Olaparib maintenance versus placebo monotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (PIN): A multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fennell DA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9386392 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Olaparib maintenance versus placebo monotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (PIN): A multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.
Fennell Dean A DA Porter Catharine C Lester Jason J Danson Sarah S Blackhall Fiona F Nicolson Marianne M Nixon Lisette L Gardner Georgina G White Ann A Griffiths Gareth G Casbard Angela A
EClinicalMedicine 20220811
<h4>Background</h4>Impaired double strand DNA repair by homologous repair deficiency (HRD) leads to sensitivity to poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibition. Poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors target HRD to induce synthetic lethality and are used routinely in the treatment of BRCA1 mutated ovarian cancer in the platinum-sensitive maintenance setting. A subset of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) harbour impaired DNA double strand break repair. We therefore hypothesised that patie ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Preclinical studies have shown synergistic effects when combining PARP1/2 inhibitors and platinum drugs in BRCA1/2 mutated cancer cell models. After a formulation change of olaparib from capsules to tablets, we initiated a dose finding study of olaparib tablets bidaily (BID) continuously with carboplatin to prepare comparative studies in this patient group. Patients were included in a 3 + 3 dose-escalation schedule: olaparib 25 mg BID and carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 3 mg*min/mL d1/d22, olaparib 25 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/mL d1/d22, followed by increasing dose-levels of olaparib from 50 mg BID, 75 mg BID, to 100 mg BID with carboplatin at AUC 4 mg*min/mL d1/d22. After two cycles, patients continued olaparib 300 mg BID as monotherapy. Primary objective was to assess the maximum tolerable dose (MTD). Twenty-four patients with a confirmed diagnosis of advanced cancer were included. Most common adverse events were nausea (46%), fatigue (33%) and platelet count decrease (33%). Dose-level 3 (olaparib 75 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/mL; n = 6) was defined as MTD. Fourteen out of 24 patients (56%) had a partial response as best response (RECIST 1.1). Systemic exposure of the olaparib tablet formulation appeared comparable to the previous capsule formulation with olaparib tablet AUC0-12 of 16.3 μg/mL*h at MTD. Polymers of ADP-ribose levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells were reduced by 98.7% ± 0.14% at Day 8 compared to Day 1 for dose-level 3. Olaparib tablets 75 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/mL for two cycles preceding olaparib monotherapy 300 mg is a feasible and tolerable treatment schedule for patients with advanced cancer.
| S-EPMC8248128 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeIn patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed (PSR) ovarian cancer, olaparib maintenance monotherapy significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo. However, evidence in the Asian population is lacking. This is the first study to evaluate olaparib efficacy and tolerability exclusively in Asian patients with PSR ovarian cancer.Patients and methodsConsidering the limited placebo effect and significant clinical benefit of olaparib in previous trials, and the rapid approval of olaparib in China, this phase III study was designed as an open-label, single-arm trial. Patients with high-grade epithelial PSR ovarian cancer were enrolled from country-wide clinical centers across China and Malaysia. Patients received oral olaparib (300 mg) twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was median PFS (mPFS). Primary analysis of PFS using the Kaplan-Meier method was performed when data reached 60% maturity (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03534453).ResultsBetween 2018 and 2020, 225 patients were enrolled, and 224 received olaparib; 35.7% had received ≥3 lines of chemotherapy, 35.3% had achieved complete response to their last line of platinum-based chemotherapy, and 41.1% had a platinum-free interval ≤12 months. At primary data cut-off (December 25, 2020), overall mPFS was 16.1 months; mPFS was 21.2 and 11.0 months in BRCA-mutated and wild-type BRCA subgroups, respectively. Adverse events (AE) occurred in 99.1% of patients (grade ≥3, 48.7%); 9.4% discontinued therapy due to treatment-related AEs.ConclusionsOlaparib maintenance therapy was highly effective and well tolerated in Asian patients with PSR ovarian cancer, regardless of BRCA status. This study highlights the promising efficacy of olaparib in this Asian population. See related commentary by Nicum and Blagden, p. 2201.
| S-EPMC9359747 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTenosynovial giant cell tumour (TGCT), a rare, locally aggressive neoplasm, overexpresses colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF1). Surgery is standard with no approved systemic therapy. We aimed to evaluate pexidartinib, a CSF1 receptor inhibitor, in patients with TGCT to provide them with a viable systemic treatment option, especially in cases that are not amenable to surgical resection.MethodsThis phase 3 randomised trial had two parts. Part one was a double-blind study in which patients with symptomatic, advanced TGCT for whom surgery was not recommended were randomly assigned via an integrated web response system (1:1) to the pexidartinib or placebo group. Individuals in the pexidartinib group received a loading dose of 1000 mg pexidartinib per day orally (400 mg morning; 600 mg evening) for the first 2 weeks, followed by 800 mg per day (400 mg twice a day) for 22 weeks. Part two was an open-label study of pexidartinib for all patients. The primary endpoint, assessed in all intention-to-treat patients, was overall response at week 25, and was centrally reviewed by RECIST, version 1.1. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02371369.FindingsBetween May 11, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, of 174 patients assessed for eligibility, 120 patients were randomly assigned to, and received, pexidartinib (n=61) or placebo (n=59). There were 11 dropouts in the placebo group and nine in the pexidartinib group. Emergence of mixed or cholestatic hepatotoxicity caused the data monitoring committee to stop enrolment six patients short of target. The proportion of patients who achieved overall response was higher for pexidartinib than placebo at week 25 by RECIST (24 [39%] of 61 vs none of 59; absolute difference 39% [95% CI 27-53]; p<0·0001). Serious adverse events occurred in eight (13%) of 61 patients in the pexidartinib group and one (2%) of 59 patients in the placebo group. Hair colour changes (67%), fatigue (54%), aspartate aminotransferase increase (39%), nausea (38%), alanine aminotransferase increase (28%), and dysgeusia (25%) were the most frequent pexidartinib-associated adverse events. Three patients given pexidartinib had aminotransferase elevations three or more times the upper limit of normal with total bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase two or more times the upper limit of normal indicative of mixed or cholestatic hepatotoxicity, one lasting 7 months and confirmed by biopsy.InterpretationPexidartinib is the first systemic therapy to show a robust tumour response in TGCT with improved patient symptoms and functional outcomes; mixed or cholestatic hepatotoxicity is an identified risk. Pexidartinib could be considered as a potential treatment for TGCT associated with severe morbidity or functional limitations in cases not amenable to improvement with surgery.FundingDaiichi Sankyo.
| S-EPMC6860022 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSatralizumab, a humanised monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-6 receptor, reduced the risk of relapse in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) when added to immunosuppressant therapy. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of satralizumab monotherapy in patients with the disorder.MethodsIn this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial, we enrolled adults aged 18-74 years with aquaporin-4 antibody seropositive or seronegative NMOSD at 44 investigational sites in 13 countries. Eligible participants had experienced at least one documented NMOSD attack or relapse in the past 12 months and had a score of 6·5 or less on the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Exclusion criteria included clinical relapse 30 days or fewer before baseline. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive satralizumab 120 mg or visually matched placebo subcutaneously at weeks 0, 2, 4, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Taking immunosuppressants concomitantly was prohibited. The primary endpoint was time to the first protocol-defined relapse, based on the intention-to-treat population and analysed with stratification for two randomisation factors (previous therapy for prevention of attacks and nature of the most recent attack). Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of satralizumab or placebo. The double-blind phase was due to last until 44 protocol-defined relapses occurred or 1·5 years after random assignment of the last patient enrolled, whichever occurred first; participants could enter an open-label phase after the occurrence of a protocol-defined relapse or at the end of the double-blind phase. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02073279.Findings95 (57%) of 168 screened participants were randomly assigned to treatment (63 to satralizumab; 32 to placebo) between Aug 5, 2014, and April 2, 2017. Protocol-defined relapses occurred in 19 (30%) patients receiving satralizumab and 16 (50%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio 0·45, 95% CI 0·23-0·89; p=0·018). 473·9 adverse events per 100 patient-years occurred in the satralizumab group, as did 495·2 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group; the incidence of serious adverse events and adverse events leading to withdrawal was similar between groups.InterpretationSatralizumab monotherapy reduced the rate of NMOSD relapse compared with placebo in the overall trial population, with a favourable safety profile. The patient population included a ratio of aquaporin-4 antibody seropositive and seronegative patients that was reflective of clinical practice. Satralizumab has the potential to become a valuable treatment option for patients with NMOSD.FundingChugai Pharmaceutical (Roche).
| S-EPMC7935419 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNo phase 3 trial has yet shown improved survival for patients with pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, in these patients.MethodsThis was a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 24 hospitals in the UK. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically confirmed pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma, who had received previous first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and had radiological evidence of disease progression, were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive nivolumab at a flat dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks over 30 min intravenously or placebo until disease progression or a maximum of 12 months. The randomisation sequence was generated within an interactive web response system (Alea); patients were stratified according to epithelioid versus non-epithelioid histology and were assigned in random block sizes of 3 and 6. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival, analysed according to the treatment policy estimand (an equivalent of the intention-to-treat principle). All patients who were randomly assigned were included in the safety population, reported according to group allocation. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03063450.FindingsBetween May 10, 2017, and March 30, 2020, 332 patients were recruited, of whom 221 (67%) were randomly assigned to the nivolumab group and 111 (33%) were assigned to the placebo group). Median follow-up was 11·6 months (IQR 7·2-16·8). Median progression-free survival was 3·0 months (95% CI 2·8-4·1) in the nivolumab group versus 1·8 months (1·4-2·6) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·67 [95% CI 0·53-0·85; p=0·0012). Median overall survival was 10·2 months (95% CI 8·5-12·1) in the nivolumab group versus 6·9 months (5·0-8·0) in the placebo group (adjusted HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·52-0·91]; p=0·0090). The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (six [3%] of 221 in the nivolumab group vs two [2%] of 111 in the placebo group) and infusion-related reaction (six [3%] vs none). Serious adverse events occurred in 90 (41%) patients in the nivolumab group and 49 (44%) patients in the placebo group. There were no treatment-related deaths in either group.InterpretationNivolumab represents a treatment that might be beneficial to patients with malignant mesothelioma who have progressed on first-line therapy.FundingStand up to Cancer-Cancer Research UK and Bristol Myers Squibb.
| S-EPMC8560642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe phase III POLO study demonstrated significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit for active olaparib maintenance therapy versus placebo for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma and a germline BRCA mutation. Here, we report the final analysis of overall survival (OS) and other secondary end points.Patients and methodsPatients with a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA mutation whose disease had not progressed after ≥ 16 weeks of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 3:2 to active maintenance olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was PFS; secondary end points included OS, time to second disease progression or death, time to first and second subsequent cancer therapies or death, time to discontinuation of study treatment or death, and safety and tolerability.ResultsIn total, 154 patients were randomly assigned (olaparib, n = 92; placebo, n = 62). No statistically significant OS benefit was observed (median 19.0 v 19.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.22; P = .3487). Kaplan-Meier OS curves separated at approximately 24 months, and the estimated 3-year survival after random assignment was 33.9% versus 17.8%, respectively. Median time to first subsequent cancer therapy or death (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.66; P < .0001), time to second subsequent cancer therapy or death (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.89; P = .0111), and time to discontinuation of study treatment or death (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.63; P < .0001) significantly favored olaparib. The HR for second disease progression or death favored olaparib without reaching statistical significance (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.02; P = .0613). Olaparib was well tolerated with no new safety signals.ConclusionAlthough no statistically significant OS benefit was observed, the HR numerically favored olaparib, which also conferred clinically meaningful benefits including increased time off chemotherapy and long-term survival in a subset of patients.
| S-EPMC10476841 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This report aimed to provide the full results of QoL assessment in INFORM study. QoL was assessed by FACT-L questionnaire. QoL improvement ratio in gefitinib arm was higher than placebo arm (FACT-L: 46% vs. 22%, p < 0.001; TOI: 41% vs. 18%, p < 0.001; LCS: 46% vs. 22%, p < 0.001). Gefitinib prolonged time-to-worsening of QoL (FACT-L: 2.8 m vs 1.4 m, p = 0.019; TOI: 3.5 m vs 1.4 m, p = 0.006; LCS: 2.8 vs 1.4 m, p = 0.028). Patients with an improvement in QoL had longer PFS (FACT-L: 9.4 m vs. 2.8 m vs. 2.7 m, P < 0.001; TOI: 9.9 m vs. 2.8 m vs. 2.1 m, P < 0.001; LCS: 9.4 m vs. 2.9 m vs. 2.1 m, P < 0.001) and OS (FACT-L: 25.4 m vs. 19.9 m vs. 14.4 m, P = 0.003; TOI: 25.7 m vs. 19.0 m vs. 12.7 m, P = 0.002; LCS: 25.4 m vs. 19.3 m vs. 14.7 m, P = 0.004) compared with patients with stable or worsened QoL. Furthermore, in patients with good QoL at baseline, the treatment of gefitinib couldn't improve OS compared to placebo, whereas patients with low QoL experienced marginal significant improvement in OS (20.6 m vs 14.4, p = 0.051). Our study indicated that gefitinib could improve patients' QoL, confirmed the prognostic value of QoL changes during treatment, and implied patients with low QoL at baseline may be the potential population which will gain OS benefit from maintenance EGFR-TKI therapy.
| S-EPMC4490396 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOlaparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor and cediranib is an anti-angiogenic agent with activity against VEGF receptor (VEGFR) 1, VEGFR2, and VEGFR3. Both oral agents have antitumour activity in women with recurrent ovarian cancer, and their combination was active and had manageable toxicities in a phase 1 trial. We investigated whether this combination could improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared with olaparib monotherapy in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.MethodsIn our randomised, open-label, phase 2 study, we recruited women (aged ≥18 years) who had measurable platinum-sensitive, relapsed, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, or those with deleterious germline BRCA1/2 mutations from nine participating US academic medical centres. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to permuted blocks, stratified by germline BRCA status and previous anti-angiogenic therapy, to receive olaparib capsules 400 mg twice daily or the combination at the recommended phase 2 dose of cediranib 30 mg daily and olaparib capsules 200 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. The phase 2 trial is no longer accruing patients. An interim analysis was conducted in November, 2013, after 50% of expected events had occurred and efficacy results were unmasked. The primary analysis was performed on March 31, 2014, after 47 events (66% of those expected). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01116648.FindingsBetween Oct 26, 2011, and June 3, 2013, we randomly allocated 46 women to receive olaparib alone and 44 to receive the combination of olaparib and cediranib. Median PFS was 17·7 months (95% CI 14·7-not reached) for the women treated with cediranib plus olaparib compared with 9·0 months (95% CI 5·7-16·5) for those treated with olaparib monotherapy (hazard ratio 0·42, 95% CI 0·23-0·76; p=0·005). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more common with combination therapy than with monotherapy, including fatigue (12 patients in the cediranib plus olaparib group vs five patients in the olaparib monotherapy group), diarrhoea (ten vs none), and hypertension (18 vs none).InterpretationCediranib plus olaparib seems to improve PFS in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, and warrants study in a phase 3 trial. The side-effect profile suggests such investigations should include assessments of quality of life and patient-reported outcomes to understand the effects of a continuing oral regimen with that of intermittent chemotherapy.FundingAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (3 U01 CA062490-16S2); Intramural Program of the Center for Cancer Research; and the Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, NIH.
| S-EPMC4294183 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInfluenza continues to have a substantial socioeconomic and health impact despite a long established vaccination programme and approved antivirals. Preclinical data suggest that combining antivirals might be more effective than administering oseltamivir alone in the treatment of influenza.MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase 2 trial of a combination of oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin versus oseltamivir monotherapy with matching placebo for the treatment of influenza in 50 sites, consisting of academic medical centre clinics, emergency rooms, and private physician offices in the USA, Thailand, Mexico, Argentina, and Australia. Participants who were aged at least 18 years with influenza and were at increased risk of complications were randomly assigned (1:1) by an online computer-generated randomisation system to receive either oseltamivir (75 mg), amantadine (100 mg), and ribavirin (600 mg) combination therapy or oseltamivir monotherapy twice daily for 5 days, given orally, and participants were followed up for 28 days. Blinded treatment kits were used to achieve masking of patients and staff. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants with virus detectable by PCR in nasopharyngeal swab at day 3, and was assessed in participants who were randomised, had influenza infection confirmed by the central laboratory on a baseline nasopharyngeal sample, and had received at least one dose of study drug. Safety assessment was done in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227967.FindingsBetween March 1, 2011, and April 29, 2016, 633 participants were randomly assigned to receive combination antiviral therapy (n=316) or monotherapy (n=317). Seven participants were excluded from analysis: three were not properly randomised, three withdrew from the study, and one was lost to follow-up. The primary analysis included 394 participants, excluding 47 in the pilot phase, 172 without confirmed influenza, and 13 without an endpoint sample. 80 (40·0%) of 200 participants in the combination group had detectable virus at day 3 compared with 97 (50·0%) of 194 (mean difference 10·0, 95% CI 0·2-19·8, p=0·046) in the monotherapy group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related disorders, primarily nausea (65 [12%] of 556 reported adverse events in the combination group vs 63 [11%] of 585 reported adverse events in the monotherapy group), diarrhoea (56 [10%] of 556 vs 64 [11%] of 585), and vomiting (39 [7%] of 556 vs 23 [4%] of 585). There was no benefit in multiple clinical secondary endpoints, such as median duration of symptoms (4·5 days in the combination group vs 4·0 days in the monotherapy group; p=0·21). One death occurred in the study in an elderly participant in the monotherapy group who died of cardiovascular failure 13 days after randomisation, judged by the site investigator as not related to study intervention.InterpretationAlthough combination treatment showed a significant decrease in viral shedding at day 3 relative to monotherapy, this difference was not associated with improved clinical benefit. More work is needed to understand why there was no clinical benefit when a difference in virological outcome was identified.FundingNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, USA.
| S-EPMC5777222 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe REGOBONE multi-cohort study explored the efficacy and safety of regorafenib for patients with advanced bone sarcomas; this report details the Ewing sarcoma (ES) cohort.MethodsPatients with relapsed ES progressing despite prior standard therapy, were randomised (2:1) to receive regorafenib or placebo. Patients on placebo could crossover to receive regorafenib after centrally confirmed progression. The primary endpoint was the progression-free rate at 8 weeks. With one-sided α of 0.05, and 80% power, at least 14/24 progression-free patients at 8 weeks were needed for success.ResultsFrom September 2014 to November 2019, 41 patients were accrued. 36 patients were evaluable for efficacy: 23 on regorafenib and 13 on placebo. Thirteen patients (56%; one-sided 95% CI [37.5%-[)) were progression-free at 8 weeks on regorafenib vs. 1 (7.7%; 95% CI [0.4%-[) on placebo. Median PFS was 11.4 weeks on regorafenib, and 3.9 weeks on placebo. Ten placebo patients crossed over to receive regorafenib after progression. The most common grade ≥3 regorafenib-related adverse events were pain (22%), asthenia (17%), thrombocytopenia (13%) and diarrhoea (13%).ConclusionAlthough the primary endpoint was not met statistically in this randomised cohort, there is evidence to suggest that regorafenib might modestly delay tumour progression in relapsed ES after failure of prior chemotherapy.
| S-EPMC10703915 | biostudies-literature