Olaparib Addition to Maintenance Bevacizumab Therapy in Ovarian Carcinoma With BRCA-Like Genomic Aberrations.

Importance: Testing for homologous recombination deficiency is required for the optimal treatment of high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer. The search for accurate biomarkers is ongoing. Objective: To investigate whether progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer treated with maintenance olaparib or placebo differed between patients with a tumor BRCA-like genomic profile and patients without a tumor BRCA-like profile. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a secondary analysis of the PAOLA-1 randomized clinical trial that compared olaparib plus bevacizumab with placebo plus bevacizumab as maintenance treatment in patients with advanced high-grade ovarian cancer after a good response to first-line platinum with taxane chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, irrespective of germline or tumor BRCA1/2 mutation status. All patients with available tumor DNA were included in the analysis. The current analysis tested for an interaction between BRCA-like status and olaparib treatment on survival outcomes. The original trial was conducted between July 2015 and September 2017; at the time of data extraction for analysis in March 2022, a median follow-up of 54.1 months (IQR, 28.5-62.2 months) and a total follow-up time of 21 711 months was available, with 336 PFS and 245 OS events. Exposures: Tumor homologous recombination deficiency was assessed using the BRCA-like copy number aberration profile classifier. Myriad MyChoice CDx was previously measured. The trial was randomized between the olaparib and bevacizumab and placebo plus bevacizumab groups. Main Outcomes and Measures: This secondary analysis assessed hazard ratios (HRs) of olaparib vs placebo among biomarker strata and tested for interaction between BRCA-like status and olaparib treatment on PFS and OS, using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: A total of 469 patients (median age, 60 [range 26-80] years) were included in this study. The patient cohort consisted of women with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics stage III (76%) high-grade serous (95%) ovarian cancer who had no evaluable disease or complete remission at initial or interval debulking surgery (76%). Thirty-one percent of the tumor samples (n = 138) harbored a pathogenic BRCA mutation, and BRCA-like classification was performed for 442 patients. Patients with a BRCA-like tumor had a longer PFS after olaparib treatment than after placebo (36.4 vs 18.6 months; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.65; P < .001). No association of olaparib with PFS was found in patients with a non-BRCA-like tumor (17.6 vs 16.6 months; HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.68-1.51; P = .93). The interaction was significant (P = .004), and HRs and P values (for interaction) were similar in the relevant subgroups, OS, and multivariable analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of the PAOLA-1 randomized clinical trial, patients with a BRCA-like tumor, but not those with a non-BRCA-like tumor, had a significantly longer survival after olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment than placebo plus bevacizumab treatment. Thus, the BRCA1-like classifier could be used as a biomarker for olaparib plus bevacizumab as a maintenance treatment.

Single-agent metronomic versus weekly oral vinorelbine as first-line chemotherapy in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: The randomized Tempo Breast study.

INTRODUCTION: Single-agent oral vinorelbine is a standard of care for hormone receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) that has progressed on endocrine therapy. Metronomic administration may offer a better balance of efficacy and safety than standard regimens, but data from previous trials are scarce. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase II trial, patients were randomized to oral vinorelbine administered on a metronomic (50 mg three times weekly) or weekly (60 mg/m2 in cycle 1, increasing to 80 mg/m2 if well tolerated) schedule. Treatment was continued until disease progression or intolerance. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR, the proportion of patients with a best overall confirmed response of CR, PR, or stable disease lasting 6 months or more). RESULTS: One-hundred sixty-three patients were randomized and treated. The DCR was 63.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 52.0-73.8) with metronomic vinorelbine and 72.8% (95% CI: 61.8-82.1) with weekly vinorelbine. Weekly vinorelbine was also associated with longer progression-free survival (5.6 vs 4.0 months) and overall survival (26.7 vs 22.3 months) than metronomic vinorelbine, but was associated with more adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized phase II trial, single-agent metronomic oral vinorelbine was effective and well tolerated as first-line chemotherapy for patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative ABC. Formal comparisons are not done in this phase II study and one can simply observe that confidence intervals of all endpoints overlap. When deciding for a chemotherapy after failure of endocrine therapy and CDK 4/6 inhibitors, oral vinorelbine might be an option to be given with either schedule. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT 2014-003860-19.