Exploratory biomarker analysis in the phase III L-MOCA study of olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: The prospective phase III multi-centre L-MOCA trial (NCT03534453) has demonstrated the encouraging efficacy and manageable safety profile of olaparib maintenance therapy in the Asian (mainly Chinese) patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC). In this study, we report the preplanned exploratory biomarker analysis of the L-MOCA trial, which investigated the effects of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression on olaparib efficacy. METHODS: HRD status was determined using the ACTHRD assay, an enrichment-based targeted next-generation sequencing assay. PD-L1 expression was assessed by SP263 immunohistochemistry assay. PD-L1 expression positivity was defined by the PD-L1 expression on ≥ 1% of immune cells. Kaplan-Meier method was utilised to analyse progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: This exploratory biomarker analysis included 225 patients and tested HRD status [N = 190; positive, N = 125 (65.8%)], PD-L1 expression [N = 196; positive, N = 56 (28.6%)], and BRCA1/2 mutation status (N = 219). The HRD-positive patients displayed greater median PFS than the HRD-negative patients [17.9 months (95% CI: 14.5-22.1) versus 9.2 months (95% CI: 7.5-13.8)]. PD-L1 was predominantly expressed on immune cells. Positive PD-L1 expression on immune cells was associated with shortened median PFS in the patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations [14.5 months (95% CI: 7.4-18.2) versus 22.2 months (95% CI: 18.3-NA)]. Conversely, positive PD-L1 expression on immune cells was associated with prolonged median PFS in the patients with wild-type BRCA1/2 [20.9 months (95% CI: 13.9-NA) versus 8.3 months (95% CI: 6.7-13.8)]. CONCLUSIONS: HRD remained an effective biomarker for enhanced olaparib efficacy in the Asian patients with PSROC. Positive PD-L1 expression was associated with decreased olaparib efficacy in the patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations but associated with improved olaparib efficacy in the patients with wild-type BRCA1/2. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03534453. Registered at May 23, 2018.

The role of upfront lenalidomide maintenance for primary central nervous system lymphoma following first-line methotrexate treatment: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Consolidation therapy improves the duration of response among patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL). Lenalidomide maintenance has shown encouraging results in older patients with PCNSL. Herein, we performed a retrospective, single-center analysis to evaluate the effect of lenalidomide maintenance on the duration of response in patients with newly-diagnosed PCNSL. METHODS: Sixty-nine adult patients with PCNSL who achieved complete remission or partial remission (PR) after induction therapy were enrolled. The median age of patients was 58.0 years. The maintenance group (n = 35) received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day) for 21 days, every 28 days for 24 months; the observation group did not undergo any further treatment. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 32.6 months, the maintenance group experienced fewer relapse events. However, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar between groups (36.1 vs. 30.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.446). Lenalidomide maintenance significantly improved PFS and overall survival (OS) only among patients who experienced PR after induction. The median duration of lenalidomide maintenance was 18 months; lenalidomide was well tolerated and minimally impacted the quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The present study was the first to evaluate lenalidomide maintenance as a frontline treatment among patients with PCNSL, PFS and OS did not improve, although the safety profile was satisfactory.

Prognostic role of circulating cytokines and inflammation indexes for avelumab maintenance in metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Background: Avelumab maintenance after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy represents a cornerstone for the treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). However, identifying prognostic biomarkers is paramount for optimizing patients' benefits while minimizing toxicity. Cytokines represent circulating mediators of the complex interaction between cancer, the immune system, and inflammation. Inflammation, a hallmark of cancer, can be expressed by circulating factors. In different tumor subtypes, peripheral blood biomarkers, such as circulating cytokines, and systemic inflammatory indexes, have been addressed as potential prognostic factors for immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, their role in mUC still needs to be determined. Methods: Between February 2021 and April 2023, we prospectively collected plasma cytokines and inflammation indexes in 28 patients with mUC before starting avelumab as first-line maintenance. The primary endpoint was the relationship between baseline cytokines and inflammatory indexes with the clinical benefit (CB), defined as the number of Responders. Secondary endpoints included the correlation of baseline cytokines and inflammatory indexes with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the number and grade of immune-related adverse events. Results: High pre-treatment levels of interferon (IFN)-γ and interleukin (IL)-2, and low levels of IL-6, IL-8, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), and systemic-inflammation index (SII) were associated with clinical benefit and longer survival. In the multivariate analysis, low IL-8, NLR, and SII levels maintained a positive prognostic value for OS. Conclusion: Our data suggest that, in mUC patients receiving avelumab, pre-treatment levels of plasma cytokines and inflammatory indexes may serve as potential prognostic biomarkers for response and efficacy. In particular, patients with signs of pre-therapeutic inflammation showed a significantly lower response and survival to avelumab. On the contrary, low systemic inflammation and high levels of cytokines characterized responders and longer survivors.

Induction and maintenance of sequential intravesical gemcitabine/docetaxel for intermediate and high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer with different dosage protocols.

INTRODUCTION: The combination of sequential intravesical gemcitabine and docetaxel (Gem/Doce) chemotherapy has been considered a feasible option for BCG (Bacillus Calmette-Guérin) treatment in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), gaining popularity during BCG shortage period. We seek to determine the efficacy of the treatment by comparing Gem/Doce induction alone vs induction with maintenance, and to evaluate the treatment outcomes of two different dosage protocols. METHODS: A bi-center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients treated with Gem/Doce for NMIBC between 2018 and 2023 was performed. Baseline characteristics, risk group stratification (AUA 2020 guidelines), pathological, and surveillance reports were collected. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to detect Recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS: Overall, 83 patients (68 males, 15 females) with a median age of 73 (IQR 66-79), and a median follow-up time of 18 months (IQR 9-25), were included. Forty-one had an intermediate-risk disease (49%) and 42 had a high-risk disease (51%). Thirty-seven patients (45%) had a recurrence; 19 (23%) had a high-grade recurrence. RFS of Gem/Doce induction-only vs induction + maintenance was at 6 months 88% vs 100%, at 12 months 71% vs 97%, at 18 months 57% vs 91%, and at 24 months 31% vs 87%, respectively (log-rank, p < 0.0001). Patients who received 2 g Gemcitabine with Docetaxel had better RFS for all-grade recurrences (log-rank, p = 0.017). However, no difference was found for high-grade recurrences. CONCLUSION: Gem/Doce induction with maintenance resulted in significantly better RFS than induction-only. Combining 2 g gemcitabine with docetaxel resulted in better RFS for all-grade but not for high-grade recurrences. Further prospective trials are necessary to validate our results.

Cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line maintenance therapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in France.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance therapy plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) that had not progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy in France. METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and effects of avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone. Data from the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (NCT02603432) were used to inform estimates of clinical and utility values considering a 10-year time horizon and a weekly cycle length. Cost data were estimated from a collective perspective and included treatment acquisition, administration, follow-up, adverse event-related hospitalization, transport, post-progression, and end-of-life costs. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and life-years gained. Costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 2.5% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to compare cost-effectiveness and willingness to pay in France. Uncertainty was assessed using a range of sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Avelumab plus BSC was associated with a gain of 2.49 QALYs and total discounted costs of €136,917; BSC alone was associated with 1.82 QALYs and €39,751. Although avelumab plus BSC was associated with increased acquisition costs compared with BSC alone, offsets of -€20,424 and -€351 were observed for post-progression and end-of-life costs, respectively. The base case analysis ICER was €145,626/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the reference case and showed that efficacy parameters (overall survival, time to treatment discontinuation), post-progression time on immunotherapy, and post-progression costs had the largest impact on the ICER. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated that avelumab plus BSC is associated with a favorable cost-effectiveness profile for patients with la/mUC who are eligible for 1L maintenance therapy in France.

Current treatment strategies for ovarian cancer in the East Asian Gynecologic Oncology Trial Group (EAGOT).

Ovarian cancer, notable for its severe prognosis among gynecologic cancers, has seen substantial progress in treatment approaches recently. Enhanced protocols in chemotherapy and the introduction of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for maintenance therapy have markedly improved outcomes for patients with specific genetic profiles, such as those positive for BRCA mutations or exhibiting homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). Additionally, the method of intraperitoneal chemotherapy administration has emerged as a valuable alternative to traditional transvenous routes, showing promise for wider clinical adoption. The field of surgery has also evolved, with increasing exploration into the benefits and feasibility of laparoscopic methods over more invasive traditional surgeries, aiming for complete tumor removal but with reduced patient impact. The hereditary nature of ovarian cancer underscores the importance of genetic testing, which has become integral in tailoring treatment strategies, particularly in determining suitability for PARP inhibitors. The formation of the East Asian Gynecologic Oncology Trial Group (EAGOT) aims to optimize treatment across Japan, Korea, China, and Taiwan. The ovarian cancer committee of EAGOT shared the current policies, focusing on 5 topics: 1) strategies for maintenance therapy after initial surgery and chemotherapy, 2) drug regimens for platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant recurrence, 3) intraperitoneal chemotherapy, 4) laparoscopic surgery as an alternative to laparotomy, and 5) current status of genetic testing (BRCA, HRD, and panel tests) for ovarian cancer and its prospects. EAGOT's multi-national trials aim to harmonize these evolving treatment strategies, ensuring that the latest and most effective protocols are accessible across the region, thereby significantly impacting patient outcomes in East Asia.

Comparative Efficacy of Subcutaneous and Intravenous Infliximab and Vedolizumab for Maintenance Treatment of TNF-naive Adult Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab and vedolizumab are widely used to treat Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). AIMS: This systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluated comparative efficacy of various regimens for intravenous or subcutaneous infliximab and vedolizumab during maintenance treatment in CD and UC. METHODS: Parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by a systematic literature review (CRD42022383401) and included if they evaluated therapeutics of interest for maintenance treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe luminal CD or UC and assessed clinical remission between Weeks 30 and 60. Clinical remission rates in CD or UC and mucosal healing rates in UC were analyzed in a Bayesian network meta-analysis model. Endoscopic outcomes in CD were synthesized by proportional meta-analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 13 RCTs were included in the analyses. All vedolizumab studies randomized induction responders to maintenance treatment; infliximab studies used a treat-through design. Subcutaneous infliximab 120 mg every 2 weeks had the highest odds ratio (OR) [95% credible interval] versus placebo for clinical remission during the maintenance phase (CD: 5.90 [1.90-18.2]; UC: 5.45 [1.94-15.3]), with surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values of 0.91 and 0.82, respectively. For mucosal healing in UC, subcutaneous infliximab 120 mg every 2 weeks showed the highest OR (4.90 [1.63-14.1]), with SUCRA value of 0.73, followed by intravenous vedolizumab 300 mg every 4 weeks (SUCRA value, 0.70). Endoscopic outcomes in CD were better with subcutaneous infliximab 120 mg every 2 weeks than intravenous infliximab 5 mg/kg every 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous infliximab showed a favorable efficacy profile for achieving clinical remission and endoscopic outcomes during maintenance treatment in CD or UC.

Gilteritinib as Post-Transplant Maintenance for AML With Internal Tandem Duplication Mutation of FLT3.

PURPOSE: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) improves outcomes for patients with AML harboring an internal tandem duplication mutation of FLT3 (FLT3-ITD) AML. These patients are routinely treated with a FLT3 inhibitor after HCT, but there is limited evidence to support this. Accordingly, we conducted a randomized trial of post-HCT maintenance with the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02997202) to determine if all such patients benefit or if detection of measurable residual disease (MRD) could identify those who might benefit. METHODS: Adults with FLT3-ITD AML in first remission underwent HCT and were randomly assigned to placebo or 120 mg once daily gilteritinib for 24 months after HCT. The primary end point was relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and the effect of MRD pre- and post-HCT on RFS and OS. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-six participants were randomly assigned post-HCT to receive gilteritinib or placebo. Although RFS was higher in the gilteritinib arm, the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.679 [95% CI, 0.459 to 1.005]; two-sided P = .0518). However, 50.5% of participants had MRD detectable pre- or post-HCT, and, in a prespecified subgroup analysis, gilteritinib was beneficial in this population (HR, 0.515 [95% CI, 0.316 to 0.838]; P = .0065). Those without detectable MRD showed no benefit (HR, 1.213 [95% CI, 0.616 to 2.387]; P = .575). CONCLUSION: Although the overall improvement in RFS was not statistically significant, RFS was higher for participants with detectable FLT3-ITD MRD pre- or post-HCT who received gilteritinib treatment. To our knowledge, these data are among the first to support the effectiveness of MRD-based post-HCT therapy.

[Gemcitabine long-term maintenance chemotherapy benefits patients with survival: a multicenter, real-world study of advanced breast cancer treatment in China].

Objective: This study collected a real-world data on survival and efficacy of gemcitabine-containing therapy in advanced breast cancer. Aimed to find the main reasons of affecting the duration of gemcitabine-base therapy in advanced breast cancer patients. Methods: Advanced breast cancer patients who received gemcitabine-base therapy from January 2017 to January 2019 were enrolled(10 hospitals). The clinicopathological data, the number of chemotherapy cycles and the reasons for treatment termination were collected and analyzed. To identify the reasons related with continuous treatment for advanced breast cancer and the factors which affect the survival and efficacy. Results: A total of 224 patients with advanced breast cancer were enrolled in this study, with a median age of 52 years (26-77 years), 55.4%(124/224) was postmenopausal. Luminal type were 83 cases, TNBC were 97 cases, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER's-2) overexpression were 44. At the analysis, 224 patients who received the gemcitabine-based regimens were evaluated, included 5 complete reponse (CR), 77 partial response (PR), 112 stable disease (SD) and 27 progressive disease (PD). The objective response rate (ORR) was 36.6%(82/224). Seventy patients had serious adverse diseases, including leukopenia (9), neutrophilia (49), thrombocytopenia (15), and elevated transaminase (2). The median follow-up time was 41 months (26~61 months), and the median PFS was 5.6 months. The reasons of termination treatment were listed: disease progression were 90 patients; personal reasons were 51 patients; adverse drug reactions were 18 patients; completed treatment were 65 patients. It was found that progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer in patients receiving >6 cycles than that in patients with ≤6 cycles (8.2 months vs 5.4 months, HR=2.474, 95% CI: 1.730-3.538, P＜0.001). Conclusions: Gemcitabine-based regimen is generally well tolerated in the Chinese population and has relatively ideal clinical efficacy in the real world. The median PFS is significantly prolonged when the number of treatment cycles are appropriately increased.

Azacitidine Post-transplant Maintenance Improves Disease Progression in High-Risk Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) with hypomethylating agents has yielded conflicting results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a single center retrospective matched-control analysis with the study group (5-azacitidine [AZA] group) including adults with FLT3-negative acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who received post-transplant AZA maintenance off clinical trial (n = 93). A matched control group was comprised of contemporaneous AML/MDS patients who did not receive any maintenance (n = 357). Primary endpoint was disease progression. RESULTS: The AZA and control groups had comparable patient and disease characteristics except for older age (median: 61 vs. 57 years, P = .01) and lower hematopoietic comorbidity index (median: 2 vs. 3, P = .04) in the AZA group. The 3-year cumulative incidence of progression in the AZA and control groups was 29% vs. 33% (P = .09). The protective effect of AZA on progression was limited to patients with high-risk AML/MDS (HR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2-0.8, P = .009). This led to improved progression-free survival both in high-risk AML and MDS patients with maintenance (HR = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.1-0.6, P = .004 and HR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2-0.9, P = .04). CONCLUSION: AZA maintenance was associated with a lower progression rate in patients with high-risk FLT3-negative AML or MDS, and AZA maintenance should be considered for post-alloHCT maintenance in this subset.

Role of Consolidation and Maintenance.

Consolidation therapy consists of short-term therapy after stem cell transplant in multiple myeloma. Key consolidation trials have shown mixed results on whether consolidation should be included after transplant, leading to varied clinical practice. Maintenance therapy consists of long-term, typically fixed-duration or indefinite, therapy. Standard-risk patients typically receive single-agent therapy, whereas high-risk may benefit from doublet therapy and beyond. Adverse events and quality of life concerns should be considered, as optimal duration of maintenance therapy continues to be studied.

Continued Treatment With Tirzepatide for Maintenance of Weight Reduction in Adults With Obesity: The SURMOUNT-4 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of continued treatment with tirzepatide on maintaining initial weight reduction is unknown. Objective: To assess the effect of tirzepatide, with diet and physical activity, on the maintenance of weight reduction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 3, randomized withdrawal clinical trial conducted at 70 sites in 4 countries with a 36-week, open-label tirzepatide lead-in period followed by a 52-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled period included adults with a body mass index greater than or equal to 30 or greater than or equal to 27 and a weight-related complication, excluding diabetes. Interventions: Participants (n = 783) enrolled in an open-label lead-in period received once-weekly subcutaneous maximum tolerated dose (10 or 15 mg) of tirzepatide for 36 weeks. At week 36, a total of 670 participants were randomized (1:1) to continue receiving tirzepatide (n = 335) or switch to placebo (n = 335) for 52 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the mean percent change in weight from week 36 (randomization) to week 88. Key secondary end points included the proportion of participants at week 88 who maintained at least 80% of the weight loss during the lead-in period. Results: Participants (n = 670; mean age, 48 years; 473 [71%] women; mean weight, 107.3 kg) who completed the 36-week lead-in period experienced a mean weight reduction of 20.9%. The mean percent weight change from week 36 to week 88 was -5.5% with tirzepatide vs 14.0% with placebo (difference, -19.4% [95% CI, -21.2% to -17.7%]; P < .001). Overall, 300 participants (89.5%) receiving tirzepatide at 88 weeks maintained at least 80% of the weight loss during the lead-in period compared with 16.6% receiving placebo (P < .001). The overall mean weight reduction from week 0 to 88 was 25.3% for tirzepatide and 9.9% for placebo. The most common adverse events were mostly mild to moderate gastrointestinal events, which occurred more commonly with tirzepatide vs placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In participants with obesity or overweight, withdrawing tirzepatide led to substantial regain of lost weight, whereas continued treatment maintained and augmented initial weight reduction. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04660643.

Efficacy and safety of olaparib, olaparib plus bevacizumab and niraparib maintenance treatment in Japanese patients with platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether maintenance treatment could be safely and effectively performed with olaparib, olaparib plus bevacizumab and niraparib in platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer at multiple institutions in Japan. METHODS: We investigated progression-free survival and adverse events in 117 patients with platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer treated with maintenance therapy. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival of 117 patients was 20.1 months. Patients with germline BRCA pathogenic variants had a significantly better prognosis than the other groups (P < 0.001). Furthermore, in the multivariate analysis, stage IV (P = 0.016) and germline BRCA wild-type (P ≤ 0.001) were significantly associated with worse progression-free survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Regarding adverse events, all three types of maintenance treatment were significantly worse than chemotherapy given before maintenance treatment with respect to renal function (olaparib, P = 0.037; olaparib plus bevacizumab, P < 0.001; and niraparib, P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Maintenance treatment was performed effectively and safely. Renal function deterioration is likely to occur during maintenance treatment, and careful administration is important in platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer.

Olaparib maintenance versus placebo in platinum-sensitive non-small cell lung cancer: the Phase 2 randomized PIPSeN trial.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-sensitivity is a phenotypic biomarker of Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) sensitivity in histotypes where PARPi are approved. Approximately one-third of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) are platinum-sensitive. The double-blind, randomized phase II PIPSeN (NCT02679963) study evaluated olaparib, a PARPi, as maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Chemonaïve patients with ECOG performance status of 0-1, platinum-sensitive, EGFR- and ALK-wild-type, stage IIIB-IV NSCLC were randomized (R) to receive either olaparib (O) maintenance or a placebo (P). The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) from R. Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS) and safety. With an anticipated hazard ratio of 0.65, 144 patients were required to be randomized, and approximately 500 patients enrolled. RESULTS: The trial was prematurely terminated because anti-PD(L)1 therapy was approved during the trial recruitment. A total of 182 patients were enrolled, with 60 patients randomized: 33 and 27 in the O and P arms, respectively. Patient and tumor characteristics were well-balanced between arms, except for alcohol intake (33% vs 11% in the O and P arms, respectively, p = 0.043). The median PFS was 2.9 and 2.0 months in the O and P arms, respectively (logrank p = 0.99). The median OS was 9.4 and 9.5 months in the O and P arms, respectively (p = 0.28). Grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 15 and 8 patients in O and P arms, with no new safety concerns. CONCLUSION: PIPSeN was terminated early after enrollment of only 50% of the pre-planned population, thus being statistically underpowered. Olaparib maintenance did neither improve median PFS nor OS in this patient population.

Comparison of survival outcomes between olaparib and niraparib maintenance therapy in BRCA-mutated, newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This multicenter retrospective cohort study aimed to compare survival outcomes and adverse events between maintenance therapy with two poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, olaparib and niraparib, in patients with BRCA-mutated, newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) who responded to platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: We enrolled stage III-IV EOC patients with germline and/or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations that had received maintenance therapy with olaparib or niraparib. A 3:1 propensity score matching was conducted using two variables: residual disease size and the presence of germline variants. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary outcomes were time to first subsequent therapy (TFST), overall survival (OS), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: In the propensity score-matched analysis, 80 patients who received olaparib and 31 patients who received niraparib were matched (3:1). In the propensity score-matched cohort, median PFS with olaparib vs. niraparib was not reached vs 31.5 months (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.47-2.52; p = 0.854). The median TFST was not reached vs 31.8 months (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.51-2.81; p = 0.682), and neither olaparib nor niraparib reached the median OS (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.01-17.61; p = 0.649). In terms of the incidence rates of any-grade hematologic or non-hematologic TEAEs, higher rates of thrombocytopenia (p = 0.021) and neutropenia (p = 0.011) were observed in the niraparib group. CONCLUSION: Advanced EOC patients with BRCA1/2 mutations exhibited no significant difference in OS between olaparib and niraparib, indicating the need to consider individualized strategies for selecting PARP inhibitors based on adverse event profiles.

Exploratory analyses of treatment subgroup interaction by PD-L1 status and according to PD-L1 expression in the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial.

PURPOSE: Post hoc analysis of the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial of avelumab maintenance in locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) to determine the interaction by programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status for overall survival (OS), and additional analyses of survival per a different PD-L1 expression cutoff of ≥ 1% in tumor cells or immune cells (TC/IC). METHODS: JAVELIN Bladder 100 data were used for the analysis of the interaction by PD-L1 status (per cutoff used in the trial) for OS and, additionally, OS and progression-free survival (PFS) analyses per a different ≥ 1% TC/IC PD-L1 expression cutoff (Ventana SP263 assay). RESULTS: No significant interaction between treatment and PD-L1 status was observed for OS. Clinically meaningful and robust survival data were observed in favor of avelumab using the different ≥ 1% TC/IC PD-L1 expression cutoff. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the benefit of avelumab maintenance in la/mUC regardless of PD-L1 expression, consistent with approved labels.

The optimal intravesical maintenance chemotherapy scheme for the intermediate-risk group non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Although the current European Association of Urology(EAU) guideline recommends that patients with intermediate-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) should accept intravesical chemotherapy or Calmette-Guerin (BCG) for no more than one year after transurethral resection of bladder tumor(TURBT), there is no consensus on the optimal duration of chemotherapy. Hence, we explored the optimal duration of maintenance intravesical chemotherapy in patients with intermediate-risk NMIBC. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This was a real-world single-center retrospective cohort study. In total 158 patients with pathologically confirmed intermediate-risk NMIBC were included, who were divided into 4 subgroups based on the number of instillations given. We used Cox regression analysis and survival analysis chart to explore the 3-yr recurrence outcomes of tumor.The optimal duration was determined by receive operating characteristic curve (ROC). RESULTS: The median follow-up was 5.2 years. Compared with instillation for 1-2 months, the Hazard Ratios(HR) values of instillation for less than 1 month, maintenance instillation for 3-6 months and > 6 months were 3.57、1.57 and 0.22(95% CI 1.27-12.41;0.26-9.28;0.07-0.80, P = 0.03;0.62;0.02, respectively). We found a significant improvement in 3-yr relapse-free survival in intermediate-risk NMIBC patients who maintained intravesical instillation chemotherapy for longer than 6 months, and the best benefit was achieved with 10.5 months of maintenance chemotherapy by ROC. CONCLUSIONS: In our scheme, the optimal duration of intravesical instillation with pirrubicin is 10.5 months. This new understanding provides valuable experience for the precise medical treatment model of intermediate-risk NMIBC.

Maintenance olaparib rechallenge in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer previously treated with a PARP inhibitor (OReO/ENGOT-ov38): a phase IIIb trial.

BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor maintenance therapy is the standard of care for some patients with advanced ovarian cancer. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitor rechallenge. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial (NCT03106987) enrolled patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer who had received one prior PARP inhibitor therapy for ≥18 and ≥12 months in the BRCA-mutated and non-BRCA-mutated cohorts, respectively, following first-line chemotherapy or for ≥12 and ≥6 months, respectively, following a second or subsequent line of chemotherapy. Patients were in response following their last platinum-based chemotherapy regimen and were randomized 2 : 1 to maintenance olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Seventy four patients in the BRCA-mutated cohort were randomized to olaparib and 38 to placebo, and 72 patients in the non-BRCA-mutated cohort were randomized to olaparib and 36 to placebo; >85% of patients in both cohorts had received ≥3 prior lines of chemotherapy. In the BRCA-mutated cohort, the median PFS was 4.3 months with olaparib versus 2.8 months with placebo [hazard ratio (HR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37-0.87; P = 0.022]; 1-year PFS rates were 19% versus 0% (Kaplan-Meier estimates). In the non-BRCA-mutated cohort, median PFS was 5.3 months for olaparib versus 2.8 months for placebo (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.26-0.71; P = 0.0023); 1-year PFS rates were 14% versus 0% (Kaplan-Meier estimates). No new safety signals were identified with olaparib rechallenge. CONCLUSIONS: In ovarian cancer patients previously treated with one prior PARP inhibitor and at least two lines of platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance olaparib rechallenge provided a statistically significant, albeit modest, PFS improvement over placebo in both the BRCA-mutated and non-BRCA-mutated cohorts, with a proportion of patients in the maintenance olaparib rechallenge arm of both cohorts remaining progression free at 1 year.