Rucaparib versus chemotherapy for treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer with deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (ARIEL4): final results of an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.
In the ARIEL4 trial of rucaparib versus standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with relapsed BRCA-mutated ovarian carcinoma, the primary endpoint was met, showing improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival with rucaparib. Here, we present the final overall survival analysis of the trial and other post-progression outcomes.
This open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial was done at 64 hospitals and cancer centres in 12 countries, including Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA. Eligible patients were women aged 18 or older with BRCA1 or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma and had received at least two previous chemotherapy regimens. Patients had to have evaluable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1) criteria and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using an interactive response technology and block randomisation (block size of six) and stratified by progression-free interval after the most recent platinum-containing therapy to receive oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily administered in 28-day cycles) or chemotherapy on the basis of platinum-sensitivity status. In the chemotherapy group, patients with platinum-resistant disease (progression-free interval ≥1 to <6 months) or partially platinum-sensitive disease (progression-free interval ≥6 to <12 months) received weekly paclitaxel (starting dose 60-80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15). Patients with fully platinum-sensitive disease (progression-free interval ≥12 months) received the investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy (single-agent cisplatin or carboplatin, or platinum-doublet chemotherapy), in 21-day or 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint (previously reported) was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, assessed in the efficacy population (all randomly assigned patients with deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations without reversion mutations) and in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). Overall survival was a prespecified secondary endpoint and was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of assigned study treatment. The cutoff date was April 10, 2022. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02855944; enrolment is complete and the study is closed.
Between March 1, 2017, and Sept 24, 2020, 349 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive rucaparib (n=233) or chemotherapy (n=116). 332 (95%) of 349 patients were white and 17 (5%) patients were other or of unknown race. In the chemotherapy group, 80 (69%) of 116 patients crossed over to receive rucaparib. Median follow-up was 41·2 months (IQR 37·8-44·6). At data cutoff for this final analysis (April 10, 2022), 244 (70%) of 349 patients had died: 167 (72%) of 233 in the rucaparib group and 77 (66%) of 116 in the rucaparib group. Median overall survival was 19·4 months (95% CI 15·2-23·6) in the rucaparib group versus 25·4 months (21·4-27·6) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 1·3 [95% CI 1·0-1·7], p=0·047). No new safety signals were observed, including during crossover to rucaparib. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events across treatment groups included anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (reported in 59 [25%] of 232 patients in the rucaparib group and seven [6%] of 113 in the chemotherapy group), and neutropenia or decreased neutrophil count (in 26 [11%] of 232 in the rucaparib group and 16 [14%] of 113 patients in the chemotherapy group). Serious adverse events were reported in 66 (28%) of 232 patients in the rucaparib group and 14 (12%) of 113 patients in the chemotherapy group. Ten treatment-related deaths were reported in the rucaparib group, two of which were linked to judged to be related to rucaparib (cardiac disorder and myelodysplastic syndrome), and one death related to treatment was reported in the chemotherapy group, with no specific cause linked to the treatment.
These data highlight the need for a better understanding of the most appropriate treatment for patients who have progressed on a poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, and the optimal sequencing of chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors in advanced ovarian cancer.
Clovis Oncology.
Oza AM
，Lisyanskaya A
，Fedenko A
，de Melo AC
，Shparyk Y
，Rakhmatullina I
，Bondarenko I
，Colombo N
，Svintsitskiy V
，Biela L
，Nechaeva M
，Lorusso D
，Scambia G
，Cibula D
，Póka R
，Oaknin A
，Safra T
，Mackowiak-Matejczyk B
，Ma L
，Thomas D
，Lin KK
，McLachlan K
，Goble S
，Kristeleit R
... -
《-》
First evidence of olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed homologous recombination deficient positive/BRCA wild-type ovarian cancer: real-world multicenter study.
Although olaparib has demonstrated substantial clinical benefits as maintenance therapy in BRCA mutation-carrying women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer, its effectiveness in patients without BRCA mutations remains poorly investigated. This study aims to provide the first evidence on the efficacy of mono-olaparib maintenance therapy in such context. Using real-world data from 11 high-volume tertiary care centers in China, a retrospective cohort study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of olaparib as first-line maintenance therapy in patients with BRCA wild-type ovarian cancer. The primary objective was 1-year progression-free survival rate. Safety was also evaluated. Fifty patients with a median age of 54 years were included, and all of them tested negative for BRCA mutations but positive for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). The 1-year PFS rate was 75.2% (95% CI, 63.4 to 89.2), and the median PFS was 21.0 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 28.2). All the patients received olaparib at a starting dose of 300 mg twice daily, and none experienced serious adverse events (AEs). Eight (16%) patients had dose adjustment, but none discontinued olaparib treatment due to AEs. We provide the first evidence that mono-olaparib could be a safe and effective maintenance treatment option for patients newly diagnosed with HRD-positive/BRCA wild-type ovarian cancer.
Li J
，Chen Y
，He M
，Chen X
，Wen H
，Kang Y
，Liu K
，Lou G
，Wang X
，Wen Q
，Wang L
，Lin Z
... -
《-》
Impact of residual disease as a prognostic factor for survival in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer after primary surgery.
Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common cancer among women and a leading cause of death from gynaecological malignancies. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common type, accounting for around 90% of all ovarian cancers. This specific type of ovarian cancer starts in the surface layer covering the ovary or lining of the fallopian tube. Surgery is performed either before chemotherapy (upfront or primary debulking surgery (PDS)) or in the middle of a course of treatment with chemotherapy (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and interval debulking surgery (IDS)), with the aim of removing all visible tumour and achieving no macroscopic residual disease (NMRD). The aim of this review is to investigate the prognostic impact of size of residual disease nodules (RD) in women who received upfront or interval cytoreductive surgery for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).
To assess the prognostic impact of residual disease after primary surgery on survival outcomes for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer. In separate analyses, primary surgery included both upfront primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS). Each residual disease threshold is considered as a separate prognostic factor.
We searched CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), MEDLINE via Ovid (to 30 August 2021) and Embase via Ovid (to 30 August 2021).
We included survival data from studies of at least 100 women with advanced EOC after primary surgery. Residual disease was assessed as a prognostic factor in multivariate prognostic models. We excluded studies that reported fewer than 100 women, women with concurrent malignancies or studies that only reported unadjusted results. Women were included into two distinct groups: those who received PDS followed by platinum-based chemotherapy and those who received IDS, analysed separately. We included studies that reported all RD thresholds after surgery, but the main thresholds of interest were microscopic RD (labelled NMRD), RD 0.1 cm to 1 cm (small-volume residual disease (SVRD)) and RD > 1 cm (large-volume residual disease (LVRD)).
Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data in meta-analysis. To assess the adequacy of adjustment factors used in multivariate Cox models, we used the 'adjustment for other prognostic factors' and 'statistical analysis and reporting' domains of the quality in prognosis studies (QUIPS) tool. We also made judgements about the certainty of the evidence for each outcome in the main comparisons, using GRADE. We examined differences between FIGO stages III and IV for different thresholds of RD after primary surgery. We considered factors such as age, grade, length of follow-up, type and experience of surgeon, and type of surgery in the interpretation of any heterogeneity. We also performed sensitivity analyses that distinguished between studies that included NMRD in RD categories of < 1 cm and those that did not. This was applicable to comparisons involving RD < 1 cm with the exception of RD < 1 cm versus NMRD. We evaluated women undergoing PDS and IDS in separate analyses.
We found 46 studies reporting multivariate prognostic analyses, including RD as a prognostic factor, which met our inclusion criteria: 22,376 women who underwent PDS and 3697 who underwent IDS, all with varying levels of RD. While we identified a range of different RD thresholds, we mainly report on comparisons that are the focus of a key area of clinical uncertainty (involving NMRD, SVRD and LVRD). The comparison involving any visible disease (RD > 0 cm) and NMRD was also important. SVRD versus NMRD in a PDS setting In PDS studies, most showed an increased risk of death in all RD groups when those with macroscopic RD (MRD) were compared to NMRD. Women who had SVRD after PDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (hazard ratio (HR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 2.29; I2 = 50%; 17 studies; 9404 participants; moderate-certainty). The analysis of progression-free survival found that women who had SVRD after PDS had nearly twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.16; I2 = 63%; 10 studies; 6596 participants; moderate-certainty). LVRD versus SVRD in a PDS setting When we compared LVRD versus SVRD following surgery, the estimates were attenuated compared to NMRD comparisons. All analyses showed an overall survival benefit in women who had RD < 1 cm after surgery (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 5 studies; 6000 participants; moderate-certainty). The results were robust to analyses of progression-free survival. SVRD and LVRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting The one study that defined the categories as NMRD, SVRD and LVRD showed that women who had SVRD and LVRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women who had NMRD (HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.66; 310 participants; I2 = 56%, and HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.34; 343 participants; I2 = 35%; very low-certainty, for SVRD versus NMRD and LVRD versus NMRD, respectively). LVRD versus SVRD + NMRD in an IDS setting Meta-analysis found that women who had LVRD had a greater risk of death and disease progression compared to women who had either SVRD or NMRD (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.11; 6 studies; 1572 participants; I2 = 58% for overall survival and HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.52; 1145 participants; I2 = 60% for progression-free survival; very low-certainty). However, this result is biased as in all but one study it was not possible to distinguish NMRD within the < 1 cm thresholds. Only one study separated NMRD from SVRD; all others included NMRD in the SVRD group, which may create bias when comparing with LVRD, making interpretation challenging. MRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting Women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.29, I2 = 81%; 906 participants; very low-certainty).
In a PDS setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that the amount of RD after primary surgery is a prognostic factor for overall and progression-free survival in women with advanced ovarian cancer. We separated our analysis into three distinct categories for the survival outcome including NMRD, SVRD and LVRD. After IDS, there may be only two categories required, although this is based on very low-certainty evidence, as all but one study included NMRD in the SVRD category. The one study that separated NMRD from SVRD showed no improved survival outcome in the SVRD category, compared to LVRD. Further low-certainty evidence also supported restricting to two categories, where women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had a significantly greater risk of death compared to women with NMRD. Therefore, the evidence presented in this review cannot conclude that using three categories applies in an IDS setting (very low-certainty evidence), as was supported for PDS (which has convincing moderate-certainty evidence).
Bryant A
，Hiu S
，Kunonga PT
，Gajjar K
，Craig D
，Vale L
，Winter-Roach BA
，Elattar A
，Naik R
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
