A Plain Language Summary of "Dostarlimab for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer".

What is this summary about? Dostarlimab, also known by the brand name JEMPERLI, is a medicine that uses a patient's own immune system to treat endometrial cancer. Dostarlimab is a type of medicine called an immunotherapy. Immunotherapies help the immune system find and attack cancer cells. Dostarlimab stops cancer cells from being able to hide from the immune system, which allows the patient to have a boosted immune response against their cancer.The RUBY study is a phase 3 clinical study of primary advanced (cancer that has spread outside the uterus) or recurrent (cancer that has come back) endometrial cancer. A phase 3 clinical study looks at how well a new treatment works compared to the standard, or usual, treatment in a large patient population. The RUBY study is testing how well dostarlimab given with chemotherapy, followed by dostarlimab alone, works at delaying primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer from getting worse and preventing patients from dying, compared to chemotherapy given alone (the current standard treatment for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer).What were the results? When dostarlimab was given with chemotherapy, this combination was found to delay primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer from getting worse and to prevent patients from dying, compared with chemotherapy given alone (without dostarlimab). Patients in the study who received dostarlimab with chemotherapy had a 36% lower risk of dying or having their cancer get worse.What do the results mean? The results from this study contributed to the approval of dostarlimab with chemotherapy as a new treatment option for patients with mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability-high primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. As of the publication of this plain language summary of publication (PLSP), this combination of dostarlimab with chemotherapy has been approved in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the European Union and Hong Kong.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03981796 (RUBY).

Niraparib maintenance therapy using an individualised starting dose in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (NORA): final overall survival analysis of a phase 3 randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Niraparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC), regardless of germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm) status, in NORA. This analysis reports final data on overall survival (OS). Methods: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial enrolled patients across 30 centres in China between 26 September 2017 and 2 February 2019 (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03705156). Eligible patients had histologically confirmed, recurrent, (predominantly) high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube carcinoma, or primary peritoneal carcinoma (no histological restrictions for those with gBRCAm) and had received ≥2 prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomised (2:1) to receive niraparib or placebo, with stratification by gBRCAm status, time to recurrence following penultimate platinum-based chemotherapy, and response to last platinum-based chemotherapy. Following a protocol amendment, the starting dose was individualised: 200 mg/day for patients with bodyweight <77 kg and/or platelet count <150 × 103/µL at baseline and 300 mg/day otherwise. OS was a secondary endpoint. Findings: Totally, 265 patients were randomised to receive niraparib (n = 177) or placebo (n = 88), and 249 (94.0%) received an individualised starting dose. As of 14 August 2023, median follow-up for OS was 57.9 months (IQR, 54.8-61.6). Median OS (95% CI) with niraparib versus placebo was 51.5 (41.4-58.9) versus 47.6 (33.3-not evaluable [NE]) months, with hazard ratio [HR] of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.60-1.23), in the overall population; 56.0 (36.1-NE) versus 47.6 (31.6-NE) months, with HR of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.46-1.58), in patients with gBRCAm; and 46.5 (41.0-NE) versus 46.9 (31.8-NE) months, with HR of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.56-1.35), in those without. No new safety signals were identified, and myelodysplastic syndromes/acute myeloid leukaemia occurred in three (1.7%) niraparib-treated patients. Interpretation: Niraparib maintenance therapy with an individualised starting dose demonstrated a favourable OS trend versus placebo in PSROC patients, regardless of gBRCAm status. Funding: Zai Lab (Shanghai) Co., Ltd; National Major Scientific and Technological Special Project for "Significant New Drugs Development" in 2018, China [grant number 2018ZX09736019].

Progression-free survival and safety at 3.5 years of follow-up: results from the randomized phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial of niraparib maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer - a plain language summary.

What is this summary about? This PLSP provides a short summary of an original scientific article that presented results from the PRIMA study after 3.5 years of follow-up time. The original article was published in the European Journal of Cancer in 2023.The PRIMA study included adult patients with newly diagnosed advanced high-risk ovarian cancer whose tumors shrunk or became undetectable after treatment with chemotherapy with or without surgery. The PRIMA study evaluated how well the drug niraparib, also known as Zejula, worked at delaying or preventing ovarian cancer from coming back (recurring) or getting worse (progressing) compared with placebo (a substance with no effects that a doctor gives to a patient instead of a drug). The first results from the PRIMA study were published in 2019, when patients had participated in the PRIMA study for about 1.2 years.The article this PLSP is based on reports longer-term data from the PRIMA study, when patients had participated in the PRIMA study for about 3.5 years. Patients were monitored (or followed) for a longer time to understand how well niraparib continued to work and to evaluate whether the safety of niraparib changed with additional time being monitored.What were the results? Patients who took niraparib had more time before their cancer came back or got worse than patients who took placebo. In terms of safety, no new types of side effects with niraparib treatment were observed with additional time being monitored as part of the PRIMA study.What do the results mean? These results support that niraparib remains an important treatment option to help delay the cancer from coming back or getting worse in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer that responded to initial treatment.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02655016 (PRIMA study) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Poor Concordance Between Cancer Antigen-125 and RECIST Assessment for Progression in Patients With Platinum-Sensitive Relapsed Ovarian Cancer on Maintenance Therapy With a Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor.

PURPOSE: Cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) is recommended by treatment guidelines and widely used to diagnose ovarian cancer recurrence. The value of CA-125 as a surrogate for disease progression (PD) and its concordance with radiologic progression are unclear, particularly for women with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) who have responded to chemotherapy and treated with maintenance poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi). METHODS: In this pooled analysis of four randomized trials of maintenance PARPi or placebo (Study 19, SOLO2, ARIEL3, and NOVA), we extracted data on CA-125 PD as defined by Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup criteria and RECIST v1.1. We evaluated the concordance between CA-125 and RECIST PD and reported on the negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV). RESULTS: Of 1,262 participants (n = 818 PARPi, n = 444 placebo), 403 (32%) had CA-125 PD, and of these, 366 had concordant RECIST PD (PPV, 91% [95% CI, 88 to 93]). However, of 859 (68%) without CA-125 PD, 382 also did not have RECIST PD (NPV, 44% [95% CI, 41 to 48]). Within the treatment arms, PPV remained high (PARPi, 91% [95% CI, 86 to 94]; placebo, 91% [95% CI, 86 to 95]) but NPV was lower on placebo (PARPi, 53% [95% CI, 49 to 57]; placebo, 25% [95% CI, 20 to 31]). Of 477 with RECIST-only PD, most (95%) had a normal CA-125 at the start of maintenance therapy and the majority (n = 304, 64%) had CA-125 that remained within normal range. Solid organ recurrence without peritoneal disease was more common in those with RECIST-only PD than in those with CA-125 and RECIST PD (36% v 24%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: In patients with PSROC treated with maintenance PARPi, almost half with RECIST PD did not have CA-125 PD, challenging current guidelines. Periodic computed tomography imaging should be considered as part of surveillance, particularly in those with a normal CA-125 at the start of maintenance therapy and on treatment.

Optimizing disease progression assessment using blinded central independent review and comparing it with investigator assessment in the PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 trial: challenges and solutions.

OBJECTIVE: Progression-free survival is an established clinically meaningful endpoint in ovarian cancer trials, but it may be susceptible to bias; therefore, blinded independent centralized radiological review is often included in trial designs. We compared blinded independent centralized review and investigator-assessed progressive disease performance in the PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 trial examining niraparib monotherapy. METHODS: PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 was a randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial; patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer received niraparib or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] v1.1), determined by two independent radiologists, an arbiter if required, and by blinded central clinician review. Discordance rates between blinded independent centralized review and investigator assessment of progressive disease and non-progressive disease were routinely assessed. To optimize disease assessment, a training intervention was developed for blinded independent centralized radiological reviewers, and RECIST refresher training was provided for investigators. Discordance rates were determined post-intervention. RESULTS: There was a 39% discordance rate between blinded independent centralized review and investigator-assessed progressive disease/non-progressive disease in an initial patient subset (n=80); peritoneal carcinomatosis was the most common source of discordance. All reviewers underwent training, and as a result, changes were implemented, including removal of two original reviewers and identification of 10 best practices for reading imaging data. Post-hoc analysis indicated final discordance rates between blinded independent centralized review and investigator improved to 12% in the overall population. Median progression-free survival and hazard ratios were similar between blinded independent centralized review and investigators in the overall population and across subgroups. CONCLUSION: PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 highlights the need to optimize blinded independent centralized review and investigator concordance using early, specialized, ovarian-cancer-specific radiology training to maximize validity of outcome data.

Survival and modelled cancer antigen-125 ELIMination rate constant K score in ovarian cancer patients in first-line before poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor era: A Gynaecologic Cancer Intergroup meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In patients with advanced ovarian cancer, the modelled CA-125 ELIMination rate constant K (KELIM) is an early indicator of the tumour intrinsic chemosensitivity. We assessed the prognostic and surrogate values of KELIM with respect to those of surgery outcome (based on post-operative residual lesions) in the Gynaecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) individual patient data meta-analysis MAOV (Meta-Analysis in OVarian cancer) built before the emergence of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. METHODS: The dataset was split into learning and validation cohorts (ratio 1:2). The individual modelled KELIM values were estimated, standardised by the median value, then scored as unfavourable (<1.0) or favourable (≥1.0). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) analyses were performed with a two-step meta-analytic approach and surrogacy through a two-level meta-analytic model. RESULTS: KELIM was assessed in 5884 patients from eight first-line trials (learning, 1962; validation, 3922). A favourable KELIM score was significantly associated with longer OS (validation set, median, 78.8 versus 28.4 months, hazard-ratios [HR] 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.50, C-index 0.68), and longer PFS (validation set, median 30.5 versus 9.8 months, HR 0.49, 95% CI, 0.45-0.54, C-index 0.68), as were International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage and debulking surgery outcome. Three prognostic groups were identified based on the surgery outcome and KELIM score, with large differences in OS (105.1, ∼45.0, and 22.1 months) and PFS (58.1, ∼15.0, and 8.0 months). Surrogacy for OS and for PFS was not established. CONCLUSION: KELIM is an independent prognostic biomarker for survival, complementary to surgery outcome, representing a new determinant of first-line treatment success.

Progression-free survival and safety at 3.5years of follow-up: results from the randomised phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial of niraparib maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To report updated long-term efficacy and safety from the double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study (NCT02655016). METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with complete or partial response (CR or PR) to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy received niraparib or placebo once daily (2:1 ratio). Stratification factors were best response to first-line chemotherapy regimen (CR/PR), receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no), and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status (deficient [HRd]/proficient [HRp] or not determined). Updated (ad hoc) progression-free survival (PFS) data (as of November 17, 2021) by investigator assessment (INV) are reported. RESULTS: In 733 randomised patients (niraparib, 487; placebo, 246), median PFS follow-up was 3.5years. Median INV-PFS was 24.5 versus 11.2months (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.68) in the HRd population and 13.8 versus 8.2months (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.79) in the overall population for niraparib and placebo, respectively. In the HRp population, median INV-PFS was 8.4 versus 5.4months (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87), respectively. Results were concordant with the primary analysis. Niraparib-treated patients were more likely to be free of progression or death at 4years than placebo-treated patients (HRd, 38% versus 17%; overall, 24% versus 14%). The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events in niraparib patients were thrombocytopenia (39.7%), anaemia (31.6%), and neutropenia (21.3%). Myelodysplastic syndromes/acute myeloid leukaemia incidence rate (1.2%) was the same for niraparib- and placebo-treated patients. Overall survival remained immature. CONCLUSIONS: Niraparib maintained clinically significant improvements in PFS with 3.5years of follow-up in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer at high risk of progression irrespective of HRD status. No new safety signals were identified.

Safety, Efficacy, and Biomarker Analyses of Dostarlimab in Patients with Endometrial Cancer: Interim Results of the Phase I GARNET Study.

PURPOSE: This interim report of the GARNET phase I trial presents efficacy and safety of dostarlimab in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC), with an analysis of tumor biomarkers as prognostic indicators. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 153 patients with mismatch repair deficient (dMMR)/microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) and 161 patients with mismatch repair proficient (MMRp)/microsatellite stable (MSS) EC were enrolled and dosed. Patients received 500 mg dostarlimab every 3 weeks for four cycles, then 1,000 mg every 6 weeks until progression. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). RESULTS: A total of 143 patients with dMMR/MSI-H EC and 156 patients with MMRp/MSS EC were evaluated for efficacy. ORR was 45.5% (n = 65) and 15.4% (n = 24) for dMMR/MSI-H EC and MMRp/MSS EC, respectively. Median DOR for dMMR/MSI-H EC was not met (median follow-up, 27.6 months); median DOR for MMRp/MSS EC was 19.4 months. The ORRs by combined positive score (CPS) ≥1 status were 54.9% and 21.7% for dMMR/MSI-H EC and MMRp/MSS EC, respectively. ORRs by high tumor mutational burden (≥10 mutations/Mb) were 47.8% (43/90) and 45.5% (5/11) for dMMR/MSI-H EC and MMRp/MSS EC, respectively. ORR in TP53mut or POLεmut molecular subgroups was 18.1% (17/94) and 40.0% (2/5), respectively. The safety profile of dostarlimab was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: Dostarlimab demonstrated durable antitumor activity and safety in patients with dMMR/MSI-H EC. Biomarkers associated with EC may identify patients likely to respond to dostarlimab. See related commentary by Jangra and Dhani, p. 4521.

Prospective evaluation of the tolerability and efficacy of niraparib dosing based on baseline body weight and platelet count: Results from the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial.

BACKGROUND: The PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) trial was amended to prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of an individualized starting dose (ISD) regimen of niraparib for first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: In the phase 3 PRIMA trial, patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (N = 733) were initially treated with a fixed starting dose (FSD) regimen of 300 mg once daily. Subsequently, the protocol was amended so newly enrolled patients received an ISD: 200 mg once daily in patients with baseline body weight < 77 kg or baseline platelet count < 150,000/µL, and 300 mg once daily in all other patients. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed by starting dose. RESULTS: Overall, 475 (64.8%) patients were assigned to an FSD (niraparib, n = 317; placebo, n = 158) and 258 (35.2%) were assigned to an ISD (niraparib, n = 170; placebo, n = 88). Efficacy in patients who received FSD or ISD was similar for the overall (FSD hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.46-0.76] vs. ISD HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48-0.98]) and the homologous recombination-deficient (FSD HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.30-0.64] vs. ISD HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.22-0.72]) populations. In patients with low body weight/platelet count, rates of grades ≥3 and 4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events, dose interruptions, and dose reductions were lower for those who received ISD than for those who received FSD. CONCLUSIONS: In PRIMA, similar dose intensity, similar efficacy, and improved safety were observed with the ISD compared with the FSD regimen.

Dostarlimab for Primary Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Dostarlimab is an immune-checkpoint inhibitor that targets the programmed cell death 1 receptor. The combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy may have synergistic effects in the treatment of endometrial cancer. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, global, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Eligible patients with primary advanced stage III or IV or first recurrent endometrial cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either dostarlimab (500 mg) or placebo, plus carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve, 5 mg per milliliter per minute) and paclitaxel (175 mg per square meter of body-surface area), every 3 weeks (six cycles), followed by dostarlimab (1000 mg) or placebo every 6 weeks for up to 3 years. The primary end points were progression-free survival as assessed by the investigator according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, and overall survival. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 494 patients who underwent randomization, 118 (23.9%) had mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR), microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumors. In the dMMR-MSI-H population, estimated progression-free survival at 24 months was 61.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46.3 to 73.4) in the dostarlimab group and 15.7% (95% CI, 7.2 to 27.0) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.50; P<0.001). In the overall population, progression-free survival at 24 months was 36.1% (95% CI, 29.3 to 42.9) in the dostarlimab group and 18.1% (95% CI, 13.0 to 23.9) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.80; P<0.001). Overall survival at 24 months was 71.3% (95% CI, 64.5 to 77.1) with dostarlimab and 56.0% (95% CI, 48.9 to 62.5) with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87). The most common adverse events that occurred or worsened during treatment were nausea (53.9% of the patients in the dostarlimab group and 45.9% of those in the placebo group), alopecia (53.5% and 50.0%), and fatigue (51.9% and 54.5%). Severe and serious adverse events were more frequent in the dostarlimab group than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel significantly increased progression-free survival among patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, with a substantial benefit in the dMMR-MSI-H population. (Funded by GSK; RUBY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03981796.).

Safety and management of niraparib monotherapy in ovarian cancer clinical trials.

Niraparib is a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that has shown a significant improvement in progression-free survival irrespective of biomarker status in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. This review focuses on the adverse events associated with niraparib and their management to maintain efficacy of niraparib treatment and improve quality of life for patients. In five trials assessing efficacy of niraparib in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (PRIMA, NOVA, NORA, QUADRA, and PRIME), treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were reported in nearly all patients (≥99%) receiving niraparib; the events were grade ≥3 in 51-74% of patients. Across all lines of therapy, treatment-emergent adverse events led to dose interruptions in 62-80% of patients receiving niraparib and dose reductions in 47-71%. Hematologic events were most frequently reported, including thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neutropenia. Common non-hematologic events included gastrointestinal events, which were generally low grade (<5% were grade ≥3). Clinical strategies to manage these and other events, such as fatigue and insomnia, cognitive behavioral therapy and pharmacologic agents, are summarized. Once-daily niraparib dosing may be advantageous for some patients for many reasons, including night-time dosing which may help alleviate gastrointestinal symptoms. An individualized starting dose (determined by baseline body weight and platelet count) of niraparib demonstrated an improved safety profile while maintaining efficacy. Patients receiving the niraparib individualized starting dose had fewer grade ≥3 adverse events, dose interruptions, and dose reductions than patients receiving a fixed starting dose. The safety profile of niraparib across five pivotal studies in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer was consistent across multiple lines of treatment, including as maintenance therapy in first-line and recurrent settings and as treatment in heavily pre-treated patients. Long-term safety data from the NOVA trial confirmed that, with appropriate and early dose modifications, niraparib is well tolerated.

Maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab in patients with newly diagnosed advanced high-grade ovarian cancer: Main analysis of second progression-free survival in the phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial.

BACKGROUND: PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 (NCT02477644) demonstrated a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer. We report the prespecified main second progression-free survival (PFS2) analysis for PAOLA-1. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, phase III trial was conducted in 11 countries. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer and were in response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Patients were randomised 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo for up to 24 months; all patients received bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks) for up to 15 months. Primary PFS end-point was reported previously. Time from randomisation to second disease progression or death was a key secondary end-point included in the hierarchical-testing procedure. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 35.5 months and 36.5 months, respectively, median PFS2 was 36.5 months (olaparib plus bevacizumab) and 32.6 months (placebo plus bevacizumab), hazard ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-0.95; P = 0.0125. Median time to second subsequent therapy or death was 38.2 months (olaparib plus bevacizumab) and 31.5 months (placebo plus bevacizumab), hazard ratio 0.78; 95% CI 0.64-0.95; P = 0.0115. Seventy-two (27%) patients in the placebo plus bevacizumab group received a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor as first subsequent therapy. No new safety signals were observed for olaparib plus bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: In newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab provided continued benefit beyond first progression, with a significant PFS2 improvement and a time to second subsequent therapy or death delay versus placebo plus bevacizumab.

Niraparib treatment for patients with BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer: review of clinical data and therapeutic context.

We reviewed clinical data for niraparib monotherapy in BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) epithelial ovarian cancer (OC), contextualizing results with data from other poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis). Niraparib reduced the likelihood of progression or death by 60% as first-line maintenance therapy and by 73-78% in recurrent disease. In heavily pretreated OC, efficacy was greater in the BRCAm versus non-BRCAm cohort. Quality-of-life (QoL) was maintained throughout treatment. Adverse events were consistent with the known niraparib safety profile. Cumulative efficacy, safety and QoL evidence demonstrate niraparib maintenance monotherapy has a positive benefit:risk ratio in BRCAm OC. Niraparib significantly improved progression-free survival as first-line maintenance therapy in all patients with OC (i.e., of any biomarker status).

This article reviewed niraparib monotherapy in patients with ovarian cancer (OC) who have mutations in a specific gene (BRCA). Across multiple clinical trials, niraparib maintenance treatment was able to delay further progression of disease or death compared with patients who had received placebo; the tumors of patients who had received extensive prior treatment for OC were also more likely to respond to niraparib treatment. Patients were able to have the same quality-of-life with niraparib as they would if they had not received treatment. Side effects were predictable from previous clinical trial experience. Together, these data show that niraparib, like other inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, is beneficial in patients with OC who have a deleterious BRCA mutation. A plain language version of this article is available and is published alongside the paper online: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/fon-2022-0206.

Randomized Trial of Cytoreductive Surgery for Relapsed Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer has been mainly based on systemic therapy. The role of secondary cytoreductive surgery is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who had a first relapse after a platinum-free interval (an interval during which no platinum-based chemotherapy was used) of 6 months or more to undergo secondary cytoreductive surgery and then receive platinum-based chemotherapy or to receive platinum-based chemotherapy alone. Patients were eligible if they presented with a positive Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) score, defined as an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance-status score of 0 (on a 5-point scale, with higher scores indicating greater disability), ascites of less than 500 ml, and complete resection at initial surgery. A positive AGO score is used to identify patients in whom a complete resection might be achieved. The primary end point was overall survival. We also assessed quality of life and prognostic factors for survival. RESULTS: A total of 407 patients underwent randomization: 206 were assigned to cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy, and 201 to chemotherapy alone. A complete resection was achieved in 75.5% of the patients in the surgery group who underwent the procedure. The median overall survival was 53.7 months in the surgery group and 46.0 months in the no-surgery group (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.96; P = 0.02). Patients with a complete resection had the most favorable outcome, with a median overall survival of 61.9 months. A benefit from surgery was seen in all analyses in subgroups according to prognostic factors. Quality-of-life measures through 1 year of follow-up did not differ between the two groups, and we observed no perioperative mortality within 30 days after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In women with recurrent ovarian cancer, cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy resulted in longer overall survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by the AGO Study Group and others; DESKTOP III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01166737.).

Comparative Assessment of Diagnostic Homologous Recombination Deficiency-Associated Mutational Signatures in Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: Homologous recombination (HR) deficiency (HRD) is one of the key determinants of PARP inhibitor response in ovarian cancer, and its accurate detection in tumor biopsies is expected to improve the efficacy of this therapy. Because HRD induces a wide array of genomic aberrations, mutational signatures may serve as a companion diagnostic to identify PARP inhibitor-responsive cases. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: From the The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) whole-exome sequencing (WES) data, we extracted different types of mutational signature-based HRD measures, such as the HRD score, genome-wide LOH, and HRDetect trained on ovarian and breast cancer-specific sequencing data. We compared their performance to identify BRCA1/2-deficient cases in the TCGA ovarian cancer cohort and predict survival benefit in platinum-treated, BRCA1/2 wild-type ovarian cancer. RESULTS: We found that the HRD score, which is based on large chromosomal alterations alone, performed similarly well to an ovarian cancer-specific HRDetect, which incorporates mutations on a finer scale as well (AUC = 0.823 vs. AUC = 0.837). In an independent cohort these two methods were equally accurate predicting long-term survival after platinum treatment (AUC = 0.787 vs. AUC = 0.823). We also found that HRDetect trained on ovarian cancer was more accurate than HRDetect trained on breast cancer data (AUC = 0.837 vs. AUC = 0.795; P = 0.0072). CONCLUSIONS: When WES data are available, methods that quantify only large chromosomal alterations such as the HRD score and HRDetect that captures a wider array of HRD-induced genomic aberrations are equally efficient identifying HRD ovarian cancer cases.

Molecular and clinical predictors of improvement in progression-free survival with maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy in women with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The authors performed a meta-analysis to better quantify the benefit of maintenance poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy to inform practice in platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade ovarian cancer for patient subsets with the following characteristics: germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm), somatic BRCA mutation (sBRCAm), wild-type BRCA but homologous recombinant-deficient (HRD), homologous recombinant-proficient (HRP), and baseline clinical prognostic characteristics. METHODS: Randomized trials comparing a PARPi versus placebo as maintenance treatment were identified from electronic databases. Treatment estimates of progression-free survival were pooled across trials using the inverse variance weighted method. RESULTS: Four trials included 972 patients who received a PARPi (olaparib, 31%; niraparib, 35%; or rucaparib, 34%) and 530 patients who received placebo. For patients who had germline BRCA1 mutation (gBRCAm1) (N = 471), the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.23-0.37); for those who had germline BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm2) (N = 236), the HR was 0.26 (95% CI, 0.17-0.39); and, for those who had sBRCAm (N = 123), the HR was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.12-0.41). The treatment effect was similar between the gBRCAm and sBRCAm subsets (P = .48). In patients who had wild-type BRCA HRD tumors (excluding sBRCAm; N = 309), the HR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31-0.56); and, in those who had wild-type BRCA HRP tumors (N = 346), the HR was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.49-0.83). The relative treatment effect was greater for the BRCAm versus HRD (P = .03), BRCAm versus HRP (P < .00001), and HRD versus HRP (P < .00001) subsets. There was no difference in benefit based on age, response after recent chemotherapy, and prior bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: In platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade ovarian cancer, maintenance PARPi improves progression-free survival for all patient subsets. PARPi therapy has a similar magnitude of benefit for sBRCAm and gBRCAm. Although patients with BRCAm derive the greatest benefit, the absence of a BRCAm or HRD could not be used to exclude patients from maintenance PARPi therapy.

Long-term safety in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer treated with niraparib versus placebo: Results from the phase III ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial.

OBJECTIVE: Niraparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor approved for use in heavily pretreated patients and as maintenance treatment in patients with newly-diagnosed or recurrent ovarian cancer following a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. We present long-term safety data for niraparib from the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of niraparib for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either once-daily niraparib 300 mg or placebo. Two independent cohorts were enrolled based on germline BRCA mutation status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, reported previously. Long-term safety data were from the most recent data cutoff (September 2017). RESULTS: Overall, 367 patients received niraparib 300 mg once daily. Dose reductions due to TEAEs were highest in month 1 (34%) and declined every month thereafter. Incidence of any-grade and grade ≥ 3 hematologic and symptomatic TEAEs was also highest in month 1 and subsequently declined. Incidence of grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia decreased from 28% (month 1) to 9% and 5% (months 2 and 3, respectively), with protocol-directed dose interruptions and/or reductions. Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were reported in 2 and 6 niraparib-treated patients, respectively, and in 1 placebo patient each. Treatment discontinuations due to TEAEs were <5% in each month and time interval measured. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate the importance of appropriate dose reduction according to toxicity criteria and support the safe long-term use of niraparib for maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01847274.

Final results from GCIG/ENGOT/AGO-OVAR 12, a randomised placebo-controlled phase III trial of nintedanib combined with chemotherapy for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.

AGO-OVAR 12 investigated the effect of adding the oral triple angiokinase inhibitor nintedanib to standard front-line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer. At the primary analysis, nintedanib demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint) compared with placebo. We report final results, including overall survival (OS). Patients with primary debulked International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIB-IV newly diagnosed ovarian cancer were randomised 2:1 to receive carboplatin (area under the curve 5 or 6) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 ) on day 1 every 3 weeks for six cycles combined with either nintedanib 200 mg or placebo twice daily on days 2-21 every 3 weeks for up to 120 weeks. Between December 2009 and July 2011, 1,366 patients were randomised (911 to nintedanib, 455 to placebo). Disease was considered as high risk (FIGO stage III with >1 cm residuum, or any stage IV) in 39%. At the final analysis, 605 patients (44%) had died. There was no difference in OS (hazard ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.17, p = 0.86; median 62.0 months with nintedanib vs. 62.8 months with placebo). Subgroup analyses according to stratification factors, clinical characteristics and risk status showed no OS difference between treatments. The previously reported PFS improvement seen with nintedanib did not translate into an OS benefit in the nonhigh-risk subgroup. Updated PFS results were consistent with the primary analysis (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.98; p = 0.029) favouring nintedanib. The safety profile was consistent with previous reports.

Niraparib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Niraparib, an inhibitor of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP), has been associated with significantly increased progression-free survival among patients with recurrent ovarian cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of the presence or absence of BRCA mutations. The efficacy of niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer after a response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy is unknown. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer in a 2:1 ratio to receive niraparib or placebo once daily after a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival in patients who had tumors with homologous-recombination deficiency and in those in the overall population, as determined on hierarchical testing. A prespecified interim analysis for overall survival was conducted at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 733 patients who underwent randomization, 373 (50.9%) had tumors with homologous-recombination deficiency. Among the patients in this category, the median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the niraparib group than in the placebo group (21.9 months vs. 10.4 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 0.59; P<0.001). In the overall population, the corresponding progression-free survival was 13.8 months and 8.2 months (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.76; P<0.001). At the 24-month interim analysis, the rate of overall survival was 84% in the niraparib group and 77% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.11). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were anemia (in 31.0% of the patients), thrombocytopenia (in 28.7%), and neutropenia (in 12.8%). No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who had a response to platinum-based chemotherapy, those who received niraparib had significantly longer progression-free survival than those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of homologous-recombination deficiency. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02655016.).