Background: 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.

Methods: 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/m 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.

Findings: 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.

Interpretation: 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.

Funding: Clovis Oncology.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00674-0DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

rucaparib versus
8
open-label randomised
8
phase trial
8
ovarian carcinoma
8
progression-free interval
8
chemotherapy
5
patients
5
rucaparib
4
versus chemotherapy
4
chemotherapy treatment
4

Similar Publications

Background: 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.

Methods: 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.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background And Objective: PARP inhibitor (PARPi) treatment is an effective option for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). There are few data on the cardiovascular and thromboembolic safety of these agents in mCRPC, as cardiovascular and thromboembolic adverse events (AEs) are uncommon. Our aim was to analyze the incidence and risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), thromboembolic events, and hypertension with PARPi therapy in mCRPC.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background/objectives: Through phase III clinical trials, PARP inhibitors have demonstrated outcome improvements in mCRPC patients with alterations in BRCA1/2 genes who have progressed on a second-generation androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI). While improving outcomes, PARP inhibitors contribute to the ever-growing economic burden of PCa. The objective of this project is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PARP inhibitors (olaparib, rucaparib, or talazoparib) versus the SOC (docetaxel or androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI)) for previously progressed mCRPC patients with BRCA1/2 mutations from the Canadian healthcare system perspective.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) treatment for ovarian cancer (OC) are ever-changing. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and overall safety of available PARPi as maintenance therapy for BRCA mutation status in patients with newly diagnosed and platinum-sensitive recurrent (PSR) OC patients.

Research Design And Methods: Relevant RCTs were systematically retrieved from PubMed and Embase until 31 May 2022.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: PARP inhibitors (PARPis) are effective treatment options for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as single agents or in combination with androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA). However, a clinically relevant adverse effect of these agents is hematological toxicity, a typical class adverse event (AE), which can lead to treatment modifications and discontinuations.

Objective: We aimed to analyze the risk of hematological AEs, including anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia secondary to PARPi treatments in mCRPC.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!