZeneca; clinical research grants to his institution from Aprea, AstraZeneca, BergenBio, Clovis, GlaxoSmithKline, Medannexin, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Nucana, and Tesaro; personal consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Tesaro; honoraria for lectures or presentations from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Clovis Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Nucana, Roche, Takeda, and Tesaro; honoraria for lectures, presentations, or preparing educational materials from Cor2Ed; advisory board attendance for AstraZeneca, Chugai, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Nucana, Roche, and Tesaro; and being a committee member on the Scottish Medicines Consortium. AOz reports a grant from AstraZeneca to his institution outside the submitted work. AG-M reports clinical trial funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Roche; consulting fees from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Mersana, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Oncoinvent, Pharmamar, Roche, Sotio, and Takeda; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Roche; support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Pharmamar, and Roche; and being the current chairman of GEICO and the chairman of ENGOT from 2018 to 2020. CA reports receiving advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca/Merck, Eisai/Merck, Mersana Therapeutics, Repare Therapeutics, and Roche/Genentech; participation on an advisory board for Blueprint Medicine; participation on the board of directors for GOG Foundation and NRG Oncology; clinical trial funding to her institution from AstraZeneca for this study; and clinical trial funding to her institution from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Clovis, and Genentech. ESL reports full-time employment with AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study and AstraZeneca stock ownership. EH reports full-time employment with AstraZeneca, contracted by PHASTAR, during the conduct of the study. B-GK, ALi, WHB, and PDS declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: In the phase III SOLO1 trial (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation who were in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analyzed the timing, duration and grade of the most common hematologic and non-hematologic adverse events in SOLO1., Methods: Eligible patients were randomized to olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily (N = 260) or placebo (N = 131), with a 2-year treatment cap in most patients. Safety outcomes were analyzed in detail in randomized patients who received at least one dose of study drug (olaparib, n = 260; placebo, n = 130)., Results: Median time to first onset of the most common hematologic (anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematologic (nausea, fatigue/asthenia, vomiting) adverse events was <3 months in olaparib-treated patients. The first event of anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting lasted a median of <2 months and the first event of fatigue/asthenia lasted a median of 3.48 months in the olaparib group. These adverse events were manageable with supportive treatment and/or olaparib dose modification in most patients, with few patients requiring discontinuation of olaparib. Of 162 patients still receiving olaparib at month 24, 64.2% were receiving the recommended starting dose of olaparib 300 mg twice daily., Conclusions: Maintenance olaparib had a predictable and manageable adverse event profile in the newly diagnosed setting with no new safety signals identified. Adverse events usually occurred early, were largely manageable and led to discontinuation in a minority of patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest NC reports personal fees from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from MSD, Roche, Tesaro, GSK, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Amgen, Novartis, Biocad and Immunogen outside the submitted work. KM reports personal fees from Astra-Zeneca, AbbVie, Aravive, Eisai, GSK/Tesaro, Genentech/Roche, Immunogen, Merck, Myriad, Mersana, VBL Therapeutics, Vavotar and Tarveda, outside the submitted work. AOaknin reports personal fees, other and grants from PharmaMar and Clovis Oncology, personal fees and other from Roche and AstraZeneca, personal fees and grants from Tesaro and Immunogen, personal fees from Genmab, and grants from AbbVie Deutchland, Ability Pharmaceuticals, Advaxis, Æterna Zentaris, Amgen SA, Aprea Therapeutics AB, Eisai, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Regeneron, Merck Sharp & Dohme de España SA, Millennium Pharmaceuticals and Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. MF reports grants, personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Takeda, GSK, Lilly and MSD, and other from AbbVie, outside the submitted work. AF reports personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, MSD and GSK outside the submitted work. ALeary reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, MSD, Tesaro, GSK and Ability, personal fees from Biocad and Zentalis, and grants from Iovance, Agenus, Sanofi, Inivata and Roche, outside the submitted work. GSS reports institutional reimbursement for patient accrual and medical writing assistance from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study, and institutional research support from Merck, Novartis and Roche outside the submitted work. CG reports grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Tesaro, Nucana and Sierra Oncology, grants from Aprea and Novartis, and personal fees from Roche, Foundation One, Chugai, MSD and Cor2Ed, outside the submitted work; and patents for molecular diagnostic tests for cancer. SB reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Tesaro, personal fees from Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Pfizer, Mersana, Merck Serono, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Genmab, Amgen and Immunogen, and other from Nucana, outside the submitted work. AOza reports being a principal investigator of investigator-initiated studies with AstraZeneca, that his institution has received grant funding from AstraZeneca, and being a steering committee member (noncompensated) for trials with AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Tesaro and Merck. AGM reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, Immunogen, MSD, Novartis, Oncoinvent, Pfizer/Merck, PharmaMar, Roche and Sotio and grants and personal fees from GSK-Tesaro, outside the submitted work. CA reports personal fees from AstraZeneca/Merck, Tesaro, Immunogen, Eisai/Merck, Mersana Therapeutics and Roche, grants from Genentech, and grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology and AbbVie, outside the submitted work. CM reports grants from Syros, Deciphera, AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Tesaro/GSK, Seattle Genetics and Regeneron outside the submitted work. JL reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genentech, Regeneron and Tesaro/GSK, and other from Merck, outside the submitted work; and funding to her institution as Principal Investigator on trials from 2X Oncology, Aravive, Arch Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, CytomX Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Surface Oncology, Tesaro and Vigeo Therapeutics. ESL and RB report full-time employment with AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study and AstraZeneca stock ownership. PDS reports personal fees from AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. All other authors (GS, ALisyanskaya, WB and JWK) declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously been shown to extend progression-free survival versus placebo when given to patients with relapsed high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer who were platinum sensitive and who had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation, as part of the SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21 trial. The aim of this final analysis is to investigate the effect of olaparib on overall survival., Methods: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done across 123 medical centres in 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0-1, had histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous or high-grade endometrioid ovarian cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer, and had received two or more previous platinum regimens. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive web or voice-response system. Stratification was by response to previous chemotherapy and length of platinum-free interval. Treatment assignment was masked to patients, treatment providers, and data assessors. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival has been reported previously. Overall survival was a key secondary endpoint and was analysed in all patients as randomly allocated. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one treatment dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01874353, and is no longer recruiting patients., Findings: Between Sept 3, 2013 and Nov 21, 2014, 295 patients were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either olaparib (n=196 [66%]) or placebo (n=99 [34%]). One patient, randomised in error, did not receive olaparib. Median follow-up was 65·7 months (IQR 63·6-69·3) with olaparib and 64·5 months (63·4-68·7) with placebo. Median overall survival was 51·7 months (95% CI 41·5-59·1) with olaparib and 38·8 months (31·4-48·6) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·74 [95% CI 0·54-1·00]; p=0·054), unadjusted for the 38% of patients in the placebo group who received subsequent PARP inhibitor therapy. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia (which occurred in 41 [21%] of 195 patients in the olaparib group and two [2%] of 99 patients in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 50 (26%) of 195 patients receiving olaparib and eight (8%) of 99 patients receiving placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events with a fatal outcome occurred in eight (4%) of the 195 patients receiving olaparib, six of which were judged to be treatment-related (attributed to myelodysplastic syndrome [n=3] and acute myeloid leukaemia [n=3])., Interpretation: Olaparib provided a median overall survival benefit of 12·9 months compared with placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation. Although statistical significance was not reached, these findings are arguably clinically meaningful and support the use of maintenance olaparib in these patients., Funding: AstraZeneca and Merck., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the phase 3 SOLO1 trial, maintenance olaparib provided a significant progression-free survival benefit versus placebo in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analysed health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and patient-centred outcomes in SOLO1, and the effect of radiological disease progression on health status., Methods: SOLO1 is a randomised, double-blind, international trial done in 118 centres and 15 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1; had newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian tube cancer with a BRCA mutation; and were in clinical complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to either 300 mg olaparib tablets or placebo twice per day using an interactive voice and web response system and were treated for up to 2 years. Treatment assignment was masked for patients and for clinicians giving the interventions, and those collecting and analysing the data. Randomisation was stratified by response to platinum-based chemotherapy (clinical complete or partial response). HRQOL was a secondary endpoint and the prespecified primary HRQOL endpoint was the change from baseline in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Cancer Trial Outcome Index (TOI) score for the first 24 months. TOI scores range from 0 to 100 (higher scores indicated better HRQOL), with a clinically meaningful difference defined as a difference of at least 10 points. Prespecified exploratory endpoints were quality-adjusted progression-free survival and time without significant symptoms of toxicity (TWiST). HRQOL endpoints were analysed in all randomly assigned patients. The trial is ongoing but closed to new participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01844986., Findings: Between Sept 3, 2013, and March 6, 2015, 1084 patients were enrolled. 693 patients were ineligible, leaving 391 eligible patients who were randomly assigned to olaparib (n=260) or placebo (n=131; one placebo patient withdrew before receiving any study treatment), with a median duration of follow-up of 40·7 months (IQR 34·9-42·9) for olaparib and 41·2 months (32·2-41·6) for placebo. There was no clinically meaningful change in TOI score at 24 months within or between the olaparib and placebo groups (adjusted mean change in score from baseline over 24 months was 0·30 points [95% CI -0·72 to 1·32] in the olaparib group vs 3·30 points [1·84 to 4·76] in the placebo group; between-group difference of -3·00, 95% CI -4·78 to -1·22; p=0·0010). Mean quality-adjusted progression-free survival (olaparib 29·75 months [95% CI 28·20-31·63] vs placebo 17·58 [15·05-20·18]; difference 12·17 months [95% CI 9·07-15·11], p<0·0001) and the mean duration of TWiST (olaparib 33·15 months [95% CI 30·82-35·49] vs placebo 20·24 months [17·36-23·11]; difference 12·92 months [95% CI 9·30-16·54]; p<0·0001) were significantly longer with olaparib than with placebo., Interpretation: The substantial progression-free survival benefit provided by maintenance olaparib in the newly diagnosed setting was achieved with no detrimental effect on patients' HRQOL and was supported by clinically meaningful quality-adjusted progression-free survival and TWiST benefits with maintenance olaparib versus placebo., Funding: AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MF reports institutional research support, personal fees, consulting fees, and travel support from AstraZeneca; institutional research support and personal fees from Novartis; institutional research support from Beigene; personal fees from Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, and being on a trial management committee for AbbVie, outside the submitted work. KNM reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Aravive, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Tesaro, Genentech/Roche, Immunogen, Merck, Myriad, Mersana, VBL Therapeutics, Vavotar, and Tarveda, outside the submitted work. NC reports personal fees from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Amgen, Novartis, Biocad, and Immunogen, outside the submitted work. AOa reports personal fees, travel and accommodation support, and grants from PharmaMar and Clovis Oncology; personal fees, and travel and accomodation support from Roche and AstraZeneca; personal fees and grants from Tesaro and Immunogen; personal fees from Genmab; and grants from AbbVie Deutchland, Ability Pharmaceuticals, Advaxis, Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen, Aprea Therapeutics, Eisai, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Regeneron, Merck Sharp & Dohme de España, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, and Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. GSS reports institutional reimbursement for patient accrual and medical writing assistance from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; and institutional research support from Merck, Novartis, and Roche, outside the submitted work. CG reports grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Tesaro, Nucana, and Sierra Oncology; grants from Aprea and Novartis; personal fees from Roche, Foundation One, Chugai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Cor2Ed, outside the submitted work; and patents for molecular diagnostic tests for cancer. SB reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Tesaro; personal fees from Clovis Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Mersana, Merck Serono, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Genmab, Amgen, and Immunogen; and travel support from Nucana, outside the submitted work. AOz reports being a principal investigator of investigator-initiated studies with AstraZeneca, that his institution has received grant funding from AstraZeneca, and being a steering committee member (non-compensated) for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, and GlaxoSmithKline. AG-M reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, Immunogen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Oncoinvent, Pfizer/Merck, PharmaMar, Roche, and Sotio; and grants and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, and Tesaro, outside the submitted work. CA reports personal fees from AstraZeneca/Merck, Tesaro, Immunogen, Eisai/Merck, Mersana Therapeutics, and Roche/Genentech; grants from Genentech; and grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, and AbbVie, outside the submitted work. JL reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genentech, Regeneron, Tesaro, and GlaxoSmithKline; and advisory board fees from Merck, outside the submitted work; and funding to her institution as principal investigator on trials from 2X Oncology, Aravive, Arch Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, CytomX Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Surface Oncology, Tesaro, and Vigeo Therapeutics. CM reports grants from Syros, Deciphera, AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, and Moderna, outside the submitted work. FS reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and PharmaMar; and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline and Clovis Oncology, outside the submitted work. ESL, RH, and EF report full-time employment with AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study and AstraZeneca stock ownership. EP reports employment with Parexel, which has received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study. PDS reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Tesaro, and AbbVie, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In SOLO1, maintenance olaparib (300 mg twice daily) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with newly diagnosed BRCA1 - and/or BRCA2 -mutated advanced ovarian cancer compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.30; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.41; median not reached v 13.8 months). We investigated PFS in SOLO1 for subgroups of patients based on preselected baseline factors., Patients and Methods: Investigator-assessed PFS subgroup analyses of SOLO1 included clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy (complete [CR] or partial response [PR]), surgery type (upfront or interval surgery), disease status after surgery (residual or no gross residual disease), and BRCA mutation status ( BRCA1 or BRCA2 ). Additionally, we evaluated PFS in patients with stage III disease who underwent upfront surgery and had no gross residual disease. We also report objective response rate., Results: The risk of disease progression or death was reduced with olaparib compared with placebo by 69% (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.46) and 63% (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.58) in patients undergoing upfront or interval surgery; 56% (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.77) and 67% (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.46) in patients with residual or no residual disease after surgery; 66% (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.47) and 69% in women with clinical CR or PR at baseline (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.52); and 59% (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.56) and 80% (HR 0.20; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.37) in patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, respectively., Conclusion: Patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer achieve substantial benefit from maintenance olaparib treatment regardless of baseline surgery outcome, response to chemotherapy, or BRCA mutation type.

Purpose: A phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00628251) showed activity of olaparib capsules versus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with germline BRCA-mutated platinum-resistant or partially platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. We conducted a phase III trial (SOLO3) of olaparib tablets versus nonplatinum chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer who had received at least 2 prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: In this randomized, open-label trial, patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to olaparib 300 mg twice a day or physician's choice single-agent nonplatinum chemotherapy (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, paclitaxel, gemcitabine, or topotecan). The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) in the measurable disease analysis set assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). The key secondary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by BICR in the intent-to-treat population., Results: Of 266 randomly assigned patients, 178 were assigned to olaparib and 88 to chemotherapy. In patients with measurable disease (olaparib, n = 151; chemotherapy, n = 72), the BICR-assessed ORR was significantly higher with olaparib than with chemotherapy (72.2% v 51.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.53 [95% CI, 1.40 to 4.58]; P = .002). In the subgroup who had received 2 prior lines of treatment, the ORR was 84.6% with olaparib and 61.5% with chemotherapy (OR, 3.44 [95% CI, 1.42 to 8.54]). BICR-assessed PFS also significantly favored olaparib versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.91]; P = .013; median, 13.4 v 9.2 months). Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profiles of olaparib and chemotherapy., Conclusion: Olaparib resulted in statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in ORR and PFS compared with nonplatinum chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer who had received at least 2 prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy.

Background: Most women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer have a relapse within 3 years after standard treatment with surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. The benefit of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in relapsed disease has been well established, but the benefit of olaparib as maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed disease is uncertain., Methods: We conducted an international, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of olaparib as maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III or IV) high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian-tube cancer (or a combination thereof) with a mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, or both ( BRCA1/2) who had a complete or partial clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival., Results: Of the 391 patients who underwent randomization, 260 were assigned to receive olaparib and 131 to receive placebo. A total of 388 patients had a centrally confirmed germline BRCA1/2 mutation, and 2 patients had a centrally confirmed somatic BRCA1/2 mutation. After a median follow-up of 41 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 70% lower with olaparib than with placebo (Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of freedom from disease progression and from death at 3 years, 60% vs. 27%; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.41; P<0.001). Adverse events were consistent with the known toxic effects of olaparib., Conclusions: The use of maintenance therapy with olaparib provided a substantial benefit with regard to progression-free survival among women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation, with a 70% lower risk of disease progression or death with olaparib than with placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck; SOLO1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844986 .).

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.

Background: Olaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously shown efficacy in a phase 2 study when given in capsule formulation to all-comer patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed high-grade serous ovarian cancer. We aimed to confirm these findings in patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation using a tablet formulation of olaparib., Methods: This international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial evaluated olaparib tablet maintenance treatment in platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who had received at least two lines of previous chemotherapy. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0-1 and histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous ovarian cancer or high-grade endometrioid cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets, twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive voice and web response system. Randomisation was stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy (complete vs partial) and length of platinum-free interval (6-12 months vs ≥12 months) and treatment assignment was masked for patients, those giving the interventions, data collectors, and data analysers. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival and we report the primary analysis from this ongoing study. The efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population; safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01874353, and is ongoing and no longer recruiting patients., Findings: Between Sept 3, 2013, and Nov 21, 2014, we enrolled 295 eligible patients who were randomly assigned to receive olaparib (n=196) or placebo (n=99). One patient in the olaparib group was randomised in error and did not receive study treatment. Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was significantly longer with olaparib (19·1 months [95% CI 16·3-25·7]) than with placebo (5·5 months [5·2-5·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·30 [95% CI 0·22-0·41], p<0·0001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse severity were anaemia (38 [19%] of 195 patients in the olaparib group vs two [2%] of 99 patients in the placebo group), fatigue or asthenia (eight [4%] vs two [2%]), and neutropenia (ten [5%] vs four [4%]). Serious adverse events were experienced by 35 (18%) patients in the olaparib group and eight (8%) patients in the placebo group. The most common in the olaparib group were anaemia (seven [4%] patients), abdominal pain (three [2%] patients), and intestinal obstruction (three [2%] patients). The most common in the placebo group were constipation (two [2%] patients) and intestinal obstruction (two [2%] patients). One (1%) patient in the olaparib group had a treatment-related adverse event (acute myeloid leukaemia) with an outcome of death., Interpretation: Olaparib tablet maintenance treatment provided a significant progression-free survival improvement with no detrimental effect on quality of life in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation. Apart from anaemia, toxicities with olaparib were low grade and manageable., Funding: AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Vandetanib, added to cisplatin and radiation therapy (RT) overcomes chemoradiation therapy (CRT) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor resistance in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) lines and models., Methods: Patients with previously untreated HNSCC received vandetanib daily for 14 days (starting dose 100 mg) and then vandetanib + RT (2.2 Gy/day, 5 days/week) for 6 weeks (regimen 1) or vandetanib + RT (2 Gy/day, 5 days/week) + cisplatin (30 mg/m(2) weekly) for 7 weeks (regimen 2). The primary objective was the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of vandetanib with RT +/- cisplatin., Results: Of 33 treated patients, 30 completed therapy (regimen 1, n = 12; regimen 2, n = 18). MTD in regimen 2 was 100 mg (3 dose limiting toxicities [DLTs] at 200 mg), whereas regimen 1 was stopped because of poor recruitment (1 DLT at 200 mg). Most common grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were dysphagia (30%), stomatitis (33%), and mucosal inflammation (27%). Five patients discontinued vandetanib because of AEs., Conclusion: Vandetanib with CRT was feasible., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib has shown antitumour activity in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade serous ovarian cancer with or without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of olaparib in combination with chemotherapy, followed by olaparib maintenance monotherapy, versus chemotherapy alone in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade serous ovarian cancer., Methods: In this randomised, open-label, phase 2 study, adult patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade serous ovarian cancer who had received up to three previous courses of platinum-based chemotherapy and who were progression free for at least 6 months before randomisation received either olaparib (200 mg capsules twice daily, administered orally on days 1-10 of each 21-day cycle) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2), administered intravenously on day 1) and carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] 4 mg/mL per min, according to the Calvert formula, administered intravenously on day 1), then olaparib monotherapy (400 mg capsules twice daily, given continuously) until progression (the olaparib plus chemotherapy group), or paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) on day 1) and carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL per min on day 1) then no further treatment (the chemotherapy alone group). Randomisation was done by an interactive voice response system, stratified by number of previous platinum-containing regimens received and time to disease progression after the previous platinum regimen. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, analysed by intention to treat. Prespecified exploratory analyses included efficacy by BRCA mutation status, assessed retrospectively. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01081951, and has been completed., Findings: Between Feb 12 and July 30, 2010, 173 patients at 43 investigational sites in 12 countries were enrolled into the study, of whom 162 were eligible and were randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (81 to the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 81 to the chemotherapy alone group). Of these randomised patients, 156 were treated in the combination phase (81 in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 75 in the chemotherapy alone group) and 121 continued to the maintenance or no further treatment phase (66 in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 55 in the chemotherapy alone group). BRCA mutation status was known for 107 patients (either at baseline or determined retrospectively): 41 (38%) of 107 had a BRCA mutation (20 in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 21 in the chemotherapy alone group). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group (median 12.2 months [95% CI 9.7-15.0]) than in the chemotherapy alone group (median 9.6 months [95% CI 9.1-9.7) (HR 0.51 [95% CI 0.34-0.77]; p=0.0012), especially in patients with BRCA mutations (HR 0.21 [0.08-0.55]; p=0.0015). In the combination phase, adverse events that were reported at least 10% more frequently with olaparib plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone were alopecia (60 [74%] of 81 vs 44 [59%] of 75), nausea (56 [69%] vs 43 [57%]), neutropenia (40 [49%] vs 29 [39%]), diarrhoea (34 [42%] vs 20 [27%]), headache (27 [33%] vs seven [9%]), peripheral neuropathy (25 [31%] vs 14 [19%]), and dyspepsia (21 [26%] vs 9 [12%]); most were of mild-to-moderate intensity. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events during the combination phase were neutropenia (in 35 [43%] of 81 patients in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group vs 26 [35%] of 75 in the chemotherapy alone group) and anaemia (seven [9%] vs five [7%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 12 (15%) of 81 patients in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 16 of 75 (21%) patients in the chemotherapy alone group., Interpretation: Olaparib plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by maintenance monotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin alone, with the greatest clinical benefit in BRCA-mutated patients, and had an acceptable and manageable tolerability profile., Funding: AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: To establish the maximum tolerated dose, determine safety/tolerability and evaluate the pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy of olaparib in combination with cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors., Patients and Methods: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with advanced solid tumors, who had progressed on standard treatment, were assigned to a treatment cohort and received oral olaparib [50-200 mg twice daily (bid); 21-day cycle] continuously or intermittently (days 1-5 or 1-10) in combination with cisplatin (60-75 mg/m(2) intravenously) on day 1 of each cycle., Results: Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of grade 3 neutropenia (cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) with continuous olaparib 100 mg bid or 200 mg bid; n = 1 each) and grade 3 lipase elevation (cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) with olaparib 100 mg bid days 1-10 or 50 mg bid days 1-5; n = 1 each) were reported. Olaparib and cisplatin doses were subsequently reduced to 50 mg bid days 1-5 and 60 mg/m(2), respectively; no DLTs were reported for patients receiving this regimen. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 adverse events were neutropenia (16.7%), anemia (9.3%) and leucopenia (9.3%). Thirty patients (55.6%) received colony-stimulating factors for hematologic support. The overall objective response rate was 41% for patients with measurable disease, and 43% and 71% among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who had ovarian and breast cancer, respectively., Conclusions: Olaparib in combination with cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) was not considered tolerable; intermittent olaparib (50 mg bid, days 1-5) with cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) improved tolerability. Promising antitumor activity in patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations was observed and warrants further investigation., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: This Phase I study evaluated the safety, tolerability and efficacy of olaparib, a potent oral poly(ADPribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, in combination with paclitaxel in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC)., Methods: Eligible patients who had received ≤1 prior cytotoxic regimen for mTNBC were treated with olaparib 200 mg bid continuously plus weekly paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 for three weeks per four-week cycle. Dose modifications in a large proportion of patients due to neutropenia resulted in enrollment of a second cohort of patients who, if they experienced grade ≥2 neutropenia in cycle 1, received granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, which was continued prophylactically in subsequent cycles. All patients had measurable disease; tumor responses were evaluated according to RECIST (version 1.0)., Results: Nineteen patients (cohort 1, n = 9; cohort 2, n = 10) received treatment; 15 had received prior taxane chemotherapy. The most frequent adverse events were diarrhea (n = 12, 63%), nausea (n = 11, 58%) and neutropenia (n = 11, 58%). Seven neutropenia events were reported in cohort 1 (four grade ≥3) and four in cohort 2 (two grade ≥3, including one event of febrile neutropenia). The median (range) dose intensity of paclitaxel was 57% (26 to 100%) in cohort 1 and 73% (29 to 100%) in cohort 2. Seven patients (37%) had a confirmed partial response; one patient remains on olaparib monotherapy without progression., Conclusions: The combination of olaparib and weekly paclitaxel was complicated by a significant clinical interaction, with higher-than-expected rates of neutropenia despite secondary prophylaxis. Given the encouraging response rate, alternative scheduling and dosing strategies should be considered (funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00707707).

NEWEST (Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Women with Estrogen-Sensitive Tumors) is the first study to compare biological and clinical activity of fulvestrant 500 versus 250 mg in the neoadjuvant breast cancer setting. We hypothesized that fulvestrant 500 mg may be superior to 250 mg in blocking estrogen receptor (ER) signaling and growth. A multicenter, randomized, open-label, Phase II study was performed to compare fulvestrant 500 mg (500 mg/month plus 500 mg on day 14 of month 1) versus fulvestrant 250 mg/month for 16 weeks prior to surgery in postmenopausal women with ER+ locally advanced breast cancer. Core biopsies at baseline, week 4, and surgery were assessed for biomarker changes. Primary endpoint: change in Ki67 labeling index (LI) from baseline to week 4 determined by automated computer imaging system (ACIS). Secondary endpoints: ER protein expression and function; progesterone receptor (PgR) expression; tumor response; tolerability. ER and PgR were examined retrospectively using the H score method. A total of 211 patients were randomized (fulvestrant 500 mg: n = 109; 250 mg: n = 102). At week 4, fulvestrant 500 mg resulted in greater reduction of Ki67 LI and ER expression versus 250 mg (-78.8 vs. -47.4% [p < 0.0001] and -25.0 vs. -13.5% [p = 0.0002], respectively [ACIS]); PgR suppression was not significantly different (-22.7 vs. -17.6; p = 0.5677). However, H score detected even greater suppression of ER (-50.3 vs. -13.7%; p < 0.0001) and greater PgR suppression (-80.5 vs. -46.3%; p = 0.0018) for fulvestrant 500 versus 250 mg. At week 16, tumor response rates were 22.9 and 20.6% for fulvestrant 500 and 250 mg, respectively, with considerable decline in all markers by both ACIS and H score. No detrimental effects on endometrial thickness or bone markers and no new safety concerns were identified. This provides the first evidence of greater biological activity for fulvestrant 500 versus 250 mg in depleting ER expression, function, and growth.

Purpose: Olaparib (AZD2281), an orally active poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that induces synthetic lethality in BRCA1- or BRCA2-deficient cells, has shown promising clinical efficacy in nonrandomized phase II trials in patients with ovarian cancer with BRCA1 or BRCA2 deficiency. We assessed the comparative efficacy and safety of olaparib and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in this patient population., Patients and Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase II study, patients with ovarian cancer that recurred within 12 months of prior platinum therapy and with confirmed germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were enrolled. Patients were assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to olaparib 200 mg twice per day or 400 mg twice per day continuously or PLD 50 mg/m(2) intravenously every 28 days. The primary efficacy end point was Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) -assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) and safety., Results: Ninety-seven patients were randomly assigned. Median PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI, 5.5 to 10.1 months), 8.8 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 9.2 months), and 7.1 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 10.7 months) for the olaparib 200 mg, olaparib 400 mg, and PLD groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in PFS (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.56; P = .66) for combined olaparib doses versus PLD. RECIST-assessed ORRs were 25%, 31%, and 18% for olaparib 200 mg, olaparib 400 mg, and PLD, respectively; differences were not statistically significant. Tolerability of both treatments was as expected based on previous trials., Conclusion: The efficacy of olaparib was consistent with previous studies. However, the efficacy of PLD was greater than expected. Olaparib 400 mg twice per day is a suitable dose to explore in further studies in this patient population.

Context: Precocious puberty (PP) in girls with McCune-Albright syndrome (MAS) is characterized by episodic development of large unilateral ovarian cysts followed by sudden onset of vaginal bleeding. Some patients experience frequent bleeding as well as accelerated linear growth and advanced skeletal maturation. The use of anastrozole for the treatment of PP in this condition has not been well studied., Objective: The objective of the study was to determine the safety and efficacy of the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole for the treatment of PP in girls with MAS., Design and Settings: This was a prospective international multicenter study in which subjects received anastrozole 1 mg daily for 1 yr., Patients: Twenty-eight girls 10 years of age or younger with MAS and progressive PP were enrolled., Main Outcome Measures: Vaginal bleeding, rate of skeletal maturation (change in bone age over change in chronological age), growth velocity, and uterine/ovarian volumes were measured. These indices were compared with a 6-month pretreatment interval., Results: No difference in vaginal bleeding (mean number of days per year) was noted. Mean change in DeltaBA/DeltaCA, which was 1.25 +/- 0.77 at baseline, was -0.25 +/- 1.02 at study end (P = 0.22). Average growth velocity z score was 1.40 +/- 3.15 at study entry and 0.26 +/- 2.71 at 12 months (P = 0.10). Mean ovarian/uterine volumes were unaffected by anastrozole, and no significant adverse events occurred., Conclusions: Although it appears safe, anastrozole for 1 yr was ineffective in halting vaginal bleeding, attenuating rates of skeletal maturation, and linear growth in girls with MAS. Pharmacological strategies other than anastrozole should be pursued for the treatment of PP in this population.

Purpose: In preclinical studies, thioguanine (TG) has been shown to be more potent than the standard acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) maintenance agent, mercaptopurine (MP), suggesting that TG may be more efficacious than MP in the treatment of childhood ALL. As part of a pilot trial in which TG was used in place of MP, we studied the plasma pharmacokinetics of oral TG and measured steady-state plasma and CSF TG concentrations during a continuous intravenous infusion (CIVI) in children with newly diagnosed standard-risk ALL., Methods: Nine plasma samples were collected after each patient's first 60 mg/m2 oral TG dose during maintenance. CIVI TG (20 mg/m2/h over 24 h) was administered during the consolidation phase of therapy, and simultaneous plasma and CSF samples were collected near the end of the infusion. TG was measured by reverse-phase HPLC with ultraviolet detection. Erythrocyte TG nucleotide (TGN) concentrations were measured 7 days after a course of CIVI TG and prior to the start of each maintenance cycle., Results: After oral TG (n = 35), the mean (+/- SD) peak plasma concentration was 0.46 +/- 0.68 microM and the AUC ranged from 0.18 to 9.5 microM.h (mean 1.5 microM.h). Mean steady-state plasma and CSF TG concentrations during CIVI (n = 33) were 2.7 and 0.5 microM, respectively. The mean (+/- SD) TG clearance was 935 +/- 463 ml/min per m2. Plasma TG concentrations did not correlate with erythrocyte TGN concentrations after oral or CIVI TG. The 8-OH-TG metabolite was detected in plasma and CSF., Conclusions: TG concentrations that are cytotoxic to human leukemia cell lines can be achieved in plasma after a 60 mg/m2 oral dose of TG and in plasma and CSF during CIVI of TG.