Abstract OT2-18-02: OlympiaN: a phase 2, multicenter, open-label study to assess the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant olaparib monotherapy and olaparib plus durvalumab in patients with BRCA mutations and early-stage HER2-negative breast cancer

Background: In early breast cancer (BC), neoadjuvant therapy can promote de-escalation of surgery or treat micrometastases. Pathological complete response (pCR) is a standard primary endpoint in neoadjuvant BC studies, and correlates with long-term outcomes such as event-free survival (EFS). The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib are approved in the metastatic setting for patients with BC and a germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic mutation (gBRCAm). Following the phase 3 OlympiA trial primary analysis (data cut-off [DCO] Mar 2020), the PARP inhibitor olaparib was FDA approved for the adjuvant treatment of patients with gBRCAm and HER2-negative, high-risk early BC who have been treated with neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy. At the second pre-specified OlympiA analysis (DCO Jul 2021), olaparib treatment sustained improvements in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50–0.78) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48–0.77), and also significantly reduced the risk of death (overall survival [OS] HR 0.68, 98.5% CI 0.47–0.97) vs placebo. PARP inhibitors have also shown efficacy in the neoadjuvant setting in smaller studies. Durvalumab, a programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor, has been studied as neoadjuvant therapy in triple negative BC and showed improved IDFS, DDFS and OS vs placebo (GeparNuevo). For BRCAm carriers at low risk of recurrence, olaparib monotherapy may provide adequate neoadjuvant treatment, allowing de-escalation or omission of chemotherapy. For those at high risk of recurrence, it is hypothesized that addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab will enhance immunogenicity provided through cell death following PARP inhibition. Feasibility for a larger study will be assessed. Methods: OlympiaN is a phase 2, international, multicenter, open-label trial examining the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant olaparib monotherapy and olaparib plus durvalumab in adults with deleterious/suspected deleterious BRCAm and operable, early-stage, HER2-negative, ER-negative or ER-low BC (immunohistochemistry nuclear staining < 10%). Patients will be enrolled in two cohorts: (A) patients at lower risk of recurrence: tumor size >5 to < 20 mm and nodal status N0 will receive olaparib 300 mg orally twice daily continuously in 28-day cycles; (B) patients at higher risk of recurrence: tumor size >20 to ≤50 mm and N0, or T1 and N1 will receive olaparib 300 mg orally twice daily continuously in 28-day cycles plus durvalumab 1500 mg IV infusion every four weeks. After four to six cycles, patients will undergo definitive surgery, then systemic and radiation therapy in accordance with local standard of care. Patients who achieve pCR at surgery will be able to receive adjuvant olaparib monotherapy in lieu of standard adjuvant systemic therapy for a total of twelve 28-day cycles of neoadjuvant and adjuvant olaparib therapy. The primary endpoint is the pCR rate after completion of neoadjuvant systemic therapy, assessed by central pathology review. Secondary endpoints include the pCR rate assessed by local pathology review, residual cancer burden, tumor volumetric analysis, EFS, safety and tolerability. Tumor tissue will be collected pre-treatment and at surgery to evaluate the mechanism of action of therapy. Baseline and longitudinal assessment of ctDNA and its association with clinical outcomes will also be performed. The primary pCR analysis will occur ~6 months after last participant enrollment; the final DCO will be 3 years after last participant dosed or once all participants have had an EFS event. No formal statistical analyses are planned, data will be summarized descriptively. Enrollment is planned to commence by late 2022, across ~65 sites in 10 countries; the target accrual is ~25 patients per cohort to ensure adequate precision in the estimated pCR rate. Funding: This study is funded by AstraZeneca UK Plc.

Citation Format: Judith Balmaña, Mike Dymond, Elizabeth S. Lowe, Natalia Lukashchuk, Maria Winter, Nadine Tung. OlympiaN: a phase 2, multicenter, open-label study to assess the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant olaparib monotherapy and olaparib plus durvalumab in patients with BRCA mutations and early-stage HER2-negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr OT2-18-02.

Overall Survival With Maintenance Olaparib at a 7-Year Follow-Up in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer and a BRCA Mutation: The SOLO1/GOG 3004 Trial

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.

Cediranib in Combination with Olaparib in Patients without a Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation and with Recurrent Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer: Phase IIb CONCERTO Trial

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.

Tolerability of maintenance olaparib in newly diagnosed patients with advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in the randomized phase III SOLO1 trial

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 olaparibtreated 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.

Patient-centred outcomes and effect of disease progression on health status in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation receiving maintenance olaparib or placebo (SOLO1): a randomised, phase 3 trial

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.

Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): a final analysis of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

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.

Efficacy of Maintenance Olaparib for Patients With Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer With a BRCA Mutation: Subgroup Analysis Findings From the SOLO1 Trial

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.

Efficacy and safety of olaparib according to age in BRCA-1/2 mutated patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: Analysis of the phase III SOLO2 (AGO-OVAR 2.23/ENGOT-Ov21) study

6068

Background: Adding olaparib as maintenance treatment to BRCA-1/2 mutated patients (pts) with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (PSOC) has significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) as well as patient-centered endpoints. As BRCA mutated pts tend to be younger, specific information on efficacy and safety of olaparib for elderly pts is of special interest. Methods: 295 pts from the SOLO2 trial that randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo were categorized according to age cutoff at 65 years. The efficacy and tolerability of olaparib relative to placebo within in each age group was assessed based on PFS and toxicity outcomes. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed using EQ-5D-5L descriptive system score and FACT Trial Outcome Index (TOI) and evaluated using generalized estimating equations (GEE) and time without significant symptoms of toxicity (TWiST) analysis. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar in pts ≥65 years (N=62; 21%) compared to pts <65 years (N=233; 79%), except for more BRCA2 mutations in elderly pts (39% vs. 23%). There was no significant difference in the magnitude of PFS benefit from olaparib in elderly as compared with younger pts (interaction P=0.33). The PFS adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of olaparib vs. placebo arms were respectively HR≥65 0.43 (95%-confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.81) and HR<65 0.31 (95%-CI 0.22-0.43). Elderly and younger pts also had comparable safety profiles with no significant differences in median time on olaparib treatment (≥65: 27 vs. <65: 33 months), percentage of pts experiencing at least one grade >2 adverse event with olaparib (≥65: 73% vs. <65: 79%), or requiring at least one dose interruption or dose reduction (≥65: 77.5 vs. <65: 77.6%). No differences were found with regards to QoL scores. Quality adjusted TWiST analysis showed only non-significant differences in duration of good QoL under olaparib (≥65: 8.02 vs. <65: 9.24 months, P=0.48). Conclusions: In this large cohort of BRCA mutated PSOC pts treated with a PARP inhibitor within a phase III trial, no significant differences were detected in terms of efficacy, safety, and QoL with olaparib treatment for pts ≥65 years compared to younger pts. This information supports the use of PARP inhibitors as maintenance therapy for PSOC pts irrespective of age. Clinical trial information: NCT01874353.

Patterns of progression and subsequent management of patients with BRCA1/2 mutated platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) progressing on olaparib versus placebo: the SOLO2/ENGOT Ov-21 trial (NCT01874353)

6070

Background: Olaparib maintenance is a standard treatment of BRCA1/2 mutated platinum-sensitive recurrent EOC. Despite improvement in PFS, olaparib (O) resistance often occurs and the optimal management of post-olaparib progression remains undefined. Methods: Data of patients who participated in the SOLO-2 trial and progressed were analyzed. Primary objective was to depict the patterns of progression of patients treated with O compared to placebo (P). Secondary objectives include description of post-progression treatments. Results: 106/195 (54%) and 80/99 (81%) patients had a RECIST progression in the O and P arms respectively. As permitted in the protocol, 37 (35%) pts continued O despite a RECIST progression and 10 remained on treatment at the date of data base cut-off of the primary endpoint. Median duration of O post progression was 3.2 months (range: 1 to 19.4). In the placebo arm, only 20% of the patients with progressive disease continued placebo during a median of 1.6 months (range:1.1 to 16.1). Patterns of sites of progressive disease were similar in the O and P arms respectively in terms of liver (21% vs 18%), lung (4% vs 3%), lymph node (20% vs 16%) peritoneal (48% vs 32%) or brain metastases (0% vs 2%). Number of sites of relapsing disease were similar in the O and P arm respectively (1 (68% vs 64), ≥2 (32% vs 36%). A total of 54 (51%) patients in the O arm and 42 (53%) in the P arm received subsequent platinum-based therapy. In both arms, 8% received bevacizumab and 6% received no further treatment. Median PFS with first post-study platinum-based and non platinum-based therapy were 7.1 months and 5.6 months respectively. In the P arm, 18 (23) patients received PARP inhibitors following the first subsequent chemotherapy. Conclusions: Patterns of disease progression and subsequent chemotherapy were similar in patients receiving O or P in the SOLO2 trial. Instead of switching to chemotherapy, continuing O at the time of RECIST progression was an option for 35% of the patients. Clinical trial information: NCT01874353.

Cediranib in combination with olaparib in patients without a germline BRCA1/2 mutation with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: Phase IIb CONCERTO trial

6056

Background: A Phase I trial (NCT01116648) of cediranib (cedi) in combination with olaparib (ola) (cedi + ola) demonstrated an overall response rate of 44% in patients (pts) with recurrent ovarian cancer (OC), including pts without a deleterious or suspected deleterious gBRCAm (non-gBRCAm; Liu et al. Eur J Cancer 2013). The subsequent Phase II trial (NCT01116648) showed significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with cedi + ola versus ola monotherapy in recurrent platinum-sensitive OC pts, notably in non-gBRCAm pts (Liu et al. Lancet Oncol 2014). We report data from the Phase IIb, single-arm, open-label CONCERTO study investigating cedi + ola in non-gBRCAm pts with recurrent platinum-resistant OC who had received ≥3 previous lines of therapy for advanced OC (NCT02889900). Methods: Pts with disease progression <6 months from the last receipt of platinum-based chemotherapy received cedi tablets (30 mg once daily) plus ola tablets (200 mg twice daily) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. gBRCAm pts were ineligible. Primary endpoint: objective response rate (ORR) by independent central review (ICR; RECIST 1.1). Key secondary endpoints: PFS and safety. Results: 60 pts from the USA were included (median age: 64.5 years; median number of previous systemic treatment regimens: 4 [range: 2–9]; previous bevacizumab: 53). All pts had high-grade OC (90% serous; 3.3% clear cell; 3.3% endometrioid; 3.3% other). 7% of pts had tumor BRCA2 (confirmed somatic) mutations, 80% of pts had no tumor BRCA mutation (non-tBRCAm) and 13% of pts were not evaluable for tBRCAm. Five (8%) pts who were non-tBRCAm carried somatic homologous recombination repair gene mutations (FoundationOne Clinical Trial Assay, Foundation Medicine, Inc). The Table shows results of key endpoints. Most common grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) that occurred in pts were hypertension (30%), fatigue (22%) and diarrhea (13%). 37% of pts reported serious AEs, of which nausea (7%) was most common. Dose interruptions, reductions and discontinuations were caused by AEs in 55%, 18% and 18% of pts, respectively, who received cedi + ola. Conclusions: Cedi + ola showed evidence of antitumor activity in heavily pretreated non-gBRCAm pts with recurrent platinum-resistant OC. Toxicity was manageable with dose modifications. Clinical trial information: NCT02889900. [Table: see text]

Olaparib Versus Nonplatinum Chemotherapy in Patients With Platinum-Sensitive Relapsed Ovarian Cancer and a Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation (SOLO3): A Randomized Phase III Trial

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.

Efficacy of maintenance olaparib for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer patients (pts) by BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in the phase III SOLO1 trial

5551

Background: In SOLO1 (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib resulted in a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) for newly diagnosed, BRCA1- and/or BRCA2-mutated, advanced ovarian cancer pts compared with placebo (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.23–0.41; median not reached vs 13.8 months; Moore et al. N Engl J Med 2018). We investigated PFS in SOLO1 for the subgroups of pts with BRCA1 mutations ( BRCA1m) or BRCA2 mutations ( BRCA2m). Methods: All pts were in clinical complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy and were randomized to maintenance olaparib (300 mg twice daily; tablets) or placebo. After 2 years, pts with no evidence of disease discontinued study treatment, but pts with evidence of disease could continue study treatment. PFS by BRCAm was a predefined analysis. BRCAm were identified by central germline (Myriad or BGI) or local testing; Foundation Medicine testing confirmed tumor BRCAm. Results: Median follow-up for PFS was ~41 months in the olaparib and placebo arms. Of 391 randomized pts, 282 had BRCA1m (72%), 106 had BRCA2m (27%) and three (1%) had both (Table). Two pts in the olaparib arm had somatic BRCAm (one BRCA1m, one BRCA2m); all others had germline BRCAm. At the primary data cut-off, 155 pts in the BRCA1-mutated group (55%), 43 in the BRCA2-mutated group (41%) and none in the BRCA1/2 -mutated group had disease progression. The percentage of BRCA1-mutated pts who received olaparib and were progression-free at 1, 2 and 3 years was 86%, 69% and 53% (vs 52%, 36% and 26% receiving placebo) and for BRCA2-mutated pts was 92%, 85% and 80% (vs 50%, 32% and 29%, respectively). Conclusions: Significant PFS benefit with olaparib versus placebo was demonstrated for all pts, regardless of whether they had BRCA1m or BRCA2m. Statistical tests were not used to compare BRCA1- and BRCA2-mutated pts, but those with BRCA2m appeared to receive greater benefit from maintenance olaparib than those with BRCA1m. Clinical trial information: NCT01844986. [Table: see text]

Adverse events (AEs) with maintenance olaparib in newly diagnosed patients (pts) with advanced ovarian cancer (OC) and a BRCA mutation (BRCAm): Phase III SOLO1 trial

5539

Background: In SOLO1 (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit vs placebo in newly diagnosed pts with advanced OC, a BRCAm and clinical complete or partial response to platinum therapy (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.23–0.41) and was well tolerated (Moore et al. NEJM 2018). We analysed the most common AEs and hematologic AEs in SOLO1. Methods: Pts received olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily or placebo until progression unless they had no evidence of disease at 2 years, in which case treatment stopped. AEs were graded using CTCAE v4.0. Results: Of 391 pts randomized, 390 (olaparib, 260; placebo, 130) were treated and included in the safety analysis. Median treatment duration was approximately 25 months for olaparib vs 14 for placebo. Median time to first onset of the most common AEs (nausea, vomiting, fatigue/asthenia, anemia) and neutropenia and thrombocytopenia was < 3 months; the first event lasted a median of < 2 months, apart from fatigue/asthenia, which lasted a median of < 4 months (Table). AEs were usually managed with supportive therapy and/or dose modification; few pts discontinued. Conclusions: AEs in newly diagnosed pts with advanced OC treated with olaparib usually occurred early and were manageable, with few discontinuations. Clinical trial information: NCT01844986. [Table: see text]

Maintenance olaparib after platinum-based chemotherapy in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (OC) and a BRCA mutation (BRCAm): Efficacy by surgical and tumor status in the Phase III SOLO1 trial

5541

Background: In SOLO1 (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.23–0.41; Moore et al. N Engl J Med 2018) in pts with newly diagnosed advanced OC and a BRCAm. This analysis evaluates olaparib efficacy by timing of surgery, presence of residual tumor following surgery and response status after completion of chemotherapy in SOLO1. Methods: Pts underwent cytoreductive surgery and were in clinical complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) after platinum-based chemotherapy. Pts were stratified by response and received olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS and objective response were assessed using modified RECIST v1.1. Results: 260 pts were randomized to olaparib and 131 to placebo; one pt did not receive placebo. Median follow-up was 41 months in both arms. 63% and 35% of pts underwent upfront and interval surgery, 21% and 76% had residual and no residual macroscopic disease after surgery, and 74% and 26% entered the study in clinical CR and PR (based on electronic case report form [eCRF] data). PFS was significantly improved regardless of the timing of surgery, residual disease status after surgery or response after platinum-based chemotherapy (Table). In pts with baseline radiologic evidence of disease (n=80; eCRF), the objective response rate was 43% for olaparib (CR, 28%) and 23% for placebo (CR, 12%). Conclusions: Maintenance olaparib improved outcomes compared with placebo in pts with newly diagnosed advanced OC and a BRCAm, regardless of surgical or tumor status. Clinical trial information: NCT01844986. [Table: see text]

Olaparib monotherapy versus (vs) chemotherapy for germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm) platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSR OC) patients (pts): Phase III SOLO3 trial

5506

Background: Data from a randomized Phase II trial (NCT00628251) of olaparib (capsules, 200 or 400 mg bid, n=32 per arm) vs pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD, n=33) in gBRCAm OC pts with recurrence ≤12 months after prior platinum therapy indicated efficacy for olaparib (Kaye et al. JCO 2012). However, the efficacy of PLD was higher than previously reported in this setting. We led a confirmatory Phase III, open-label study of olaparib vs non-platinum chemotherapy in gBRCAm PSR OC pts (NCT02282020). Methods: Pts were randomized (2:1) to olaparib tablets (300 mg bid) or chemotherapy treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) (paclitaxel [P; 80 mg/m2 on day 1 (D1), D8, D15, D22 every 4 weeks (q4w)], topotecan [T; 4 mg/m2 D1, D8, D15 q4w], gemcitabine [G; 1000 mg/m2 D1, D8, D15 q4w] or PLD [50 mg/m2 D1 q4w]) until progression, stratified by: TPC, prior lines of chemotherapy (2–3 vs ≥4) and platinum-free interval (6–12 vs >12 months). Primary endpoint: ORR (blinded independent central review [BICR]). Secondary endpoints included PFS and safety. Results: 266 gBRCAm PSR OC pts were randomized (olaparib, n=178; TPC, n=88 [ PLD, n=47; P, n=20; G, n=13; T, n=8]); 12 in the TPC arm withdrew before receiving study treatment. 223 pts (84%) had baseline BICR measurable disease (olaparib, n=151; TPC, n=72). ORR was 72% with olaparib vs 51% with TPC (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.40–4.58; P=0.002). HR for PFS by BICR was 0.62 (95% CI 0.43–0.91; P=0.013; median 13.4 vs 9.2 months [olaparib vs TPC]) and by investigator assessment was 0.49 (95% CI 0.35–0.70; P<0.001; median 13.2 vs 8.5 months, respectively). Most common adverse events (AEs) with olaparib were nausea (65% vs 34% [TPC]) and anemia (50% vs 25%) and with TPC were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE; 36% vs 1% [olaparib]) and nausea. Most common grade ≥3 AEs in either arm were anemia (21% [olaparib] vs 0 [TPC]), PPE (0 vs 12%) and neutropenia (6% vs 11%). For olaparib vs TPC, serious AEs were reported by 24% vs 18% and AEs led to treatment discontinuation in 7% vs 20%. Conclusions: Pts with gBRCAm PSR OC receiving olaparib monotherapy had a significant, clinically relevant improvement in ORR and PFS vs TPC, with no new safety signals. Clinical trial information: NCT02282020.

Maintenance Olaparib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer

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 .).

Adverse events (AEs) with maintenance olaparib tablets in patients (pts) with BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer (PSR SOC): Phase III SOLO2 trial

5518

Background: In the SOLO2 trial (ENGOT Ov-21; NCT01874353), maintenance therapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib significantly improved PFS vs placebo (PBO) in BRCAm PSR SOC pts (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.22–0.41, P<0.0001; median 19.1 vs 5.5 months) and was well tolerated (Pujade-Lauraine et al, SGO 2017). We analyzed AEs in SOLO2, the first study in PSR SOC to use the olaparib tablet formulation. Methods: Pts with BRCAm PSR SOC, who were in response to platinum chemotherapy, were treated with olaparib (300 mg bid; tablets; n=195) or PBO (n=99) until progression. AEs were graded by CTCAE v4.0. Results: The most common AEs with olaparib – nausea, fatigue/asthenia, anemia, and vomiting – were largely grade 1–2, though anemia was the most common grade ≥3 AE. AEs of fatigue/asthenia, vomiting and nausea generally improved as treatment continued, though fatigue/asthenia and anemia could last for several months (table). Most AEs were manageable by supportive treatment, dose interruptions (olaparib, 45%; PBO, 18%) and dose reductions (olaparib, 25%; PBO, 3%). Discontinuation of olaparib due to AEs was minimal (11%); anemia and neutropenia were the only AEs leading to discontinuation of olaparib in >one pt. Conclusions: Most AEs experienced by pts receiving olaparib tablets in SOLO2 were low grade and manageable. Initial nausea, vomiting and fatigue generally improved with ongoing treatment. The majority of AEs first occurred within the first three months of treatment. AEs causing treatment discontinuation were rare and mainly hematological. Clinical trial information: NCT01874353. [Table: see text]

Phase I study of vandetanib with radiation therapy with or without cisplatin in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

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.

Olaparib combined with chemotherapy for recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: a randomised phase 2 trial

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.

Phase I trial of the oral PARP inhibitor olaparib in combination with paclitaxel for first- or second-line treatment of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

Introduction

This Phase I study evaluated the safety, tolerability and efficacy of olaparib, a potent oral poly(ADP-ribose) 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).

Phase I trial of olaparib in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of patients with advanced breast, ovarian and other solid tumors

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.

Dose-dependent change in biomarkers during neoadjuvant endocrine therapy with fulvestrant: results from NEWEST, a randomized Phase II study

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.

Phase II, open-label, randomized, multicenter study comparing the efficacy and safety of olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and recurrent ovarian cancer

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.

Gefitinib versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (INTEREST): a randomised phase III trial

BACKGROUND

Two phase II trials in patients with previously-treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer suggested that gefitinib was efficacious and less toxic than was chemotherapy. We compared gefitinib with docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer who had been pretreated with platinum-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

We undertook an open-label phase III study with recruitment between March 1, 2004, and Feb 17, 2006, at 149 centres in 24 countries. 1466 patients with pretreated (>/=one platinum-based regimen) advanced non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned with dynamic balancing to receive gefitinib (250 mg per day orally; n=733) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously in 1-h infusion every 3 weeks; n=733). The primary objective was to compare overall survival between the groups with co-primary analyses to assess non-inferiority in the overall per-protocol population and superiority in patients with high epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-gene-copy number in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00076388.

FINDINGS

1433 patients were analysed per protocol (723 in gefitinib group and 710 in docetaxel group). Non-inferiority of gefitinib compared with docetaxel was confirmed for overall survival (593 vs 576 events; hazard ratio [HR] 1.020, 96% CI 0.905-1.150, meeting the predefined non-inferiority criterion; median survival 7.6 vs 8.0 months). Superiority of gefitinib in patients with high EGFR-gene-copy number (85 vs 89 patients) was not proven (72 vs 71 events; HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.78-1.51; p=0.62; median survival 8.4 vs 7.5 months). In the gefitinib group, the most common adverse events were rash or acne (360 [49%] vs 73 [10%]) and diarrhoea (255 [35%] vs 177 [25%]); whereas in the docetaxel group, neutropenia (35 [5%] vs 514 [74%]), asthenic disorders (182 [25%] vs 334 [47%]), and alopecia (23 [3%] vs 254 [36%]) were most common.

INTERPRETATION

INTEREST established non-inferior survival of gefitinib compared with docetaxel, suggesting that gefitinib is a valid treatment for pretreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

The aromatase inhibitor anastrozole is ineffective in the treatment of precocious puberty in girls with McCune-Albright syndrome

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.

Plasma pharmacokinetics and cerebrospinal fluid penetration of thioguanine in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a collaborative Pediatric Oncology Branch, NCI, and Children's Cancer Group study

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.