Dataset Information

Phase 2 single-arm study on the safety of maintenance niraparib in Japanese patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of niraparib 300 mg/day in Japanese patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer in a maintenance setting.

Methods

Phase 2, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study enrolled Japanese patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer who had received ?2 platinum-based regimens. The primary endpoint (incidence of grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia-related events within 30 days after initial niraparib administration) was justified by the incidences of a global pivotal phase 3 study and its post-hoc safety analysis on thrombocytopenia, the major hematological adverse event of niraparib. The overall safety analysis examined other treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

Results

Enrolled patients (n=19) had a median (min, max) body weight of 53.9 (40.8-79.1) kg; all but one patient weighed <77 kg. Most (94.7%) patients initially received niraparib 300 mg/day but this decreased in subsequent cycles (mean±standard deviation dose intensity, 191.6±65.7 mg/day). In total, 6/19 (31.6%) patients experienced grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia-related events within 30 days of initial niraparib administration. Other common TEAEs included nausea, and decreased platelet or neutrophil counts. No progression-free or overall survival events occurred; only 1 of 4 response-evaluable patients had a post-baseline tumor assessment (stable disease).

Conclusion

The incidence of grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia-related events in Japanese ovarian cancer patients was similar to that in the corresponding non-Japanese study. Overall, the safety profile was acceptable and consistent with the known safety profile and previous experience with niraparib.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03759587.

SUBMITTER: Takehara K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7930455 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:In China, secondary cytoreductive surgery (SCR) has been widely used in ovarian cancer (OC) over the past two decades. Although Gynecologic Oncology Group-0213 trial did not show its overall survival benefit in first relapsed patients, the questions on patient selection and effect of subsequent targeting therapy are still open. The preliminary data from our pre-SOC1 phase II study showed that selected patients with second relapse who never received SCR at recurrence may still benefit from surgery. Moreover, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) maintenance now has been a standard care for platinum sensitive relapsed OC. To our knowledge, no published or ongoing trial is trying to answer the question if patient can benefit from a potentially complete resection combined with PARPi maintenance in OC patients with secondary recurrence. METHODS:SOC-3 is a multi-center, open, randomized, controlled, phase II trial of SCR followed by chemotherapy and niraparib maintenance vs chemotherapy and niraparib maintenance in patients with platinum-sensitive second relapsed OC who never received SCR at recurrence. To guarantee surgical quality, if the sites had no experience of participating in any OC-related surgical trials, the number of recurrent lesions evaluated by central-reviewed positron emission tomography-computed tomography image shouldn't be more than 3. Eligible patients are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either SCR followed by 6 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy and niraparib maintenance or 6 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy and niraparib maintenance alone. Patients who undergo at least 4 cycles of chemotherapy and must be, in the opinion of the investigator, without disease progression, will be assigned niraparib maintenance. Major inclusion criteria are secondary relapsed OC with a platinum-free interval of no less than 6 months and a possibly complete resection. Major exclusion criteria are borderline tumors and non-epithelial ovarian malignancies, received debulking surgery at recurrence and impossible to complete resection. The sample size is 96 patients. Primary endpoint is 12-month non-progression rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03983226.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), treated with niraparib maintenance, present with haematological and gastrointestinal toxicities. Limited data exist on niraparib safety assessment.ObjectiveTo evaluate niraparib safety profile, as maintenance therapy, in women with platinum-sensitive EOC.MethodsPubMed and Cochrane searches were carried out up to April 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating niraparib versus placebo in EOC patients with a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Regarding the meta-analysis, for dichotomous data, the pooled risk ratio (RR) was calculated.ResultsA total of 1539 patients from three RCTs revealed that niraparib-treated patients are associated with a significantly higher risk of any grade of nausea (RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.86 to 2.48), fatigue (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.52, p < 0.00001), anemia (RR, 6.86; 95% CI, 2.54 to 18.52, p = 0.0001), thrombocytopenia (RR, 7.02; 95% CI, 1.68 to 29.38, p < 0.00001), vomiting (RR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.50 to 4.19, p = 0.0005), neutropenia (RR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.13 to 7.73, p < 0.00001), headache (RR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.57 to 2.74, p < 0.00001), constipation (RR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.72 to 2.57, p < 0.00001) and insomnia (RR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.52 to 2.89, p = 0.0003) when compared with placebo. For grade 3 or 4 adverse effects, significantly higher risk was only noted for fatigue (RR,6.25; 95% CI, 1.70 to 23.05, p = 0.006), anemia (RR, 16.23; 95% CI, 4.86 to 54.17, p < 0.00001), thrombocytopenia (RR, 35.12; 95% CI, 12.23 to 100.82, p < 0.00001) and neutropenia episodes (RR, 6.35; 95% CI, 2.08 to 19.39, p = 0.001) for those taking niraparib. Notably, incidents of adverse effects and discontinuation rates were substantially lower among patients treated with an individualised niraparib dose than those treated with the standard one. Efficacy was not reduced, and no treatment-related deaths occurred during the included trials.ConclusionNiraparib is considered an effective and well-tolerated choice, with an improved safety profile, for the maintenance treatment of EOC patients.

Project description:ImportancePatients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma frequently develop resistance to platinum-based chemotherapy, at which time treatment options become limited.ObjectiveTo evaluate the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor niraparib combined with pembrolizumab in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma.Design, setting, and participantsThe TOPACIO/KEYNOTE-162 (Niraparib in Combination With Pembrolizumab in Patients With Triple-Negative Breast Cancer or Ovarian Cancer) trial, an open-label, single-arm phases 1 and 2 study enrolled women with advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or recurrent ovarian carcinoma, irrespective of BRCA mutation status. Median follow-up was 12.4 months (range, 1.2 to ≥23.0 months). Data were collected from April 15, 2016, through September 4, 2018, with September 4, 2018, as a data cutoff, and analyzed from September 4, 2018, through January 30, 2019.InterventionsThe recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was 200 mg of oral niraparib once daily and 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary objectives of phase 1 were to evaluate dose-limiting toxic effects and establish the RP2D and dosing schedule. The primary objective of phase 2 was to assess objective response rate (ORR; complete plus partial responses). Results from the phase 1 ovarian carcinoma and TNBC cohorts and phase 2 ovarian carcinoma cohort are reported. Because of the similarity in the phase 1 and 2 ovarian carcinoma populations, the data were pooled to perform an integrated efficacy analysis.ResultsFourteen patients (9 with ovarian carcinoma and 5 with TNBC) in phase 1 and 53 patients with ovarian carcinoma in phase 2 were enrolled, for a pooled ovarian carcinoma cohort of 62 patients (median age, 60 years [range, 46-83 years]). In the integrated efficacy phases 1 and 2 ovarian carcinoma population (60 of 62 evaluable patients), ORR was 18% (90% CI, 11%-29%), with a disease control rate of 65% (90% CI, 54%-75%), including 3 (5%) with confirmed complete responses, 8 (13%) with confirmed partial responses, 28 (47%) with stable disease, and 20 (33%) with progressive disease. The ORRs were consistent across subgroups based on platinum-based chemotherapy sensitivity, previous bevacizumab treatment, or tumor BRCA or homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) biomarker status. Median duration of response was not reached (range, 4.2 to ≥14.5 months). At data cutoff, 2 patients with a response and 1 patient with stable disease continued to receive treatment.Conclusions and relevanceNiraparib in combination with pembrolizumab is tolerable, with promising antitumor activity for patients with ovarian carcinoma who have limited treatment options regardless of platinum status, biomarker status, or prior treatment with bevacizumab. Responses in patients without tumor BRCA mutations or non-HRD cancers were higher than expected with either agent as monotherapy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02657889.

Project description:This meta-analysis investigated the comparative efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitor monotherapy as maintenance treatment in platinum sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). Electronic databases were systematically searched for relevant RCTs. The primary endpoint was PFS. The results were stratified based on three categories: BRCA mutated patients, HRD patients, and overall population. The secondary outcome were discontinuations due to adverse events and grade 3 or 4 adverse events in maintenance phase. Five eligible RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis. For patients with BRCA mutated ovarian cancer, olaparib-throughout (HR = 0.21 with 95% CrI: 0.081-0.55), rucaparib (HR = 0.23 with 95% CrI: 0.16-0.34), olaparib (HR = 0.27 with 95% CrI: 0.20-0.35), and niraparib (HR = 0.26 with 95% CrI: 0.17-0.41) were all highly effective in comparison with placebo at improving PFS. For HRD patients, both rucaparib (HR = 0.32 with 95% CrI: 0.24-0.42) and niraparib (HR = 0.38 with 95% CrI: 0.24-0.60) were all highly effective in comparison with placebo at improving PFS. For the overall population, olaparib-throughout (HR = 0.51 with 95% CrI: 0.34-0.76), rucaparib (HR = 0.37 with 95% CrI: 0.30-0.45), olaparib (HR = 0.35 with 95% CrI: 0.25-0.49), and niraparib (HR = 0.38 with 95% CrI: 0.30-0.48) were all highly effective in comparison with placebo at improving PFS. Regarding grade 3 or 4 adverse events, the incidence of grade 3 or 4 toxicity reactions to rucaparib and niraparib were significantly higher than in the olaparib group. In terms of discontinuations due to adverse events, the treatment discontinuations were not significantly different between the three drugs. In summary, all the included maintenance treatment regimens are effective regardless of BRCA mutational status, and no statistically significant differences between rucaparib, niraparib and Olaparib in terms of PFS. In terms of safety profile, the three drugs present manageable adverse events. Clinicians should consider potential adverse events related to each of these interventions in clinical practice, and the adverse events are generally manageable.

Project description:BackgroundCediranib, an oral anti-angiogenic VEGFR 1-3 inhibitor, was studied at a daily dose of 20 mg in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy and as maintenance in a randomised trial in patients with first relapse of 'platinum-sensitive' ovarian cancer and has been shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS).Patients and methodsICON6 (NCT00532194) was an international three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial. Between December 2007 and December 2011, 456 women were randomised, using stratification, to receive either chemotherapy with placebo throughout (arm A, reference); chemotherapy with concurrent cediranib, followed by maintenance placebo (arm B, concurrent); or chemotherapy with concurrent cediranib, followed by maintenance cediranib (arm C, maintenance). Due to an enforced redesign of the trial in September 2011, the primary endpoint became PFS between arms A and C which we have previously published, and the overall survival (OS) was defined as a secondary endpoint, which is reported here.ResultsAfter a median follow-up of 25.6 months, strong evidence of an effect of concurrent plus maintenance cediranib on PFS was observed [hazard ratio (HR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.72, P < 0.0001]. In this final update of the survival analysis, 90% of patients have died. There was a 7.4-month difference in median survival and an HR of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.67-1.11, P = 0.24) in favour of arm C. There was strong evidence of a departure from the assumption of non-proportionality using the Grambsch-Therneau test (P = 0.0031), making the HR difficult to interpret. Consequently, the restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used and the estimated difference over 6 years by the RMST was 4.8 months (95% CI: -0.09 to 9.74 months).ConclusionsAlthough a statistically significant difference in time to progression was seen, the enforced curtailment in recruitment meant that the secondary analysis of OS was underpowered. The relative reduction in the risk of death of 14% risk of death was not conventionally statistically significant, but this improvement and the increase in the mean survival time in this analysis suggest that cediranib may have worthwhile activity in the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer and that further research should be undertaken.