5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Treatment With Niraparib Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer : A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

      research-article
      , MD 1 , , MD 2 , , MD 3 , , MD 4 , , MD 5 , , MD 6 , , MD 7 , , MD 8 , , MD 9 , , MD 10 , , MD 11 , , MD 12 , , MD 13 , , MD 14 , , MD 15 , , MD 16 , , MD 17 , , MD 18 , , MD 19 , , MD 20 , , MD 21 , , MD 22 , , MD 23 , , MD 24 , , MD 25 , , MD 26 , , MD 27 , , MD 28 , , MD 29 , , PhD 30 , , MD 31 , , MD 31 , , MD 31 , , MD, PhD 1 ,
      JAMA Oncology
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Does treatment with niraparib prolong progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer?

          Finding

          In the PRIME phase 3 randomized clinical trial of 384 patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer after receiving first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, including those who underwent R0 resection at primary debulking surgery, treatment with niraparib with an individualized starting dose significantly extended progression-free survival vs placebo and reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 55%.

          Meaning

          The results of this randomized clinical trial support niraparib monotherapy as a standard of care after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in a broad patient population with advanced ovarian cancer.

          Abstract

          Importance

          The efficacy of niraparib maintenance therapy with an individualized starting dose (ISD) warrants further investigation in a broad population with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (aOC), including patients without postoperative residual disease.

          Objective

          To evaluate the efficacy and safety of niraparib with an ISD in a broad population with newly diagnosed aOC (R0 resection permitted).

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study was conducted in China and enrolled 384 patients with newly diagnosed aOC who received primary or interval debulking surgery and responded to treatment with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. By data cutoff (September 30, 2021), median follow-up for progression-free survival (PFS) was 27.5 (IQR, 24.7-30.4) months.

          Interventions

          Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive niraparib or placebo with ISD (200 mg/d for those with a body weight of <77 kg and/or platelet count of <150 ×10 3/μL [to convert to ×10 9/μL, multiply by 1] at baseline; 300 mg/d otherwise) stratified by germline BRCA variant status, tumor homologous recombination deficiency status, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.

          Main Outcomes and Measurements

          The primary end point was blinded, independent central review–assessed PFS in the intention-to-treat population.

          Results

          A total of 384 patients were randomized (255 niraparib [66.4%]; median [range] age, 53 [32-77] years; 129 placebo [33.6%]; median [range] age, 54 [33-77] years), and 375 (247 niraparib [65.9%], 128 placebo [34.1%]) received treatment at a dose of 200 mg per day. Median PFS with niraparib vs placebo was 24.8 vs 8.3 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34-0.60; P < .001) in the intention-to-treat population; not reached vs 10.8 months (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.23-0.68) and 19.3 vs 8.3 months (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.34-0.67) in patients with and without germline BRCA variants, respectively; not reached vs 11.0 months (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.34-0.68) and 16.6 vs 5.5 months (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.75) in homologous recombination deficient and proficient patients, respectively; and 24.8 vs 8.3 months (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32-0.61) and 16.5 vs 8.3 months (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.10-0.72) in those with optimal and suboptimal debulking, respectively. Similar proportions of niraparib-treated and placebo-treated patients (6.7% vs 5.4%) discontinued treatment due to treatment-emergent adverse events.

          Conclusion and Relevance

          This randomized clinical trial found that niraparib maintenance therapy prolonged PFS in patients with newly diagnosed aOC regardless of postoperative residual disease or biomarker status. The ISD was effective and safe in the first-line maintenance setting.

          Trial Registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03709316

          Abstract

          This randomized clinical trial examines the efficacy and safety of treatment with niraparib with an individualized starting dose in Chinese patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

          Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Ovarian cancer statistics, 2018

            In 2018, there will be approximately 22,240 new cases of ovarian cancer diagnosed and 14,070 ovarian cancer deaths in the United States. Herein, the American Cancer Society provides an overview of ovarian cancer occurrence based on incidence data from nationwide population-based cancer registries and mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics. The status of early detection strategies is also reviewed. In the United States, the overall ovarian cancer incidence rate declined from 1985 (16.6 per 100,000) to 2014 (11.8 per 100,000) by 29% and the mortality rate declined between 1976 (10.0 per 100,000) and 2015 (6.7 per 100,000) by 33%. Ovarian cancer encompasses a heterogenous group of malignancies that vary in etiology, molecular biology, and numerous other characteristics. Ninety percent of ovarian cancers are epithelial, the most common being serous carcinoma, for which incidence is highest in non-Hispanic whites (NHWs) (5.2 per 100,000) and lowest in non-Hispanic blacks (NHBs) and Asians/Pacific Islanders (APIs) (3.4 per 100,000). Notably, however, APIs have the highest incidence of endometrioid and clear cell carcinomas, which occur at younger ages and help explain comparable epithelial cancer incidence for APIs and NHWs younger than 55 years. Most serous carcinomas are diagnosed at stage III (51%) or IV (29%), for which the 5-year cause-specific survival for patients diagnosed during 2007 through 2013 was 42% and 26%, respectively. For all stages of epithelial cancer combined, 5-year survival is highest in APIs (57%) and lowest in NHBs (35%), who have the lowest survival for almost every stage of diagnosis across cancer subtypes. Moreover, survival has plateaued in NHBs for decades despite increasing in NHWs, from 40% for cases diagnosed during 1992 through 1994 to 47% during 2007 through 2013. Progress in reducing ovarian cancer incidence and mortality can be accelerated by reducing racial disparities and furthering knowledge of etiology and tumorigenesis to facilitate strategies for prevention and early detection. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:284-296. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Maintenance Olaparib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer

              Most women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer have a relapse within 3 years after standard treatment with surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. The benefit of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in relapsed disease has been well established, but the benefit of olaparib as maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed disease is uncertain.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Oncol
                JAMA Oncol
                JAMA Oncology
                American Medical Association
                2374-2437
                2374-2445
                13 July 2023
                September 2023
                13 July 2023
                : 9
                : 9
                : 1230-1237
                Affiliations
                [1 ]National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
                [2 ]Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Hangzhou, China
                [3 ]West China Second University Hospital, Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children, Ministry of Education, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
                [4 ]Hunan Cancer Hospital, the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China
                [5 ]Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
                [6 ]Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China
                [7 ]Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China
                [8 ]Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
                [9 ]Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
                [10 ]Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University (Henan Cancer Hospital), Zhengzhou, China
                [11 ]Hubei Cancer Hospital (Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology), Wuhan, China
                [12 ]Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, China
                [13 ]Chongqing University Cancer Hospital (Chongqing Cancer Hospital), Chongqing, China
                [14 ]The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
                [15 ]Cancer Hospital of China Medical University (Liaoning Cancer Hospital & Institute), Shenyang, China
                [16 ]Women’s Hospital School of Medicine Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
                [17 ]Cancer Hospital of Fujian Medical University (Fujian Cancer Hospital), Fuzhou, China
                [18 ]Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China
                [19 ]Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
                [20 ]Tianjin Central Hospital of Gynecology Obstetrics, Tianjin, China
                [21 ]The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University (Yunnan Cancer Hospital), Kunming, China
                [22 ]Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China
                [23 ]Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
                [24 ]Anhui Provincial Hospital (The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC), Hefei, China
                [25 ]Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China
                [26 ]The First Hospital of Jilin University, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China
                [27 ]Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing, China
                [28 ]The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, China
                [29 ]The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
                [30 ]Zai Lab (US) LLC, Boston, Massachusetts
                [31 ]Zai Lab (Shanghai) Co, Ltd, Shanghai, China
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: May 4, 2023.
                Published Online: July 13, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.2283
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License. © 2023 Li N et al. JAMA Oncology.
                Corresponding Author: Lingying Wu, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 Panjiayuan Nali, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100021, China ( wulingying@ 123456csco.org.cn ).
                Author Contributions: Dr L. Wu had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs N. Li, Zhu, and Yin are co–first authors and contributed equally to the manuscript.
                Concept and design: N. Li, Jing Wang, X. Wu, Zhen, Hang, Hou, L. Wu.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: N. Li, Zhen, Hang, Hou.
                Obtained funding: L. Wu.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: N. Li, Zhu, Yin, Jing Wang, L. Pan, Kong, Zheng, J. Liu, X. Wu, L. Wang, Huang, K. Wang, Zou, Zhao, C. Wang, Lu, Lin, Lou, G. Li, Qu, H. Yang, Zhang, Cai, Y. Pan, Hao, Z. Liu, Cui, Y. Yang, Yao, Zhen, Hang, Juan Wang, L. Wu.
                Supervision: Hou, L. Wu.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs Zhen, Hang, Hou, and Juan Wang reported being employees of and holding shares and stock options in Zai Lab during the conduct of the study. Dr L. Wu reported grants from Zai Lab during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was funded by Zai Lab (Shanghai) Co, Ltd, and partially supported by the National Major Scientific and Technological Special Project for Significant New Drugs Development in 2020 (China; grant 2020ZX09101-014).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The study sponsor, Zai Lab, supported the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Meeting Presentations: Results from this study were presented in part as oral presentations at the 2022 Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Annual Meeting (Phoenix, Arizona; March 18-21, 2022), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Gynaecological Cancers Congress 2022 (Valencia, Spain; June 17-18, 2022), and ESMO Gynaecological Cancers Congress 2023 (Valencia, Spain; January 23-24, 2023), and as posters at the 2022 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting (ASCO; Chicago, Illinois; June 3-7, 2022), the 2022 International Gynecologic Cancer Society Annual Global Meeting (New York, New York; September 29-October 1, 2022), 2023 SGO Annual Meeting (Tampa, Florida; March 25-28, 2023), and the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting (Chicago, Illinois; June 2-6, 2023).
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 4.
                Additional Contributions: We thank the patients, the investigators, and their teams who took part in this study. Zai Lab provided funding for third-party writing assistance for this article from Jinlong Guo, PhD, Costello Medical. He did not receive any additional compensation beyond his usual salary.
                Article
                coi230030
                10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.2283
                10346505
                37440217
                a91f242b-9adc-408a-966c-de54ca24e9a7
                Copyright 2023 Li N et al. JAMA Oncology.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License.

                History
                : 3 November 2022
                : 4 May 2023
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online First
                Comments

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content153

                Cited by27

                Most referenced authors618