Search

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 (

PurposeIn the phase III SOLAR-1 trial (NCT02437318), the PI3Kα-selective inhibitor and degrader alpelisib significantly improved median progression-free survival when added to fulvestrant in patients with phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA)-mutated, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. We assessed health-related quality of life using patient-reported outcome measures in these patients.Materials and methodsIn the PIK3CA-mutant cohort, 341 patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive alpelisib 300 mg daily or placebo plus fulvestrant 500 mg on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 of subsequent 28-day cycles. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL of Cancer Patients and Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form questionnaires. Changes from baseline and time to 10% deterioration were analyzed using repeated measurement models and Cox models, respectively.ResultsGlobal Health Status/QoL and functional status were maintained from baseline (mean changes < 10 points) in the alpelisib (overall change from baseline [95% CI], -3.50 [-8.02 to 1.02]) and placebo arms (overall change from baseline [95% CI], 0.27 [-4.48 to 5.02]). Overall treatment effect in Global Health Status/QoL was not significantly different between arms (-3.77; 95% CI, -8.35 to 0.80; P = .101). Time to 10% deterioration for Global Health Status/QoL was similar between arms (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.48). Compared with placebo, deterioration in social functioning and in diarrhea, appetite loss, nausea or vomiting, and fatigue symptom subscales occurred with alpelisib. Numerical improvement in Worst Pain was observed with alpelisib versus placebo (42% v 32%, week 24; P = .090).ConclusionIn SOLAR-1, there was no statistical difference in deterioration of Global Health Status/QoL between arms, whereas symptom subscales favored placebo for diarrhea, appetite loss, nausea or vomiting, and fatigue, known side effects of alpelisib. Treatment decisions must consider efficacy and tolerability; taken with clinical efficacy, these results support the benefit-risk profile of alpelisib in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative PIK3CA-mutated advanced breast cancer.

Background: In Part 1 of the phase III RUBY trial (NCT03981796) in patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC), dostarlimab plus carboplatin–paclitaxel (CP) significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with CP alone. Limited safety data have been reported for the combination of immunotherapies plus chemotherapy in this setting. Objectives: The objective of this analysis was to identify the occurrence of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and to describe irAE management in Part 1 of the RUBY trial. Design: RUBY is a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of dostarlimab plus CP compared with CP alone in patients with primary advanced or recurrent EC. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to dostarlimab 500 mg, or placebo, plus CP every 3 weeks for 6 cycles, followed by dostarlimab 1000 mg, or placebo, every 6 weeks for up to 3 years. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03. Results: The safety population included 487 patients who received ⩾1 dose of treatment (241 dostarlimab plus CP; 246 placebo plus CP). Treatment-emergent AEs were experienced by 100% of patients in both arms. TRAEs occurred in 97.9% of the dostarlimab arm and 98.8% of the placebo arm. The most common TRAEs occurred at similar rates between arms and were mostly low grade. IrAEs occurred in 58.5% of patients in the dostarlimab arm and 37.0% of patients in the placebo arm. Dostarlimab- or placebo-related irAEs were reported in 40.7% of patients in the dostarlimab arm and 16.3% of the placebo arm. Conclusion: The safety profile of dostarlimab plus CP was generally consistent with that of the individual components. Dostarlimab plus CP has a favorable benefit–risk profile and is a new standard of care for patients with primary advanced or recurrent EC. Trial registration: NCT03981796. Plain language summary: Safety of dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel in primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer For many years, patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer were treated with chemotherapy, specifically with a combination of carboplatin and paclitaxel. Recently, new treatments called immune checkpoint inhibitors have been used to treat endometrial cancer. Dostarlimab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, is being tested to treat many types of cancer, including endometrial cancer. In the RUBY trial, a combination of dostarlimab plus chemotherapy was compared with chemotherapy alone as treatment for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. Results showed that patients treated with dostarlimab plus chemotherapy had a lower risk of their cancer becoming worse and a lower risk of dying. Results in this article describe the safety of dostarlimab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone. All patients in the RUBY trial experienced at least one adverse event (an undesired effect that happens while receiving treatment or shortly after stopping treatment); most were determined to be caused by the cancer treatments. No differences in the frequency of the overall cancer treatment-related adverse events were seen in patients who received dostarlimab plus chemotherapy compared with those patients who received chemotherapy alone. Some patients experienced an immune-related adverse event. These are a specific type of undesired effect that can occur when patients are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Immune-related adverse events occurred more frequently in patients who received dostarlimab plus chemotherapy than in those who received chemotherapy alone. Physicians were generally able to treat the immune-related adverse events, and only a low percentage of patients discontinued treatment because they experienced an immune-related adverse event. The types of adverse events seen were similar to a combination of those seen in patients who received dostarlimab alone or patients who received chemotherapy alone as treatment for endometrial cancer. Dostarlimab plus chemotherapy is a new standard of care for patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Ovarian cancer is the third most common gynecologic cancer and the eighth most common cause of death from cancer in women. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is a test that checks hundreds of genes. Changes in these genes and may help to suggest which anti-cancer treatment may be the most effective for the tested individual. As the test is expensive, and the treatments aimed at treating specific genes related to cancer are both limited and expensive, CGP is not often used. In this study, we investigated whether women with ovarian cancer who had the CGP test had better outcomes (i.e., had longer times with no advancing of disease or lived longer) than women who did not have this test. Our results suggest that women who had the CGP test lived longer than those who did not, but more studies are needed to confirm this. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) allows for the detection of driver alterations at high resolution, but the limited number of approved targeted therapies and their high costs have contributed to its limited clinical utilization. We retrospectively compared data of 946 women with ovarian cancer (11.4% were referred to CGP, and 88.6% served as control) to examine whether CGP provides a prognosis benefit. Patient baseline parameters were similar between the groups. Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, disease stage at diagnosis, and recurrence status showed statistically significantly longer median overall survival (mOS) in the CGP group versus the control (73.4 versus 54.5 months, p < 0.001). Fifty-four patients (52.9%) had actionable mutations with potential treatments; twenty-six (48.2%) were treated with matched targeted therapy, showing a trend for longer mOS than the eighty-six women in the CGP group who were not given a suggested treatment (105.5 versus 63.6 months, p = 0.066). None of the genomic alterations predicted metastasis location. CCNE1 amplification and KRAS mutations were associated with shorter mOS. Patients with tumor mutation burden ≥4 mutations/megabase had longer mOS. High loss of heterozygosity was associated with longer mOS (99.0 versus 48.2 months, p = 0.004). CGP testing may provide both prognostic and predictive insights for treatment of patients with ovarian cancer. Prospective studies of larger cohorts are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]