Homologous recombination deficiency in newly diagnosed FIGO stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer: a multi-national observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance therapy improves survival outcomes in women with newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer with a deficiency in homologous recombination. We report data from the first year of routine homologous recombination deficiency testing in the National Health Service (NHS) in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland between April 2021 and April 2022. METHODS: The Myriad myChoice companion diagnostic was used to test DNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue in women with newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. Tumors with homologous recombination deficiency were those with a BRCA1/2 mutation and/or a Genomic Instability Score (GIS) ≥42. Testing was coordinated by the NHS Genomic Laboratory Hub network. RESULTS: The myChoice assay was performed on 2829 tumors. Of these, 2474 (87%) and 2178 (77%) successfully underwent BRCA1/2 and GIS testing, respectively. All complete and partial assay failures occurred due to low tumor cellularity and/or low tumor DNA yield. 385 tumors (16%) contained a BRCA1/2 mutation and 814 (37%) had a GIS ≥42. Tumors with a GIS ≥42 were more likely to be BRCA1/2 wild-type (n=510) than BRCA1/2 mutant (n=304). The distribution of GIS was bimodal, with BRCA1/2 mutant tumors having a higher mean score than BRCA1/2 wild-type tumors (61 vs 33, respectively, χ2 test p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: This is the largest real-world evaluation of homologous recombination deficiency testing in newly diagnosed FIGO stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. It is important to select tumor tissue with adequate tumor content and quality to reduce the risk of assay failure. The rapid uptake of testing across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland demonstrates the power of centralized NHS funding, center specialization, and the NHS Genomic Laboratory Hub network.

Efficacy and Safety of Weekly Paclitaxel Plus Vistusertib vs Paclitaxel Alone in Patients With Platinum-Resistant Ovarian High-Grade Serous Carcinoma: The OCTOPUS Multicenter, Phase 2, Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with platinum-resistant or refractory ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (PR-HGSC) have a poor prognosis and few therapeutic options. Preclinical studies support targeting PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling in this setting, and a phase 1 study of the dual mTORC1/mTORC2 inhibitor vistusertib with weekly paclitaxel showed activity. Objective: To evaluate whether the addition of vistusertib to weekly paclitaxel improves clinical outcomes in patients with PR-HGSC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited patients from UK cancer centers between January 2016 and March 2018. Patients with PR-HGSC of ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal origin and with measurable or evaluable disease (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and/or Gynecological Cancer Intergroup cancer antigen 125 criteria) were eligible. There were no restrictions on number of lines of prior therapy. Data analysis was performed from May 2019 to January 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1) to weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle) plus oral vistusertib (50 mg twice daily) or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points included response rate, overall survival, and quality of life. Results: A total of 140 patients (median [range] age, 63 [36-86] years; 17.9% with platinum-refractory disease; 53.6% with ≥3 prior therapies) were randomized. In the paclitaxel plus vistusertib vs paclitaxel plus placebo groups, there was no difference in progression-free survival (median, 4.5 vs 4.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 80% CI, 0.67-1.07; 1-sided P = .18), overall survival (median, 9.7 vs 11.1 months; HR, 1.21; 80% CI, 0.91-1.60) or response rate (odds ratio, 0.86; 80% CI, 0.55-1.36). Grade 3 to 4 adverse events were 41.2% (weekly paclitaxel plus vistusertib) vs 36.7% (weekly paclitaxel plus placebo), and there was no difference in quality of life. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of weekly paclitaxel and dual mTORC1/2 inhibition in patients with PR-HGSC, vistusertib did not improve clinical activity of weekly paclitaxel. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16426935.

Efficacy and safety of rucaparib treatment in patients with BRCA-mutated, relapsed ovarian cancer: final results from Study 10.

BACKGROUND: Study 10, a four-part Phase 1/2 study, evaluated oral rucaparib monotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumours. Here we report the final efficacy and safety results in heavily pretreated patients with ovarian cancer who received rucaparib in Study 10 Parts 2A and 2B. METHODS: Parts 2A and 2B (Phase 2 portions) enrolled patients with relapsed, high-grade, platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant, BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer who had received 2-4 (Part 2A) or 3-4 (Part 2B) prior chemotherapies. Patients received oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily (starting dose). The primary endpoint was the investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled: 42 in Part 2A (all had platinum-sensitive disease) and 12 in Part 2B (4 with platinum-sensitive disease; 8 with platinum-resistant disease). ORR was 59.3% (95% CI 45.0-72.4%). The median time to onset of the most common nonhaematological treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was typically early (<56 days) and was later for haematological TEAEs (53-84 days). The median duration of grade ≥3 TEAEs was ≤13 days. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with relapsed, platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant germline BRCA-mutant high-grade ovarian cancer who had received ≥2 prior chemotherapies, rucaparib had robust antitumour activity with a safety profile consistent with prior reports. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01482715.

A Phase 1B open-label study of gedatolisib (PF-05212384) in combination with other anti-tumour agents for patients with advanced solid tumours and triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This Phase 1b study (B2151002) evaluated the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor gedatolisib (PF-05212384) in combination with other anti-tumour agents in advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Patients with various malignancies were administered gedatolisib (90‒310 mg intravenously every week [QW]) plus docetaxel (arm A) or cisplatin (arm B) (each 75 mg/m2 intravenously Q3W) or dacomitinib (30 or 45 mg/day orally). The safety and tolerability of combination therapies were assessed during dose escalation; objective response (OR) and safety were assessed during dose expansion. RESULTS: Of 110 patients enrolled, 107 received gedatolisib combination treatment. Seven of 70 (10.0%) evaluable patients had dose-limiting toxicities; the most common was grade 3 oral mucositis (n = 3). Based upon reprioritisation of the sponsor's portfolio, dose expansion focused on arm B, gedatolisib (180 mg QW) plus cisplatin in patients (N = 22) with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). OR (95% CI) was achieved in four of ten patients in first-line (overall response rate 40.0% [12.2-73.8%]) and four of 12 in second/third-line (33.3% [9.9-65.1%]) settings. One patient in each TNBC arm (10%, first-line; 8.3%, second/third-line) achieved a complete response. CONCLUSIONS: Gedatolisib combination therapy showed an acceptable tolerability profile, with clinical activity at the recommended Phase 2 dose in patients with TNBC. CLINICAL TRIAL: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01920061.

A Randomized, Phase III Trial to Evaluate Rucaparib Monotherapy as Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Ovarian Cancer (ATHENA-MONO/GOG-3020/ENGOT-ov45).

PURPOSE: ATHENA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03522246) was designed to evaluate rucaparib first-line maintenance treatment in a broad patient population, including those without BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutations or other evidence of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), or high-risk clinical characteristics such as residual disease. We report the results from the ATHENA-MONO comparison of rucaparib versus placebo. METHODS: Patients with stage III-IV high-grade ovarian cancer undergoing surgical cytoreduction (R0/complete resection permitted) and responding to first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy were randomly assigned 4:1 to oral rucaparib 600 mg twice a day or placebo. Stratification factors were HRD test status, residual disease after chemotherapy, and timing of surgery. The primary end point of investigator-assessed progression-free survival was assessed in a step-down procedure, first in the HRD population (BRCA-mutant or BRCA wild-type/loss of heterozygosity high tumor), and then in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: As of March 23, 2022 (data cutoff), 427 and 111 patients were randomly assigned to rucaparib or placebo, respectively (HRD population: 185 v 49). Median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 28.7 months (23.0 to not reached) with rucaparib versus 11.3 months (9.1 to 22.1) with placebo in the HRD population (log-rank P = .0004; hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.72); 20.2 months (15.2 to 24.7) versus 9.2 months (8.3 to 12.2) in the intent-to-treat population (log-rank P < .0001; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68); and 12.1 months (11.1 to 17.7) versus 9.1 months (4.0 to 12.2) in the HRD-negative population (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.95). The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were anemia (rucaparib, 28.7% v placebo, 0%) and neutropenia (14.6% v 0.9%). CONCLUSION: Rucaparib monotherapy is effective as first-line maintenance, conferring significant benefit versus placebo in patients with advanced ovarian cancer with and without HRD.

ATHENA (GOG-3020/ENGOT-ov45): a randomized, phase III trial to evaluate rucaparib as monotherapy (ATHENA-MONO) and rucaparib in combination with nivolumab (ATHENA-COMBO) as maintenance treatment following frontline platinum-based chemotherapy in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment strategy for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer has yet to be determined. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have demonstrated substantial improvement in progression-free survival as monotherapy maintenance treatment in the frontline setting versus active surveillance. Furthermore, preclinical and early clinical studies have shown that PARP inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors have synergistic antitumor activity and may provide an additional therapeutic option for patients in this population. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: In women with newly diagnosed ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer, we wish to assess the efficacy of frontline maintenance treatment with the PARP inhibitor rucaparib versus placebo following response to platinum-based chemotherapy (ATHENA-MONO), and to assess the combination of rucaparib plus nivolumab (a programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1)-blocking monoclonal antibody) versus rucaparib alone (ATHENA-COMBO). STUDY HYPOTHESIS: (1) Maintenance therapy with rucaparib monotherapy may extend progression-free survival following standard treatment for ovarian cancer in the frontline setting. (2) The combination of nivolumab plus rucaparib may extend progression-free survival following standard treatment for ovarian cancer in the frontline setting compared with rucaparib alone. TRIAL DESIGN: ATHENA is an international, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial consisting of two independent comparisons (ATHENA-MONO and ATHENA-COMBO) in patients with newly diagnosed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Patients are randomized 4:4:1:1 to the following: oral rucaparib+ intravenous nivolumab (arm A); oral rucaparib + intravenous placebo (arm B); oral placebo+ intravenous nivolumab (arm C); and oral placebo + intravenous placebo (arm D). The starting dose of rucaparib is 600 mg orally twice a day and nivolumab 480 mg intravenously every 4 weeks. ATHENA-MONO compares arm B with arm D to evaluate rucaparib monotherapy versus placebo, and ATHENA-COMBO evaluates arm A versus arm B to investigate the effects of rucaparib and nivolumab in combination versus rucaparib monotherapy. ATHENA-MONO and ATHENA-COMBO share a common treatment arm (arm B) but each comparison is independently powered. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Patients ≥18 years of age with newly diagnosed advanced, high-grade epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have achieved a response after completion of cytoreductive surgery and initial platinum-based chemotherapy are enrolled. No other prior treatment for ovarian cancer, other than the frontline platinum regimen, is permitted. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. SAMPLE SIZE: Approximately 1000 patients have been enrolled and randomized. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: The trial completed accrual in 2020. While dependent on event rates, primary results of ATHENA-MONO are anticipated in early 2022 and results of ATHENA-COMBO are anticipated to mature at a later date. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03522246).

Characterization of patients with long-term responses to rucaparib treatment in recurrent ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To describe molecular and clinical characteristics of patients with high-grade recurrent ovarian carcinoma (HGOC) who had long-term responses to the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib. METHODS: This post hoc analysis pooled patients from Study 10 (NCT01482715; Parts 2A and 2B; n = 54) and ARIEL2 (NCT01891344; Parts 1 and 2; n = 491). Patients with investigator-assessed complete or partial response per RECIST were classified based on duration of response (DOR): long (≥1 year), intermediate (6 months to <1 year), or short (<6 months). Next-generation sequencing was used to detect deleterious mutations and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in tumors. RESULTS: Overall, 25.3% (138/545) of enrolled patients were responders. Of these, 27.5% (38/138) had long-term responses; 28.3% (39/138) were intermediate- and 34.8% (48/138) were short-term responders. Most of the long-term responders harbored a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation (71.1%, 27/38), and BRCA structural variants were most frequent among long-term responders (14.8%; 4/27). Responders with HGOC harboring a BRCA structural variant (n = 5) had significantly longer DOR than patients with other mutation types (n = 81; median not reached vs 0.62 years; HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.43; unadjusted p = 0.014). Among responders with BRCA wild-type HGOC, most long- and intermediate-term responders had high genome-wide LOH: 81.8% (9/11) and 76.9% (10/13), respectively, including 7 with deleterious RAD51C, RAD51D, or CDK12 mutations. CONCLUSION: Among patients who responded to rucaparib, a substantial proportion achieved responses lasting ≥1 year. These analyses demonstrate the relationship between DOR to PARP inhibitor treatment and molecular characteristics in HGOC, such as presence of reversion-resistant BRCA structural variants.

Molecular and clinical determinants of response and resistance to rucaparib for recurrent ovarian cancer treatment in ARIEL2 (Parts 1 and 2).

ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) is a single-arm, open-label phase 2 study of the PARP inhibitor (PARPi) rucaparib in relapsed high-grade ovarian carcinoma. In this post hoc exploratory biomarker analysis of pre- and post-platinum ARIEL2 samples, RAD51C and RAD51D mutations and high-level BRCA1 promoter methylation predict response to rucaparib, similar to BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. BRCA1 methylation loss may be a major cross-resistance mechanism to platinum and PARPi. Genomic scars associated with homologous recombination deficiency are irreversible, persisting even as platinum resistance develops, and therefore are predictive of rucaparib response only in platinum-sensitive disease. The RAS, AKT, and cell cycle pathways may be additional modulators of PARPi sensitivity.

Population exposure-efficacy and exposure-safety analyses for rucaparib in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma from Study 10 and ARIEL2.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate correlations between rucaparib exposure and selected efficacy and safety endpoints in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma using pooled data from Study 10 and ARIEL2. METHODS: Efficacy analyses were limited to patients with carcinomas harboring a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who had received ≥2 prior lines of chemotherapy. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received ≥1 rucaparib dose. Steady-state daily area under the concentration-time curve (AUCss) and maximum concentration (Cmax,ss) for rucaparib were calculated for each patient and averaged by actual dose received over time (AUCavg,ss and Cmax,avg,ss) using a previously developed population pharmacokinetic model. RESULTS: Rucaparib exposure was dose-proportional and not associated with baseline patient weight. In the exposure-efficacy analyses (n = 121), AUCavg,ss was positively associated with independent radiology review-assessed RECIST response in the subgroup of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent disease (n = 75, p = 0.017). In the exposure-safety analyses (n = 393, 40 mg once daily to 840 mg twice daily [BID] starting doses), most patients received a 600 mg BID rucaparib starting dose, with 27% and 21% receiving 1 or ≥2 dose reductions, respectively. Cmax,ss was significantly correlated with grade ≥2 serum creatinine increase, grade ≥3 alanine transaminase/aspartate transaminase increase, platelet decrease, fatigue/asthenia, and maximal hemoglobin decrease (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The exposure-response analyses provide support for the approved starting dose of rucaparib 600 mg BID for maximum clinical benefit with subsequent dose modification only following the occurrence of a treatment-emergent adverse event in patients with BRCA-mutated recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

Phase I/IIa, open-label, multicentre study to evaluate the optimal dosing and safety of ODM-203 in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Genetic alterations in fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) signalling are observed in various tumours. We report a first-in-human phase I/IIa trial evaluating tolerability, pharmacokinetics and preliminary antitumour activity of ODM-203, a novel FGFR and VEGFR inhibitor. METHODS: Open-label, non-randomised, multicentre, phase I/IIa dose escalation and expansion study in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumours. RESULTS: Overall, 84 patients received treatment; optimal tablet dose was found to be 400 mg/day with food. All patients experienced at least one adverse event; the majority (89.2%) were grade 1 or 2% and 70.4% were considered treatment related. The most commonly reported events were bilirubin increase-related events (75%) and diarrhoea (50%).Overall response rate was 9.2% and median progression-free survival was 16.1 and 12.4 weeks for patients with aberrant or non-aberrant FGFR tumours. Median time on treatment was 10.1 weeks for all patients and 14.5 weeks for patients who received 400 mg tablets. CONCLUSION: This study suggests ODM-203 400 mg/day results in sufficient plasma concentrations and acceptable tolerability in most patients. Preliminary signs of therapeutic activity of ODM-203 in patients with solid tumours was observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02264418.

Real-World Delivery of Rucaparib to Patients with Ovarian Cancer: Recommendations Based on an Integrated Safety Analysis of ARIEL2 and Study 10.

Treatment options for women with recurrent ovarian cancer who have received two or more prior lines of chemotherapy have recently expanded with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Commission (EC) approvals of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib. As more oncologists begin to use rucaparib and other PARP inhibitors as part of routine clinical practice, awareness of possible side effects and how to adequately manage toxicities is crucial. In this review, we summarize the safety and tolerability of rucaparib reported in an integrated safety analysis that supported the FDA's initial approval of rucaparib in the treatment setting. Additionally, drawing on clinical data and our personal experience with rucaparib, we provide our recommendations on the management of common side effects observed with rucaparib, including anemia, blood creatinine elevations, alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase elevations, thrombocytopenia, gastrointestinal-related events (e.g., nausea, vomiting), and asthenia and fatigue. These side effects, many of which appear to be class effects of PARP inhibitors, are often self-limiting and can be managed with adequate interventions such as treatment interruption and/or dose reduction and the use of supportive therapies. Supportive therapies may include blood transfusions for patients with anemia, prophylactic medications to prevent nausea and vomiting, or behavioral interventions to mitigate fatigue. Understanding and appropriate management of potential side effects associated with rucaparib may allow patients with ovarian cancer to continue to benefit from rucaparib treatment. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Rucaparib was recently approved in the U.S. and European Union for use as treatment or maintenance for recurrent ovarian cancer. This review focuses on the safety and tolerability of rucaparib in the treatment setting. Similar side effects are observed in the maintenance setting. Drawing on the authors' clinical experience with rucaparib, rucaparib prescribing information, and published supportive cancer care guidelines, this review discusses how to optimally manage common rucaparib-associated side effects in patients with advanced ovarian cancer in the real-world oncology setting. Adequate management of such side effects is crucial for allowing patients with ovarian cancer to remain on treatment to receive optimal efficacy benefit.

Antitumor activity of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as monotherapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed, BRCA-mutated, high-grade ovarian cancer, and an update on safety.

OBJECTIVE: To report results from an integrated efficacy and safety analysis supporting the European Commission's approval of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as monotherapy treatment for relapsed, platinum-sensitive, BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer. METHODS: Efficacy was analyzed in platinum-sensitive patients from Study 10 (NCT01482715) and ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) who had high-grade serous or endometrioid epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and received two or more prior chemotherapies (including two or more platinum-based therapies). The primary end point was investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response rate (visit cut-off: April 10, 2017). Safety was analyzed in patients with ovarian cancer, regardless of BRCA mutation status or lines of prior chemotherapies, who received at least one dose of rucaparib 600 mg in either study (visit cut-off: December 31, 2017). RESULTS: In the integrated platinum-sensitive efficacy population (n=79), objective response rate was 64.6% (95% CI, 53.0 to 75.0); 10.1% (8/79) of patients had a complete response and 54.4% (43/79) had a partial response. Median duration of response was 294 days (95% CI, 224 to 393). In the integrated safety population (n=565), the most common any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (77.7%, 439/565), asthenia/fatigue (74.7%, 422/565), vomiting (45.8%, 259/565), and hemoglobin decreased (44.2%, 250/565). Treatment-emergent adverse events led to treatment interruption, dose reduction, or discontinuation in 60.2% (340/565), 46.0% (260/565), and 16.8% (95/565) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with platinum-sensitive, BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer, rucaparib demonstrated antitumor activity and is the first and currently the only poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor approved by the European Commission as treatment for this population. The safety analysis used a more recent visit cut-off date and larger population than previously published, was consistent with prior reports, and was the basis for the treatment-indication safety population in rucaparib's recently updated European Union label.

Mainstreamed genetic testing for women with ovarian cancer: first-year experience.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer death for women in the UK. Up to 18% of cases can be attributed to germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2genes. Identifying patients who carry a BRCA mutation provides important information about potential response to treatment and eligibility for therapies such as poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Implementation of systematic genetic testing of patients with ovarian cancer via oncology clinics (mainstreamed genetic testing, MGT) is increasing. METHODS AND RESULTS: This service evaluation reports on the first year of MGT at a tertiary oncology centre in London, UK. In total, 122 patients with high-grade non-mucinous ovarian cancer underwent BRCA germline testing via MGT. Eighteen patients (14.8%) were found to carry a deleterious BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation. Four BRCA carriers did not meet previous criteria for genetic testing and would have been missed. Six BRCA carriers accessed PARP inhibitors post-MGT. Only 22% of patients with a variant of unknown significance (VUS) were referred to clinical genetics services. CONCLUSIONS: MGT appears to be a feasible way of providing BRCA testing to patients with ovarian cancer. Greater clarity of how oncologists use VUS results is needed, as well as further research on psychosocial implications of MGT for patients with ovarian cancer, which may include somatic testing in the future.

Pharmacokinetic Study of Rucaparib in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

The phase 1-2 study CO-338-010 (Study 10; NCT01482715) is evaluating single-agent rucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, administered orally to patients with an advanced solid tumor. In the dose escalation phase (Part 1), we characterized the single-dose and steady-state pharmacokinetic profiles of rucaparib administered once daily (QD; dose range, 40-500 mg; n = 16) or twice daily (BID; dose range, 240-840 mg; n = 30). Across all dosing schedules examined, the plasma exposure of rucaparib was approximately dose proportional; half-life was approximately 17 hours, and median time to maximum concentration (tmax ) ranged from 1.5 to 6.0 hours after a single dose and 1.5 to 4.0 hours following repeated dosing. The steady-state accumulation ratio ranged from 1.60 to 2.33 following QD dosing and 1.47 to 5.44 following BID dosing. No effect of food on rucaparib pharmacokinetics was observed with a single dose of 40 mg (n = 3) or 300 mg (n = 6). In a phase 2 portion of the study (Part 3), the pharmacokinetic profile of rucaparib was further evaluated at the recommended phase 2 dose of 600 mg BID (n = 26). The mean (coefficient of variation) steady-state maximum concentration (Cmax ) and area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 12 hours (AUC0-12h ) were 1940 ng/mL (54%) and 16 900 ng ⋅ h/mL (54%), respectively. A high-fat meal moderately increased rucaparib exposure. The fed-to-fasted geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval [CI]) for AUC0-24h and Cmax were 138% (117%-162%) and 120% (99.1%-146%); the median (90%CI) tmax delay was 2.5 (0.5-4.4) hours.

Antitumor activity and safety of the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in patients with high-grade ovarian carcinoma and a germline or somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: Integrated analysis of data from Study 10 and ARIEL2.

OBJECTIVE: An integrated analysis was undertaken to characterize the antitumor activity and safety profile of the oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib in patients with relapsed high-grade ovarian carcinoma (HGOC). METHODS: Eligible patients from Study 10 (NCT01482715) and ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) who received a starting dose of oral rucaparib 600mg twice daily (BID) with or without food were included in these analyses. The integrated efficacy population included patients with HGOC and a deleterious germline or somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation who received at least two prior chemotherapies and were sensitive, resistant, or refractory to platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS). The integrated safety population included patients with HGOC who received at least one dose of rucaparib 600mg BID, irrespective of BRCA1/2 mutation status and prior treatments. RESULTS: In the efficacy population (n=106), ORR was 53.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.8-63.5); 8.5% and 45.3% of patients achieved complete and partial responses, respectively. Median DOR was 9.2months (95% CI, 6.6-11.6). In the safety population (n=377), the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were nausea, asthenia/fatigue, vomiting, and anemia/hemoglobin decreased. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AE was anemia/hemoglobin decreased. Treatment-emergent AEs led to treatment interruption, dose reduction, and treatment discontinuation in 58.6%, 45.9%, and 9.8% of patients, respectively. No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Rucaparib has antitumor activity in advanced BRCA1/2-mutated HGOC and a manageable safety profile.

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.

Enumeration and Molecular Characterisation of Circulating Tumour Cells in Endometrial Cancer.

BACKGROUND: This is a feasibility study to determine whether circulating tumour cells (CTCs) are detectable and suitable for molecular profiling in advanced endometrial cancer (aEC). METHOD: Between October 2012 and February 2014, 30 patients with aEC had baseline and up to 3 follow-up samples. CTCs and stathmin expression were evaluated using the CellSearch platform. Epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) and stathmin immunohistochemistry were performed on FFPE tumour tissue. RESULTS: Eighteen from 30 (60%) patients had detectable CTCs during study [1 CTC (n = 7), 2 (n = 4), 3 (n = 1), 4 (n = 2), 7 (n = 1), 8 (n = 1), 22 (n = 1), 172 (n = 1) in 7.5 ml blood]. Ten from 18 patients had between 50 and 100% of detectable CTCs that were stathmin positive. More CTC-positive than CTC-negative patients had non-endometrioid versus endometrioid histology, tumour size ≥5 versus <5 cm, higher-stage disease and worse survival [hazard ratio 3.3, p > 0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.7-16.2]. Twenty-one tumour blocks were tested for EpCAM and stathmin immunohistochemistry (IHC). Stathmin tumour immunostaining scores (TIS) on IHC were higher in CTC-positive patients. CONCLUSION: CTC enumeration and molecular profiling with stathmin on the CellSearch platform is feasible in aEC. Stathmin TIS on IHC, a known prognostic marker in EC, was associated with CTC positivity.

Gynecologic Cancers: Emerging Novel Strategies for Targeting DNA Repair Deficiency.

The presence of a BRCA mutation, somatic or germline, is now established as a standard of care for selecting patients with ovarian cancer for treatment with a PARP inhibitor. During the clinical development of the PARP inhibitor class of agents, a subset of women without BRCA mutations were shown to respond to these drugs (termed "BRCAness"). It was hypothesized that other genetic abnormalities causing a homologous recombinant deficiency (HRD) were sensitizing the BRCA wild-type cancers to PARP inhibition. The molecular basis for these other causes of HRD are being defined. They include individual gene defects (e.g., RAD51 mutation, CHEK2 mutation), homozygous somatic loss, and whole genome properties such as genomic scarring. Testing this knowledge is possible when selecting patients to receive molecular therapy targeting DNA repair, not only for patients with ovarian cancer but also endometrial and cervical cancers. The validity of HRD assays and multiple gene sequencing panels to select a broader population of patients for treatment with PARP inhibitor therapy is under evaluation. Other non-HRD targets for exploiting DNA repair defects in gynecologic cancers include mismatch repair (MMR), checkpoint signaling, and nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ) DNA repair. This article describes recent evidence supporting strategies in addition to BRCA mutation for selecting patients for treatment with PARP inhibitor therapy. Additionally, the challenges and opportunities of exploiting DNA repair pathways other than homologous recombination for molecular therapy in gynecologic cancers is discussed.