Olaparib Versus Nonplatinum Chemotherapy in Patients With Platinum-Sensitive Relapsed Ovarian Cancer and a Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation (SOLO3): A Randomized Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: A phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00628251) showed activity of olaparib capsules versus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with germline BRCA-mutated platinum-resistant or partially platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. We conducted a phase III trial (SOLO3) of olaparib tablets versus nonplatinum chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer who had received at least 2 prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized, open-label trial, patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to olaparib 300 mg twice a day or physician's choice single-agent nonplatinum chemotherapy (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, paclitaxel, gemcitabine, or topotecan). The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) in the measurable disease analysis set assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). The key secondary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by BICR in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: Of 266 randomly assigned patients, 178 were assigned to olaparib and 88 to chemotherapy. In patients with measurable disease (olaparib, n = 151; chemotherapy, n = 72), the BICR-assessed ORR was significantly higher with olaparib than with chemotherapy (72.2% v 51.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.53 [95% CI, 1.40 to 4.58]; P = .002). In the subgroup who had received 2 prior lines of treatment, the ORR was 84.6% with olaparib and 61.5% with chemotherapy (OR, 3.44 [95% CI, 1.42 to 8.54]). BICR-assessed PFS also significantly favored olaparib versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.91]; P = .013; median, 13.4 v 9.2 months). Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profiles of olaparib and chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Olaparib resulted in statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in ORR and PFS compared with nonplatinum chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer who had received at least 2 prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy.

Final Analysis of Outcomes and RAS/BRAF Status in a Randomized Phase 3 Study of Panitumumab and Best Supportive Care in Chemorefractory Wild Type KRAS Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Tumor rat sarcoma gene (RAS) status is a negative predictive biomarker for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We analyzed outcomes according to RAS and v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF) mutational status, and evaluated early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR) for patients with wild type RAS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with confirmed metastatic colon or rectum adenocarcinoma, wild type Kristen rat sarcoma gene tumor exon 2 status, clinical/radiologic disease progression or toxicity during irinotecan or oxaliplatin treatment, and no previous anti-EGFR therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive best supportive care (BSC) with or without panitumumab (6.0 mg/kg, intravenously, on day 1 of each 14-day cycle) in this open-label, multicenter, phase III study (20100007). RAS and BRAF mutation status were determined using Sanger sequencing. ETS was evaluated as maximum percentage change from baseline to week 8; DpR was calculated as the percentage change for tumor shrinkage at nadir versus baseline. RESULTS: Overall, 270 patients had RAS wild type mCRC (panitumumab with BSC, n = 142; BSC, n = 128). For patients with wild type RAS tumors, median overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P = .015) and progression-free survival (PFS; HR, 0.45; P < .0001) were improved with panitumumab with BSC versus BSC. Similar improvements were seen for patients with wild type RAS, and wild type BRAF tumors (OS: HR, 0.75; P = .04; PFS: HR, 0.45; P < .0001). Median DpR was 16.9% for the evaluable panitumumab with BSC wild type RAS population. Overall, 69.5% experienced any type of tumor shrinkage at week 8; 38.2% experienced ≥ 20% shrinkage. Similar improvements in OS and PFS were seen with stratification according to ETS. CONCLUSION: This analysis showed that panitumumab improved outcomes in wild type RAS mCRC and indicated that ETS and DpR could be used as additional efficacy markers.

A phase 3 trial evaluating panitumumab plus best supportive care vs best supportive care in chemorefractory wild-type KRAS or RAS metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the treatment effect of panitumumab plus best supportive care (BSC) vs BSC on overall survival (OS) in patients with chemorefractory wild-type KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and report the first prospective extended RAS analysis in a phase 3 trial. METHODS: Patients with wild-type KRAS exon 2 mCRC were randomised 1 : 1 to panitumumab (6 mg kg-1 Q2W) plus BSC or BSC. On-study crossover was prohibited. RAS mutation status was determined by central laboratory testing. The primary endpoint was OS in wild-type KRAS exon 2 mCRC; OS in wild-type RAS mCRC (KRAS and NRAS exons 2, 3, and 4) was a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy seven patients with wild-type KRAS exon 2 mCRC were randomised. Median OS was 10.0 months with panitumumab plus BSC vs 7.4 months with BSC (HR=0.73; 95% CI=0.57-0.93; P=0.0096). RAS ascertainment was 86%. In wild-type RAS mCRC, median OS for panitumumab plus BSC was 10.0 vs 6.9 months for BSC (HR=0.70; 95% CI=0.53-0.93; P=0.0135). Patients with RAS mutations did not benefit from panitumumab (OS HR=0.99; 95% CI=0.49-2.00). No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Panitumumab significantly improved OS in wild-type KRAS exon 2 mCRC. The effect was more pronounced in wild-type RAS mCRC, validating previous retrospective analyses.