Overall survival in the OlympiA phase III trial of adjuvant olaparib in patients with germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 and high-risk, early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: 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 (gBRCA1/2pv) 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. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: With 3.5 years of median follow-up, OlympiA demonstrates statistically significant improvement in OS with adjuvant olaparib compared with placebo for gBRCA1/2pv-associated EBC and maintained improvements in the previously reported, statistically significant endpoints of IDFS and DDFS with no new safety signals.

Longitudinal characterisation of haematological and biochemical parameters in cancer patients prior to and during COVID-19 reveals features associated with outcome.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are at increased risk of death from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Cancer and its treatment affect many haematological and biochemical parameters, therefore we analysed these prior to and during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and correlated them with outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with cancer testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 in centres throughout the United Kingdom were identified and entered into a database following local governance approval. Clinical and longitudinal laboratory data were extracted from patient records. Data were analysed using Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher's exact test, Wilcoxon signed rank test, logistic regression, or linear regression for outcomes. Hierarchical clustering of heatmaps was performed using Ward's method. RESULTS: In total, 302 patients were included in three cohorts: Manchester (n = 67), Liverpool (n = 62), and UK (n = 173). In the entire cohort (N = 302), median age was 69 (range 19-93 years), including 163 males and 139 females; of these, 216 were diagnosed with a solid tumour and 86 with a haematological cancer. Preinfection lymphopaenia, neutropaenia and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) were not associated with oxygen requirement (O2) or death. Lymphocyte count (P < 0.001), platelet count (P = 0.03), LDH (P < 0.0001) and albumin (P < 0.0001) significantly changed from preinfection to during infection. High rather than low neutrophils at day 0 (P = 0.007), higher maximal neutrophils during COVID-19 (P = 0.026) and higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR; P = 0.01) were associated with death. In multivariable analysis, age (P = 0.002), haematological cancer (P = 0.034), C-reactive protein (P = 0.004), NLR (P = 0.036) and albumin (P = 0.02) at day 0 were significant predictors of death. In the Manchester/Liverpool cohort 30 patients have restarted therapy following COVID-19, with no additional complications requiring readmission. CONCLUSION: Preinfection biochemical/haematological parameters were not associated with worse outcome in cancer patients. Restarting treatment following COVID-19 was not associated with additional complications. Neutropaenia due to cancer/treatment is not associated with COVID-19 mortality. Cancer therapy, particularly in patients with solid tumours, need not be delayed or omitted due to concerns that treatment itself increases COVID-19 severity.

BEECH: a dose-finding run-in followed by a randomised phase II study assessing the efficacy of AKT inhibitor capivasertib (AZD5363) combined with paclitaxel in patients with estrogen receptor-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer, and in a PIK3CA mutant sub-population.

BACKGROUND: BEECH investigated the efficacy of capivasertib (AZD5363), an oral inhibitor of AKT isoforms 1-3, in combination with the first-line weekly paclitaxel for advanced or metastatic estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer, and in a phosphoinositide 3-kinase, catalytic, alpha polypeptide mutation sub-population (PIK3CA+). PATIENTS AND METHODS: BEECH consisted of an open-label, phase Ib safety run-in (part A) in 38 patients with advanced breast cancer, and a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase II expansion (part B) in 110 women with ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer. In part A, patients received paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 (days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle) with capivasertib taken twice daily (b.i.d.) at two intermittent ascending dosing schedules. In part B, patients were randomly assigned, stratified by PIK3CA mutation status, to receive paclitaxel with either capivasertib or placebo. The primary end point for part A was safety to recommend a dose and schedule for part B; primary end points for part B were progression-free survival (PFS) in the overall and PIK3CA+ sub-population. RESULTS: Capivasertib was well tolerated, with a 400 mg b.i.d. 4 days on/3 days off treatment schedule selected in part A. In part B, median PFS in the overall population was 10.9 months with capivasertib versus 8.4 months with placebo [hazard ratio (HR) 0.80; P = 0.308]. In the PIK3CA+ sub-population, median PFS was 10.9 months with capivasertib versus 10.8 months with placebo (HR 1.11; P = 0.760). Based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event v4.0, the most common grade ≥3 adverse events in the capivasertib group were diarrhoea, hyperglycaemia, neutropoenia and maculopapular rash. Dose intensity of paclitaxel was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Capivasertib had no apparent impact on the tolerability and dose intensity of paclitaxel. Adding capivasertib to weekly paclitaxel did not prolong PFS in the overall population or PIK3CA+ sub-population of ER+/HER2- advanced/metastatic breast cancer patients.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01625286.

A phase II trial of low-dose estradiol in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer and acquired resistance to aromatase inhibition.

BACKGROUND: High-dose oestrogen (HDE) is effective but toxic in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer (ABC). Prolonged oestrogen deprivation sensitises BC cell lines to estrogen and we hypothesised that third-generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs) would sensitise BCs to low-dose estradiol (LDE). METHODS: A single-arm phase II study of LDE (2 mg estradiol valerate daily) in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) ABC. The primary end-point was clinical benefit (CB) rate. If LDE was ineffective, HDE was offered. If LDE was effective, retreatment with the pre-LDE AI was offered on progression. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were recruited before the trial was closed early due to slow accrual; 19 were assessable for efficacy and toxicity. CB was seen in 5 in 19 patients (26%; 95% confidence interval 9.1-51.2%), all with prolonged SD (median duration 16.8 months; range 11.0-29.6). Treatment was discontinued for toxicity in 4 in 19 patients (21%) and 8 in 11 women without hysterectomy experienced vaginal bleeding (VB). After primary LDE failure, three patients received HDE and one achieved a partial response (PR). Following CB on LDE, four patients restarted pre-LDE AI and three achieved CB including one PR. Those with CB to LDE had a significantly longer duration of first-line endocrine therapy for ABC than those without (54.9 versus 16.8 months; p < 0.01) CONCLUSION: LDE is an effective endocrine option in women with evidence of prolonged sensitivity to AI therapy. LDE is reasonably well tolerated although VB is an issue. Re-challenge with the pre-LDE AI following progression confirms re-sensitisation as a true phenomenon.

Vaccines in oncology: background and clinical potential.

Cancer is one of the leading causes of death in Western society. Despite improvements in screening, diagnosis and treatment of cancer, many patients ultimately succumb to their disease. Advances in molecular biology and our increased understanding of how the immune system functions have led to an intense interest in the development of cancer vaccines.