RESUMO
Selecting a first-line (1L) maintenance option for ovarian cancer is challenging given the variety of therapies, differing trials, and the lack of head-to-head data for angiogenesis and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Thus, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) can aid treatment decision making. This study assessed the feasibility of two ITCs, a network meta-analysis (NMA) and a population-adjusted ITC (PAIC), comparing the efficacy of the PARP inhibitor niraparib in the PRIMA trial (NCT02655016) with other 1L maintenance treatments. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify trials using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions to assess differences in trial design, population characteristics, treatment arms, and outcome measures. All 12 trials identified were excluded from the NMA due to the absence of a common comparator and differences in survival measures and/or inclusion criteria. The PAIC comparing PRIMA and PAOLA-1 trials was also not feasible due to differences in inclusion criteria, survival measures, and the previous receipt of chemotherapy/bevacizumab. Neither ITC met recommended guidelines for analysis; the results of such comparisons would not be considered appropriate evidence when selecting 1L maintenance options in ovarian cancer. ITCs in this setting should be performed cautiously, as many factors can preclude objective trial comparisons.
RESUMO
In this analysis, we examined the relationship between progression-free survival (PFS) and mutation status of 18 homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes in patients in the non-germline BRCA-mutated (non-gBRCAm) cohort of the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial (NCT01847274), which evaluated niraparib maintenance therapy for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. This post hoc exploratory biomarker analysis was performed using tumor samples collected from 331 patients enrolled in the phase III ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial's non-gBRCAm cohort. Niraparib demonstrated PFS benefit in patients with either somatic BRCA-mutated (sBRCAm; HR, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.08-0.88) or BRCA wild-type (BRCAwt; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.64) tumors. Patients with BRCAwt tumors with other non-BRCA HRR mutations also derived benefit from niraparib (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.77), as did patients with BRCAwt/HRRwt (HRR wild-type) tumors (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35-0.70). When patients with BRCAwt/HRRwt tumors were further categorized by genomic instability score (GIS), clinical benefit was observed in patients with homologous recombination-deficient (GIS ≥ 42; HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.61) and in patients with homologous recombination-proficient (HRp; GIS < 42; HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.99) disease. Although patients with sBRCAm, other non-BRCA HRR mutations, or GIS ≥ 42 benefited the most from niraparib treatment, PFS benefit was also seen in HRp (GIS < 42) patients without HRR mutations. These results support the use of niraparib in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer regardless of BRCA/HRR mutation status or myChoice CDx GIS. Significance: We retrospectively evaluated the mutational profile of HRR genes in tumor samples from 331 patients from the non-germline BRCA-mutated cohort of the phase III NOVA trial of patients with platinum-sensitive high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Patients with non-BRCA HRR mutations generally benefited from second-line maintenance treatment with niraparib compared with placebo.