Dataset Information

Combination Olaparib and Temozolomide in Relapsed Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

ABSTRACT: Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive malignancy in which inhibitors of PARP have modest single-agent activity. We performed a phase I/II trial of combination olaparib tablets and temozolomide (OT) in patients with previously treated SCLC. We established a recommended phase II dose of olaparib 200 mg orally twice daily with temozolomide 75 mg/m2 daily, both on days 1 to 7 of a 21-day cycle, and expanded to a total of 50 patients. The confirmed overall response rate was 41.7% (20/48 evaluable); median progression-free survival was 4.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.8-5.7]; and median overall survival was 8.5 months (95% CI, 5.1-11.3). Patient-derived xenografts (PDX) from trial patients recapitulated clinical OT responses, enabling a 32-PDX coclinical trial. This revealed a correlation between low basal expression of inflammatory-response genes and cross-resistance to both OT and standard first-line chemotherapy (etoposide/platinum). These results demonstrate a promising new therapeutic strategy in SCLC and uncover a molecular signature of those tumors most likely to respond. SIGNIFICANCE: We demonstrate substantial clinical activity of combination olaparib/temozolomide in relapsed SCLC, revealing a promising new therapeutic strategy for this highly recalcitrant malignancy. Through an integrated coclinical trial in PDXs, we then identify a molecular signature predictive of response to OT, and describe the common molecular features of cross-resistant SCLC.See related commentary by Pacheco and Byers, p. 1340.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1325.

SUBMITTER: Farago AF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7319046 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Combination Olaparib and Temozolomide in Relapsed Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Farago Anna F AF Yeap Beow Y BY Stanzione Marcello M Hung Yin P YP Heist Rebecca S RS Marcoux J Paul JP Zhong Jun J Rangachari Deepa D Barbie David A DA Phat Sarah S Myers David T DT Morris Robert R Kem Marina M Dubash Taronish D TD Kennedy Elizabeth A EA Digumarthy Subba R SR Sequist Lecia V LV Hata Aaron N AN Maheswaran Shyamala S Haber Daniel A DA Lawrence Michael S MS Shaw Alice T AT Mino-Kenudson Mari M Dyson Nicholas J NJ Drapkin Benjamin J BJ

Cancer discovery 20190815 10

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive malignancy in which inhibitors of PARP have modest single-agent activity. We performed a phase I/II trial of combination olaparib tablets and temozolomide (OT) in patients with previously treated SCLC. We established a recommended phase II dose of olaparib 200 mg orally twice daily with temozolomide 75 mg/m<sup>2</sup> daily, both on days 1 to 7 of a 21-day cycle, and expanded to a total of 50 patients. The confirmed overall response rate was 41.7% ...[more]

PMID: 31416802

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose Both temozolomide (TMZ) and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are active in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). This phase II, randomized, double-blind study evaluated whether addition of the PARP inhibitor veliparib to TMZ improves 4-month progression-free survival (PFS). Patients and Methods A total of 104 patients with recurrent SCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to oral veliparib or placebo 40 mg twice daily, days 1 to 7, and oral TMZ 150 to 200 mg/m2/day, days 1 to 5, of a 28-day cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Response was determined by imaging at weeks 4 and 8, and every 8 weeks thereafter. Improvement in PFS at 4 months was the primary end point. Secondary objectives included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety and tolerability of veliparib with TMZ. Exploratory objectives included PARP-1 and SLFN11 immunohistochemical expression, MGMT promoter methylation, and circulating tumor cell quantification. Results No significant difference in 4-month PFS was noted between TMZ/veliparib (36%) and TMZ/placebo (27%; P = .19); median OS was also not improved significantly with TMZ/veliparib (8.2 months; 95% CI, 6.4 to 12.2 months; v 7.0 months; 95% CI, 5.3 to 9.5 months; P = .50). However, ORR was significantly higher in patients receiving TMZ/veliparib compared with TMZ/placebo (39% v 14%; P = .016). Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia more commonly occurred with TMZ/veliparib: 50% versus 9% and 31% versus 7%, respectively. Significantly prolonged PFS (5.7 v 3.6 months; P = .009) and OS (12.2 v 7.5 months; P = .014) were observed in patients with SLFN11-positive tumors treated with TMZ/veliparib. Conclusion Four-month PFS and median OS did not differ between the two arms, whereas a significant improvement in ORR was observed with TMZ/veliparib. SLFN11 expression was associated with improved PFS and OS in patients receiving TMZ/veliparib, suggesting a promising biomarker of PARP-inhibitor sensitivity in SCLC.

Project description:BackgroundTo undertake a systematic review of the available data for oral and intravenous topotecan in adults with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) for whom re-treatment with the first line regimen is not considered appropriate.MethodsWe searched six databases from 1980 up to March 2009 for relevant trials regardless of language or publication status. Relevant studies included any randomised trial of any chemotherapeutic treatment against any comparator in this licensed indication. Where possible we used opposite quantitative methods. Where meta-analysis was considered unsuitable for some or all of the data, we employed a narrative synthesis method. For indirect comparisons we used the method of Bucher et al., where available data allowed it, otherwise we used narrative descriptions.ResultsSeven unique studies met the inclusion criteria, four of which could be used in our analyses. These included one study comparing oral topotecan plus best supportive care (BSC) to BSC alone, one study comparing intravenous topotecan to cyclophosphamide, adriamycin and vincristine (CAV), and two studies comparing oral topotecan with intravenous topotecan. All four studies appear to be well conducted and with low risk of bias. Oral topotecan plus BSC has advantages over BSC alone in terms of survival (hazard ratio = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.87) and quality of life (EQ-5 D difference: 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.25). Intravenous topotecan was at least as effective as CAV in the treatment of patients with recurrent small-cell lung cancer and resulted in improved quality-of-life with respect to several symptoms. CAV was associated with significantly less grade 4 thrombocytopenia compared with IV topotecan (risk ratio = 5.83; 95% CI, 2.35 to 14.42). Survival (hazard ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.25) and response (pooled risk ratio = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.85) data were similar for the oral and IV topotecan groups. Symptom control was also very similar between the trials and between the oral and IV groups. Toxicity data showed a significant difference in favour of oral topotecan for neutropenia (pooled risk ratio = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.89). Indirect evidence showed that oral topotecan was at least as good as or better than CAV on all outcomes (survival, response rates, toxicities, and symptoms) that allowed indirect comparisons, with the only exception being grade four thrombocytopenia which occurred less often on CAV treatment.ConclusionsConcerning topotecan both the oral and intravenous options have similar efficacy, and patient preference may be a decisive factor if the choice would be between the two formulations. The best trial evidence for decision making, because it was tested versus best supportive care, exists for oral topotecan. Indirectly, because we have two head-to-head comparisons of oral versus intravenous topotecan, and one comparison of intravenous topotecan versus CAV in similar patients as in the trial against best supportive care, one might infer that IV topotecan and CAV could also be superior to best supportive care, and that oral topotecan has similar effects to CAV with possibly better symptom control. From the evidence discussed above, it is evident that oral topotecan has similar efficacy to IV topotecan (direct comparison) and CAV (indirect comparison). There is no further evidence base of direct or possible indirect comparisons for other comparators than CAV of either oral or IV topotecan.

Project description:For pediatric patients with high-grade gliomas, standard-of-care treatment includes surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy; however, most patients ultimately succumb to their disease. With advances in genomic characterization of pediatric high-grade gliomas, the use of targeted therapies in combination with current treatment modalities offer the potential to improve survival in this patient population. In this report, we present the case of a 3-year-old girl with glioblastoma who continues to experience an exceptional and durable response (>2?years) to the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib. Our patient presented with persistent and progressive seizure activity that upon workup was the result of a large heterogeneously enhancing, mixed cystic and solid mass in the left frontal-parietal-temporal region. Histopathologic analysis of resected tumor tissue confirmed the diagnosis of glioblastoma, and comprehensive genomic profiling demonstrated absence of any BRAF or H3F3A mutations. Genomic profiling, however, did reveal a probable germline heterozygous BRCA2 Lys3326Ter (K3226*) nonsense variant. After debulking surgery, the patient received standard-of-care treatment with radiation and temozolomide. Nine months later the PARP inhibitor olaparib was administered in combination with temozolomide for 16 cycles. This regimen was well tolerated by the patient and serial imaging showed reduction in tumor size. Since completion of the regimen, the patient remains neurologically intact with no evidence of tumor recurrence. To our knowledge, this represents the first case of a pediatric glioblastoma that maintains a durable response to a therapeutic strategy that included the PARP inhibitor olaparib and more generally highlights the potential clinical utility of incorporating these agents into the treatment of pediatric high-grade gliomas. KEY POINTS: Germline mutations detected in pediatric gliomas may represent a cancer predisposition syndrome. Integrating molecular testing into routine clinical care for pediatric patients with glioma is critical to identify therapeutic targets and patients with a cancer predisposition syndrome. Patients with glioma with defects in DNA repair pathway components (e.g., BRCA1/2) may show increased responsiveness to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Combining PARP inhibitors with temozolomide (standard-of-care treatment) revealed no adverse events or toxicities over the course of 18 months.

Dataset Information

Combination Olaparib and Temozolomide in Relapsed Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Publications

Combination Olaparib and Temozolomide in Relapsed Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets