Patient-reported outcomes of maintenance rucaparib in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma in ARIEL3, a phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To compare NFOSI-18 Disease Related Symptoms - Physical (DRSP), Total score, and side effect bother between maintenance rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) vs. placebo in the phase III ARIEL3 trial. METHODS: ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) included patients with ovarian carcinoma who responded to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy. The NFOSI-18 DRS-P and Total scales were secondary endpoints. The NFOSI-18 contains a side effect impact item (GP5): "I am bothered by side effects of treatment." We compared treatment arms on change from baseline of DRS-P and Total scores using mixed models with repeated measures (MRMM). Time to first and confirmed deterioration of NFOSI-18 DRS-P and Total scales were analyzed using Cox regression. We also calculated the proportion of patients reporting moderate to high side effect bother on GP5. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat (ITT) cohort, mean change from baseline favored the placebo. Compared to placebo, rucaparib was associated with higher risk of deterioration [e.g., 4-point deteriorator definition hazard ratio (HR): 1.85; 95% CI: 1.46, 2.36; median time to first deterioration on DRSP: 1.9 vs. 7.0 months]. Confirmed deterioration results resembled those for first deterioration. Proportions of patients reporting moderate/high side effect bother on GP5 fluctuated around 20% across treatment cycles. Results in BRCA mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts were generally similar to those from the ITT cohort. CONCLUSION: This placebo-controlled study in the maintenance therapy setting provides a unique view of the impact of PARP inhibition on the patient-reported outcomes that are commonly used in ovarian cancer clinical trials. Information regarding the adverse side effect impact of PARP inhibitors should be weighed against their clinical benefit.

Evaluation of absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of [14C]-rucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Rucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, is licensed for use in recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. We characterized the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination of rucaparib in 6 patients with advanced solid tumors following a single oral dose of [14C]-rucaparib 600 mg (≈140 µCi). Total radioactivity (TRA) in blood, plasma, urine, and feces was measured using liquid scintillation counting. Unchanged rucaparib concentrations in plasma were determined using validated liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Maximum concentration (Cmax) of TRA and unchanged rucaparib in plasma was 880 ng Eq/mL and 428 ng/mL, respectively, at approximately 4 h post dose; terminal half-life was >25 h for both TRA and rucaparib. The plasma TRA-time profile was parallel to yet higher than that of rucaparib, suggesting the presence of metabolites in plasma. Mean blood:plasma ratio of radioactivity was 1.0 for Cmax and 0.8 for area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity. Mean postdose recovery of TRA was 89.3% over 12 days (71.9% in feces; 17.4% in urine). Unchanged rucaparib and M324 (oxidative metabolite) were the major components in plasma, contributing to 64.0% and 18.6% of plasma radioactivity, respectively. Rucaparib and M324 were the major rucaparib-related components (each ≈7.6% of dose) in urine, whereas rucaparib was the predominant component (63.9% of dose) in feces. The high fecal recovery of unchanged rucaparib could be attributed to hepatic excretion and/or incomplete oral absorption. Overall, these data suggest that rucaparib is eliminated through multiple pathways, including metabolism and renal and biliary excretion.

Evaluation of Drug-Drug Interactions of Rucaparib and CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP3A, and P-gp Substrates in Patients With an Advanced Solid Tumor.

This phase I study (CO-338-044; NCT02740712), conducted in patients with advanced solid tumors, evaluated the effect of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of caffeine 200 mg, warfarin 10 mg, omeprazole 40 mg, and midazolam 2 mg (cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and CYP3A substrates; dosed as a cocktail) and digoxin 0.25 mg (P-glycoprotein (P-gp) substrate; dosed separately) without rucaparib and following oral rucaparib 600 mg b.i.d. Geometric mean (GM) ratios (90% confidence interval (CI)) of area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to last quantifiable measurement with and without rucaparib were: caffeine, 2.26 (1.93-2.65); S-warfarin, 1.49 (1.40-1.58); omeprazole, 1.55 (1.32-1.83); midazolam, 1.39 (1.14-1.68); and digoxin, 1.20 (1.12-1.29). There was limited effect on peak concentration of the substrates (GM ratios, 0.99-1.13). At steady state, rucaparib 600 mg b.i.d. moderately inhibited CYP1A2, weakly inhibited CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and CYP3A, and marginally increased digoxin exposure.

Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma after response to platinum therapy (ARIEL3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Rucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, has anticancer activity in recurrent ovarian carcinoma harbouring a BRCA mutation or high percentage of genome-wide loss of heterozygosity. In this trial we assessed rucaparib versus placebo after response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with high-grade, recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 87 hospitals and cancer centres across 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma, had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, had achieved complete or partial response to their last platinum-based regimen, had a cancer antigen 125 concentration of less than the upper limit of normal, had a performance status of 0-1, and had adequate organ function. Patients were ineligible if they had symptomatic or untreated central nervous system metastases, had received anticancer therapy 14 days or fewer before starting the study, or had received previous treatment with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. We randomly allocated patients 2:1 to receive oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo in 28 day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six, stratified by homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval after the penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to the most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival evaluated with use of an ordered step-down procedure for three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations (carcinoma associated with deleterious germline or somatic BRCA mutations), patients with homologous recombination deficiencies (BRCA mutant or BRCA wild-type and high loss of heterozygosity), and the intention-to-treat population, assessed at screening and every 12 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01968213; enrolment is complete. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, we randomly allocated 564 patients: 375 (66%) to rucaparib and 189 (34%) to placebo. Median progression-free survival in patients with a BRCA-mutant carcinoma was 16·6 months (95% CI 13·4-22·9; 130 [35%] patients) in the rucaparib group versus 5·4 months (3·4-6·7; 66 [35%] patients) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·23 [95% CI 0·16-0·34]; p<0·0001). In patients with a homologous recombination deficient carcinoma (236 [63%] vs 118 [62%]), it was 13·6 months (10·9-16·2) versus 5·4 months (5·1-5·6; 0·32 [0·24-0·42]; p<0·0001). In the intention-to-treat population, it was 10·8 months (8·3-11·4) versus 5·4 months (5·3-5·5; 0·36 [0·30-0·45]; p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in the safety population (372 [99%] patients in the rucaparib group vs 189 [100%] in the placebo group) were reported in 209 (56%) patients in the rucaparib group versus 28 (15%) in the placebo group, the most common of which were anaemia or decreased haemoglobin concentration (70 [19%] vs one [1%]) and increased alanine or aspartate aminotransferase concentration (39 [10%] vs none). INTERPRETATION: Across all primary analysis groups, rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer who had achieved a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. ARIEL3 provides further evidence that use of a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the maintenance treatment setting versus placebo could be considered a new standard of care for women with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer following a complete or partial response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy. FUNDING: Clovis Oncology.

A Phase I-II Study of the Oral PARP Inhibitor Rucaparib in Patients with Germline BRCA1/2-Mutated Ovarian Carcinoma or Other Solid Tumors.

Purpose: Rucaparib is a potent, oral, small-molecule PARP inhibitor. This phase I-II study was the first to evaluate single-agent oral rucaparib at multiple doses.Experimental Design: Part 1 (phase I) sought to determine the MTD, recommended phase II dose (RP2D), and pharmacokinetics of oral rucaparib administered in 21-day continuous cycles in patients with advanced solid tumors. Part 2A (phase II) enrolled patients with platinum-sensitive, high-grade ovarian carcinoma (HGOC) associated with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation who received two to four prior regimens and had a progression-free interval of 6 months or more following their most recent platinum therapy. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST version 1.1.Results: In part 1, 56 patients received oral rucaparib (40 to 500 mg once daily and 240 to 840 mg twice daily). No MTD was identified per protocol-defined criteria; 600 mg twice daily was selected as the RP2D based on manageable toxicity and clinical activity. Pharmacokinetics were approximately dose-proportional across all dose levels. In part 2A, 42 patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated HGOC received rucaparib 600 mg twice daily. Investigator-assessed ORR was 59.5%. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (all grades) were asthenia/fatigue (85.7%; 36/42), nausea (83.3%; 35/42), anemia (71.4%; 30/42), alanine transaminase and/or aspartate transaminase elevations (57.1%; 24/42), and vomiting (54.8%; 23/42). Among 98 patients, 5 (5.1%) discontinued because of an adverse event (excluding disease progression).Conclusions: Rucaparib was tolerable and had activity in patients with platinum-sensitive germline BRCA1/2-mutated HGOC. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4095-106. ©2017 AACR.

Rucaparib in relapsed, platinum-sensitive high-grade ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL2 Part 1): an international, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have activity in ovarian carcinomas with homologous recombination deficiency. Along with BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) mutations genomic loss of heterozygosity (LOH) might also represent homologous recombination deficiency. In ARIEL2, we assessed the ability of tumour genomic LOH, quantified with a next-generation sequencing assay, to predict response to rucaparib, an oral PARP inhibitor. METHODS: ARIEL2 is an international, multicentre, two-part, phase 2, open-label study done at 49 hospitals and cancer centres in Australia, Canada, France, Spain, the UK, and the USA. In ARIEL2 Part 1, patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive, high-grade ovarian carcinoma were classified into one of three predefined homologous recombination deficiency subgroups on the basis of tumour mutational analysis: BRCA mutant (deleterious germline or somatic), BRCA wild-type and LOH high (LOH high group), or BRCA wild-type and LOH low (LOH low group). We prespecified a cutoff of 14% or more genomic LOH for LOH high. Patients began treatment with oral rucaparib at 600 mg twice per day for continuous 28 day cycles until disease progression or any other reason for discontinuation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. All patients treated with at least one dose of rucaparib were included in the safety analyses and all treated patients who were classified were included in the primary endpoint analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01891344. Enrolment into ARIEL2 Part 1 is complete, although an extension (Part 2) is ongoing. FINDINGS: 256 patients were screened and 206 were enrolled between Oct 30, 2013, and Dec 19, 2014. At the data cutoff date (Jan 18, 2016), 204 patients had received rucaparib, with 28 patients remaining in the study. 192 patients could be classified into one of the three predefined homologous recombination deficiency subgroups: BRCA mutant (n=40), LOH high (n=82), or LOH low (n=70). Tumours from 12 patients were established as BRCA wild-type, but could not be classified for LOH, because of insufficient neoplastic nuclei in the sample. The median duration of treatment for the 204 patients was 5·7 months (IQR 2·8-10·1). 24 patients in the BRCA mutant subgroup, 56 patients in the LOH high subgroup, and 59 patients in the LOH low subgroup had disease progression or died. Median progression-free survival after rucaparib treatment was 12·8 months (95% CI 9·0-14·7) in the BRCA mutant subgroup, 5·7 months (5·3-7·6) in the LOH high subgroup, and 5·2 months (3·6-5·5) in the LOH low subgroup. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the BRCA mutant (hazard ratio 0·27, 95% CI 0·16-0·44, p<0·0001) and LOH high (0·62, 0·42-0·90, p=0·011) subgroups compared with the LOH low subgroup. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (45 [22%] patients), and elevations in alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase (25 [12%]). Common serious adverse events included small intestinal obstruction (10 [5%] of 204 patients), malignant neoplasm progression (10 [5%]), and anaemia (nine [4%]). Three patients died during the study (two because of disease progression and one because of sepsis and disease progression). No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: In patients with BRCA mutant or BRCA wild-type and LOH high platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinomas treated with rucaparib, progression-free survival was longer than in patients with BRCA wild-type LOH low carcinomas. Our results suggest that assessment of tumour LOH can be used to identify patients with BRCA wild-type platinum-sensitive ovarian cancers who might benefit from rucaparib. These results extend the potential usefulness of PARP inhibitors in the treatment setting beyond BRCA mutant tumours. FUNDING: Clovis Oncology, US Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Research Program, Stand Up To Cancer-Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance-National Ovarian Cancer Coalition Dream Team Translational Research Grant, and V Foundation Translational Award.

Human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 is not predictive for gemcitabine efficacy in advanced pancreatic cancer: translational results from the AIO-PK0104 phase III study with the clone SP120 rabbit antibody.

BACKGROUND: The role of human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1) as a predictive biomarker for gemcitabine efficacy in advanced pancreatic cancer remains unclear to date. PATIENTS AND METHODS: AIO-PK0104 was a German multicenter phase III trial comparing gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by capecitabine (GEC) with capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine (CEG) in advanced pancreatic cancer. Archival tumour tissue from 169 of the 274 eligible study patients was available for a central and standardised immunohistochemistry staining for hENT1 expression using the SP120 rabbit monoclonal anti-hENT1 antibody. Within a retrospective translational subgroup analysis, biomarker data were correlated with efficacy end-points. RESULTS: Thirty-nine out of 130 fresh-cut slides were scored as hENT1(high) (30%), whereas 91 samples were classified as hENT1(low) (70%). For the 62 patients randomised to CEG median overall survival was estimated with 6.4 months in the hENT1(low) compared to 6.9 months in the hENT1(high) subgroup (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-1.61, p=0.67). For the 68 patients randomised to GEC survival was 5.7 months in the hENT1(low) compared to 4.4 months in the hENT1(high) subgroup (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.69-1.96, p=0.57). In 101 patients receiving gemcitabine at any time during study treatment (either within the 1st- or 2nd-line setting) hENT1(low) cases had a median overall survival of 7.5 months and hENT1(high) patients an overall survival of 4.4 months (HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.84-2.03, p=0.24), respectively. CONCLUSION: Within this subgroup analysis from Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie-pancreatic cancer (AIO-PK0104), no evidence supporting the use of hENT1 as a predictive biomarker for gemcitabine efficacy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer was found.

Randomized, multicenter, phase II study of CO-101 versus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: including a prospective evaluation of the role of hENT1 in gemcitabine or CO-101 sensitivity.

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine requires transporter proteins to cross cell membranes. Low expression of human equilibrative nucleoside transporter-1 (hENT1) may result in gemcitabine resistance in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). CO-101, a lipid-drug conjugate of gemcitabine, was rationally designed to enter cells independently of hENT1. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether CO-101 improved survival versus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic PDAC (mPDAC) with low hENT1. The study also tested the hypothesis that gemcitabine is more active in patients with mPDAC tumors with high versus low hENT1 expression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to CO-101 or gemcitabine, after providing a metastasis sample for blinded hENT1 assessment. An immunohistochemistry test measuring tumor hENT1 was developed. To dichotomize the population, an hENT1 cutoff value was defined using primary PDAC samples from an adjuvant trial, and a high/low cutoff was applied. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the low hENT1 subgroup. RESULTS: Of 367 patients enrolled, hENT1 status was measured in 358 patients (97.5%). Two hundred thirty-two (64.8%) of 358 patients were hENT1 low. There was no difference in OS between treatments in the low hENT1 subgroup or overall, with hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.994 (95% CI, 0.746 to 1.326) and 1.072 (95% CI, 0.856 to 1.344), respectively. The toxicity profiles in both arms were similar. Within the gemcitabine arm, there was no difference in survival between the high and low hENT1 subgroups (HR, 1.147; 95% CI, 0.809 to 1.626). CONCLUSION: CO-101 is not superior to gemcitabine in patients with mPDAC and low tumor hENT1. Metastasis hENT1 expression did not predict gemcitabine outcome.