Maintenance treatment with rucaparib for recurrent ovarian carcinoma in ARIEL3, a randomized phase 3 trial: The effects of best response to last platinum-based regimen and disease at baseline on efficacy and safety.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of rucaparib maintenance treatment in ARIEL3 were evaluated in subgroups based on best response to most recent platinum-based chemotherapy and baseline disease. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either oral rucaparib at a dosage of 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutated, homologous recombination deficient (HRD; BRCA mutated or wild-type BRCA/high loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. RESULTS: Median PFS for patients in the ITT population with a complete response to most recent platinum-based chemotherapy was 11.1 months in the rucaparib arm (126 patients) versus 5.6 months in the placebo arm (64 patients) (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.23-0.48]), and in patients with a partial response (249 vs. 125), it was 9.0 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.38 [0.30-0.49]). In subgroups of the ITT population based on baseline disease, median PFS was 8.2 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.40 [0.28-0.57]) in patients with measurable disease (141 rucaparib vs. 66 placebo), 10.4 versus 4.5 months (HR, 0.31 [0.20-0.48]) in those with nonmeasurable but evaluable disease (104 vs. 56), and 14.1 versus 7.3 months (HR, 0.35 [0.24-0.51]) in those with no residual disease (130 vs. 67). Across subgroups, significantly longer median PFS was observed with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA-mutated and HRD cohorts. Objective responses were reported in patients with measurable disease and in patients with nonmeasurable but evaluable baseline disease. Safety was consistent across subgroups. CONCLUSION: Rucaparib maintenance treatment provided clinically meaningful efficacy benefits across subgroups based on response to last platinum-based chemotherapy or baseline disease.

Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma: the effects of progression-free interval and prior therapies on efficacy and safety in the randomized phase III trial ARIEL3.

INTRODUCTION: In ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo regardless of biomarker status when used as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer. The aim of the current analyses was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rucaparib in subgroups based on progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of prior chemotherapies, and prior use of bevacizumab. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Within subgroups, progression-free survival was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutant, homologous recombination deficient (BRCA-mutant or wild-type BRCA/high genomic loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 8.2 months with rucaparib versus 4.1 months with placebo (n=151 vs n=76; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.46, p<0.0001) for patients with progression-free interval 6 to ≤12 months, and 13.6 versus 5.6 months (n=224 vs n=113; HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52, p<0.0001) for those with progression-free interval >12 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.4 versus 5.4 months (n=231 vs n=124; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54, p<0.0001) for patients who had received two prior chemotherapies, and 11.1 versus 5.3 months (n=144 vs n=65; HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.41, p<0.0001) for those who had received ≥3 prior chemotherapies. Median progression-free survival was 10.3 versus 5.4 months (n=83 vs n=43; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, p=0.0004) for patients who had received prior bevacizumab, and 10.9 versus 5.4 months (n=292 vs n=146; HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.45, p<0.0001) for those who had not. Across subgroups, median progression-free survival was also significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts. Safety was consistent across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo irrespective of progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of lines of prior chemotherapy, and previous use of bevacizumab.

Efficacy and safety of Nivolumab in older patients with pretreated lung cancer: A subgroup analysis of the Galician lung cancer group.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab is an anti PD1 immunotherapy drug approved for advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients who previously received at least one prior line of treatment. Older patients are often not represented in clinical trials and drugs with acceptable safety profiles are necessary. We aim to report the efficacy and safety profile of Nivolumab in the real-world older subgroup of the Galician lung cancer group study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 188 advanced NSCLC patients treated with at least one prior therapy. We collected data from patients who were ≥70 years old treated with Nivolumab in second or subsequent lines. Patient characteristics, treatment efficacy (overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rate), and safety profile were reported. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients aged ≥70 years were included in the subgroup analysis. The median age was 74.5 years, a high percentage of patients were males (95%), most had a Performance Status of 1 (79%) and only 13% were non-smokers. The predominant histology was adenocarcinoma (53%), and 18% of patients received 2 or more lines. The median Progression-Free Survival was 7.53 months (CI 4.3-17.3, p = 0.15) and the median Overall Survival was 14.85 months (CI 10.5-20.7, p = 0.44). The objective response rate was 42%. No new adverse events were reported in comparison to a global population. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety profile of Nivolumab in advanced NSCLC patients treated with at least one prior therapy and age ≥70 years old can be overlapped to a global population. Further prospective trials are needed to define and confirm these results.

PD-(L)1 Inhibitors in Combination with Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Pairwise Meta-Analysis.

The combination of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitors with chemotherapy has emerged as a promising therapeutic option for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of the combined strategy in this setting. For this purpose, we performed a literature search of randomized controlled trials comparing PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus platinum-based chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in stage IV NSCLC patients. Seven clinical trials with 4562 patients were included. In the intention-to-treat wildtype population, PD-(L)1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy was significantly associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) (Hazard ratio (HR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-0.65, p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.67-0.86; p < 0.001) compared to chemotherapy. A significantly higher overall response rate (ORR) was also observed with the combined strategy (Odds ratio (OR) = 2.12, 95% CI: 1.70-2.63, p < 0.001). Furthermore, in all the analyzed subgroups, addition of PD-(L)1 inhibitors to chemotherapy significantly improved efficacy endpoints. Specifically, stratification according to PD-L1 expression revealed a benefit across all patients, regardless of their PFS status. In conclusion, PD-(L)1 blockade added to standard platinum-based chemotherapy significantly improved PFS, OS, and ORR in the up-front treatment of advanced NSCLC.

Real world data of nivolumab for previously treated non-small cell lung cancer patients: a Galician lung cancer group clinical experience.

BACKGROUND: Recently, immunotherapy has changed the standard of treatment in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Outside clinical trials, data of real life is lacking. This is an observational study that represents the real world experience with nivolumab in pretreated NSCLC. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included, histologically confirmed NSCLC, stage IIIB and IV, evaluable disease and at least one prior therapy. Patients received nivolumab until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. The main aim of the study was to report the efficacy and safety profile of Nivolumab in pretreated patients with advanced NSCLC of our everyday clinical practice. The secondary aim was to perform subgroup analysis by clinical features. RESULTS: From August of 2015 to January of 2017, 188 patients were enrolled. The patients demographics were: median age 58 years, 144 male; 17 never smoker and 171 former/current smoker; 112 adenocarcinoma, 66 squamous-cell carcinoma and 10 not otherwise specified (NOS); 61 stage IIIB and 127 stage IV; 15 performance status (PS) 0, 154 PS 1 and 19 PS 2; 5 epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and 1 anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK); 42 with central nervous system (CNS) metastases; and 71 received 2 or more prior therapy lines. Of the 188 patients enrolled, 25 (13.3%) were not evaluated, 3 (1.6%) had complete response (CR), 45 (23.9%) partial response (PR), 48 (25.5%) disease stabilization (DS) and 67 (35.6%) PD. The median of progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.83 months (95% CI, 3.6-5.9) and overall survival (OS) was 12.85 months (95% CI, 9.07-16.62). The subgroup analysis revealed statistical significance in OS for patients with CNS metastases 14.8 months (95% CI, 11.5-17.3) vs. 5.09 months (95% CI, 0.3-9.8) and also PS 0 [not reached (NR)] vs. PS 1 11.7 months vs. PS 2 3.4 months (95% CI, 2.3-4.4). The safety profile was in accordance with the literature data. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the real word experience with nivolumab and the results are consistent with previously reported in clinical trials. PS 2 and the presence of CNS metastases are associated with poor prognosis.