Real-world data of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor response in Japanese patients with ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have been increasingly used in the treatment of ovarian cancer, with BRCA positivity and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) being common biomarkers used for predicting their efficacy. However, given the limitations of these biomarkers, new ones need to be explored. METHODS: This retrospective study included 181 ovarian cancer patients who received olaparib or niraparib at two independent hospitals in Japan between May 2018 and December 2022. Clinical information and blood sampling data were collected. Patient characteristics, treatment history, and predictability of treatment duration based on blood data before treatment initiation were examined. RESULTS: High-grade serous carcinoma, BRCA positivity, HRD, and maintenance therapy after recurrence treatment were observed more frequently in the olaparib group than in the niraparib group. The most common reasons for treatment interruption were anemia, fatigue, and nausea in the olaparib group and thrombocytopenia in the niraparib group. Regarding response to olaparib treatment, complete response to the most recent treatment, maintenance therapy after the first chemotherapy, high-grade serous carcinoma, and germline BRCA positivity were observed significantly more frequently among responders than among non-responders. Furthermore, neutrophil counts were significantly higher among responders than among non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: Inflammation-related blood data, such as neutrophil count, obtained at the initial pre-treatment visit might serve as potential predictors for prolonged olaparib treatment. While this study offers valuable insights into potential indicators for prolonged olaparib treatment, it underscores the need for more expansive research to strengthen our understanding of PARP inhibitors and optimize treatment strategies in ovarian cancer.

Results of a randomised Phase II trial of olaparib, chemotherapy or olaparib and cediranib in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: OCTOVA compared the efficacy of olaparib (O) versus weekly paclitaxel (wP) or olaparib + cediranib (O + C) in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). AIMS: The main aim of the OCTOVA trial was to determine the progression-free survival (PFS) of olaparib (O) versus the oral combination of olaparib plus cediranib (O + C) and weekly paclitaxel (wP) in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: In total, 139 participants who had relapsed within 12 months of platinum therapy were randomised to O (300 mg twice daily), wP (80 mg/m2 d1,8,15, q28) or O + C (300 mg twice daily/20 mg daily, respectively). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) of olaparib (O) versus olaparib plus cediranib (O + C) or weekly paclitaxel (wP). The sample size was calculated to observe a PFS hazard ratio (HR) 0.64 in favour of O + C compared to O (20% one-sided type I error, 80% power). RESULTS: The majority had platinum-resistant disease (90%), 22% prior PARPi, 34% prior anti-angiogenic therapy, 30% germline BRCA1/2 mutations. The PFS was increased for O + C vs O (O + C 5.4 mo (2.3, 9.6): O 3.7 mo (1.8, 7.6) HR = 0.73; 60% CI: 0.59, 0.89; P = 0.1) and no different between wP and O (wP 3.9 m (1.9, 9.1); O 3.7 mo (1.8, 7.6) HR = 0.89, 60% CI: 0.72, 1.09; P = 0.69). The main treatment-related adverse events included manageable diarrhoea (4% Grade 3) and hypertension (4% Grade 3) in the O + C arm. DISCUSSION: OCTOVA demonstrated the activity of O + C in women with recurrent disease, offering a potential non-chemotherapy option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14784018, registered on 19th January 2018 http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14784018 .

Concurrent Olaparib and Radiation Therapy in Older Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma: The Phase 1 Dose-Escalation PARADIGM Trial.

PURPOSE: Patients with glioblastoma who are older or have poor performance status (PS) experience particularly poor clinical outcomes. At the time of study initiation, these patients were treated with short-course radiation therapy (40 Gy in 15 fractions). Olaparib is an oral inhibitor of the DNA repair enzyme poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) that is well tolerated as a single agent but exacerbates acute radiation toxicity in extracranial sites. Preclinical data predicted that PARP inhibitors would enhance radiosensitivity in glioblastoma without exacerbating adverse effects on the normal brain. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Phase 1 of the PARADIGM trial was a 3+3 dose-escalation study testing olaparib in combination with radiation therapy (40 Gy 15 fractions) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma who were unsuitable for radical treatment either because they were aged 70 years or older (World Health Organization PS 0-1) or aged 18 to 69 years with PS 2. The primary outcome was the recommended phase 2 dose of olaparib. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability, overall survival, and progression-free survival. Effects on cognitive function were assessed via the Mini Mental State Examination. RESULTS: Of 16 eligible patients (56.25% male; median age, 71.5 years [range, 44-78]; 75% PS 0-1), 1 dose-limiting toxicity was reported (grade 3 agitation). Maximum tolerated dose was not reached and the recommended phase 2 dose was determined as 200 mg twice daily. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were 10.8 months (80% CI, 7.3-11.4) and 5.5 months (80% CI, 3.9-5.9), respectively. Mini Mental State Examination plots indicated that cognitive function was not adversely affected by the olaparib-radiation therapy combination. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib can be safely combined with hypofractionated brain radiation therapy and is well tolerated in patients unsuitable for radical chemoradiation. These results enabled initiation of a randomized phase 2 study and support future trials of PARP inhibitors in combination with radiation therapy for patients with brain tumors.

Clinical characterization of patients with gBRCA1/2 mutation-positive unresectable pancreatic cancer: a multicenter prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence has demonstrated platinum-based chemotherapy followed by maintenance therapy with a poly Adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-ribose polymerase inhibitor (olaparib) show benefits in unresectable pancreatic cancer with a germline (g)BRCA1/2 mutation. Evaluation of the germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation is essential for making decisions on a treatment strategy for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. However, the detection rates of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and efficacy of maintenance with olaparib remain undetermined, prospectively, in Japan. METHODS & RESULTS: In this prospective analysis, the rate of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and efficacy of chemotherapy were analyzed in 136 patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent BRACAnalysis® (85 patients) or FoundationOne® CDx (51 patients) between January 2020 and July 2022. A total of six patients (4.4%) had a germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation. Five patients were treated with modified FOLFIRINOX and one with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin. All patients continued platinum-based chemotherapy for ˃4 months and were subsequently treated with olaparib as a maintenance therapy. The response rate to platinum-based chemotherapy in the germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation-positive group was significantly better than that of the germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation-negative group (66% vs 23%, P = 0.04). All patients harbouring a germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation were able to switch to olaparib. The median progression-free survival using olaparib was 5.7 months (range 3.0-9.2). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations found in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer was comparable to those of previous studies.An analysis of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations has benefits for all patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer with regard to decisions on therapeutic strategies in a clinical practice setting.

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.

Biomarker-driven phase 2 umbrella trial: Clinical efficacy of olaparib monotherapy and combination with ceralasertib (AZD6738) in small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Based on a high incidence of genomic alteration in the cell cycle and DNA damage and response (DDR)-related pathways in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), the clinical efficacy of the DDR-targeting agent olaparib (PARP inhibitor) as monotherapy and in combination with ceralasertib (ATR inhibitor) in relapsed or refractory SCLC was evaluated. METHODS: As part of a phase 2 biomarker driven umbrella study, patients with SCLC and predefined DDR gene alterations who failed to benefit from prior platinum-based regimens were allocated to the olaparib monotherapy arm and nonbiomarker-selected patients were allocated to the olaparib and ceralasertib combination arm. RESULTS: In the olaparib monotherapy arm (n = 15), the objective response rate was 6.7% (one partial response), and the disease control rate was 33.3%, including three patients with stable disease. The median progression-free survival was 1.3 months (95% CI, 1.2-NA). In the combination arm (n = 26), the objective response rate and disease control rate were 3.8% and 42.3%, respectively, with one partial response and 10 patients with stable disease. The median progression-free survival was 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.8-5.4). Treatment was generally well tolerated except for one fatal case of neutropenic fever in the combination arm. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting DDR pathways with olaparib as a single agent or in combination with ceralasertib did not meet the predefined efficacy end point. However, disease stabilization was more evident in the combination arm. Further investigation of the combination of olaparib in SCLC should be performed with diverse combinations and patient selection strategies to maximize efficacy.

Olaparib plus Durvalumab, with or without Bevacizumab, as Treatment in PARP Inhibitor-Naïve Platinum-Sensitive Relapsed Ovarian Cancer: A Phase II Multi-Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Early results from the phase II MEDIOLA study (NCT02734004) in germline BRCA1- and/or BRCA2-mutated (gBRCAm) platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) showed promising efficacy and safety with olaparib plus durvalumab. We report efficacy and safety of olaparib plus durvalumab in an expansion cohort of women with gBRCAm PSROC (gBRCAm expansion doublet cohort) and two cohorts with non-gBRCAm PSROC, one of which also received bevacizumab (non-gBRCAm doublet and triplet cohorts). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter study, PARP inhibitor-naïve patients received olaparib plus durvalumab treatment until disease progression; the non-gBRCAm triplet cohort also received bevacizumab. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR; gBRCAm expansion doublet cohort), disease control rate (DCR) at 24 weeks (non-gBRCAm cohorts), and safety (all cohorts). RESULTS: The full analysis and safety analysis sets comprised 51, 32, and 31 patients in the gBRCAm expansion doublet, non-gBRCAm doublet, and non-gBRCAm triplet cohorts, respectively. ORR was 92.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 81.1-97.8] in the gBRCAm expansion doublet cohort (primary endpoint); DCR at 24 weeks was 28.1% (90% CI, 15.5-43.9) in the non-gBRCAm doublet cohort (primary endpoint) and 74.2% (90% CI, 58.2-86.5) in the non-gBRCAm triplet cohort (primary endpoint). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were reported in 47.1%, 65.6%, and 61.3% of patients in the gBRCAm expansion doublet, non-gBRCAm doublet, and non-gBRCAm triplet cohorts, respectively, most commonly anemia. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib plus durvalumab continued to show notable clinical activity in women with gBRCAm PSROC. Olaparib plus durvalumab with bevacizumab demonstrated encouraging clinical activity in women with non-gBRCAm PSROC. No new safety signals were identified.

Clinical effectiveness and safety of olaparib in BRCA-mutated, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in a real-world setting: final analysis of LUCY.

PURPOSE: The interim analysis of the phase IIIb LUCY trial demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of olaparib in patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC), with median progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.11 months, which was similar to that in the olaparib arm of the phase III OlympiAD trial (7.03 months). This prespecified analysis provides final overall survival (OS) and safety data. METHODS: The open-label, single-arm LUCY trial of olaparib (300 mg, twice daily) enrolled adults with gBRCAm or somatic BRCA-mutated (sBRCAm), HER2-negative mBC. Patients had previously received a taxane or anthracycline for neoadjuvant/adjuvant or metastatic disease and up to two lines of chemotherapy for mBC. RESULTS: Of 563 patients screened, 256 (gBRCAm, n = 253; sBRCAm, n = 3) were enrolled. In the gBRCAm cohort, median investigator-assessed PFS (primary endpoint) was 8.18 months and median OS was 24.94 months. Olaparib was clinically effective in all prespecified subgroups: hormone receptor status, previous chemotherapy for mBC, previous platinum-based chemotherapy (including by line of therapy), and previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor use. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were nausea (55.3%) and anemia (39.2%). Few patients (6.3%) discontinued olaparib owing to a TEAE. No deaths associated with AEs occurred during the study treatment or 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSION: The LUCY patient population reflects a real-world population in line with the licensed indication of olaparib in mBC. These findings support the clinical effectiveness and safety of olaparib in patients with gBRCAm, HER2-negative mBC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials registration number: NCT03286842.

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.

NRG-GY012: Randomized phase 2 study comparing olaparib, cediranib, and the combination of cediranib/olaparib in women with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic endometrial cancer.

PURPOSE: This paper reports the efficacy of the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib alone and in combination with the antiangiogenesis agent cediranib compared with cediranib alone in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. METHODS: This was open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial (NCT03660826). Eligible patients had recurrent endometrial cancer, received at least one (<3) prior lines of chemotherapy, and were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), stratified by histology (serous vs. other) to receive cediranib alone (reference arm), olaparib, or olaparib and cediranib for 28-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Homologous repair deficiency was explored using the BROCA-GO sequencing panel. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were enrolled and all were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Median age was 66 (range, 41-86) years and 47 (39.2%) had serous histology. Median progression-free survival for cediranib was 3.8 months compared with 2.0 months for olaparib (hazard ratio, 1.45 [95% CI, 0.91-2.3] p = .935) and 5.5 months for olaparib/cediranib (hazard ratio, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.43-1.14] p = .064). Four patients receiving the combination had a durable response lasting more than 20 months. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were hypertension in the cediranib (36%) and olaparib/cediranib (33%) arms, fatigue (20.5% olaparib/cediranib), and diarrhea (17.9% cediranib). The BROCA-GO panel results were not associated with response. CONCLUSION: The combination of cediranib and olaparib demonstrated modest clinical efficacy; however, the primary end point of the study was not met. The combination was safe without unexpected toxicity.

Dose reduction of olaparib in older patients: Insights from an analysis of a National Database in Japan.

AIM: Although the advent of a poly polymerase inhibitors has greatly advanced the tailoring of cancer treatment, there is a dearth of real-world evidence on the actual use of olaparib in aging populations, especially those using national-level data. METHODS: We extracted and analyzed all prescriptions of olaparib in female outpatients from the National Database Open Data Japan (NDB Open Data) from April 2019 to March 2021. The recommended standard dose of olaparib is four tablets of the 150 mg formulation per day, while the 100 mg formulation of olaparib can be considered as an alternative dose in the occurrence of hematologic toxicity. We calculated the proportion of 100 mg compared to the 150 mg prescriptions across age groups. A Cochrane-Armitage trend test was used to examine the association of age groups with the proportion of 100 mg prescriptions. RESULTS: The total number of prescriptions of the 100 mg formulation and the 150 mg formulation were 1449 222, and 4233 625, respectively. Overall, 45.1% (2567 513/5682 847 prescriptions) of olaparib were prescribed for patients 65 years of age or older in females. Stratified by age group, the proportion of 100 mg compared to the 150 mg prescriptions significantly increased with age (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Given that the 100 mg formulation of olaparib can be considered as an alternative dose in Japan in the occurrence of hematologic toxicity, our observations indicate the dose reduction of olaparib in older patients in Japan. Further investigations are necessary to assess its efficacy and safety at a reduced dose.

Olaparib and Ceralasertib (AZD6738) in Patients with Triple-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Results from Cohort E of the plasmaMATCH Trial (CRUK/15/010).

PURPOSE: Approximately 10% to 15% of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) have deleterious mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 and may benefit from PARP inhibitor treatment. PARP inhibitors may also increase exogenous replication stress and thereby increase sensitivity to inhibitors of ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) protein. This phase II study examined the activity of the combination of PARP inhibitor, olaparib, and ATR inhibitor, ceralasertib (AZD6738), in patients with advanced TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with TNBC on most recent biopsy who had received 1 or 2 lines of chemotherapy for advanced disease or had relapsed within 12 months of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy were eligible. Treatment was olaparib 300 mg twice a day continuously and celarasertib 160 mg on days 1-7 on a 28-day cycle until disease progression. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Tissue and plasma biomarker analyses were preplanned to identify predictors of response. RESULTS: 70 evaluable patients were enrolled. Germline BRCA1/2 mutations were present in 10 (14%) patients and 3 (4%) patients had somatic BRCA mutations. The confirmed ORR was 12/70; 17.1% (95% confidence interval, 10.4-25.5). Responses were observed in patients without germline or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations, including patients with mutations in other homologous recombination repair genes and tumors with functional homologous recombination deficiency by RAD51 foci. CONCLUSIONS: The response rate to olaparib and ceralasertib did not meet prespecified criteria for activity in the overall evaluable population, but responses were observed in patients who would not be expected to respond to olaparib monotherapy.

Phase II Study of Olaparib and Temozolomide for Advanced Uterine Leiomyosarcoma (NCI Protocol 10250).

PURPOSE: Uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS) is an aggressive subtype of soft-tissue sarcoma with frequent metastatic relapse after curative surgery. Chemotherapy provides limited benefit for advanced disease. Multiomics profiling studies have identified homologous recombination deficiency in uLMS. In preclinical studies where olaparib and temozolomide provided modest activity, the combination was highly effective for inhibiting uLMS tumor growth. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NCI Protocol 10250 is a single-arm, open-label, multicenter, phase II study evaluating olaparib and temozolomide in advanced uLMS. Patients with progression on ≥1 prior line received temozolomide 75 mg/m2 orally once daily with olaparib 200 mg orally twice a day both on days 1-7 in 21-day cycles. The primary end point was the best objective response rate (ORR) within 6 months. A one-stage binomial design was used. If ≥5 of 22 responded, the treatment would be considered promising (93% power; α = .06). All patients underwent paired biopsies that were evaluated with whole-exome sequencing (WES)/RNAseq and a RAD51 foci formation assay. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were evaluable. The median age was 55 years, and 59% had received three or more prior lines. Best ORR within 6 months was 23% (5 of 22). The overall ORR was 27% (6 of 22). The median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.4 months to not estimable). Hematologic toxicity was common (grade 3/4 neutropenia: 75%; thrombocytopenia: 32%) but manageable with dose modification. Five of 16 (31%) of tumors contained a deleterious homologous recombination gene alteration by WES, and 9 of 18 (50%) were homologous recombination-deficient by the RAD51 assay. In an exploratory analysis, mPFS was prolonged for patients with homologous recombination-deficient versus homologous recombination-proficient tumors (11.2 v 5.4 months, P = .05) by RAD51. CONCLUSION: Olaparib and temozolomide met the prespecified primary end point and provided meaningful clinical benefit in patients with advanced, pretreated uLMS.

A signal-seeking Phase 2 study of olaparib and durvalumab in advanced solid cancers with homologous recombination repair gene alterations.

PURPOSE: To determine the safety and efficacy of PARP plus PD-L1 inhibition (olaparib + durvalumab, O + D) in patients with advanced solid, predominantly rare cancers harbouring homologous recombination repair (HRR) defects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 48 patients were treated with O + D, 16 with BRCA1/2 alterations (group 1) and 32 with other select HRR alterations (group 2). Overall, 32 (66%) patients had rare or less common cancers. The primary objective of this single-arm Phase II trial was a progression-free survival rate at 6 months (PFS6). Post hoc exploratory analyses were conducted on archival tumour tissue and serial bloods. RESULTS: The PFS6 rate was 35% and 38% with durable objective tumour responses (OTR) in 3(19%) and 3(9%) in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Rare cancers achieving an OTR included cholangiocarcinoma, perivascular epithelioid cell (PEComa), neuroendocrine, gallbladder and endometrial cancer. O + D was safe, with five serious adverse events related to the study drug(s) in 3 (6%) patients. A higher proportion of CD38 high B cells in the blood and higher CD40 expression in tumour was prognostic of survival. CONCLUSIONS: O + D demonstrated no new toxicity concerns and yielded a clinically meaningful PFS6 rate and durable OTRs across several cancers with HRR defects, including rare cancers.