Dataset Information

Safety Profile of Niraparib as Maintenance Therapy for Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), treated with niraparib maintenance, present with haematological and gastrointestinal toxicities. Limited data exist on niraparib safety assessment.

Objective

To evaluate niraparib safety profile, as maintenance therapy, in women with platinum-sensitive EOC.

Methods

PubMed 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.

Results

A 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.

Conclusion

Niraparib is considered an effective and well-tolerated choice, with an improved safety profile, for the maintenance treatment of EOC patients.

SUBMITTER: Pagkali A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8774559 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe 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.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of niraparib with an ISD in a broad population with newly diagnosed aOC (R0 resection permitted).Design, setting, and participantsThis 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.InterventionsPatients 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 ×103/μL [to convert to ×109/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 measurementsThe primary end point was blinded, independent central review-assessed PFS in the intention-to-treat population.ResultsA 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 relevanceThis 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03709316.

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.