Olaparib Efficacy in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer and BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM Alterations Identified by Testing Circulating Tumor DNA.

PURPOSE: The phase III PROfound study (NCT02987543) evaluated olaparib versus abiraterone or enzalutamide (control) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with tumor homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations. We present exploratory analyses on the use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing as an additional method to identify patients with mCRPC with HRR gene alterations who may be eligible for olaparib treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Plasma samples collected during screening in PROfound were retrospectively sequenced using the FoundationOne®Liquid CDx test for BRCA1, BRCA2 (BRCA), and ATM alterations in ctDNA. Only patients from Cohort A (BRCA/ATM alteration positive by tissue testing) were evaluated. We compared clinical outcomes, including radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) between the ctDNA subgroup and Cohort A. RESULTS: Of the 181 (73.9%) Cohort A patients who gave consent for plasma sample ctDNA testing, 139 (76.8%) yielded a result and BRCA/ATM alterations were identified in 111 (79.9%). Of these, 73 patients received olaparib and 38 received control. Patients' baseline demographics and characteristics, and the prevalence of HRR alterations were comparable with the Cohort A intention-to-treat (ITT) population. rPFS was longer in the olaparib group versus control [median 7.4 vs. 3.5 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.21-0.53; nominal P < 0.0001], which is consistent with Cohort A ITT population (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25-0.47). CONCLUSIONS: When tumor tissue testing is not feasible or has failed, ctDNA testing may be a suitable alternative to identify patients with mCRPC carrying BRCA/ATM alterations who may benefit from olaparib treatment.

Patient-reported outcomes with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Results of this double-blind, phase 2 trial showed patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer given olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone had significantly improved progression-free survival. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of pain and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was conducted across 41 urological oncology sites in 11 countries in Europe and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and had previously received docetaxel and up to one additional line of previous chemotherapy. Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was defined as increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration or other signs of disease progression despite androgen-deprivation therapy and serum testosterone concentrations at castrate levels (≤50 ng/dL), and with at least one metastatic lesion on bone scan, CT, or MRI. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral olaparib (300 mg twice per day) plus oral abiraterone (1000 mg once a day) and oral prednisone or prednisolone (5 mg twice a day) or placebo plus abiraterone (1000 mg once a day) and prednisone or prednisolone (5 mg twice a day). Randomisation was done without stratification and by use of an interactive voice or web response system. A randomised treatment kit ID number was assigned sequentially to each patient as they became eligible. The primary endpoint (radiographic progression-free survival) has previously been reported. HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory patient-reported outcome. Patients were asked to complete the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), single-item worst bone pain, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 five-dimension five level (EQ-5D-5L) assessment at baseline, at weeks 4, 8, and 12, then every 12 weeks until treatment discontinuation. Prespecified outcomes were change from baseline in BPI-SF worst pain, single-item worst bone pain and FACT-P Total Outcome Index (TOI) scale scores, time to deterioration in BPI-SF worst pain and worst bone pain, and assessment of the EQ-5D-5L pain and discomfort domain. All analyses were exploratory and done in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients, including patients who were randomly assigned but did not subsequently go on to receive study treatment), with the exception of mean baseline and total change from baseline analyses, for which we used the population who had a valid baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01972217, and is no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Nov 25, 2014, and July 14, 2015, 171 patients were assessed for eligibility. 29 patients were excluded, and 142 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive olaparib and abiraterone (n=71) or placebo and abiraterone (n=71). Data cutoff was Sept 22, 2017. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 8·1-25·5) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 24·5 months (8·1-27·6) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Questionnaire compliance was generally high (43-100%). Least-squares mean changes from baseline in BPI-SF worst pain, single-item worst bone pain, and FACT-P TOI remained stable across all visits for patients in both treatment groups. Adjusted mean change in FACT-P TOI from baseline across all visits was -0·10 (95% CI -2·50 to 2·71) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and -1·20 (-4·15 to 1·74) in the placebo plus abiraterone group (difference 1·30, 95% CI -2·70 to 5·30; p=0·52). Time to deterioration in pain was similar in both groups (BPI-SF worst pain HR 0·90 [95% CI 0·62-1·32], p=0·30; worst bone pain HR 0·85 [0·59-1·22], p=0·18). Improvement rates in the pain and discomfort domain of the EQ-5D-5L were similar in both groups from baseline to week 48, beyond which a higher proportion of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm reported an improvement compared to the placebo plus abiraterone group. INTERPRETATION: In these prespecified exploratory analyses, there was no significant difference in pain or HRQOL when olaparib was added to abiraterone. In this phase 2 trial, a statistically significant radiographic progression-free survival benefit was observed with the olaparib plus abiraterone combination. These results suggest that the improved survival benefits observed when combining olaparib with abiraterone does not result in different HRQOL compared with placebo plus abiraterone. Phase 3 studies are required to validate these results. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Exploring the Impact of Treatment Switching on Overall Survival from the PROfound Study in Homologous Recombination Repair (HRR)-Mutated Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC).

BACKGROUND: In oncology trials, treatment switching from the comparator to the experimental regimen is often allowed but may lead to underestimating overall survival (OS) of an experimental therapy. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the impact of treatment switching from control to olaparib on OS using the final survival data from the PROfound study and compares validated adjustment methods to estimate the magnitude of OS benefit with olaparib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The primary population from PROfound (Cohort A) was included, alongside two populations approved for treatment with olaparib by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration: BRCAm and Cohort A+B (excluding the PPP2R2A gene). Five methods were explored to adjust for switching: excluding or censoring patients in the control arm who receive subsequent olaparib, Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time Model (RPSFTM), Inverse Probability of Censoring Weights, and Two-Stage Estimation. RESULTS: The RPSFTM was considered the most appropriate approach for PROfound as the results were robust to sensitivity analysis testing of the common treatment effect assumption. For Cohort A, the final OS hazard ratio reduced from 0.69 (95% CI 0.5-0.97) to between 0.42 (0.18-0.90) and 0.52 (0.31-1.00) for olaparib versus control, depending on the RPSFTM selected. Median OS reduced from 14.7 months to between 11.73 and 12.63 months for control. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of the statistically significant (P < 0.05) survival benefit of olaparib versus control observed in Cohort A of PROfound is likely to be underestimated if adjustment for treatment switching from control to olaparib is not conducted. The RPSFTM was considered the most plausible method, although further development and validation of robust methods to estimate the magnitude of impact of treatment switching is needed.

Survival with Olaparib in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that olaparib led to significantly longer imaging-based progression-free survival than the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had qualifying alterations in homologous recombination repair genes and whose disease had progressed during previous treatment with a next-generation hormonal agent. The results of the final analysis of overall survival have not yet been reported. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive olaparib (256 patients) or the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone as the control therapy (131 patients). Cohort A included 245 patients with at least one alteration in BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM, and cohort B included 142 patients with at least one alteration in any of the other 12 prespecified genes. Crossover to olaparib was allowed after imaging-based disease progression for patients who met certain criteria. Overall survival in cohort A, a key secondary end point, was analyzed with the use of an alpha-controlled, stratified log-rank test at a data maturity of approximately 60%. The primary and other key secondary end points were reported previously. RESULTS: The median duration of overall survival in cohort A was 19.1 months with olaparib and 14.7 months with control therapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.97; P = 0.02). In cohort B, the median duration of overall survival was 14.1 months with olaparib and 11.5 months with control therapy. In the overall population (cohorts A and B), the corresponding durations were 17.3 months and 14.0 months. Overall, 86 of 131 patients (66%) in the control group crossed over to receive olaparib (56 of 83 patients [67%] in cohort A). A sensitivity analysis that adjusted for crossover to olaparib showed hazard ratios for death of 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.91) in cohort A, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.11 to 5.98) in cohort B, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.29 to 1.06) in the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had tumors with at least one alteration in BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM and whose disease had progressed during previous treatment with a next-generation hormonal agent, those who were initially assigned to receive olaparib had a significantly longer duration of overall survival than those who were assigned to receive enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone as the control therapy, despite substantial crossover from control therapy to olaparib. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp and Dohme; PROfound ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02987543.).