Search

Despite the OlympiA trial demonstrating that early-stage, high-risk, HER2- germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm) positive breast cancer patients can benefit from PARPi in the adjuvant setting, the gBRCA testing rate in early-stage HR+/HER2− patients remains suboptimal compared to that in early-stage TNBC patients. To better understand the perceived barriers associated with gBRCA testing in HR+/HER2− disease, a quantitative survey was conducted across stakeholders (n = 430) including medical oncologists, surgeons, nurses, physician assistants, payers, and patients. This study revealed that while payers claim to cover gBRCA testing, poor clinician documentation and overutilization are key challenges. Therefore, payers place utilization management controls on gBRCA testing due to their impression that clinicians overtest. These controls have led to healthcare professionals experiencing payer pushback in the form of reimbursement limitations and denials. The perceived challenges to gBRCA testing stem from the lack of consensus dictating which patients are high risk and should be tested. While payers define high risk based on the CPS + EG score from the OlympiA trial, HCPs adopt a broader definition including genomic risk scores, lymph node involvement, and tumor grade and size. A dialogue to harmonize risk classification and testing eligibility across stakeholders is critical to address this disconnect and increase gBRCA testing in appropriate patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The randomized, double-blind OlympiA trial compared 1 year of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, olaparib, to matching placebo as adjuvant therapy for patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (g BRCA1/2 pv) and high-risk, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, early breast cancer (EBC). The first pre-specified interim analysis (IA) previously demonstrated statistically significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS). The olaparib group had fewer deaths than the placebo group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance for overall survival (OS). We now report the pre-specified second IA of OS with updates of IDFS, DDFS, and safety. One thousand eight hundred and thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo following (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy if indicated. Endocrine therapy was given concurrently with study medication for hormone receptor-positive cancers. Statistical significance for OS at this IA required P < 0.015. With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the second IA of OS demonstrated significant improvement in the olaparib group relative to the placebo group [hazard ratio 0.68; 98.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.97; P = 0.009]. Four-year OS was 89.8% in the olaparib group and 86.4% in the placebo group (Δ 3.4%, 95% CI −0.1% to 6.8%). Four-year IDFS for the olaparib group versus placebo group was 82.7% versus 75.4% (Δ 7.3%, 95% CI 3.0% to 11.5%) and 4-year DDFS was 86.5% versus 79.1% (Δ 7.4%, 95% CI 3.6% to 11.3%), respectively. Subset analyses for OS, IDFS, and DDFS demonstrated benefit across major subgroups. No new safety signals were identified including no new cases of acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome. With 3.5 years of median follow-up, OlympiA demonstrates statistically significant improvement in OS with adjuvant olaparib compared with placebo for g BRCA1/2 pv-associated EBC and maintained improvements in the previously reported, statistically significant endpoints of IDFS and DDFS with no new safety signals. • Adjuvant olaparib versus placebo significantly improved OS in g BRCA1 /2pv-associated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative EBC (4-year OS 90% versus 86%). • Adjuvant olaparib versus placebo improved 4-year IDFS (83% versus 75%) and 4-year DDFS (87% versus 79%). • Adjuvant olaparib demonstrated benefit across major subgroups for OS, IDFS, and DDFS, including by hormone receptor status. • With 3.5 years of median follow-up there were two acute myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome cases (0.2%) with olaparib and three (0.3%) with placebo. • With 1-year of additional follow-up, no new safety signals were identified with adjuvant olaparib compared to placebo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]