Overall survival in the OlympiA phase III trial of adjuvant olaparib in patients with germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 and high-risk, early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, double-blind OlympiA trial compared 1 year of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, olaparib, to matching placebo as adjuvant therapy for patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (gBRCA1/2pv) and high-risk, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, early breast cancer (EBC). The first pre-specified interim analysis (IA) previously demonstrated statistically significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS). The olaparib group had fewer deaths than the placebo group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance for overall survival (OS). We now report the pre-specified second IA of OS with updates of IDFS, DDFS, and safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One thousand eight hundred and thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo following (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy if indicated. Endocrine therapy was given concurrently with study medication for hormone receptor-positive cancers. Statistical significance for OS at this IA required P < 0.015. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the second IA of OS demonstrated significant improvement in the olaparib group relative to the placebo group [hazard ratio 0.68; 98.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.97; P = 0.009]. Four-year OS was 89.8% in the olaparib group and 86.4% in the placebo group (Δ 3.4%, 95% CI -0.1% to 6.8%). Four-year IDFS for the olaparib group versus placebo group was 82.7% versus 75.4% (Δ 7.3%, 95% CI 3.0% to 11.5%) and 4-year DDFS was 86.5% versus 79.1% (Δ 7.4%, 95% CI 3.6% to 11.3%), respectively. Subset analyses for OS, IDFS, and DDFS demonstrated benefit across major subgroups. No new safety signals were identified including no new cases of acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome. CONCLUSION: With 3.5 years of median follow-up, OlympiA demonstrates statistically significant improvement in OS with adjuvant olaparib compared with placebo for gBRCA1/2pv-associated EBC and maintained improvements in the previously reported, statistically significant endpoints of IDFS and DDFS with no new safety signals.

Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus docetaxel versus capecitabine plus docetaxel with planned crossover to the alternate single agent in metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Safety and efficacy of gemcitabine plus docetaxel (GD) and capecitabine plus docetaxel (CD) were compared in patients with metastatic breast cancer, where the alternate crossover monotherapy (GD→C or CD→G) was predetermined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to 3-week cycles of either gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 or capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) day 1. Upon progression, patients received crossover monotherapy. Primary end point was time to progression (TtP). Secondary end points evaluated overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Despite over-accrual of 475 patients, the trial matured with only 324 of 385 planned TtP events due to patient discontinuations. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status was not captured in this study. More CD patients (28%) discontinued due to AEs than GD patients (18.0%, P = 0.009). TtP [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.101, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.885-1.370, P = 0.387] and OS (HR = 1.031, 95% CI 0.830-1.280, P = 0.785) were not significantly different comparing GD and CD. ORR was not statistically different (P = 0.239) comparing GD (72 of 207, 34.8%) and CD (78 of 191, 40.8%). TtP, OS, and ORR were not significantly different comparing crossover groups. GD caused greater fatigue, hepatotoxicity, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia but not febrile neutropenia; CD caused more hand-foot syndrome, gastrointestinal toxicity, and mucositis. CONCLUSIONS: GD and CD produced similar efficacy and toxicity profiles consistent with prior clinical experience.

Exemestane improves survival compared with megoestrol acetate in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer who have failed on tamoxifen. results Of a double-blind randomised phase III trial.

Exemestane is an aromatase inactivator. 769 Postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer who had failed on tamoxifen were randomised to exemestane or megoestrol acetate in this double-blind trial. Objective response rate was similar between treatments. Median time to progression, time to treatment failure and overall survival was significantly longer with exemestane. Drug-related withdrawals and drug-related deaths were more common with megoestrol acetate.

Exemestane is superior to megestrol acetate after tamoxifen failure in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of a phase III randomized double-blind trial. The Exemestane Study Group.

PURPOSE: This phase III, double-blind, randomized, multicenter study evaluated the efficacy, pharmacodynamics, and safety of the oral aromatase inactivator exemestane (EXE) versus megestrol acetate (MA) in postmenopausal women with progressive advanced breast cancer who experienced failure of tamoxifen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 769 patients were randomized to EXE 25 mg/d (n = 366) or MA (n = 403) 40 mg four times daily. Tumor response, duration of tumor control, tumor-related signs and symptoms (TRSS), quality of life (QOL), survival, and tolerability were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall objective response (OR) rates were higher in patients treated with EXE than in those treated with MA (15.0% v 12.4%); a similar trend was noted in patients with visceral metastases (13.5% v 10.5%). Median survival time was significantly longer with EXE (median not reached) than with MA (123.4 weeks; P =.039), as were the median duration of overall success (OR or stable disease > or = 24 weeks; 60.1 v 49.1 weeks; P =.025), time to tumor progression (20.3 v 16.6 weeks; P =.037), and time to treatment failure (16.3 v 15.7 weeks; P =.042). Compared with MA, there were similar or greater improvements in pain, TRSS, and QOL with EXE. Both drugs were well tolerated. Grade 3 or 4 weight changes were more common with MA (17.1% v 7.6%; P =.001). CONCLUSION: EXE prolongs survival time, time to tumor progression, and time to treatment failure compared with MA and offers a well-tolerated treatment option for postmenopausal women with progressive advanced breast cancer who experienced failure of tamoxifen.

Exemestane improves survival in metastatic breast cancer: results of a phase III randomized study.

We compared the efficacy and safety of the oral aromatase inactivator exemestane (EXE) with megestrol acetate (MA) in women with metastatic breast cancer. This phase III randomized, double-blind, multicenter study was conducted in 769 postmenopausal women who had experienced tamoxifen failure. Treatment arms consisted of EXE 25 mg once daily (n=366) or MA 40 mg four times daily (160 mg daily; n=403). Peer-reviewed, intent-to-treat analyses demonstrated that EXE induced a trend toward higher rates of complete response (CR)+partial response (PR) (15.0% vs. 12.4%) and of CR+PR+stable disease (SD)=24 weeks (37.4% vs. 34.6%), but differences were not statistically significant. Statistically significant differences favoring EXE were seen in median duration of CR+PR+SD=24 weeks (60.1 vs. 49.1 weeks; P=0.025), time to tumor progression (20.3 vs. 16.6 weeks; P=0.037), time to treatment failure (16.3 vs. 15.7 weeks; P=0.042), and overall survival (not reached vs. 123.4 weeks; P=0.039). Both treatments were well tolerated, but MA was associated with more grade 3 or 4 weight gain (8% vs. 17%, P=0.001); the pain score was sim-ilar in both groups. There was a trend toward superiority in treatment-related signs and symptoms (TRSS) with EXE. There was greater improvement in the pain score and TRSS in patients achieving an objective response with EXE vs. MA. Quality of life improved or was similar for EXE in most domains. Exemestane offers an important new treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-responsive breast cancer.