Niraparib, Dostarlimab, and Bevacizumab as Combination Therapy in Pretreated, Advanced Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer: Findings From Cohort A of the OPAL Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: To report the results of OPAL (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03574779) cohort A, a single-arm substudy of niraparib plus dostarlimab and bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). METHODS: Participants with PROC who received 1-2 previous lines of therapy were treated with niraparib (200 or 300 mg once daily), dostarlimab (500 mg once every 3 weeks for four 21-day cycles, followed by 1,000 mg once every 6 weeks), and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg once every 3 weeks). The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Safety was also assessed. Exploratory biomarker end points included evaluation of changes in the tumor molecular profile and microenvironment using baseline and on-treatment tumor samples. RESULTS: Of 41 enrolled participants (median age, 66.0 years [range, 37-83 years]), 9.8% had tumors that were BRCA-mutated, 19.5% were homologous recombination (HR)-deficient, and 17.1% were HR repair (HRR)-mutated. As of the cutoff date, all participants discontinued treatment. The ORR was 17.1% (80% CI, 9.8 to 27.0), including one complete response (2.4%); the disease control rate was 73.2% (80% CI, 62.3 to 82.2). Two participants withdrew before first postbaseline scan because of adverse events (AEs). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs were reported in 92.7% of participants, with the most common being hypertension (26.8%). Response was not correlated with BRCA, HRR, HR deficiency (HRD), or PD-L1 status. Changes suggesting immune activation were observed in on-treatment samples after triplet therapy. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrated modest activity of niraparib, dostarlimab, and bevacizumab in participants with PROC, many of whom had prognostic factors for poor treatment response. Most participants with response were bevacizumab-naïve. No association was found with HRD, BRCA, or PD-L1 status. AEs were consistent with previous monotherapy reports, except that hypertension was reported more frequently.

Progression-free survival and safety at 3.5 years of follow-up: results from the randomized phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial of niraparib maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer - a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This PLSP provides a short summary of an original scientific article that presented results from the PRIMA study after 3.5 years of follow-up time. The original article was published in the European Journal of Cancer in 2023. The PRIMA study included adult patients with newly diagnosed advanced high-risk ovarian cancer whose tumors shrunk or became undetectable after treatment with chemotherapy with or without surgery. The PRIMA study evaluated how well the drug niraparib, also known as Zejula, worked at delaying or preventing ovarian cancer from coming back (recurring) or getting worse (progressing) compared with placebo (a substance with no effects that a doctor gives to a patient instead of a drug). The first results from the PRIMA study were published in 2019, when patients had participated in the PRIMA study for about 1.2 years. The article this PLSP is based on reports longer-term data from the PRIMA study, when patients had participated in the PRIMA study for about 3.5 years. Patients were monitored (or followed) for a longer time to understand how well niraparib continued to work and to evaluate whether the safety of niraparib changed with additional time being monitored. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Patients who took niraparib had more time before their cancer came back or got worse than patients who took placebo. In terms of safety, no new types of side effects with niraparib treatment were observed with additional time being monitored as part of the PRIMA study. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: These results support that niraparib remains an important treatment option to help delay the cancer from coming back or getting worse in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer that responded to initial treatment. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02655016 (PRIMA study) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Health-related quality of life in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer treated with niraparib vs placebo: Results from the phase 3 randomized PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with ovarian cancer (OC) who received niraparib as first-line maintenance therapy. METHODS: PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed advanced OC who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomized (2:1) to niraparib or placebo once daily in 28-day cycles until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or death. HRQoL was assessed as a prespecified secondary end point using patient-reported responses to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EORTC QLQ Ovarian Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-OV28), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI), and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. Assessments were collected at baseline and every 8 weeks (±7 days) for 56 weeks, beginning on cycle 1/day 1, then every 12 weeks (±7 days) thereafter while the patient received study treatment. RESULTS: Among trial participants (niraparib, n = 487; placebo, n = 246), PRO adherence exceeded 80% for all instruments across all cycles. Patients reported no decline over time in HRQoL measured via EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL and FOSI overall scores. Scores for abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms (EORTC QLQ-OV28) and nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, and constipation (EORTC QLQ-C30) were higher (worse symptoms) in niraparib-treated patients than placebo-treated patients; except for constipation, these differences resolved over time. Patients did not self-report any worsening from baseline of fatigue, headache, insomnia, or abdominal pain on questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some early, largely transient increases in gastrointestinal symptoms, patients with OC treated with niraparib first-line maintenance therapy reported no worsening in overall HRQoL.

Progression-free survival and safety at 3.5years of follow-up: results from the randomised phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial of niraparib maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To report updated long-term efficacy and safety from the double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study (NCT02655016). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: In 733 randomised patients (niraparib, 487; placebo, 246), median PFS follow-up was 3.5years. Median INV-PFS was 24.5 versus 11.2months (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.68) in the HRd population and 13.8 versus 8.2months (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 5.4months (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 4years 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. CONCLUSIONS: Niraparib maintained clinically significant improvements in PFS with 3.5years 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.

Geographic variation in human papillomavirus-related oropharyngeal cancer: Data from 4 multinational randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: There are variations in the proportions of head and neck cancers caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV) between countries and regions. It is unclear if these are true variations or due to different study designs and assays. METHODS: We tested formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded diagnostic biopsies for p16 immunohistochemistry and HPV-DNA (by polymerase chain reaction [PCR] and in situ hybridization [ISH]) using validated protocols on samples from 801 patients with head and neck cancer recruited prospectively between 2006 and 2011 in 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: Twenty-one percent of patients (170 of 801) showed both HPV-DNA and p16-positivity, detected almost exclusively in oropharyngeal cancer (55%; 15 of 302); and only 1% of the patients (5 of 499) with nonoropharyngeal cancer were HPV positive. HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer differed between Western and Eastern Europe (37%, 155 of 422 vs 6%, 8 of 144; p < .0001) and between Western Europe and Asia (37% vs 2%; 4 of 217; p < .0001). Other independent determinants of HPV positivity were tumor site and smoking. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to establish geographic variability as an independent risk factor in HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer prevalence, with higher prevalence in Western Europe. © 2016 The Authors Head & Neck Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: E1863-E1869, 2016.

Characterisation of liver chemistry abnormalities associated with pazopanib monotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials in advanced cancer patients.

Drug-induced liver chemistry abnormalities, primarily transaminase elevations, are commonly observed in pazopanib-treated patients. This meta-analysis characterises liver chemistry abnormalities associated with pazopanib. Data of pazopanib-treated patients from nine prospective trials were integrated (N=2080). Laboratory datasets were used to characterise the incidence, timing, recovery and patterns of liver events, and subsequent rechallenge with pazopanib. Severe cases of liver chemistry abnormalities were clinically reviewed. Multivariate analyses identified predisposing factors. Twenty percent of patients developed elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) >3×ULN. Incidence of peak ALT >3-5×ULN, >5-8×ULN, >8-20×ULN and >20×ULN was 8%, 5%, 5% and 1%, respectively. Median time to onset for all events was 42days; 91% of events were observed within 18weeks. Recovery rates based on peak ALT >3-5×ULN, >5-8×ULN, >8-20×ULN and >20×ULN were 91%, 90%, 90% and 64%, respectively. Median time from onset to recovery was 30days, but longer in patients without dose interruption. Based on clinical review, no deaths were associated with drug-induced liver injury. Overall, 38% of rechallenged patients had ALT elevation recurrence, with 9-day median time to recurrence. Multivariate analysis showed that older age was associated with development of ALT >8×ULN. There was no correlation between hypertension and transaminitis. Our data support the current guidelines on regular liver chemistry tests after initiation of pazopanib, especially during the first 9 or 10weeks, and also demonstrate the safety of rechallenge with pazopanib.

A multicenter phase I study of pazopanib in combination with paclitaxel in first-line treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors.

This study was designed to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity of pazopanib combined with paclitaxel to determine the recommended phase II dose in the first-line setting in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients were enrolled in a 3+3 dose-escalation design to determine the maximum tolerated regimen (MTR) of once daily pazopanib plus paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks at four dose levels (DL1-4). Safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacogenetics, and disease assessments were performed. Twenty-eight patients received treatment. One patient at DL1 had dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of elevated hepatic enzymes. After pazopanib discontinuation, liver enzyme concentrations remained high until a concurrent medication, simvastatin, was discontinued. This patient had the defective CYP2C8*3*3 genotype. At DL2, 1 patient had DLT of elevated hepatic enzymes with rash and 1 patient had DLT of rash. The MTR was paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) plus pazopanib 800 mg. The most common toxicities were alopecia, fatigue, hypertension, nausea, diarrhea, dysgeusia, neutropenia, myalgia, hair color changes, and peripheral neuropathy. Coadministration of pazopanib and paclitaxel resulted in a 38% increase in systemic exposure to paclitaxel, relative to administration of paclitaxel alone, at the MTR. Of the 28 patients treated with the combination, 10 achieved a partial response and 10 achieved stable disease of ≥12 weeks. Pazopanib 800 mg daily plus paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks was the recommended phase II dose, with a manageable safety profile, and with clinical activity in both melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer that suggest further evaluation of this combination is warranted.

Randomised Phase II study of oral lapatinib combined with chemoradiotherapy in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: rationale for future randomised trials in human papilloma virus-negative disease.

BACKGROUND: This randomised Phase II study assessed the activity and safety of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and lapatinib followed by maintenance treatment in locally advanced, unresected stage III/IVA/IVB head and neck cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomised 1:1 to concurrent CRT and placebo followed by placebo or concurrent CRT and lapatinib followed by lapatinib. Treatment continued until disease progression or study withdrawal. Primary end-point was complete response rate (CRR) by independent review 6 months post-CRT. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients (median age 56 years; 97% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1; 82% stage IV) were recruited. CRT dose intensities were unaffected by lapatinib: median radiation dose 70 Gy (lapatinib, placebo), duration 49 (lapatinib) and 50 days (placebo); median cisplatin dose 260 mg/m(2) (lapatinib) and 280 mg/m(2) (placebo). Lapatinib combined with CRT was well-tolerated. Grade 3/4 toxicities during CRT were balanced between arms, with the exception of an excess of grade 3 diarrhoea (6% versus 0%) and rash (9% versus 3%) and two grade 4 cardiac events in the lapatinib arm. CRR at 6 months post-CRT was 53% with lapatinib versus 36% with placebo in the intent-to-treat population. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival rates at 18 months were 55% versus 41% and 68% versus 57% for the lapatinib and placebo arms, respectively. The difference between study arms was greatest in p16-negative disease (median PFS >20.4 months [lapatinib] versus 10.9 [placebo]). CONCLUSION: Lapatinib combined with CRT is well-tolerated with numeric increases in CRR at 6 months post-CRT and median PFS in p16-negative disease.

The ecological research needs of business.

Businesses have an unrivalled ability to mobilize human, physical and financial capital, often manage large land holdings, and draw on resources and supply products that impact a wide array of ecosystems. Businesses therefore have the potential to make a substantial contribution to arresting declines in biodiversity and ecosystem services. To realize this potential, businesses require support from researchers in applied ecology to inform how they measure and manage their impacts on, and opportunities presented to them by, biodiversity and ecosystem services.We reviewed papers in leading applied ecology journals to assess the research contribution from existing collaborations involving businesses. We reviewed applications to, and grants funded by, the UK's Natural Environment Research Council for evidence of public investment in such collaborations. To scope opportunities for expanding collaborations with businesses, we conducted workshops with three sectors (mining and quarrying, insurance and manufacturing) in which participants identified exemplar ecological research questions of interest to their sector.Ten to fifteen per cent of primary research papers in Journal of Applied Ecology and Ecological Applications evidenced business involvement, mostly focusing on traditional rural industries (farming, fisheries and forestry). The review of UK research council funding found that 35% of applications mentioned business engagement, while only 1% of awarded grants met stricter criteria of direct business involvement.Some questions identified in the workshops aim to reduce costs from businesses' impacts on the environment and others to allow businesses to exploit new opportunities. Some questions are designed to inform long-term planning undertaken by businesses, but others would have more immediate commercial applications. Finally, some research questions are designed to streamline and make more effective those environmental policies that affect businesses.Business participants were forward-looking regarding ecological questions and research. For example, representatives from mining and quarrying companies emphasized the need to move beyond biodiversity to consider how ecosystems function, while those from the insurance sector stressed the importance of ecology researchers entering into new types of interdisciplinary collaboration.Synthesis and applications. Businesses from a variety of sectors demonstrated a clear interest in managing their impacts on, and exploiting opportunities created by, ecosystem services and biodiversity. To achieve this, businesses are asking diverse ecological research questions, but publications in leading applied ecology journals and research council funding reveal limited evidence of direct engagement with businesses. This represents a missed opportunity for ecological research findings to see more widespread application.