Safety assessments and clinical features of PARP inhibitors from real-world data of Japanese patients with ovarian cancer.

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors have been increasingly used in ovarian cancer treatment. However, the real-world safety data of these drugs in Japanese patients are limited. This retrospective study included 181 patients with ovarian cancer who received olaparib or niraparib at two independent hospitals in Japan between May 2018 and December 2022. Clinical information and blood sampling data were collected. Regarding patient backgrounds, the olaparib group had higher proportions of patients with serous carcinoma, BRCA positivity, homologous recombination deficiency, and those receiving maintenance therapy after recurrence treatment than the niraparib group. Regarding toxicity properties, the most common reasons for discontinuation in the olaparib group were anemia, fatigue, and nausea, while the reason in the niraparib was thrombocytopenia. Thrombocytopenia caused by niraparib treatment occurred earlier than anemia caused by olaparib treatment. Patients with a low body mass index or who had undergone several previous treatment regimens were more likely to discontinue treatment within the first 3 months. Although we analyzed blood collection data, predicting treatment interruptions due to blood toxicity was challenging. In this study, we revealed the characteristics of patients and the timing of interruptions for each drug, highlighting the importance of carefully managing adverse effects.

The efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitors in mCRPC with HRR mutation in second-line treatment: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Poly (ADP- ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) has been increasingly adopted for metastatic castration-resistance prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD). However, it is unclear which PARPi is optimal in mCRPC patients with HRD in 2nd -line setting. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review of trials regarding PARPi- based therapies on mCRPC in 2nd -line setting and performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was assessed as primary outcome. PSA response and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed according to specific genetic mutation. RESULTS: Four RCTs comprised of 1024 patients (763 harbored homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutations) were identified for quantitative analysis. Regarding rPFS, olaparib monotherapy, rucaparib and cediranib plus olaparib showed significant improvement compared with ARAT. Olaparib plus cediranib had the highest surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) scores (87.5%) for rPFS, followed by rucaparib, olaparib and olaparib plus abiraterone acetate prednisone. For patients with BRCA 1/2 mutations, olaparib associated with the highest probability (98.1%) of improved rPFS. For patients with BRCA-2 mutations, olaparib and olaparib plus cediranib had similar efficacy. However, neither olaparib nor rucaparib showed significant superior effectiveness to androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapy (ARAT) in patients with ATM mutations. For safety, olaparib showed significantly lower ≥ 3 AE rate compared with cediranib plus olaparib (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.51, 0.97), while olaparib plus cediranib was associated with the highest risk of all-grade AE. CONCLUSION: PARPi-based therapy showed considerable efficacy for mCRPC patients with HRD in 2nd -line setting. However, patients should be treated accordingly based on their genetic background as well as the efficacy and safety of the selected regimen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42023454079.

Senaparib as first-line maintenance therapy in advanced ovarian cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial.

Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors as maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy have improved progression-free survival in women with advanced ovarian cancer; however, not all PARP inhibitors can provide benefit for a biomarker-unselected population. Senaparib is a PARP inhibitor that demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with solid tumors, including ovarian cancer, in phase 1 studies. The multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 trial FLAMES randomized (2:1) 404 females with advanced ovarian cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III-IV) and response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy to senaparib 100 mg (n = 271) or placebo (n = 133) orally once daily for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review. At the prespecified interim analysis, the median progression-free survival was not reached with senaparib and was 13.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.58; P < 0.0001). The benefit with senaparib over placebo was consistent in the subgroups defined by BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation or homologous recombination status. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 179 (66%) and 27 (20%) patients, respectively. Senaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with advanced ovarian cancer after response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, irrespective of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status and with consistent benefits observed between homologous recombination subgroups, and was well tolerated. These results support senaparib as a maintenance treatment for patients with advanced ovarian cancer after a response to first-line chemotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04169997 .

Olaparib with or without bevacizumab versus bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine as maintenance therapy in advanced colorectal cancer: The randomized phase 3 LYNK-003 study.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, open-label, phase III LYNK-003 study assessed the efficacy of first-line maintenance olaparib, alone or in combination with bevacizumab, versus bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine in participants with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We present results of the prespecified interim futility analysis. METHODS: Eligible participants were ≥18 years of age with unresectable or mCRC that had not progressed after induction with first-line bevacizumab plus 5-fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin plus leucovorin (FOLFOX) or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX). Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to olaparib plus bevacizumab, olaparib alone, or bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil or capecitabine). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 by central review. RESULTS: Between August 2020 and May 2022, 309 participants were assigned to olaparib plus bevacizumab (n = 104), olaparib (n = 107), or bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine (n = 98). At interim analysis, with a median follow-up of 7.6 months (range 0.1-19.7 months), the median PFS was 3.7 months (95% CI 2.8-5.3) with olaparib plus bevacizumab (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.02-2.27; P = 0.982) and 3.5 months (95% CI 2.0-3.7) with olaparib (HR 2.11; 95% CI 1.39-3.18; P = 0.999) versus 5.6 months (95% CI 3.8-5.9) with bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 64 (62%), 52 (50%), and 57 (59%) participants, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: The LYNK-003 study was stopped prematurely as criteria for futility were met. Maintenance olaparib with or without bevacizumab did not demonstrate clinical efficacy compared with bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT04456699.

Olaparib maintenance therapy for platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer at a single institution: A retrospective study.

AIM: In this study, we aimed to investigate patient characteristics, efficacy, prognostic factors, and safety of olaparib maintenance therapy for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer at our institution. METHODS: Patients responding to platinum-based therapy and starting olaparib maintenance therapy for recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer at Kurume University Hospital between January 2018 and November 2021 were enrolled in the study. Their data were extracted retrospectively from medical records. RESULTS: In all, 50 patients were included. The median (range) age of the patients, follow-up time, and duration of olaparib maintenance therapy were 62 (39-87) years, 21.6 (2.2-45.9) months, and 7.2 (2-45.9) months, respectively. Among the 29 patients tested for homologous recombination (HR) status, 22 (75.9%) were positive for HR deficiency (HRD), 12 (54.5%) of whom had BRCA-positive tumors. The median progression-free survival was 8.9 months (95% confidence interval: 6.2-12.6), and the median overall survival was 27.1 months (95% confidence interval: 22.5-40.3). Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors revealed that HRD was an independent prognostic factor for both progression-free survival and overall survival. The most common adverse event was nausea (any grade, n = 30, 60%), resulting in drug interruption (n = 23, 46%), dose reduction (n = 17, 34%), and discontinuation of treatment (n = 1, 2%). CONCLUSION: Olaparib maintenance therapy for recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer at our institution was effective, with acceptable adverse events. HRD was the most significant prognostic factor for patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.

Olaparib for childhood tumors harboring defects in DNA damage repair genes: arm H of the NCI-COG Pediatric MATCH trial.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute-Children's Oncology Group Pediatric Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) precision oncology platform trial enrolled children aged 1-21 years with treatment-refractory solid tumors and predefined actionable genetic alterations. Patients with tumors harboring alterations in DNA damage repair (DDR) genes were assigned to receive olaparib. METHODS: Tumor and blood samples were submitted for centralized molecular testing. Tumor and germline sequencing were conducted in parallel. Olaparib was given twice daily for 28-day cycles starting at a dose 30% lower than the adult recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The primary endpoint was the objective response. RESULTS: Eighteen patients matched (1.5% of those screened) based on the presence of a deleterious gene alteration in BRCA1/2, RAD51C/D, or ATM detected by tumor sequencing without germline subtraction or analysis of loss of heterozygosity (LOH). Eleven (61%) harbored a germline mutation, with only one exhibiting LOH. Six patients enrolled and received the olaparib starting dose of 135 mg/m2/dose. Two participants were fully evaluable; 4 were inevaluable because <85% of the prescribed dose was administered during cycle 1. There were no dose-limiting toxicities or responses. Minimal hematologic toxicity was observed. CONCLUSION: Most DDR gene alterations detected in Pediatric MATCH were germline, monoallelic, and unlikely to confer homologous recombination deficiency predicting sensitivity to olaparib monotherapy. The study closed due to poor accrual. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03233204. IRB approved: initial July 24, 2017.

Real-world data of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor response in Japanese patients with ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have been increasingly used in the treatment of ovarian cancer, with BRCA positivity and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) being common biomarkers used for predicting their efficacy. However, given the limitations of these biomarkers, new ones need to be explored. METHODS: This retrospective study included 181 ovarian cancer patients who received olaparib or niraparib at two independent hospitals in Japan between May 2018 and December 2022. Clinical information and blood sampling data were collected. Patient characteristics, treatment history, and predictability of treatment duration based on blood data before treatment initiation were examined. RESULTS: High-grade serous carcinoma, BRCA positivity, HRD, and maintenance therapy after recurrence treatment were observed more frequently in the olaparib group than in the niraparib group. The most common reasons for treatment interruption were anemia, fatigue, and nausea in the olaparib group and thrombocytopenia in the niraparib group. Regarding response to olaparib treatment, complete response to the most recent treatment, maintenance therapy after the first chemotherapy, high-grade serous carcinoma, and germline BRCA positivity were observed significantly more frequently among responders than among non-responders. Furthermore, neutrophil counts were significantly higher among responders than among non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: Inflammation-related blood data, such as neutrophil count, obtained at the initial pre-treatment visit might serve as potential predictors for prolonged olaparib treatment. While this study offers valuable insights into potential indicators for prolonged olaparib treatment, it underscores the need for more expansive research to strengthen our understanding of PARP inhibitors and optimize treatment strategies in ovarian cancer.

Concurrent Olaparib and Radiation Therapy in Older Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma: The Phase 1 Dose-Escalation PARADIGM Trial.

PURPOSE: Patients with glioblastoma who are older or have poor performance status (PS) experience particularly poor clinical outcomes. At the time of study initiation, these patients were treated with short-course radiation therapy (40 Gy in 15 fractions). Olaparib is an oral inhibitor of the DNA repair enzyme poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) that is well tolerated as a single agent but exacerbates acute radiation toxicity in extracranial sites. Preclinical data predicted that PARP inhibitors would enhance radiosensitivity in glioblastoma without exacerbating adverse effects on the normal brain. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Phase 1 of the PARADIGM trial was a 3+3 dose-escalation study testing olaparib in combination with radiation therapy (40 Gy 15 fractions) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma who were unsuitable for radical treatment either because they were aged 70 years or older (World Health Organization PS 0-1) or aged 18 to 69 years with PS 2. The primary outcome was the recommended phase 2 dose of olaparib. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability, overall survival, and progression-free survival. Effects on cognitive function were assessed via the Mini Mental State Examination. RESULTS: Of 16 eligible patients (56.25% male; median age, 71.5 years [range, 44-78]; 75% PS 0-1), 1 dose-limiting toxicity was reported (grade 3 agitation). Maximum tolerated dose was not reached and the recommended phase 2 dose was determined as 200 mg twice daily. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were 10.8 months (80% CI, 7.3-11.4) and 5.5 months (80% CI, 3.9-5.9), respectively. Mini Mental State Examination plots indicated that cognitive function was not adversely affected by the olaparib-radiation therapy combination. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib can be safely combined with hypofractionated brain radiation therapy and is well tolerated in patients unsuitable for radical chemoradiation. These results enabled initiation of a randomized phase 2 study and support future trials of PARP inhibitors in combination with radiation therapy for patients with brain tumors.

Results of a randomised Phase II trial of olaparib, chemotherapy or olaparib and cediranib in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: OCTOVA compared the efficacy of olaparib (O) versus weekly paclitaxel (wP) or olaparib + cediranib (O + C) in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). AIMS: The main aim of the OCTOVA trial was to determine the progression-free survival (PFS) of olaparib (O) versus the oral combination of olaparib plus cediranib (O + C) and weekly paclitaxel (wP) in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: In total, 139 participants who had relapsed within 12 months of platinum therapy were randomised to O (300 mg twice daily), wP (80 mg/m2 d1,8,15, q28) or O + C (300 mg twice daily/20 mg daily, respectively). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) of olaparib (O) versus olaparib plus cediranib (O + C) or weekly paclitaxel (wP). The sample size was calculated to observe a PFS hazard ratio (HR) 0.64 in favour of O + C compared to O (20% one-sided type I error, 80% power). RESULTS: The majority had platinum-resistant disease (90%), 22% prior PARPi, 34% prior anti-angiogenic therapy, 30% germline BRCA1/2 mutations. The PFS was increased for O + C vs O (O + C 5.4 mo (2.3, 9.6): O 3.7 mo (1.8, 7.6) HR = 0.73; 60% CI: 0.59, 0.89; P = 0.1) and no different between wP and O (wP 3.9 m (1.9, 9.1); O 3.7 mo (1.8, 7.6) HR = 0.89, 60% CI: 0.72, 1.09; P = 0.69). The main treatment-related adverse events included manageable diarrhoea (4% Grade 3) and hypertension (4% Grade 3) in the O + C arm. DISCUSSION: OCTOVA demonstrated the activity of O + C in women with recurrent disease, offering a potential non-chemotherapy option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14784018, registered on 19th January 2018 http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14784018 .

Efficacy and safety of olaparib, olaparib plus bevacizumab and niraparib maintenance treatment in Japanese patients with platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether maintenance treatment could be safely and effectively performed with olaparib, olaparib plus bevacizumab and niraparib in platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer at multiple institutions in Japan. METHODS: We investigated progression-free survival and adverse events in 117 patients with platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer treated with maintenance therapy. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival of 117 patients was 20.1 months. Patients with germline BRCA pathogenic variants had a significantly better prognosis than the other groups (P < 0.001). Furthermore, in the multivariate analysis, stage IV (P = 0.016) and germline BRCA wild-type (P ≤ 0.001) were significantly associated with worse progression-free survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Regarding adverse events, all three types of maintenance treatment were significantly worse than chemotherapy given before maintenance treatment with respect to renal function (olaparib, P = 0.037; olaparib plus bevacizumab, P < 0.001; and niraparib, P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Maintenance treatment was performed effectively and safely. Renal function deterioration is likely to occur during maintenance treatment, and careful administration is important in platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer.

Clinical characterization of patients with gBRCA1/2 mutation-positive unresectable pancreatic cancer: a multicenter prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence has demonstrated platinum-based chemotherapy followed by maintenance therapy with a poly Adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-ribose polymerase inhibitor (olaparib) show benefits in unresectable pancreatic cancer with a germline (g)BRCA1/2 mutation. Evaluation of the germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation is essential for making decisions on a treatment strategy for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. However, the detection rates of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and efficacy of maintenance with olaparib remain undetermined, prospectively, in Japan. METHODS & RESULTS: In this prospective analysis, the rate of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and efficacy of chemotherapy were analyzed in 136 patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent BRACAnalysis® (85 patients) or FoundationOne® CDx (51 patients) between January 2020 and July 2022. A total of six patients (4.4%) had a germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation. Five patients were treated with modified FOLFIRINOX and one with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin. All patients continued platinum-based chemotherapy for ˃4 months and were subsequently treated with olaparib as a maintenance therapy. The response rate to platinum-based chemotherapy in the germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation-positive group was significantly better than that of the germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation-negative group (66% vs 23%, P = 0.04). All patients harbouring a germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation were able to switch to olaparib. The median progression-free survival using olaparib was 5.7 months (range 3.0-9.2). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations found in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer was comparable to those of previous studies.An analysis of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations has benefits for all patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer with regard to decisions on therapeutic strategies in a clinical practice setting.

Olaparib plus Durvalumab, with or without Bevacizumab, as Treatment in PARP Inhibitor-Naïve Platinum-Sensitive Relapsed Ovarian Cancer: A Phase II Multi-Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Early results from the phase II MEDIOLA study (NCT02734004) in germline BRCA1- and/or BRCA2-mutated (gBRCAm) platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) showed promising efficacy and safety with olaparib plus durvalumab. We report efficacy and safety of olaparib plus durvalumab in an expansion cohort of women with gBRCAm PSROC (gBRCAm expansion doublet cohort) and two cohorts with non-gBRCAm PSROC, one of which also received bevacizumab (non-gBRCAm doublet and triplet cohorts). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter study, PARP inhibitor-naïve patients received olaparib plus durvalumab treatment until disease progression; the non-gBRCAm triplet cohort also received bevacizumab. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR; gBRCAm expansion doublet cohort), disease control rate (DCR) at 24 weeks (non-gBRCAm cohorts), and safety (all cohorts). RESULTS: The full analysis and safety analysis sets comprised 51, 32, and 31 patients in the gBRCAm expansion doublet, non-gBRCAm doublet, and non-gBRCAm triplet cohorts, respectively. ORR was 92.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 81.1-97.8] in the gBRCAm expansion doublet cohort (primary endpoint); DCR at 24 weeks was 28.1% (90% CI, 15.5-43.9) in the non-gBRCAm doublet cohort (primary endpoint) and 74.2% (90% CI, 58.2-86.5) in the non-gBRCAm triplet cohort (primary endpoint). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were reported in 47.1%, 65.6%, and 61.3% of patients in the gBRCAm expansion doublet, non-gBRCAm doublet, and non-gBRCAm triplet cohorts, respectively, most commonly anemia. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib plus durvalumab continued to show notable clinical activity in women with gBRCAm PSROC. Olaparib plus durvalumab with bevacizumab demonstrated encouraging clinical activity in women with non-gBRCAm PSROC. No new safety signals were identified.

Biomarker-driven phase 2 umbrella trial: Clinical efficacy of olaparib monotherapy and combination with ceralasertib (AZD6738) in small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Based on a high incidence of genomic alteration in the cell cycle and DNA damage and response (DDR)-related pathways in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), the clinical efficacy of the DDR-targeting agent olaparib (PARP inhibitor) as monotherapy and in combination with ceralasertib (ATR inhibitor) in relapsed or refractory SCLC was evaluated. METHODS: As part of a phase 2 biomarker driven umbrella study, patients with SCLC and predefined DDR gene alterations who failed to benefit from prior platinum-based regimens were allocated to the olaparib monotherapy arm and nonbiomarker-selected patients were allocated to the olaparib and ceralasertib combination arm. RESULTS: In the olaparib monotherapy arm (n = 15), the objective response rate was 6.7% (one partial response), and the disease control rate was 33.3%, including three patients with stable disease. The median progression-free survival was 1.3 months (95% CI, 1.2-NA). In the combination arm (n = 26), the objective response rate and disease control rate were 3.8% and 42.3%, respectively, with one partial response and 10 patients with stable disease. The median progression-free survival was 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.8-5.4). Treatment was generally well tolerated except for one fatal case of neutropenic fever in the combination arm. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting DDR pathways with olaparib as a single agent or in combination with ceralasertib did not meet the predefined efficacy end point. However, disease stabilization was more evident in the combination arm. Further investigation of the combination of olaparib in SCLC should be performed with diverse combinations and patient selection strategies to maximize efficacy.

NRG-GY012: Randomized phase 2 study comparing olaparib, cediranib, and the combination of cediranib/olaparib in women with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic endometrial cancer.

PURPOSE: This paper reports the efficacy of the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib alone and in combination with the antiangiogenesis agent cediranib compared with cediranib alone in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. METHODS: This was open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial (NCT03660826). Eligible patients had recurrent endometrial cancer, received at least one (<3) prior lines of chemotherapy, and were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), stratified by histology (serous vs. other) to receive cediranib alone (reference arm), olaparib, or olaparib and cediranib for 28-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Homologous repair deficiency was explored using the BROCA-GO sequencing panel. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were enrolled and all were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Median age was 66 (range, 41-86) years and 47 (39.2%) had serous histology. Median progression-free survival for cediranib was 3.8 months compared with 2.0 months for olaparib (hazard ratio, 1.45 [95% CI, 0.91-2.3] p = .935) and 5.5 months for olaparib/cediranib (hazard ratio, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.43-1.14] p = .064). Four patients receiving the combination had a durable response lasting more than 20 months. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were hypertension in the cediranib (36%) and olaparib/cediranib (33%) arms, fatigue (20.5% olaparib/cediranib), and diarrhea (17.9% cediranib). The BROCA-GO panel results were not associated with response. CONCLUSION: The combination of cediranib and olaparib demonstrated modest clinical efficacy; however, the primary end point of the study was not met. The combination was safe without unexpected toxicity.

Clinical effectiveness and safety of olaparib in BRCA-mutated, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in a real-world setting: final analysis of LUCY.

PURPOSE: The interim analysis of the phase IIIb LUCY trial demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of olaparib in patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC), with median progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.11 months, which was similar to that in the olaparib arm of the phase III OlympiAD trial (7.03 months). This prespecified analysis provides final overall survival (OS) and safety data. METHODS: The open-label, single-arm LUCY trial of olaparib (300 mg, twice daily) enrolled adults with gBRCAm or somatic BRCA-mutated (sBRCAm), HER2-negative mBC. Patients had previously received a taxane or anthracycline for neoadjuvant/adjuvant or metastatic disease and up to two lines of chemotherapy for mBC. RESULTS: Of 563 patients screened, 256 (gBRCAm, n = 253; sBRCAm, n = 3) were enrolled. In the gBRCAm cohort, median investigator-assessed PFS (primary endpoint) was 8.18 months and median OS was 24.94 months. Olaparib was clinically effective in all prespecified subgroups: hormone receptor status, previous chemotherapy for mBC, previous platinum-based chemotherapy (including by line of therapy), and previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor use. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were nausea (55.3%) and anemia (39.2%). Few patients (6.3%) discontinued olaparib owing to a TEAE. No deaths associated with AEs occurred during the study treatment or 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSION: The LUCY patient population reflects a real-world population in line with the licensed indication of olaparib in mBC. These findings support the clinical effectiveness and safety of olaparib in patients with gBRCAm, HER2-negative mBC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials registration number: NCT03286842.

Olaparib maintenance versus placebo in platinum-sensitive non-small cell lung cancer: the Phase 2 randomized PIPSeN trial.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-sensitivity is a phenotypic biomarker of Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) sensitivity in histotypes where PARPi are approved. Approximately one-third of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) are platinum-sensitive. The double-blind, randomized phase II PIPSeN (NCT02679963) study evaluated olaparib, a PARPi, as maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Chemonaïve patients with ECOG performance status of 0-1, platinum-sensitive, EGFR- and ALK-wild-type, stage IIIB-IV NSCLC were randomized (R) to receive either olaparib (O) maintenance or a placebo (P). The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) from R. Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS) and safety. With an anticipated hazard ratio of 0.65, 144 patients were required to be randomized, and approximately 500 patients enrolled. RESULTS: The trial was prematurely terminated because anti-PD(L)1 therapy was approved during the trial recruitment. A total of 182 patients were enrolled, with 60 patients randomized: 33 and 27 in the O and P arms, respectively. Patient and tumor characteristics were well-balanced between arms, except for alcohol intake (33% vs 11% in the O and P arms, respectively, p = 0.043). The median PFS was 2.9 and 2.0 months in the O and P arms, respectively (logrank p = 0.99). The median OS was 9.4 and 9.5 months in the O and P arms, respectively (p = 0.28). Grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 15 and 8 patients in O and P arms, with no new safety concerns. CONCLUSION: PIPSeN was terminated early after enrollment of only 50% of the pre-planned population, thus being statistically underpowered. Olaparib maintenance did neither improve median PFS nor OS in this patient population.

Comparison of survival outcomes between olaparib and niraparib maintenance therapy in BRCA-mutated, newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This multicenter retrospective cohort study aimed to compare survival outcomes and adverse events between maintenance therapy with two poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, olaparib and niraparib, in patients with BRCA-mutated, newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) who responded to platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: We enrolled stage III-IV EOC patients with germline and/or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations that had received maintenance therapy with olaparib or niraparib. A 3:1 propensity score matching was conducted using two variables: residual disease size and the presence of germline variants. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary outcomes were time to first subsequent therapy (TFST), overall survival (OS), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: In the propensity score-matched analysis, 80 patients who received olaparib and 31 patients who received niraparib were matched (3:1). In the propensity score-matched cohort, median PFS with olaparib vs. niraparib was not reached vs 31.5 months (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.47-2.52; p = 0.854). The median TFST was not reached vs 31.8 months (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.51-2.81; p = 0.682), and neither olaparib nor niraparib reached the median OS (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.01-17.61; p = 0.649). In terms of the incidence rates of any-grade hematologic or non-hematologic TEAEs, higher rates of thrombocytopenia (p = 0.021) and neutropenia (p = 0.011) were observed in the niraparib group. CONCLUSION: Advanced EOC patients with BRCA1/2 mutations exhibited no significant difference in OS between olaparib and niraparib, indicating the need to consider individualized strategies for selecting PARP inhibitors based on adverse event profiles.

Dose reduction of olaparib in older patients: Insights from an analysis of a National Database in Japan.

AIM: Although the advent of a poly polymerase inhibitors has greatly advanced the tailoring of cancer treatment, there is a dearth of real-world evidence on the actual use of olaparib in aging populations, especially those using national-level data. METHODS: We extracted and analyzed all prescriptions of olaparib in female outpatients from the National Database Open Data Japan (NDB Open Data) from April 2019 to March 2021. The recommended standard dose of olaparib is four tablets of the 150 mg formulation per day, while the 100 mg formulation of olaparib can be considered as an alternative dose in the occurrence of hematologic toxicity. We calculated the proportion of 100 mg compared to the 150 mg prescriptions across age groups. A Cochrane-Armitage trend test was used to examine the association of age groups with the proportion of 100 mg prescriptions. RESULTS: The total number of prescriptions of the 100 mg formulation and the 150 mg formulation were 1449 222, and 4233 625, respectively. Overall, 45.1% (2567 513/5682 847 prescriptions) of olaparib were prescribed for patients 65 years of age or older in females. Stratified by age group, the proportion of 100 mg compared to the 150 mg prescriptions significantly increased with age (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Given that the 100 mg formulation of olaparib can be considered as an alternative dose in Japan in the occurrence of hematologic toxicity, our observations indicate the dose reduction of olaparib in older patients in Japan. Further investigations are necessary to assess its efficacy and safety at a reduced dose.