Subsequent management and outcomes after first-line PARP inhibitors progression in ovarian cancer patients

Abstract

ObjectivesThis retrospective study aims to evaluating the subsequent management and outcomes after first-line PARPi progression in Chinese ovarian cancer population.MethodsClinical and pathologic variables, treatment modalities, and outcomes were assessed. We investigated the subsequent management and outcomes after first-line PARPi progression. The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) parameters were evaluated to determine the response to subsequent chemotherapy. For the survival analyses, progression-free survival 1 (PFS1), PFS2, overall survival (OS) and PFS2 − PFS1 were analysed.ResultsA total of 124 patients received PARPi maintenance treatment after first-line chemotherapy during the study period in our center. 44 of them (35.5%) experienced a recurrence. The median duration of PARPi in these patients was 11.1 months (range: 1.2–75.1 months). A total of 40 patients (40/44, 90.9%) received subsequent chemotherapy with 35 (35/44, 79.5%) and 5 (5/44, 11.4%) patients received platinum-based and non-platinum-based chemotherapy in our center. 2 patients (4.5%) received target therapy and other 2 patients (4.5%) received best supportive care. 27.3% (12/44) patients received secondary cytoreduction surgery (SCS). After subsequent chemotherapy, 14 patients received PARPi retreatment as maintenance therapy. In patients who received platinum-based regimens (n = 35), 23 of 35 patients (65.7%) had complete/partial response (CR/PR), 8 of 35 (22.9%) had stable disease (SD), and 4 of 35 (12.1%) had progressive disease (PD). The ORR and DCR of patients who received subsequent chemotherapy was 65.7% and 88.6%, respectively. 15 patients (57.7%, 15/26) were reported to be platinum resistant with a platinum-free interval (PFI)  of < 6 months in patients whose platinum sensitivity of the second line platinum-based regimens was evaluable. Patients who received SCS after PARPi resistant associated with a borderline better PFS2 (median PFS2: 41.9 vs. 29.2 months, P = 0.051) and a non-significantly increased PFS2-PFS1 (median PFS2-PFS1: 12.2 vs. 9.8 months, P = 0.551). Patients with a PFI ≥ 12 months had a significantly better PFS2 (median PFS2: 37.0 vs. 25.3 months, P < 0.001) and a tendency towards a better PFS2-PFS1 than those with a PFI < 12 months (median PFS2-PFS1: 11.2 vs. 8.5 months, P = 0.334). A better PFS2 was observed in patients who received second PARPi maintenance therapy (median PFS2 of 35.4 vs. 28.8 months); however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.200). A better PFS2-PFS1 was observed in patients who received second PARPi maintenance therapy (median PFS2-PFS1: 13.6 vs. 8.9 months, P = 0.002) than those without.ConclusionsIn summary, some degree of resistance to standard subsequent platinum and non-platinum chemotherapy is noted in the entire cohort. A trend towards higher benefit from subsequent chemotherapy after first-line PARP inhibitors progression was observed in the PFI ≥ 12 months subgroup than those with PFI < 12 months. PARPi retreatment as maintenance therapy and SCS can be offered to some patients with PARPi resistance.