Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): a final analysis of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously been shown to extend progression-free survival versus placebo when given to patients with relapsed high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer who were platinum sensitive and who had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation, as part of the SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21 trial. The aim of this final analysis is to investigate the effect of olaparib on overall survival. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done across 123 medical centres in 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0-1, had histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous or high-grade endometrioid ovarian cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer, and had received two or more previous platinum regimens. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive web or voice-response system. Stratification was by response to previous chemotherapy and length of platinum-free interval. Treatment assignment was masked to patients, treatment providers, and data assessors. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival has been reported previously. Overall survival was a key secondary endpoint and was analysed in all patients as randomly allocated. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one treatment dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01874353, and is no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2013 and Nov 21, 2014, 295 patients were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either olaparib (n=196 [66%]) or placebo (n=99 [34%]). One patient, randomised in error, did not receive olaparib. Median follow-up was 65·7 months (IQR 63·6-69·3) with olaparib and 64·5 months (63·4-68·7) with placebo. Median overall survival was 51·7 months (95% CI 41·5-59·1) with olaparib and 38·8 months (31·4-48·6) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·74 [95% CI 0·54-1·00]; p=0·054), unadjusted for the 38% of patients in the placebo group who received subsequent PARP inhibitor therapy. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia (which occurred in 41 [21%] of 195 patients in the olaparib group and two [2%] of 99 patients in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 50 (26%) of 195 patients receiving olaparib and eight (8%) of 99 patients receiving placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events with a fatal outcome occurred in eight (4%) of the 195 patients receiving olaparib, six of which were judged to be treatment-related (attributed to myelodysplastic syndrome [n=3] and acute myeloid leukaemia [n=3]). INTERPRETATION: Olaparib provided a median overall survival benefit of 12·9 months compared with placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation. Although statistical significance was not reached, these findings are arguably clinically meaningful and support the use of maintenance olaparib in these patients. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck.

Olaparib in combination with paclitaxel in patients with advanced gastric cancer who have progressed following first-line therapy (GOLD): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib combined with paclitaxel has previously shown a significant improvement in overall survival versus placebo plus paclitaxel as second-line therapy in a phase 2 study in Asian patients with advanced gastric cancer, especially in those with ataxia-telangiectasia mutated protein (ATM)-negative tumours. Here, we report the primary efficacy and safety analyses from a subsequent phase 3 trial. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (GOLD) recruited Asian patients aged 18 years or older (≥20 years if Japanese) with advanced gastric cancer that had progressed following, or during, first-line chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral olaparib (100 mg twice daily) plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 intravenously) or matching placebo plus paclitaxel. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system and no stratification factors were used. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Two co-primary populations were assessed: the overall population of all patients and patients whose tumours were ATM-negative (identified after randomisation, before the data cutoff date, March 28, 2016). The primary endpoint in both populations was overall survival (defined as the time from the date of randomisation until death from any cause before data cutoff); a significant difference was defined as p<0·025. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat populations and safety in patients who received at least one dose of treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01924533 (study ID, D081BC00004), and is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2013, and March 28, 2016, 643 patients were enrolled from 58 study sites in hospitals and medical centres in China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. 525 eligible patients were randomly assigned: 263 to receive olaparib plus paclitaxel and 262 to receive placebo plus paclitaxel. 94 patients were determined to have ATM-negative tumours before unmasking for the primary analysis (48 in the olaparib plus paclitaxel group and 46 in the placebo plus paclitaxel group). Overall survival did not differ between treatment groups in the overall patient population (median overall survival 8·8 months [95% CI 7·4-9·6] in the olaparib group vs 6·9 months [6·3-7·9] in the placebo group; HR 0·79 [97·5% CI 0·63-1·00]; p=0·026) or in the ATM-negative population (12·0 months [7·8-18·1] vs 10·0 months [6·4-13·3]; 0·73 [0·40-1·34]; p=0·25). In the overall patient population, the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the olaparib plus paclitaxel group were neutropenia (78 [30%] of 262 patients), leucopenia (42 [16%]), and decreased neutrophil count (40 [15%]); in the placebo plus paclitaxel group, they were neutropenia (59 [23%] of 259 patients), leucopenia (27 [10%]), and decreased white blood cell count (21 [8%]). Adverse events with an outcome of death causally related to study treatment (according to investigator assessment) were reported in two patients: liver injury in one patient (<1%) in the olaparib plus paclitaxel group and cardiac failure in one patient (<1%) in the placebo plus paclitaxel group. INTERPRETATION: The GOLD study did not meet its primary objective of showing a significant improvement in overall survival with olaparib in the overall or ATM-negative population of Asian patients with advanced gastric cancer. The study generated informative efficacy and safety data regarding the use of olaparib in combination with a chemotherapeutic agent and provides a foundation for future studies in this difficult-to-treat patient population. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Predictors of upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and summarize the current available literature on prognostic variables relating to upper limb recovery following stroke. To identify which, if any variables predict upper limb recovery following stroke. DATA SOURCES: We completed searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Searches were completed in November 2010. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were included if predictor variables were measured at baseline and linked to an outcome of upper limb recovery at a future time point. Exclusion criteria included predictor variables relating to response to treatment and outcome measurements of very specific upper limb impairments such as spasticity or pain. Two independent reviewers completed data extraction and assessed study quality. RESULTS: Fifty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Predictor variables which have been considered within these studies include; age, sex, lesion site, initial motor impairment, motor-evoked potentials and somatosensory-evoked potentials. Initial measures of upper limb impairment and function were found to be the most significant predictors of upper limb recovery; odds ratio 14.84 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 9.08-24.25) and 38.62 (95% CI 8.40-177.53), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation of these results is complicated by methodological factors including variations in study populations, upper limb motor outcome scales, timing of baseline and outcome assessments and predictors selected. The most important predictive factors for upper limb recovery following stroke appears to the initial severity of motor impairment or function.

Methods for assigning confidence to toxicity data with multiple values--Identifying experimental outliers.

The assessment of data quality is a crucial element in many disciplines such as predictive toxicology and risk assessment. Currently, the reliability of toxicity data is assessed on the basis of testing information alone (adherence to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP), detailed testing protocols, etc.). Common practice is to take one toxicity data point per compound - usually the one with the apparently highest reliability. All other toxicity data points (for the same experiment and compound) from other sources are neglected. To show the benefits of incorporating the "less reliable" data, a simple, independent, statistical approach to assess data quality and reliability on a mathematical basis was developed. A large data set of toxicity values to Aliivibrio fischeri was assessed. The data set contained 1813 data points for 1227 different compounds, including 203 identified as non-polar narcotic. Log KOW values were calculated and non-polar narcosis quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models were built. A statistical approach to data quality assessment, which is based on data outlier omission and confidence scoring, improved the linear QSARs. The results indicate that a beneficial method for using large data sets containing multiple data values per compound and highly variable study data has been developed. Furthermore this statistical approach can help to develop novel QSARs and support risk assessment by obtaining more reliable values for biological endpoints.