Overall survival and updated progression-free survival results from a randomized phase 2 trial comparing the combination of olaparib and cediranib against olaparib alone in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5535-5535 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joyce F. Liu ◽  
William Thomas Barry ◽  
Michael J. Birrer ◽  
Jung-min Lee ◽  
Ronald J. Buckanovich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Brca Mutation ◽  
Parp Inhibitor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Angiogenic Therapy ◽  
Platinum Sensitive

5535 Background: We previously reported that the combination of cediranib (ced) and olaparib (olap) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rates (ORR) in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive (plat-sens) high-grade serous (HGS) or BRCA-related ovarian cancer (OvCa) (NCT 01116648). We conducted an updated PFS and overall survival (OS) analysis. Methods: Patients (pts) across 9 centers were randomized 1:1 in this Ph 2 open label study to Olap (olap 400 mg capsules BID) or Ced/Olap (olap 200 mg capsules BID; ced 30 mg daily), stratified by BRCA status and prior anti-angiogenic therapy. Eligibility included pts with recurrent plat-sens HGS or BRCA-related OvCa. Pts had measurable disease by RECIST 1.1, PS 0 or 1, and the ability to take POs. No prior anti-angiogenics in the recurrent setting or prior PARP inhibitor was allowed. PFS was defined as time from randomization to radiographic progression or death. OS was defined as time from randomization to death. Results: Pts were enrolled from Oct 2011 to Jun 2013: 46 to Olap, 44 to Ced/Olap. 48 pts were known BRCA carriers (25 Olap; 23 Ced/Olap). As of Dec 21, 2016, 67 pts had a PFS event, and 52 pts had an OS event. Updated median PFS was 8.2 mos for Olap and 16.5 mos for Ced/Olap (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30-0.83, p=0.007). Median OS was 33.3 mos for Olap and 44.2 mos for Ced/Olap (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36-1.11, p=0.11). Within known germline BRCA mut carriers, updated PFS was 16.5 vs 16.4 mos (HR 0.75, p=0.42), and OS was 40.1 vs 44.2 mos (HR 0.79, p=0.55) for Olap and Ced/Olap, respectively. In pts without known germline BRCA mut, updated PFS was 5.7 vs 23.7 mos (HR 0.32, p=0.002), and OS was 23.0 vs 37.8 mos (HR 0.48, p=0.074). Conclusions: Updated PFS results consistently demonstrated that Ced/Olap significantly extended PFS compared to Olap in the overall population of women with plat-sens OvCa. In this Phase 2 study not powered to detect OS diferences, there was a trend towards OS improvement with Ced/Olap, particularly in pts without a known germline BRCA mutation. Results from ongoing studies of this oral combination in OvCa are of clinical interest. Clinical trial information: NCT 01116648.

A randomized phase 2 trial comparing efficacy of the combination of the PARP inhibitor olaparib and the antiangiogenic cediranib against olaparib alone in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA5500-LBA5500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joyce Liu ◽  
William Thomas Barry ◽  
Michael J. Birrer ◽  
Jung-min Lee ◽  
Ronald J. Buckanovich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Parp Inhibitor ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Recurrent Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Parp Inhibitors ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Angiogenic Therapy ◽  
Platinum Sensitive

LBA5500 Background: PARP inhibitors and anti-angiogenics are clinically active in recurrent ovarian cancer (OvCa). Preclinical studies suggest these agents can synergize, and a phase 1 study showed that the combination of cediranib (ced) and olaparib (olap) is well-tolerated. We therefore compared the activity of olap alone (Olap) to combined ced and olap (Ced/Olap) in treatment of recurrent platinum-sensitive (plat-sens) high-grade serous (HGS) or BRCA-related OvCa (NCT 01116648). Methods: Patients (pts) across 9 centers were randomized 1:1 in this Ph 2 open label study to Olap (olap 400 mg capsules BID) or Ced/Olap (olap 200 mg capsules BID; ced 30 mg daily), stratified by BRCA status and prior anti-angiogenic therapy. Eligibility included pts with recurrent plat-sens HGS or BRCA-related OvCa. Pts had measurable disease by RECIST 1.1, PS 0 or 1, and the ability to take POs. No prior anti-angiogenics in the recurrent setting or prior PARP inhibitor was allowed. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from randomization to radiographic progression or death. With a target N=90 pts, the study was powered to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.75 (median PFS 6 vs 10.5 mo). Results: Pts were enrolled from Oct 2011 to Jun 2013: 46 to Olap, 44 to Ced/Olap. 48 pts were known BRCA carriers (25 Olap; 23 Ced/Olap). At a planned interim analysis the DSMB recommended release of data. As of Jan 7, 2014, 41 pts had a PFS event. Median PFS was 9.0 mos for Olap and 17.7 mos for Ced/Olap (HR 2.9, 95% CI 1.5-5.6, p = 0.001). There were 2 complete responses (CR) and 21 partial responses (PR) in pts on Olap (56% objective response rate, ORR) and 3 CRs and 33 PRs in pts on Ced/Olap (84% ORR, p = 0.008). The overall rate of Gr3/4 toxicity was higher for pts on Ced/Olap (70%) than on Olap (7%). Differentially occurring toxicities included fatigue (27% Ced/Olap vs 7% Olap), diarrhea (23% vs 0%), and hypertension (39% vs 0%). Updated efficacy and exploratory subgroup analyses will be presented. Conclusions: Combined Ced/Olap significantly extended PFS and ORR compared to Olap in plat-sens OvCa. Further studies of this oral combination in plat-sens OvCa are warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT01116648.

A Phase 2, Randomized, Open-Label Study of Irosustat Versus Megestrol Acetate in Advanced Endometrial Cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 258-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Pautier ◽  
Ignace Vergote ◽  
Florence Joly ◽  
Bohuslav Melichar ◽  
Elzbieta Kutarska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Megestrol Acetate ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Recurrent Endometrial Cancer

ObjectiveAdvanced/metastatic or recurrent endometrial cancer has a poor prognosis. Malignant endometrial tissue has high steroid sulphatase (STS) activity. The aim of this study was to evaluate STS as a therapeutic target in patients with endometrial cancer.MethodsThis was a phase 2, multicenter, international, open-label, randomized (1:1), 2-arm study of the STS inhibitor oral irosustat 40 mg/d versus oral megestrol acetate 160 mg/d in women with advanced/metastatic or recurrent estrogen receptor–positive endometrial cancer. The primary end point was the proportion of patients without progression or death 6 months after start of treatment. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, time to progression, overall survival, and safety.ResultsSeventy-one patients were treated (36 with irosustat, 35 with megestrol acetate). The study was prematurely stopped after futility analysis. Overall, 36.1% and 54.1% of patients receiving irosustat or megestrol acetate had not progressed or died at 6 months, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between irosustat and megestrol acetate in response and overall survival rates. Irosustat patients had a median progression-free survival of 16 weeks (90% confidence interval, 9.0–31.4) versus 40 weeks (90% confidence interval, 16.3–64.0) in megestrol acetate patients. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 20 (55.6%) and 13 (37.1%) patients receiving irosustat or megestrol, respectively. Most adverse events in both groups were grade 1 or 2.ConclusionsAlthough irosustat monotherapy did not attain a level of activity sufficient for further development in patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer, this study confirms the activity of hormonal treatment (megestrol acetate) for this indication.

Final survival analysis of NSGO-AVANOVA2/ENGOT-OV24: Combination of niraparib and bevacizumab versus niraparib alone as treatment of recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer—A randomized controlled chemotherapy-free study.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6012-6012
Author(s):  
Mansoor Raza Mirza ◽  
Gitte-Betina Nyvang ◽  
Bente Lund ◽  
Rene dePont Christensen ◽  
Theresa Louise Werner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Combined Treatment ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Platinum Sensitive ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Eortc Qlq

6012 Background: We previously reported significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with the chemotherapy-free regimen of niraparib and bevacizumab compared to niraparib alone, in women with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC), regardless of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status (MyChoice HRD), duration of chemotherapy-free interval (CFI) and number of previous lines of therapy (Mirza MR et al, Lancet Oncol 2019). We now present the updated PFS, overall survival (OS) and other efficacy and safety endpoints. Methods: In this randomized, open-label, phase 2 study, women with measurable/evaluable, high-grade serous or endometrioid PSROC were randomized to niraparib 300mg once daily or the combination of niraparib 300mg once daily and bevacizumab 15mg/kg IV every 3 weeks until disease progression (1:1 randomization). The primary endpoint was PFS. Stratification was according to HRD status and CFI (6-12months (mo) vs. > 12mo). First-line maintenance bevacizumab was permitted. Results: Of 97 enrolled patients, 48 were randomized to niraparib monotherapy and 49 to the chemotherapy-free combination. The combined treatment significantly improved PFS compared to niraparib alone: updated median PFS 12.5 mo vs. 5.5 mo; hazard ratio (HR) adjusted for stratification factors 0.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.21 to 0.55]; P < 0.0001. Preplanned exploratory subgroup analyses: patients with HRD-positive tumors (n = 54) HR 0.41 (CI, 0.23-0.76); HRD-negative disease (n = 43) HR, 0.40 (CI, 0.20-0.79); Time to First Subsequent Therapy (TFST) (n=97) HR, 0.4 (CI, 0.25-0.64); PFS2 (n=97) HR 0.55 (CI, 0.35-0.88); Time to Second Subsequent Therapy (TSST) (n=97) HR, 0.56 (CI, 0.35-0.90); OS (49 events only) HR, 0.77 (CI, 0.42-1.41). There was no difference in treatment-emergent grade 3-4 adverse events except for the rate of hypertension (22.9% vs. 0%) and neutropenia (8.3% vs. 2.0%). Patient-reported outcomes measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 and OV28 were similar for both treatment arms. Conclusions: Updated PFS consistently demonstrates that the niraparib-bevacizumab combination had clinically and statistically meaningful activity in PSROC. This phase 2 study was not powered to detect differences in OS or any other efficacy endpoints however TFST, PFS2 & TSST are significantly improved while there is a trend towards OS improvement with niraparib-bevacizumab combination. Clinical trial information: NCT02354131.

Nonplatinum Topotecan Combinations Versus Topotecan Alone for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: Results of a Phase III Study of the North-Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology Ovarian Cancer Study Group

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (19) ◽  
pp. 3176-3182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jalid Sehouli ◽  
Dirk Stengel ◽  
Guelten Oskay-Oezcelik ◽  
Alain G. Zeimet ◽  
Harald Sommer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Recurrent Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Platinum Sensitive ◽  
Platinum Refractory

PurposeThe management of recurrent ovarian cancer remains controversial. Single-agent topotecan is an established treatment option, and preliminary evidence suggests improved tumor control by combining topotecan with etoposide or gemcitabine.Patients and MethodsWomen with relapsed ovarian cancer after primary surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned to topotecan monotherapy 1.25 mg/m2/d, topotecan 1.0 mg/m2plus oral etoposide 50 mg/d, or topotecan 0.5 mg/m2/d plus gemcitabine 800 mg/m2on day 1 and 600 mg/m2on day 8 every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified for platinum-refractory and platinum-sensitive disease according to a recurrence-free interval of less or more than 12 months, respectively. The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, objective response rates, toxicity, and quality of life (as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] 30-item Quality-of-Life Questionnaire).ResultsThe trial enrolled 502 patients with a mean age of 60.5 years (± 10.2 years), 208 of whom were platinum resistant. Median overall survival was 17.2 months (95% CI, 13.5 to 21.9 months) with topotecan, 17.8 months (95% CI, 13.7 to 20.0 months) with topotecan plus etoposide (log-rank P = .7647), and 15.2 months (95% CI, 11.3 to 20.9 months) with topotecan plus gemcitabine (log-rank P = .2344). Platinum-sensitive patients lived significantly longer than platinum-refractory patients (21.9 v 10.6 months). The median progression-free survival was 7.0, 7.8, and 6.3 months, respectively. Objective response rates were 27.8%, 36.1%, and 31.6%, respectively. Patients under combined treatment were at higher risk of severe thrombocytopenia.ConclusionNonplatinum topotecan combinations do not provide a survival advantage over topotecan alone in women with relapsed ovarian cancer.

Olaparib plus paclitaxel plus carboplatin (P/C) followed by olaparib maintenance treatment in patients (pts) with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer (PSR SOC): A randomized, open-label phase II study.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5001-5001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amit M. Oza ◽  
David Cibula ◽  
Ana Oaknin ◽  
Christopher John Poole ◽  
Ron H.J. Mathijssen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Parp Inhibitor ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Platinum Sensitive ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3

5001 Background: The oral PARP inhibitor olaparib has shown antitumor activity in pts with SOC. Our multicenter study compared the efficacy of (Arm A) olaparib capsules plus P/C for 6 cycles then maintenance olaparib monotherapy vs (Arm B) P/C alone for 6 cycles and no further therapy in pts with PSR SOC (NCT01081951). Methods: Pts received 6 x 21-day(d) cycles of olaparib (200 mg bid, d1–10/21) + P (175 mg/m2 iv, d1) + C (AUC4 iv, d1), then olaparib monotherapy as maintenance (400 mg bid, continuous) (Arm A), or 6 x 21d cycles of P (175 mg/m2 iv, d1) + C (AUC6 iv, d1) then no further therapy (Arm B), until progression. Randomization (1:1) was stratified by number of platinum treatments and platinum-free interval. Primary endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS) by central review (RECIST 1.1). Secondary endpoints: overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), safety. Archival tissue was collected where available for analysis of biomarker correlation. Results: Of 162 pts randomized (n=81 per arm), 156 received treatment (Arm A, n=81; Arm B, n=75) and 121 began the maintenance/no further therapy phase (Arm A, n=66; Arm B, n=55). Olaparib + P/C (AUC4) followed by maintenance olaparib showed a significant improvement in PFS vs P/C (AUC6) alone (HR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.34, 0.77; P=0.0012; median = 12.2 vs 9.6 months). OS data are immature (total events: 14%). ORR was similar for Arm A and Arm B (64 vs 58%). Most common AEs during the combination phase were alopecia (74 vs 59%), nausea (69 vs 57%) and fatigue (64 vs 57%) for Arm A vs Arm B, respectively. Pts with grade ≥3 AEs (65 vs 57%), serious AEs (SAEs: 15 vs 21%) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (19 vs 16%) were similar for Arm A vs Arm B. Most common AEs during maintenance/no further therapy were nausea (50 vs 6%) and vomiting (29 vs 7%). 29 vs 16% of pts had grade ≥3 AEs, 9 vs 7% had SAEs and 8% vs N/A discontinued due to AEs in the olaparib vs no treatment arms, respectively. There were no fatal AEs. Conclusions: In pts with PSR SOC, olaparib plus P/C (AUC4) followed by olaparib 400 mg bid monotherapy maintenance treatment resulted in a significant improvement in PFS vs P/C (AUC6) alone.

scholarly journals Bortezomib in combination with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide for patients with relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma: results of the LYM-4003 study

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao-xiao Wang ◽  
Yan Gao ◽  
Jie Jin ◽  
Jun-ning Cao ◽  
Ji-feng Feng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Response Duration ◽  
Severe Toxicity ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Median Response ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Overall Response

Abstract Background The LYM-4003 study was initiated to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of cyclophosphamide when combined with bortezomib and fludarabine in a phase 1b trial, and to assess the efficacy and safety of this combination in a phase 2 trial in patients with relapsed or refractory MCL. Methods Patients with relapsed or refractory MCL who had received at least one previous lines of treatment were enrolled in this single-arm, open-label, phase 1/2 trial at six major cancer centers in China. In phase 1, to identify the MTD of cyclophosphamide, 3 patient cohorts received escalating doses (150, 200, and 250 mg/m2) of intravenous cyclophosphamide on days 1, 2 of each 28-day cycle. Patients also received bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8 and 11, fludarabine 25 mg/m2 on days 1, 2, 3 of each 28-day cycle. In phase 2 study, patients received bortezomib and fludarabine plus the MTD of cyclophosphamide. Treatment in both phases to maximum 6 cycles of chemotherapy, continued until disease progression, or severe toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall response. The secondary endpoint was survival. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate response duration, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat population. Results 40 patients were enrolled between April 8, 2011 and October 10, 2015, 9 in phase 1 and 34 (including three patients who received the MTD of cyclophosphamide in phase 1) in phase 2. In phase 1, we identified the MTD as 250 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide. In phase 2, grade 3–4 hematological toxicities included thrombocytopenia, leucopenia, neutropenia, and lymphopenia. Among 32 patients in phase 2, 23 (72%) had an overall response: 10 (31%) had a complete response and 13 (41%) had a partial response. The median follow-up time was 31.6 months. The median response duration was 26.3 months. The median progression-free survival was 21 months (95% CI 7.3–34.7), and the median overall survival was 32.4 months (95% CI 17.8–47.0). Conclusions Bortezomib in combination with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide is highly effective and well tolerated for patients with relapsed or refractory MCL. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01322776 (Registered on March 25, 2011)

scholarly journals Use of PARP Inhibitors for Ovarian Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (5.5) ◽  
pp. 636-638
Author(s):  
Deborah K. Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Parp Inhibitor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Parp Inhibitors ◽  
Parp Inhibition ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Platinum Sensitive ◽  
Resistant Disease ◽  
Relapsed Disease ◽  
Increased Activity

PARP inhibitors have been used to treat numerous diseases, but these agents have been approved the longest for use in ovarian cancer. All trials of PARP inhibitor maintenance in newly diagnosed ovarian cancer are positive for prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), but patients with BRCA mutations consistently derive the most benefit. Testing for homologous recombination deficiency may provide information regarding the degree of PFS benefit. In individuals without a BRCA mutation, PARP inhibition also prolongs PFS after chemotherapy for platinum-sensitive, PARP-naïve disease. As in the up-front setting, patients with BRCA mutations derive the most benefit in these trials. Finally, PARP inhibitors are active as monotherapy in PARP-naïve, BRCA-mutated relapsed disease, with increased activity observed in platinum-sensitive versus platinum-resistant disease.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document