Adverse events (AEs) with maintenance olaparib in newly diagnosed patients (pts) with advanced ovarian cancer (OC) and a BRCA mutation (BRCAm): Phase III SOLO1 trial.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5539-5539
Author(s):  
Nicoletta Colombo ◽  
Kathleen N. Moore ◽  
Giovanni Scambia ◽  
Ana Oaknin ◽  
Michael Friedlander ◽  
...  

5539 Background: In SOLO1 (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit vs placebo in newly diagnosed pts with advanced OC, a BRCAm and clinical complete or partial response to platinum therapy (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.23–0.41) and was well tolerated (Moore et al. NEJM 2018). We analysed the most common AEs and hematologic AEs in SOLO1. Methods: Pts received olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily or placebo until progression unless they had no evidence of disease at 2 years, in which case treatment stopped. AEs were graded using CTCAE v4.0. Results: Of 391 pts randomized, 390 (olaparib, 260; placebo, 130) were treated and included in the safety analysis. Median treatment duration was approximately 25 months for olaparib vs 14 for placebo. Median time to first onset of the most common AEs (nausea, vomiting, fatigue/asthenia, anemia) and neutropenia and thrombocytopenia was < 3 months; the first event lasted a median of < 2 months, apart from fatigue/asthenia, which lasted a median of < 4 months (Table). AEs were usually managed with supportive therapy and/or dose modification; few pts discontinued. Conclusions: AEs in newly diagnosed pts with advanced OC treated with olaparib usually occurred early and were manageable, with few discontinuations. Clinical trial information: NCT01844986. [Table: see text]

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 686-686
Author(s):  
Michele Reni ◽  
Hedy L. Kindler ◽  
Pascal Hammel ◽  
Eric Van Cutsem ◽  
Teresa Macarulla ◽  
...  

686 Background: In POLO (NCT02184195), maintenance olaparib was well tolerated and led to a significant progression-free survival benefit vs placebo in patients with a gBRCAm and mPaC whose disease had not progressed on first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.35–0.82) (Golan et al. NEJM 2019). We analyzed common AEs and their management in POLO. Methods: Patients were randomized (3:2) to maintenance olaparib (tablets; 300 mg bid) or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. AEs were graded using CTCAE v4.0. Results: Of 154 randomized patients, 151 were treated (olaparib, n=91; placebo, n=60) and included in safety analyses. Median treatment duration was 6.0 months (m) for olaparib and 3.7 m for placebo. Management of fatigue/asthenia, nausea, anemia and vomiting included supportive treatment and/or dose modification; few patients discontinued treatment due to AEs (Table). Of patients with anemia, 14 olaparib recipients received a blood transfusion while on study treatment; one olaparib recipient received epoetin beta. Conclusions: The AE profile of maintenance olaparib in patients with a gBRCAm and mPaC was consistent with that seen in other tumor types.Common AEs of fatigue/asthenia, nausea, anemia and vomiting occurred early, were manageable and led to few treatment discontinuations. Clinical trial information: NCT02184195 . [Table: see text]


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 585-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ezzeldin M Ibrahim ◽  
Ahmed A Refae ◽  
Ali M Bayer ◽  
Emad R Sagr

Aim: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPIs) improved progression-free survival among patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. This meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of PARPIs as maintenance strategy for newly diagnosed patients with advanced high-grade ovarian cancer with or without mutations. Materials & methods: Using defined selection criteria, a literature search identified four eligible randomized clinical trials involving 2386 patients. Results: Compared with placebo maintenance, PARPIs achieved a 46% reduction in the risk of progression or death as compared with placebo (hazard ratio: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.39–0.73; p < 0.0001). That benefit was shown in all clinical subgroups: among those with BRCA mutation, with negative/unknown BRCA mutation, and in those with homologous recombination deficient tumors. Data about the effect on overall survival are still premature. Conclusion: In patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer, PARPIs maintenance after standard therapy achieved a significant improvement in progression-free survival as compared with placebo, overall and in all subgroups.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5541-5541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cara Amanda Mathews ◽  
Kathleen N. Moore ◽  
Nicoletta Colombo ◽  
Giovanni Scambia ◽  
Byoung-Gie Kim ◽  
...  

5541 Background: In SOLO1 (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.23–0.41; Moore et al. N Engl J Med 2018) in pts with newly diagnosed advanced OC and a BRCAm. This analysis evaluates olaparib efficacy by timing of surgery, presence of residual tumor following surgery and response status after completion of chemotherapy in SOLO1. Methods: Pts underwent cytoreductive surgery and were in clinical complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) after platinum-based chemotherapy. Pts were stratified by response and received olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS and objective response were assessed using modified RECIST v1.1. Results: 260 pts were randomized to olaparib and 131 to placebo; one pt did not receive placebo. Median follow-up was 41 months in both arms. 63% and 35% of pts underwent upfront and interval surgery, 21% and 76% had residual and no residual macroscopic disease after surgery, and 74% and 26% entered the study in clinical CR and PR (based on electronic case report form [eCRF] data). PFS was significantly improved regardless of the timing of surgery, residual disease status after surgery or response after platinum-based chemotherapy (Table). In pts with baseline radiologic evidence of disease (n=80; eCRF), the objective response rate was 43% for olaparib (CR, 28%) and 23% for placebo (CR, 12%). Conclusions: Maintenance olaparib improved outcomes compared with placebo in pts with newly diagnosed advanced OC and a BRCAm, regardless of surgical or tumor status. Clinical trial information: NCT01844986. [Table: see text]


Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 652-652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Sara Bringhen ◽  
Davide Rossi ◽  
Valeria Magarotto ◽  
Francesco Di Raimondo ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: In newly diagnosed myeloma patients the combination of bortezomib with melphalan-prednisone (VMP) was superior to MP. In relapsed-refractory patients the 4 drug combination of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (VMPT) induced a high proportion of complete responses (CR). Methods: Newly diagnosed myeloma patients (N=393) older than 65 years, from 58 centers in Italy, were randomly assigned to receive VMPT (N=193) or VMP (N=200). Initially, patients were treated with nine 6-week cycles of VMPT (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 days 1,4,8,11,22,25,29,32 in cycles 1–4 and days 1,8,22,29 in cycles 5–9; melphalan 9 mg/m2 days 1–4; prednisone 60 mg/m2 days 1–4 and thalidomide 50 mg days 1–42, followed by bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 every 15 days and thalidomide 50 mg/day as maintenance) or VMP (bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone at the same doses and schedules previously described without maintenance). In March 2007, the protocol was amended: both VMPT and VMP schedules were changed to nine 5-week cycles and bortezomib schedule was modified to weekly administration (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 days 1,8,15,22 in cycles 1–9). Primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Patient characteristics were similar in both groups: median age was 71 years, 23% of patients were aged > 75 years. Patients who received at least 1 cycle were evaluated: 152 patients for VMPT (62 received bortezomib bi-weekly infusion and 90 weekly infusion) and 152 patients for VMP (62 received bortezomib bi-weekly infusion and 90 weekly infusion). Data were analyzed in intention-to-treat. The very good partial response (VGPR) rate was higher in the VMPT group (55% versus 42%, p=0.02), including a CR rate of 31% in the VMPT group and 16% in the VMP group (p=0.003). In the subgroup treated with weekly infusion of bortezomib, VGPR was 59% for VMPT and 37% for VMP (p=0.004), including 28% CR for VMPT and 10% for VMP (p=0.004). Subgroup analyses did not show any statistical difference between responses and either age, B2-microglobulin or chromosomal abnormalities, such as del13, t(4;14), t(14;16) and del17. After a median follow-up of 13.6 months, the 2-year PFS was 83.9% in the VMPT group and 75.7% in the VMP group (HR=0.73, 95% CI 0.38–1.42, p=0.35). In patients who received weekly infusion of bortezomib, the 2-year PFS was 86.8% in the VMPT group and 78.1% in the VMP group (HR=0.65, 95% CI 0.24–1.8, p=0.41). In patients who achieved CR after induction, the 2-year PFS was 100% for VMPT and 79% for VMP (p=0.02). The 3-year overall survival (OS) was 89.5% in the VMPT group and 88.7% in the VMP group (HR=1.02, 95% CI 0.43–2.46, p=0.96). The incidence of grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) was similar in both groups. In the VMPT patients and in the VMP patients, the more frequent AEs were neutropenia (36% vs 31%), thrombocytopenia (20% vs 19%), peripheral neuropathy (18% vs 12%), infections (14% vs 10%), and gastrointestinal complications (7% vs 8%), respectively. The weekly infusion of bortezomib significantly decreased the incidence of grade 3–4 peripheral neuropathy (9% for VMPT and 3% for VMP). Conclusion: VMPT is superior to VMP in terms of response rates. Longer follow-up is needed to assess their effects on PFS and OS. The weekly infusion of bortezomib significantly reduced the incidence of grade 3–4 peripheral neuropathy without influencing outcome. Table. Complete responses, progression-free survival and peripheral neuropathy in all patients and in those who received weekly infusion of bortezomib VMPT group (n=152) VMP group (n=152) All patients (n=152) Subgroup with bortezomib weekly infusion (n=90) All patients (n=152) Subgroup with bortezomib weekly infusion (n=90) CR rate (%) 31 28 16 10 2-year PFS (%) 84 87 76 78 Grade 3–4 peripheral neuropathy (%) 18 9 12 3


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9013-9013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Hauschild ◽  
Jean Jacques Grob ◽  
Lev V. Demidov ◽  
Thomas Jouary ◽  
Ralf Gutzmer ◽  
...  

9013 Background: Dabrafenib is a selective BRAF inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy in BRAF V600E-positive mutation in MM. The primary analysis of BREAK-3 (NCT01227889) compared progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with BRAF V600E-positive mutation MM treated with dabrafenib or DTIC. Methods: Median PFS for dabrafenib of 5.1 months (mo) and study methods were previously described (Hauschild A, et al. Lancet. 2012,380:358–365). Independent review ended at the primary analysis. PFS was updated in Jun 2012 at median follow-up of 10.5 mo for dabrafenib (67% of PFS events), and 9.9 mo for DTIC. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached, so another analysis of OS and safety was performed with data as of Dec 2012, at which time the median follow-up was 15.2 (dabrafenib) and 12.7 (DTIC) mo. PFS of subjects who crossed over was also evaluated at that time. Results: PFS hazard ratio was 0.37 [95% CI; 0.23, 0.57]; median PFS was 6.9 mo dabrafenib and 2.7 mo DTIC. In Dec 2012, 36/63 DTIC pts crossed over; median PFS was 4.3 [95% CI; 4.1, 6.1] mos. OS is presented in the Table.The four most common adverse events (AE) on the dabrafenib arm were hyperkeratosis (39%), headache (35%), arthralgia (35%), and pyrexia (32%). Serious AEs ≥ 5% on the dabrafenib arm included cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma/keratoacanthoma (10%) and pyrexia (5%). Conclusions: Longer follow-up confirms the benefits of dabrafenib on PFS and response rate. Median OS in the dabrafenib arm was over 18 mo and over 15 mo in the DTIC arm. OS results are confounded by crossover of DTIC pts to dabrafenib and likely by subsequent therapy after progression. The effects of subsequent therapy results will be investigated. The safety profile had no significant changes. Clinical trial information: NCT01227889. [Table: see text]


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19022-e19022
Author(s):  
Liza Cosca Villaruz ◽  
Mark A. Socinski ◽  
Jyoti D. Patel ◽  
Larry Leon ◽  
Sebastien Hazard ◽  
...  

e19022 Background: Progression-free survival (PFS) is a key trial end point for clinical practice, as it relates to a change of treatment line. Grade 4 progression-free survival (G4PFS; defined as time from treatment start to the earlier of progressive disease [PD], onset of a G4 adverse event [AE], or death from any cause) is a composite end point incorporating a measure of tolerability to PFS. This post hoc analysis evaluates G4PFS and the effect of G4 AEs on PFS and overall survival (OS) in patients (pts) enrolled in PointBreak (PB) and AVAiL. Methods: Pts in PB were randomized to bevacizumab (BEV) 15 mg/kg q3w with carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP) or pemetrexed (CPem) for ≤4 cycles. Eligible pts received either BEV or BEV + Pem q3w until PD or unacceptable toxicity. Pts in AVAiL received cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤6 cycles and either placebo or BEV (7.5 or 15 mg/kg) q3w until PD. AEs were graded via NCI-CTCAE v3.0. Kaplan-Meier and Cox model methods were used to estimate medians and hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS, G4PFS, and OS. PFS and OS were also compared in each arm for pts with occurrence of a G4 AE before week 12 of treatment vs those without. Results: Of those receiving BEV, ~30% of AVAiL pts and 38% of PB pts had a G4 AE. Uncomplicated neutropenia was the most common G4 AE in the CP + BEV arm of PB (26%) and in the BEV arms of AVAiL (11%). PFS, G4PFS, and outcomes by G4 AE occurrence are shown (Table). Conclusions: In both the PB and AVAiL trials, median G4PFS was numerically shorter than median PFS. G4 AE occurrence, however, did not affect subsequent PFS or OS in either trial. Clinical trial information: NCT00762034 and NCT00806923. [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document