Talazoparib versus chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: final overall survival results from the EMBRACA trial.

BACKGROUND: In EMBRACA, talazoparib prolonged progression-free survival versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.542 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.413-0.711]; P < 0.0001) and improved patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-mutated advanced breast cancer (ABC). We report final overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized phase III trial enrolled patients with gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative ABC. Patients received talazoparib or physician's choice of chemotherapy. OS was analyzed using stratified HR and log-rank test and prespecified rank-preserving structural failure time model to account for subsequent treatments. RESULTS: A total of 431 patients were entered in a randomized study (287 talazoparib/144 chemotherapy) with 412 patients treated (286 talazoparib/126 chemotherapy). By 30 September 2019, 216 deaths (75.3%) occurred for talazoparib and 108 (75.0%) chemotherapy; median follow-up was 44.9 and 36.8 months, respectively. HR for OS with talazoparib versus chemotherapy was 0.848 (95% CI 0.670-1.073; P = 0.17); median (95% CI) 19.3 months (16.6-22.5 months) versus 19.5 months (17.4-22.4 months). Kaplan-Meier survival percentages (95% CI) for talazoparib versus chemotherapy: month 12, 71% (66% to 76%)/74% (66% to 81%); month 24, 42% (36% to 47%)/38% (30% to 47%); month 36, 27% (22% to 33%)/21% (14% to 29%). Most patients received subsequent treatments: for talazoparib and chemotherapy, 46.3%/41.7% received platinum and 4.5%/32.6% received a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, respectively. Adjusting for subsequent PARP and/or platinum use, HR for OS was 0.756 (95% bootstrap CI 0.503-1.029). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 69.6% (talazoparib) and 64.3% (chemotherapy) patients, consistent with previous reports. Extended follow-up showed significant overall improvement and delay in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration in global health status/quality of life and breast symptoms favoring talazoparib versus chemotherapy (P < 0.01 for all), consistent with initial analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative ABC, talazoparib did not significantly improve OS over chemotherapy; subsequent treatments may have impacted analysis. Safety was consistent with previous observations. PRO continued to favor talazoparib.

Quality of life with talazoparib after platinum or multiple cytotoxic non-platinum regimens in patients with advanced breast cancer and germline BRCA1/2 mutations: patient-reported outcomes from the ABRAZO phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Talazoparib (1 mg/day) exhibited promising efficacy and safety in patients with advanced breast cancer during ABRAZO (NCT02034916); this study evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: ABRAZO is a two-cohort, two-stage, phase 2 study of talazoparib in patients with advanced breast cancer after a response to prior platinum-based therapy (cohort 1 [C1], n = 49) or ≥3 platinum-free cytotoxic-based regimens (cohort 2 [C2], n = 35). PROs were assessed on day 1 (baseline), every 6 weeks for an initial 24 weeks, and every 12 weeks thereafter until progression, using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and its breast cancer module, QLQ-BR23. RESULTS: Global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) was maintained from baseline across all time points for both C1 and C2. For C1 and C2, median time to deterioration (TTD) of GHS/QoL (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 2.8 (2.1, 3.0) and 5.5 (4.2, 5.7) months, respectively. Median TTD for all QLQ-C30 functional scales for C1 and C2 ranged 2.1-3.1 months and 4.2-5.6 months, respectively; median TTD for all QLQ-BR23 symptom scales ranged 2.6-4.0 months and 4.2-5.6 months, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in estimated overall change from baseline in the GHS/QoL scale for both cohorts (C1: -2.6 [95% CI, -7.8, 2.5]; C2: 1.2 [95% CI, -5.5, 8.0]). Significant overall improvements in the breast symptoms and arm symptoms and the future perspective of patients in C1 and C2 were observed, despite the statistically significant and clinically meaningful overall deterioration among patients regarding their role functioning (in C1) and dyspnoea symptoms (in C2). CONCLUSION: Despite the statistically significant and clinically meaningful overall deterioration among patients regarding their role functioning (in C1) and dyspnoea symptoms (in C2), patients in both C1 and C2 reported significant overall improvements in their breast symptoms, arm symptoms and future perspective, and their GHS/QoL was maintained from baseline.

Quality of life with talazoparib versus physician's choice of chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer and germline BRCA1/2 mutation: patient-reported outcomes from the EMBRACA phase III trial.

Background: In the EMBRACA phase III trial, talazoparib (1 mg daily, orally) demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT; capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine) in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer carrying a germline BRCA1/2 mutation; we evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to receive talazoparib or PCT. PROs were assessed at day 1 (baseline), the start of each treatment cycle (every 3 weeks), and at the end of treatment, using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-30) and its breast cancer module, QLQ-BR23. Prespecified exploratory analyses included a longitudinal mixed-effect model comparing treatment arms and a time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration (TTD) analysis carried out in the global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL), and all functional and symptom scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and -BR23 questionnaires. Between-arm TTD comparisons were made using a stratified log-rank test and a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Baseline scores were similar between arms. Statistically significant estimated overall improvement from baseline in GHS/QoL was seen for talazoparib compared with statistically significant deterioration for PCT {3.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2, 4.8] versus -5.4 [95% CI -8.8, -2.0]; between arms, P < 0.0001}. A statistically significant greater delay was observed in TTD in GHS/QoL, favoring talazoparib over PCT [hazard ratio, 0.38 (95% CI 0.26, 0.55; median, 24.3 versus 6.3 months, respectively; P < 0.0001)]. A statistically significant overall change and a statistically significant delay in TTD, all favoring talazoparib, were also observed in multiple functions and symptoms. Conclusion: Patients who received talazoparib had significant overall improvements and significant delay in TTD in multiple cancer-related and breast cancer-specific symptoms, functions, and GHS/QoL. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01945775.