Search

Objective: To evaluate the impact of age on the efficacy and safety of niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy., Methods: Post hoc analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study (NCT02655016). Patients in the intent-to-treat population were categorized according to age at baseline (<65 years vs ≥65 years), and progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were evaluated for each age subgroup (clinical cutoff date, May 17, 2019). Safety findings were also evaluated according to a fixed starting dose (FSD) or an individualized starting dose (ISD)., Results: Of 733 randomized patients, 289 (39.4%) were ≥65 years (190 niraparib, 99 placebo) at baseline. Median PFS (niraparib vs placebo) and hazard ratios (95% CI) were similar in patients aged <65 years (13.9 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.61 [0.47-0.81]) and ≥65 years (13.7 vs 8.1 months; HR, 0.53 [0.39-0.74]). The incidences of any-grade and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar across age subgroups; in the niraparib arm, TEAEs leading to dose discontinuation occurred in 7.8% of patients <65 years and 18.4% of patients ≥65 years. ISD use lowered the incidence of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia events in niraparib-treated patients compared with the FSD (<65 years: 42.8% vs 18.0%; ≥65 years 57.0% vs 26.1%). HRQOL was comparable across age subgroups., Conclusion: Niraparib efficacy, safety, and HRQOL were generally comparable across age subgroups, although patients ≥65 years had a higher rate of discontinuations due to TEAEs. ISD use reduced grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia events regardless of age., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Valabrega reports consulting fees from GSK; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, and MSD; travel support from AstraZeneca and PharmaMar; and participation in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, and MSD. Dr. Pothuri reports institutional grant support from AstraZeneca, Celsion, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, GSK, I-Mab, Immunogen, Incyte, Karyopharm, Merck, Mersana, Onconova, SeaGen, Sutro, and Toray; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GOG Foundation, GSK, Merck, and Seagen; support for attending meetings from GOG Partners; and advisory board fees from Arquer Diagnostics, Atossa, Deciphera, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, GOG Foundation, I-Mab, Immunogen, Lily, Merck, Mersana, Natera, Onconova, Regeneron, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro/GSK, Toray, and VBL Therapeutics. Dr. Oaknin reports institutional grants from AbbVie Deutschland, Advaxis, Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen, Aprea Therapeutics AB, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Immunogen, MSD de España SA, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, PharmaMar SA, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Tesaro; consulting fees from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Exelixis, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Genmab, GSK, ImmunoGen, Iteos, MSD de España SA, Mersana Therapeutics, Novocure, OncXerna Therapeutics, PharmaMar, Regeneron, Shattuck Labs, Seagen, and Sutro Biopharma; honoraria from Asociación Colombiada de Ginecológos Oncólogos, AstraZeneca, ESO, GSK, Medscape, NSGO, Peerview, and Peervoice; individual travel support from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; and advisory board participation for Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Exelixis, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Genmab, GSK, ImmunoGen, Iteos, MSD de España SA, Mersana Therapeutics, Novocure, OncXerna Therapeutics, PharmaMar, Regeneron, Seagen, Shattuck Labs, and Sutro Biopharma. Dr. Graybill reports consulting and speaker fees from GSK. Dr. Sánchez reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and MSD; honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, and MSD; and travel support from AstraZeneca, GSK, and MSD. Dr. McCormick reports personal fees for advisory boards for Clovis, GSK, ImmunoGen, and Merck. Dr. Baurain reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, GSK, Immunocore, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma. Dr. Tinker reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, and Merck and travel support from GSK. Dr. Denys reports an institutional research grant from Gilead; consulting fees from Gilead and GSK; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Leo Pharma, MSD, and Roche; travel support from AstraZeneca, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, and Teva; and participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Menarini, MSD, and Pfizer. Dr. O'Cearbhaill reports institutional research support from NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA008748) and support grants from AstraZeneca/Merck, Atara Biotherapeutics/Bayer, Genentech, Genmab, GSK, Gynecologic Oncology Group Foundation, Juno Therapeutics, Kite/Gilead, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Regeneron, Sellas Life Sciences, StemcentRx, Syndax, TapImmune, and TCR2 Therapeutics; participating in advisory boards with Bayer, Carina Biotech, Fresenius Kabi, Immunogen, Regeneron, R-Pharm, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro/GSK; personal fees from GOG Foundation; travel fees from Hitech Health; and service as a noncompensated steering committee member for the DUO-O (olaparib) and PRIMA and Moonstone (niraparib) studies. Dr. Hietanen reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, and MSD and honoraria from AstraZeneca and GSK. Dr. Moore reports institutional grants from Angle Plc and Fujirebio Diagnostics and personal fees from Fujirebio Diagnostics. Dr. Knudsen has nothing to disclose. Dr. de La Motte Rouge reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, NetCancer, and Pfizer; and travel support from Gilead, MSD, and Pfizer. Dr. Heitz reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, and Tesaro and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, and Tesaro. Dr. Levy has nothing to disclose. Dr. Monk reports consulting fees from Agenus, Akeso Biopharma, Amgen, Aravive, Bayer, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Iovance, Karyopharm, MacroGenics, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Sorrento, US Oncology Research, and VBL and speakers' bureau honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Merck, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro/GSK. Dr. González-Martín reports for different educational or advisory-related activities from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genmab, GSK, Hedera Dx, Immunogen, Illumina, Mersana, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Roche, Seagen, Sotio, Sutro, Takeda, and Tubulis. Ms. York is a current employee of GSK. Dr. Gupta is a former employee of GSK and Mersana Therapeutics and is currently an employee of Cullinan Oncology., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To identify characteristics associated with long-term progression-free survival (≥2 years) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in the phase III PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study., Methods: In this post hoc analysis of PRIMA, patients randomized to niraparib were grouped based on investigator-assessed progression-free survival (progressive disease/censoring <2 years or ≥2 years after randomization). Variables assessed for predictive value were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage at diagnosis, clinical response to platinum-based chemotherapy, number of prior chemotherapy cycles, primary tumor location, body mass index, categorical age, debulking surgery type, number of baseline target lesions, number of baseline non-target lesions, BRCA /homologous recombination-deficiency status, residual disease status, and duration from end of chemotherapy to randomization. Logistic regression modeling using backward elimination (significance level=0.15) identified covariates associated with long-term progression-free survival (clinical cut-off date November 17, 2021)., Results: Of 487 patients randomized to niraparib, 152 (31%) had progressive disease/censoring ≥2 years after randomization. Multivariable logistic regression modeling using backward elimination identified BRCA1/2 mutation/homologous recombination deficiency status (p<0.0001), FIGO stage (p=0.041), primary tumor location (p=0.095), and number of baseline non-target lesions (p=0.0001) to be associated with long-term progression-free survival. Patients significantly more likely to achieve progression-free survival of ≥2 years in the final model were those with BRCA1 - and BRCA2 -mutated/homologous recombination-deficient tumors or BRCA wild-type/not determined/homologous recombination-deficient tumors (vs BRCA wild-type/homologous recombination-proficient/not determined tumors), FIGO stage III (vs IV), and 0 or 1 baseline non-target lesions (vs ≥2 baseline non-target lesions)., Conclusions: The hypothesis-generating results of this analysis suggest that BRCA1/2 mutation/homologous recombination-deficiency status, FIGO stage, and number of baseline non-target lesions may predict progression-free survival of ≥2 years in patients with advanced ovarian cancer receiving niraparib first-line maintenance therapy., Trial Registration Number: NCT02655016., Competing Interests: Competing interests: WSG reports consulting and speaker fees from GSK. BPB reports honoraria, support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, MSD, and PharmaMar and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, and MSD. DMO reports personal fees (consulting and/or advisory boards) and funding for clinical research from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, Iovance, Janssen/J&J, Merck, Mersana, Novocure, Regeneron, SDP Oncology (BBI), Seagen, and Tesaro/GSK; funding for clinical research from Ajinomoto, Array Biopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cerulean Pharma, EMD Serono, Ergomed, Genmab, INC Research, inVentiv Health Clinical, Ludwig Cancer Research, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, PRA Intl, Serono, Stemcentrx, TRACON Pharmaceuticals, VentiRx, and Yale University; personal fees from Myriad Genetics, Rubis, and Tarveda; personal fees and funding for clinical research from Agenus; and personal fees (consulting and/or advisory boards) from Ambry, Arquer Diagnostics, Celsion, Corcept Therapeutics, Elevar, InxMed, Novartis, Roche Diagnostics MSA, Sorrento, Takeda, and Toray. IV reports institutional payments for corporate-sponsored research from Amgen and Roche and contracted research from Genmab and Oncoinvent AS; institutional consulting fee payments from Amgen (Europe) GmbH, AstraZeneca, Carrick Therapeutics, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Elevar Therapeutics, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Novocure, Octimet Oncology, Oncoinvent AS, Sotio AS, Verastem Oncology, and Zentalis; consulting fees from Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharma, and Oncoinvent AS; honoraria payment from Agenus, Aksebio, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Jazz Pharma, Karyopharm, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Oncoinvent AS, Seagen, and Sotio AS; institutional travel support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, and Tesaro; and advisory board fees from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals (2021), Eisai, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Seagen (2021), and Sotio AS. BJM reports consulting fees from Agenus, Akeso Bio, Amgen, Aravive, Bayer, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Iovance, Karyopharm, MacroGenics, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Sorrento, US Oncology Research, VBL, and speakers’ bureau honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Merck, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro/GSK. AA reports advisory board fees from GSK and MSD. LJC reports institutional research funding from AbbVie, Advaxis, Agenus, Ajinomoto, Arcus Biosciences, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene USA, BMS, Cerulean Pharma, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Ergomed Clinical Research, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, GSK, Hoffman–LaRoche, Immunogen, Incyte Corporation, Iovance Biotherapeutics, InVentiv Health Clinical, Jansen R&D, Karyopharm, Leap Therapeutics, Ludwig Institute of Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Mersana Therapeutics, Novocure, OncoQuest, OvaGene, Pfizer, PharmaMar, PRA International, Precision Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Serono, Stemcentrx, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Oncology, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro (GSK), TRACON Pharm, and Verastem; personal advisory board fees from A28 Therapeutics, Celsion Corporation, Corcept Therapeutics, Elevar Therapeutics, GSK, Immunogen, InxMed, Luzsana Biotechnology, Myriad Genetics, Onconova, Rubius Therapeutics, Sorrento Therapeutics, Toray Industries, and VBL Therapeutics; and member of the data monitoring committee for Corcept Therapeutics. RS reports support for attending meetings from MSD and advisory board fees from Clovis Oncology, GSK, and MSD. TJH reports personal consulting fees from Aadi, AstraZeneca, Caris, Clovis, Eisai, Epsilogen, Genelux, Genentech, GSK, Immunogen, J&J, Merck, Mersana, and Seagen; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Corcept; and leadership role on the GOG Foundation Board and president of GOG Partners. PF reports payment or honoraria and payment for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Daiichi, GSK, and Novartis and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, GSK, and Novartis. BP reports institutional grant support from AstraZeneca, Celsion, Clovis Oncology, Duality Bio, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Karyopharm, Merck, Mersana, Seagen, Sutro Biopharma, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Tesaro/GSK, Toray, and VBL Therapeutics; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BioNtech, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GOG Foundation, Lily, Merck, Mersana, Seagen, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro/GSK, Onconova, and Toray; and travel support from GSK and BioNtech. EIB reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Merck; consulting or advisory roles at AstraZeneca and GSK; institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Eisai, GSK, Merck, and Resolve; travel support from AstraZeneca; and relationship with medical director of the North Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology (NOGGO). CM reports advisory role fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, ImmunoGen, and Merck. AY reports a GEICO grant by GSK. RGM reports personal fees from Fujirebio Diagnostics and research funding from Angle plc. PV reports payment of honoraria to self from MSD, Novartis, and Roche. NR-J reports advisory board fees from Eisai. WY and JH are employees of GSK. AG-M reports fees for different educational or advisory-related activities from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Genmab, GSK, Hedera Dx, Immunogen, Illumina, Karyopharm, Mersana, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Regeneron, Roche, Seagen, Sotio, Sutro, Takeda, and Tubulis., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The PRIMA/ENGOT‐OV26/GOG‐3012 (NCT02655016) trial was amended to prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of an individualized starting dose (ISD) regimen of niraparib for first‐line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: In the phase 3 PRIMA trial, patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first‐line platinum‐based chemotherapy (N = 733) were initially treated with a fixed starting dose (FSD) regimen of 300 mg once daily. Subsequently, the protocol was amended so newly enrolled patients received an ISD: 200 mg once daily in patients with baseline body weight < 77 kg or baseline platelet count < 150,000/µL, and 300 mg once daily in all other patients. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed by starting dose. Results: Overall, 475 (64.8%) patients were assigned to an FSD (niraparib, n = 317; placebo, n = 158) and 258 (35.2%) were assigned to an ISD (niraparib, n = 170; placebo, n = 88). Efficacy in patients who received FSD or ISD was similar for the overall (FSD hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.46–0.76] vs. ISD HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48–0.98]) and the homologous recombination–deficient (FSD HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.30–0.64] vs. ISD HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.22–0.72]) populations. In patients with low body weight/platelet count, rates of grades ≥3 and 4 hematologic treatment‐emergent adverse events, dose interruptions, and dose reductions were lower for those who received ISD than for those who received FSD. Conclusions: In PRIMA, similar dose intensity, similar efficacy, and improved safety were observed with the ISD compared with the FSD regimen. Results from the phase 3 PRIMA trial of niraparib first‐line maintenance therapy that prospectively evaluated fixed versus individualized dosing support the selection of a niraparib starting dose based on an individual's body weight and platelet count. In prespecified analyses, patients who received the individualized starting dose of niraparib experienced similar progression‐free survival and improved safety outcomes compared with patients who received the fixed starting dose of niraparib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: To identify risk factors for disease progression or death and assess outcomes by risk categories in real-world patients with advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study included adult patients from a nationwide electronic health record–derived deidentified database with stage III/IV ovarian cancer who received first-line therapy and had ≥12 weeks of follow-up after index date (end of first-line therapy). Factors predictive of time to next treatment and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Patients were grouped according to the cumulative number of high-risk factors present (stage IV disease, no debulking surgery or neoadjuvant therapy and interval debulking surgery, visible residual disease after surgery, and breast cancer gene [ BRCA ] wild-type disease/unknown BRCA status), and time to next treatment and OS were assessed. RESULTS: Region of residence, disease stage, histology, BRCA status, surgery modality, and visible residual disease were significant predictors of time to next treatment; age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, disease stage, BRCA status, surgery modality, visible residual disease, and platelet levels were significant predictors of OS (N = 1,920). Overall, 96.4%, 74.1%, and 40.3% of patients had at least 1, 2, or 3 high-risk factors, respectively; 15.7% of patients had all four high-risk factors. Observed median time to next treatment was 26.4 months (95% CI, 17.1 to 49.2) in patients with no high-risk factors and 4.6 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 5.7) in patients with four high-risk factors. Observed median OS was shorter among patients with more high-risk factors. CONCLUSION: These results underscore the complexity of risk assessment and demonstrate the importance of assessing a patient's cumulative risk profile rather than the impact of individual high-risk factors. They also highlight the potential for bias in cross-trial comparisons of median progression-free survival because of differences in risk-factor distribution among patient populations. Does the total number of risk factors matter? Real-world outcomes in patients with #ovariancancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective In the randomized phase 3 ICON7 trial (ISRCTN91273375), adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint) but not overall survival (OS; secondary endpoint) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. We explored treatment effect according to stage and extent of residual disease. Methods Patients with stage IIB–IV or high-risk (grade 3/clear-cell) stage I–IIA ovarian cancer were randomized to receive six cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel either alone or with bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks followed by single-agent bevacizumab for 12 further cycles (total duration 12 months). Post hoc exploratory analyses of subgroups defined by stage and extent of residual disease at diagnosis within the stage IIIB–IV population (European indication) was performed. Results The PFS benefit from bevacizumab was seen consistently in all subgroups explored. The PFS hazard ratio was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59–0.99) in 411 patients with stage IIIB–IV ovarian cancer with no visible residuum and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.69–0.95) in 749 patients with stage IIIB–IV disease and visible residuum. As in the ITT population, no OS difference was detected in any subgroup except the previously described 'high-risk' subgroup. Safety results in analyzed subgroups were consistent with the overall population. Conclusions Adding bevacizumab to front-line chemotherapy improves PFS irrespective of stage/residual disease. In patients with stage III with >1 cm residuum, stage IV or inoperable disease, this translates into an OS benefit. No OS benefit or detriment was seen in other subgroups explored. Highlights • Post hoc analyses of ICON7 explored bevacizumab by stage and extent of residual disease after upfront surgery for OC. • The progression-free survival (PFS) benefit from bevacizumab was seen consistently in all subgroups explored. • The PFS hazard ratio was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.59–0.99) in 411 patients with stage IIIB–IV disease and no visible residuum. • No OS difference was detected overall or in any subgroup except the previously reported 'high-risk' subgroup. • Adding bevacizumab to front-line chemotherapy improves PFS irrespective of stage/residual disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To report updated long-term efficacy and safety from the double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study (NCT02655016). Patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with complete or partial response (CR or PR) to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy received niraparib or placebo once daily (2:1 ratio). Stratification factors were best response to first-line chemotherapy regimen (CR/PR), receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no), and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status (deficient [HRd]/proficient [HRp] or not determined). Updated (ad hoc) progression-free survival (PFS) data (as of November 17, 2021) by investigator assessment (INV) are reported. In 733 randomised patients (niraparib, 487; placebo, 246), median PFS follow-up was 3.5 years. Median INV-PFS was 24.5 versus 11.2 months (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40–0.68) in the HRd population and 13.8 versus 8.2 months (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56–0.79) in the overall population for niraparib and placebo, respectively. In the HRp population, median INV-PFS was 8.4 versus 5.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49–0.87), respectively. Results were concordant with the primary analysis. Niraparib-treated patients were more likely to be free of progression or death at 4 years than placebo-treated patients (HRd, 38% versus 17%; overall, 24% versus 14%). The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events in niraparib patients were thrombocytopenia (39.7%), anaemia (31.6%), and neutropenia (21.3%). Myelodysplastic syndromes/acute myeloid leukaemia incidence rate (1.2%) was the same for niraparib- and placebo-treated patients. Overall survival remained immature. Niraparib maintained clinically significant improvements in PFS with 3.5 years of follow-up in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer at high risk of progression irrespective of HRD status. No new safety signals were identified. • Updated long-term efficacy and safety data from PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study. • Niraparib first-line maintenance therapy extended progression-free survival (PFS). • Durable PFS benefit observed in overall population and across biomarker subgroups. • The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events in niraparib patients were haematologic. • No new safety signals were identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adding maintenance olaparib to bevacizumab provided a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer in the randomized, double-blind PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial (NCT02477644). We analyzed PFS by clinical risk and biomarker status. Patients received olaparib 300 mg twice daily for up to 24 months plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to 15 months in total, or placebo plus bevacizumab. This post hoc exploratory analysis evaluated PFS in patients classified as higher risk (stage III with upfront surgery and residual disease or neoadjuvant chemotherapy; stage IV) or lower risk (stage III with upfront surgery and no residual disease), and by biomarker status. Of 806 randomized patients, 74% were higher risk and 26% were lower risk. After a median 22.9 months of follow-up, PFS favored olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in higher-risk patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49–0.74) and lower-risk patients (0.46; 0.30–0.72). Olaparib plus bevacizumab provided a substantial PFS benefit versus bevacizumab alone in the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive subgroup (higher risk: HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.28–0.54 and lower risk: 0.15; 0.07–0.30), with 24-month PFS rates in lower-risk patients of 90% versus 43%, respectively (Kaplan–Meier estimates). In PAOLA-1, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab provided a substantial PFS benefit in HRD-positive patients with a reduction of risk of progression or death of 61% in the higher-risk group and of 85% in the lower-risk group compared with bevacizumab alone. • Patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer were classified by clinical risk and according to biomarker status. • Higher risk: stage III with upfront surgery and residual disease or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or stage IV. • Lower risk: stage III with upfront surgery and no residual disease. • Olaparib plus bevacizumab provided a progression-free survival benefit over bevacizumab in higher- and lower-risk patients. • A substantial benefit was seen in higher- and lower-risk HRD-positive patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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). 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. 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. • Detailed safety data from the SOLO1 trial of maintenance olaparib in newly diagnosed, advanced BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer. • Maintenance olaparib had a predictable tolerability profile with no new safety signals identified. • Adverse events usually occurred early, were largely manageable and led to discontinuation in a minority of patients. • Risk of MDS/AML with maintenance olaparib in the newly diagnosed setting remained <1.5% with long-term follow-up of 5 years. • The majority of patients were able to remain on the recommended starting dose of olaparib 300 mg twice daily. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer patients (pts) are at high risk of relapse and 5-year survival is 30–50%. Delay of recurrence, prolonged survival and, for some pts, increased chance of cure are goals of treatment in this setting. In SOLO1 (NCT01844986; GOG-3004) pts with advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation (BRCAm) who were in response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy derived significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit from maintenance olaparib vs placebo (median 41 months follow-up; median not reached vs 13.8 months; hazard ratio 0.30; P <.001; Moore et al. NEJM 2018). We report analyses after 5-years of follow-up (data cut-off [DCO]: March 5, 2020), performed to assess the long-term efficacy and tolerability of maintenance olaparib for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. Pts received maintenance olaparib (tablets; 300 mg bid) or placebo for up to 2 years or until progression. PFS and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were investigator-assessed by modified RECIST v1.1. An exploratory subgroup analysis of PFS in higher-risk (stage IV disease, stage III disease with residual disease following primary debulking surgery, inoperable stage III disease, or stage III disease and had undergone interval surgery) and lower-risk (stage III disease without residual disease following primary debulking surgery) pts was carried out. For pts in complete response at baseline, RFS was defined post hoc as time from randomization to disease recurrence (new lesions by imaging) or death. [Display omitted] A total of 260 pts were randomized to olaparib; 131 to placebo (median treatment duration 24.6 vs 13.9 months, respectively). After a median of 4.8 and 5.0 years of follow-up, median PFS was 56 vs 14 months in the olaparib and placebo arms, respectively (Table). In the higher-risk subgroup 42% of olaparib-arm vs 17% of placebo-arm pts were free from progression at 5 years; in the lower-risk subgroup 56% vs 25% of pts, respectively, were progression free at this time point. Among pts in complete response at baseline, risk of disease recurrence or death was reduced by 63%. The safety profile of olaparib was consistent with previous observations. No new cases of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukaemia were reported (previous DCO: olaparib, 3/260 [1%]; placebo, 0/130), and incidence of new primary malignancies remained balanced between arms (olaparib, 7/260 [3%]; placebo, 5/130 [4%]). For pts with a BRCA m and newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer, the benefit derived from 2 years of maintenance olaparib was sustained beyond the end of treatment, and after 5 years, almost half of pts were progression free vs 20% with placebo. This benefit was consistent across higher- and lower-risk pts. Over 50% of pts in complete response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy remained free from relapse 5 years after randomization. A total of 5 years of follow-up is the longest for any PARP inhibitor in this setting and no new safety signals were observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]