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.

Electronically ascertained extended pedigrees in breast cancer genetic counseling.

A comprehensive pedigree, usually provided by the counselee and verified by medical records, is essential for risk assessment in cancer genetic counseling. Collecting the relevant information is time-consuming and sometimes impossible. We studied the use of electronically ascertained pedigrees (EGP). The study group comprised women (n = 1352) receiving HBOC genetic counseling between December 2006 and December 2016 at Landspitali in Iceland. EGP's were ascertained using information from the population-based Genealogy Database and Icelandic Cancer Registry. The likelihood of being positive for the Icelandic founder BRCA2 pathogenic variant NM_000059.3:c.767_771delCAAAT was calculated using the risk assessment program Boadicea. We used this unique data to estimate the optimal size of pedigrees, e.g., those that best balance the accuracy of risk assessment using Boadicea and cost of ascertainment. Sub-groups of randomly selected 104 positive and 105 negative women for the founder BRCA2 PV were formed and Receiver Operating Characteristics curves compared for efficiency of PV prediction with a Boadicea score. The optimal pedigree size included 3° relatives or up to five generations with an average no. of 53.8 individuals (range 9-220) (AUC 0.801). Adding 4° relatives did not improve the outcome. Pedigrees including 3° relatives are difficult and sometimes impossible to generate with conventional methods. Pedigrees ascertained with data from pre-existing genealogy databases and cancer registries can save effort and contain more information than traditional pedigrees. Genetic services should consider generating EGP's which requires access to an accurate genealogy database and cancer registry. Local data protection laws and regulations have to be addressed.