18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Niraparib for Advanced Breast Cancer with Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations: the EORTC 1307-BCG/BIG5–13/TESARO PR-30–50–10-C BRAVO Study

      research-article

      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.

          Abstract

          Purpose:

          To investigate the activity of niraparib in patients with germline-mutated BRCA1/2 (g BRCAm) advanced breast cancer.

          Patients and Methods:

          BRAVO was a randomized, open-label phase III trial. Eligible patients had g BRCAm and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer previously treated with ≤2 prior lines of chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer or had relapsed within 12 months of adjuvant chemotherapy, and were randomized 2:1 between niraparib and physician's choice chemotherapy (PC; monotherapy with eribulin, capecitabine, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine). Patients with hormone receptor–positive tumors had to have received ≥1 line of endocrine therapy and progressed during this treatment in the metastatic setting or relapsed within 1 year of (neo)adjuvant treatment. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), PFS by local assessment (local-PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety.

          Results:

          After the pre-planned interim analysis, recruitment was halted on the basis of futility, noting a high degree of discordance between local and central PFS assessment in the PC arm that resulted in informative censoring. At the final analysis (median follow-up, 19.9 months), median centrally assessed PFS was 4.1 months in the niraparib arm ( n = 141) versus 3.1 months in the PC arm [ n = 74; hazard ratio (HR), 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65–1.44; P = 0.86]. HRs for OS and local-PFS were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.63–1.42) and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46–0.93), respectively. ORR was 35% (95% CI, 26–45) with niraparib and 31% (95% CI, 19–46) in the PC arm.

          Conclusions:

          Informative censoring in the control arm prevented accurate assessment of the trial hypothesis, although there was clear evidence of niraparib's activity in this patient population.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • 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

            Olaparib for Metastatic Breast Cancer in Patients with a Germline BRCA Mutation.

            Olaparib is an oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that has promising antitumor activity in patients with metastatic breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Niraparib Maintenance Therapy in Platinum-Sensitive, Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

              Background Niraparib is an oral poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) 1/2 inhibitor that has shown clinical activity in patients with ovarian cancer. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of niraparib versus placebo as maintenance treatment for patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer. Methods In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, patients were categorized according to the presence or absence of a germline BRCA mutation (gBRCA cohort and non-gBRCA cohort) and the type of non-gBRCA mutation and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive niraparib (300 mg) or placebo once daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Results Of 553 enrolled patients, 203 were in the gBRCA cohort (with 138 assigned to niraparib and 65 to placebo), and 350 patients were in the non-gBRCA cohort (with 234 assigned to niraparib and 116 to placebo). Patients in the niraparib group had a significantly longer median duration of progression-free survival than did those in the placebo group, including 21.0 vs. 5.5 months in the gBRCA cohort (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17 to 0.41), as compared with 12.9 months vs. 3.8 months in the non-gBRCA cohort for patients who had tumors with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.59) and 9.3 months vs. 3.9 months in the overall non-gBRCA cohort (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.61; P<0.001 for all three comparisons). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were reported in the niraparib group were thrombocytopenia (in 33.8%), anemia (in 25.3%), and neutropenia (in 19.6%), which were managed with dose modifications. Conclusions Among patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer, the median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer among those receiving niraparib than among those receiving placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of gBRCA mutations or HRD status, with moderate bone marrow toxicity. (Funded by Tesaro; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01847274 .).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                On behalf of : on behalf of the BRAVO Steering Committee and the BRAVO investigators
                Journal
                Clin Cancer Res
                Clin Cancer Res
                Clinical Cancer Research
                American Association for Cancer Research
                1078-0432
                1557-3265
                15 October 2021
                22 July 2021
                : 27
                : 20
                : 5482-5491
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden, London, United Kingdom.
                [2 ]Hospital Vall d'Hebron and Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain.
                [3 ]European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium.
                [4 ]Breast International Group, Brussels, Belgium.
                [5 ]Borstkanker Onderzoeksgroep Nederland (BOOG), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
                [6 ]Gruppo Oncologico Italiano di Ricerca Clinica (GOIRC), Parma, Italy, and Ospedale Policlinico IRCCS San Martino and Università degli Studi di Genova, Genova, Italy.
                [7 ]Hygeia Hospital, Marousi, Athens, Greece.
                [8 ]Department of Clinical Oncology, Landspitali The National University Hospital of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.
                [9 ]Division of Medical Senology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
                [10 ]Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Foundation Trust and The Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Breast Cancer Research Center, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
                [11 ]Cedars-Sinai Cancer Center, Los Angeles, California.
                [12 ]Agendia, Inc., Irvine, California.
                [13 ]Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
                [14 ]Center Oscar Lambret, Lille, France.
                [15 ]Center Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.
                [16 ]Gruppo Oncologico Italiano di Ricerca Clinica (GOIRC), Parma, Italy, and Medical Oncology and Breast Unit, University Hospital of Parma, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
                [17 ]UCLouvain, CHU Namur, Belgium and University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana.
                [18 ]Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain, and GEICAM Spanish Breast Cancer Group.
                [19 ]Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
                [20 ]Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
                [21 ]Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Comunidad de Madrid, Spain.
                [22 ]Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
                [23 ]BC Cancer, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
                [24 ]Istenhegyi Gèndiagnosztika Private Health Center Oncology Unit, Budapest, Hungary.
                [25 ]GlaxoSmithKline/Tesaro, Waltham, Massachusetts.
                [26 ]Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
                [27 ]Edinburgh University Cancer Research Center, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
                Author notes

                Deceased (May 13, 2021).

                ††Deceased (September 2, 2020).

                [* ] Corresponding Author: David A. Cameron, Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Center, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, The University of Edinburgh, Crewe Road South, Edinburgh EH4 2XR, UK, Phone: 44-131-651-8510; E-mail: d.cameron@ 123456ed.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0762-6415
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3873-2947
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5743-3013
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8715-2901
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5881-9383
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7979-6261
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4295-8885
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5757-9787
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9483-4959
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5271-7287
                Article
                CCR-21-0310
                10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0310
                8530899
                34301749
                bc844b2d-d394-4d7c-b871-74e224e32b2f
                ©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research

                This open access article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.

                History
                : 26 January 2021
                : 24 March 2021
                : 20 July 2021
                Page count
                Pages: 10
                Categories
                Clinical Trials: Targeted Therapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article