Avelumab Plus Talazoparib in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors: The JAVELIN PARP Medley Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Preclinical data suggest that poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have synergistic activity when combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); however, it is unknown which tumor types or molecular subtypes may benefit from this combination. Objective: To investigate responses associated with the combination of avelumab and talazoparib in different tumor types and/or molecular subtypes. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this phase 1b and 2 basket nonrandomized controlled trial, patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled in the following cohorts: non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); DNA damage response (DDR)-positive NSCLC; triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC); hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2)-negative, DDR-positive breast cancer; recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (OC); recurrent, platinum-sensitive, BRCA1/2-altered OC; urothelial cancer; metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC); DDR-positive mCRPC; and BRCA1/2- or ATM-altered solid tumors. Data were analyzed between June 17, 2021, and August 6, 2021. Interventions: All patients in phases 1b and 2 received avelumab plus talazoparib. Main Outcomes and Measures: The phase 1b primary end point was dose-limiting toxic effects. The phase 2 primary end point was objective response, measured as objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included safety, time to response, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival, time to prostate-specific antigen progression and PSA response of 50% or greater (for mCRPC), cancer antigen 125 response (for OC), pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and biomarkers. Results: A total of 223 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.2 [11.0] years; 117 [52.5%] men) were treated, including 12 patients in phase 1b and 211 patients in phase 2. The recommended phase 2 dose was avelumab 800 mg every 2 weeks plus talazoparib 1 mg once daily. In phase 2, the ORR was 18.2% (95% CI, 5.2%-40.3%) in patients with TNBC; 34.8% (95% CI, 16.4%-57.3%) in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, and DDR-positive BC; and 63.6% (95% CI, 30.8%-89.1%) in patients with platinum-sensitive, BRCA1/2-altered OC. Responses occurred more frequently in patients with BRCA1/2-altered tumors. Durable responses were observed in patients with TNBC (median [range] DOR, 11.1 [3.4-20.4] months); HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, and DDR-positive BC (median [range] DOR, 15.7 [3.9 to ≥20.6] months); and BRCA1/2-altered OC (median DOR not reached; range, 5.6 to ≥18.4 months). The most common grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events were anemia (75 patients [33.6%]), thrombocytopenia (48 patients [21.5%]), and neutropenia (31 patients [13.9%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This nonrandomized controlled trial found that ORRs for avelumab plus talazoparib were comparable with those with PARP inhibitor or ICI monotherapy. Prolonged DOR in patients with TNBC; HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, and DDR-positive BC; and BRCA1/2-altered OC warrant further investigation in randomized clinical trials. These data highlight the importance of prospective patient selection in future studies of ICI and PARP-inhibitor combinations. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03330405.

Extramedullary versus intramedullary tibial alignment guides for total knee arthroplasty.

This retrospective study evaluated whether intramedullary or extramedullary tibial alignment guides are more accurate in assuring correct tibial component positioning in total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). Fifty-five TKAs were performed with the only difference being whether an intramedullary (31) or extramedullary (24) cutting guide was used. Pre- and postoperative tibiofemoral angle, tibial component alignment angle, and femoral component alignment angles were measured and the results were statistically analyzed. We also performed a subgroup analysis on the preoperative varus knees to determine if the presence of a varus deformity would have better results with either the intramedullary or extramedullary cutting guide. The 2-sample t test was used to compare the results of the two groups. The results showed no statistical difference in alignment of the tibial component when using the intramedullary or extramedullary guides.