First-line Maintenance Therapy Research Articles

A Pan-Canadian Consensus Statement on First-Line PARP Inhibitor Maintenance for Advanced, High-Grade Serous and Endometrioid Tubal, Ovarian, and Primary Peritoneal Cancers.

The majority of patients with advanced, high-grade epithelial-tubo ovarian cancer (EOC) respond well to initial treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy; however, up to 80% of patients will experience a recurrence. Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have been established as a standard of care maintenance therapy to prolong remission and prevent relapse following a response to first-line platinum-chemotherapy. Olaparib and niraparib are the PARP inhibitors currently approved for use in the first-line maintenance setting in Canada. Selection of maintenance therapy requires consideration of patient and tumour factors, presence of germline and somatic mutations, expected drug toxicity profile, and treatment access. This paper discusses the current clinical evidence for first-line PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy in patients with advanced, high-grade EOC and presents consensus statements and a treatment algorithm to aid Canadian oncologists on the selection and use of PARP inhibitors within the Canadian EOC treatment landscape.

OVARIO phase II trial of combination niraparib plus bevacizumab maintenance therapy in advanced ovarian cancer following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with bevacizumab

ObjectiveTo assess safety and efficacy of niraparib + bevacizumab as a first-line maintenance therapy for patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. MethodsThis multicenter, phase II, single-arm, open-label study enrolled adult patients with stage IIIB to IV ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (NCT03326193). Patients were required to have an attempt at debulking surgery and have a complete response, partial response, or no evidence of disease following first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy with ≥3 cycles of bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 18 months. Secondary endpoints included PFS, overall survival, and safety. ResultsAmong the 105 evaluable patients, the PFS rate at 18 months was 62% (95% CI 52–71%) in the overall population and 76% (95% CI 61–87) in the homologous recombination deficient (HRd), 47% (95% CI 31–64%) in the HR proficient (HRp), and 56% (95% CI 31–79%) in the HR not determined (HRnd) subgroups (December 24, 2020, cutoff). After a median follow-up time of 28.7 months (IQR, 23.9–32.5 months), median PFS was 19.6 months (95% CI 16.5–25.1) in the overall population (N = 105) and 28.3 months (95% CI 19.9–NE), 14.2 months (95% CI 8.6–16.8), and 12.1 months (95% CI 8.0–NE) in the HRd, HRp, and HRnd subgroups, respectively (June 16, 2021, cutoff). The most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (related to niraparib and/or bevacizumab) were thrombocytopenia (74/105), fatigue (60/105), and anemia (55/105; December 24, 2020, cutoff). ConclusionNiraparib + bevacizumab first-line maintenance therapy displayed promising PFS results. Safety was consistent with the known safety profiles of niraparib and bevacizumab as monotherapy.

The correlation of homologous recombination deficiency status with and Olaparib efficacy in Chinese ovarian cancer patients.

e17556 Background: Homologous recombination and DNA repair are important for genome maintenance. Genetic variations in essential homologous recombination genes, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, results in homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) can be a target for therapeutic strategies of ovarian cancer (OC) including poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). Here, we proposed an emerging method based on ADx-GSS algorithm to predict HRD status and explore the correlation between HRD status and first-line maintenance therapy of Olaparib in OC patients or Olaparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed (PSR) OC patients. Methods: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues of 38 consented OC patients between January 2016 and March 2021 were retrospectively collected. Genomic DNA was extracted and subjected to AmoyDx HRD Focus Panel (Amoy Diagnostics Co., Ltd) covering HRD score and BRCA1/2. The HRD score was calculated as the weighted sum of different types of copy number variation (CNV) trained through BRCAness events. Tumors were defined as genomic instability with an HRD score of ≥ 50 (i.e. HRD-positive). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1). Results: Histology of collected samples were mostly serous OC (84.2%). All samples were at stage III-IV (80.84%). The fractions of HRD-positive (n = 26) and HRD-negative (n = 12) group were 68.4%, and 31.6%, respectively. 65.8% (n = 25) of the OC patients had received Olaparib first-line maintenance therapy and 34.2% (n = 13) of PSR patients had received Olaparib maintenance therapy. In December 2021, 34.2% (n = 13) of the whole patients had relapsed. A significant PFS benefit was seen in HRD-positive patients compared with HRD-negative ones (P = 0.0017) or in the first-line maintenance treated population (P = 0.0068). In patients with HRD-positive tumors that did not have BRCA mutations, the PFS benefit was improved versus HRD-negative patients without BRCA mutations. However, Olaparib showed no efficacy difference between HRD-positive and HRD-negative tumor in PSR OC patients. Conclusions: HRD status tested by AmoyDx HRD Focus Panel is significantly correlated with the efficacy of Olaparib, and our results demonstrated a significant PFS benefit for HRD-positive patients compared with HRD-negative patients, especially for patients received Olaparib first-line maintenance therapy.

Evaluating oncologists’ practice patterns and decision-making in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC): The U.S. physician PARADIGM study (Part 2).

4595 Background: The treatment (tx) landscape for la/mUC has evolved with the use of immunotherapy (IO) for platinum-refractory la/mUC as well as first-line (1L) maintenance therapy (1LM). This cross-sectional survey explored practice patterns for 1L tx/1LM use and clinical decision-making. Methods: Community/academic US oncologists (n = 150) completed an online survey (Sept-Oct 2021) on demographics, 1L tx, 1LM use, attributes in 1L tx selection/1LM use, and factors associated with 1L tx/1LM use. Physicians were dichotomized into 4 pre-specified groups using the median percentage (%) as a cutoff: 1) more frequent 1L prescriber 2) less frequent 1L prescriber (% of pts treated with 1L tx in the past 6 months); 3) more frequent 1LM prescriber 4) less frequent 1LM prescriber (% of pts eligible and received 1LM). Descriptive and bivariate analyses assessing attributes (scored out of 100 points across 16 attributes) in 1L tx selection/1LM use were conducted. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with more/less frequent 1L tx/1LM use. Results: Median time in practice was 15 yrs (range, 2-31; 63% community vs 37% academic setting). The median % of la/mUC pts who received 1L tx was 46% (range, 25-89%). 72 physicians were categorized as more frequent 1L prescribers, while 78 were less frequent 1L prescribers. The median % of pts eligible and received 1LM was 71% (range, 0-100%). 71 physicians were categorized as more frequent 1LM prescribers, while 75 were less frequent 1LM prescribers. Attributes used in 1L tx selection differed among more vs less frequent 1L prescribers: mean scores for efficacy/overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), or rate of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were 23 vs 17, 10 vs 8, and 10 vs 5, respectively (all p < 0.05). Similarly, for more vs less frequent 1LM prescribers, mean scores for efficacy/OS, rate of grade 3/4 immune-mediated AEs, and inclusion in institutional guidelines/pathways were 23 vs 16, 6 vs 4, and 2 vs 4. Oncologists who stated OS, DCR, or rate of grade 3/4 AEs as important factors impacting tx selection were more likely to prescribe 1L tx (all p < 0.05). Regarding 1LM use, oncologists based in the academic setting, those who reported using RECIST 1.1 criteria to assess tx response or agreed 1LM is important to prolong OS were all more likely to prescribe 1LM (all p < 0.05). Those who reported that their institutional guidelines/pathways impact tx decisions or cited prior IO use before metastatic diagnosis as reason not to prescribe 1LM were less likely to prescribe 1LM (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: While several factors were found to be associated with offering 1L tx by US oncologists, including impact on OS and practice setting, variability exists in physicians’ attitudes to 1L tx/1LM use. Studies and interventions to explore shared decision-making for optimal 1L tx selection are needed.

Real-world trends of PARPi maintenance treatment uptake and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) in the United States.

6580 Background: Since 2018, the FDA has approved 2 PARP inhibitors (PARPi), niraparib and olaparib, for first-line (1L) maintenance therapy for OC. Using real-world population data, we assessed trends of 1L PARPi maintenance treatment uptake and PFS of pts with newly diagnosed AOC. Methods: Pts diagnosed with AOC between January 1, 2017, and June 30, 2021, who completed 1L chemo were identified from the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database. We calculated descriptive statistics describing pt demographics, clinico-pathological characteristics, and 1L treatment patterns. The use of PARPi or active surveillance (AS) was identified during a 120-day period after the last dose of 1L chemo. The end of the 1L treatment identification period was defined as the index date. Time to next treatment was used as a proxy for PFS and was defined as time from the index date to the next therapy, last clinical activity, end of study period, or death. Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox models were used to analyze the PFS endpoint. Results: A total of 705 pts were included in the study; 166 received PARPi monotherapy (PARPi mono) and 539 underwent AS after completion of 1L chemo. Median age was 68 y for AS vs. 65 y for PARPi mono (Table). Median time from last chemo to initiation of PARPi mono was 48.5 d. Median follow-up was 20.6 mo for AS and 10.9 mo for PARPi mono. In the overall group, median PFS (mPFS) was 9.53 mo for AS vs. not reached (NR) for PARPi mono. In those with BRCA mutations ( BRCAm), corresponding mPFS was 11.4 mo vs. NR and for BRCA wild type ( BRCAwt) was 9.1 mo vs. 13.5 mo. On multivariate analysis, 1L PARPi maintenance was an independent predictor for improved PFS when compared to AS in all pts (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.63), BRCAm (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.07-0.41) and BRCAwt (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35-0.72). Stage IV at initial diagnosis, no debulking surgery, residual disease, and BRCAwt status were associated with poorer PFS. Trends analysis over the 4-year study period showed PARPi mono use increased from 6% in 2017 to 53% in 2021. Conclusions: This real-world analysis shows that adoption of PARPi mono in the 1L maintenance setting in pts with newly diagnosed AOC has increased to 53% in 2021. PARPi use, when compared with AS, was associated with significantly improved mPFS in both pts with BRCAm and BRCAwt. [Table: see text]

Efficacy of niraparib by time of surgery and postoperative residual disease status: A post hoc analysis of patients in the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study

ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between surgical timing and postoperative residual disease status on the efficacy of niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer at high risk of recurrence. MethodsPost hoc analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) study of niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed primary advanced ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed by surgical status (primary debulking surgery [PDS] vs neoadjuvant chemotherapy/interval debulking surgery [NACT/IDS]) and postoperative residual disease status (no visible residual disease [NVRD] vs visible residual disease [VRD]) in the intent-to-treat population. ResultsIn PRIMA (N = 733), 236 (32.2%) patients underwent PDS, and 481 (65.6%) received NACT/IDS before enrollment. Median PFS (niraparib vs placebo) and hazard ratios (95% CI) for progression were similar in PDS (13.7 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.67 [0.47–0.96]) and NACT/IDS (14.2 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.57 [0.44–0.73]) subgroups. In patients who received NACT/IDS and had NVRD (n = 304), the hazard ratio (95% CI) for progression was 0.65 (0.46–0.91). In patients with VRD following PDS (n = 183) or NACT/IDS (n = 149), the hazard ratios (95% CI) for progression were 0.58 (0.39–0.86) and 0.41 (0.27–0.62), respectively. PFS was not evaluable for patients with PDS and NVRD because of sample size (n = 37). ConclusionsIn this post hoc analysis, niraparib efficacy was similar across PDS and NACT/IDS subgroups. Patients who had NACT/IDS and VRD had the highest reduction in the risk of progression with niraparib maintenance.

Precision Medicine for BRCA/PALB2-Mutated Pancreatic Cancer and Emerging Strategies to Improve Therapeutic Responses to PARP Inhibition.

Simple SummaryFor the small subset of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients with loss-of-function mutations to BRCA1/2 or PALB2, both first-line and maintenance therapy differs significantly. These mutations confer a loss of double-strand break DNA homologous recombination (HR), substantially altering drug sensitivities. In this review, we discuss the current treatment guidelines for PDAC tumors deficient in HR, as well as newly emerging strategies to improve drug responses in this population. We also highlight additional patient populations in which these strategies may also be effective, and novel strategies aiming to confer similar drug sensitivity to tumors proficient in HR repair.Pancreatic cancer is projected to become the second leading cause of cancer-related death by 2030. As patients typically present with advanced disease and show poor responses to broad-spectrum chemotherapy, overall survival remains a dismal 10%. This underscores an urgent clinical need to identify new therapeutic approaches for PDAC patients. Precision medicine is now the standard of care for several difficult-to-treat cancer histologies. Such approaches involve the identification of a clinically actionable molecular feature, which is matched to an appropriate targeted therapy. Selective poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors such as Niraparib, Olaparib, Talazoparib, Rucaparib, and Veliparib are now approved for several cancers with loss of high-fidelity double-strand break homologous recombination (HR), namely those with deleterious mutations to BRCA1/2, PALB2, and other functionally related genes. Recent evidence suggests that the presence of such mutations in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the most common and lethal pancreatic cancer histotype, significantly alters drug responses both with respect to first-line chemotherapy and maintenance therapy. In this review, we discuss the current treatment paradigm for PDAC tumors with confirmed deficits in double-strand break HR, as well as emerging strategies to both improve responses to PARP inhibition in HR-deficient PDAC and confer sensitivity to tumors proficient in HR repair.

P592 Effectiveness and safety of thioguanine in thiopurine-naïve Inflammatory Bowel Disease patients

Abstract Background Currently thioguanine is considered as off-label rescue therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) after conventional thiopurine failure. This study aimed to determine the safety, effectiveness and 12-month drug tolerability of thioguanine in thiopurine-naïve IBD patients. Methods We performed an analysis of our multicenter, retrospective cohort study including thiopurine-naïve IBD patients treated with thioguanine as first-line maintenance therapy without concomitant biological therapy. Clinical effectiveness was defined as a sustained clinical response (based on physician’s global assessment) without the (re-)initiation of concurrent biological therapy, corticosteroids or a IBD-related surgical intervention. All adverse events that occurred during follow-up were categorized by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Elevation of two concurrent liver tests were categorized as drug-induced liver injury. Results A total of 103 IBD patients (female 61%, Crohn’s disease 52%) were included with a median daily thioguanine dose of 20mg and median 6-thioguanine nucleotide (6-TGN) levels of 635 pmol/8x108 RBC (IQR 425–1100). Clinical effectiveness at 12 months was observed in 60 out of 99 patients (61%) and 80% of patients were still using thioguanine 12 months after initiation. Four patients did not reach the 12-month follow-up period but were in remission at time of data collection. Of the responding patients at 12 months 88% (N=53) remained responsive until the end of follow-up (median follow-up period 28 months, IQR 17–40 months). Forty-nine patients (48%) developed adverse events (grade 1 or 2), of which 24% graded as moderate (grade 2) and none as severe. Seven patients ceased therapy due to the occurrence of adverse events. Adverse events consisted mainly of elevated liver tests (26%) and gastrointestinal complaints (17%). An infection was documented in three patients, none of them requiring hospitalization. Pancytopenia occurred in two other patients with 6-TGN levels of respectively 2900 and 140 pmol/8x108 RBC. None of the included patients had signs of (noncirrhotic) portal hypertension or underwent a liver biopsy during follow-up. Conclusion This is the first cohort study that reports on the safety and effectiveness of first-line thioguanine maintenance therapy in IBD. Thioguanine therapy was, 12 months after initiation, still used by 80% and clinically effective in 61% of thiopurine-naive patients. Adverse events were relatively common but mainly mild (grade 1) and the discontinuation rate related to adverse events was lower than observed during conventional thiopurine therapy. No signs of (noncirrhotic) portal hypertension were reported

Factors Associated With Relapse and Treatment of Myelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein Antibody–Associated Disease in the United Kingdom

Longer-term outcomes and risk factors associated with myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease (MOGAD) are not well established. To investigate longer-term risk of relapse and factors associated with this risk among patients with MOGAD. This large, single-nation, prospective cohort study was conducted among 276 patients with MOGAD at 5 health care centers in the UK. Data from January 1973 to March 2020 were collected from 146 patients at Oxford and its outreach sites, 65 patients at Liverpool, 32 patients at a children's hospital in Birmingham, 22 patients at a children's hospital in London, and 11 patients at Cardiff, Wales. Data were analyzed from April through July 2020. Risk of relapse and annualized relapse rate were evaluated according to different baseline features, including onset age, onset phenotype, and incident vs nonincident group, with the incident group defined as patients diagnosed with antibodies against myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein before a second attack. Time to next relapse among patients experiencing relapse was measured and compared between the maintenance therapy subgroup and each first-line treatment group. The no-treatment group was defined as the off-treatment phase among patients who were relapsing, which could occur between any attack or between the last attack and last follow-up. Among 276 patients with MOGAD, 183 patients were identified as being part of the incident group. There were no differences in mean (SD) onset age between total and incident groups (26.4 [17.6] years vs 28.2 [18.1] years), and female patients were predominant in both groups (166 [60.1%] female patients vs 106 [57.9%] female patients). The most common presentation overall was optic neuritis (ON) (119 patients among 275 patients with presentation data [43.3%]), while acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), brain, or brainstem onset was predominant among 69 patients aged younger than 12 years (47 patients [68.1%]), including 41 patients with ADEM (59.4%). In the incident group, the 8-year risk of relapse was 36.3% (95% CI, 27.1%-47.5%). ON at onset was associated with increased risk of relapse compared with transverse myelitis at onset (hazard ratio [HR], 2.66; 95% CI, 1.01-6.98; P = .047), but there was no statistically significant difference with adjustment for a follow-on course of corticosteroids. Any TM at onset (ie, alone or in combination with other presentations [ie, ON or ADEM, brain, or brain stem]) was associated with decreased risk of relapse compared with no TM (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20-0.88; P = .01). Young adult age (ie, ages >18-40 years) was associated with increased risk of relapse compared with older adult age (ie, ages >40 years) (HR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.18-6.19; P = .02). First-line maintenance therapy was associated with decreased risk of relapse when adjusted for covariates (prednisolone: HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.92; P = .03; prednisolone, nonsteroidal immunosuppressant, or combined: HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.92; P = .03) compared with the no-treatment group. The findings of this cohort study suggest that onset age and onset phenotype should be considered when assessing subsequent relapse risk and that among patients experiencing relapse, prednisolone, first-line immunosuppression, or a combination of those treatments may be associated with decreased risk of future relapse by approximately 2-fold. These results may contribute to individualized treatment decisions.

POSA243 Approaches to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI) First-Line Maintenance Therapy (1L-MT) in Unresectable Locally Advanced (LA) or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer (mUC) in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK (EU5)

Avelumab was approved for 1L-MT following disease control with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with LA/mUC in the EU (January 2021). This survey aimed to understand how EU physicians might incorporate this novel treatment approach into clinical practice.

Avelumab first-line maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) vs BSC alone for advanced urothelial carcinoma: JAVELIN Bladder 100 Japanese subgroup analysis

BackgroundThe phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial showed significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) with avelumab as first-line (1L) maintenance therapy + best supportive care (BSC) vs BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) that had not progressed with 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy. Efficacy and safety were assessed in patients enrolled in Japan.MethodsPatients with locally advanced or metastatic UC that had not progressed with 4–6 cycles of 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy were randomized to avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) + BSC or BSC alone. The primary endpoint was OS, and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety.ResultsIn Japanese patients (n = 73) randomized to avelumab + BSC (n = 36) or BSC alone (n = 37), median OS was 24.7 months (95% CI, 18.2-not estimable) vs 18.7 months (95% CI, 12.8–33.0), respectively (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.41–1.58]), and median PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI, 1.9–9.4) vs 1.9 months (95% CI, 1.9–3.8), respectively (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.36–1.11]). In the avelumab + BSC and BSC-alone arms, grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 50.0% vs 8.1%, including grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs in 13.9% vs 0%, respectively. Efficacy and safety results in Japanese patients were generally consistent with findings in the overall trial population.ConclusionAvelumab 1L maintenance treatment showed a favorable benefit-risk balance in Japanese patients, supporting avelumab 1L maintenance as a new standard of care in Japanese patients with advanced UC that has not progressed with 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02603432.

First-line maintenance therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer after utilization of genetic testing in our hospital

First-line maintenance therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer after utilization of genetic testing in our hospital

Correction to: Niraparib: A Review in First-Line Maintenance Therapy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer

Correction to: Niraparib: A Review in First-Line Maintenance Therapy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer

Biological Therapeutic Advances for the Treatment of Advanced Urothelial Cancers.

In recent years, diagnostic and therapeutic advances have contributed to a reduction in mortality rates of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy and safety as both first-line and first-line switch maintenance therapy for mUC. For platinum-refractory patients, in addition to immunotherapy, other targeted agents (antibody–drug conjugates and fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors) have been approved after demonstrating a clinically relevant advantage in overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival compared to standard of care. Sequential treatment strategies are finally feasible for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. This review will summarize the results of the most important phase II–III clinical trials for first-line, switch maintenance, second-line, and subsequent lines of therapy, and describe the most promising clinical trials currently ongoing in these treatment scenarios.

Niraparib: A Review in First-Line Maintenance Therapy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

Niraparib (Zejula™) is a PARP inhibitor which is approved for maintenance therapy in adults with advanced ovarian cancer in complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy. In a placebo-controlled phase III trial in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer, niraparib significantly extended progression free survival in two predefined populations, namely a patient population with altered homologous-recombination DNA repair pathways [i.e. homologous-recombination deficiency positive (HRd)] and the overall trial population. A prespecified exploratory subgroup analysis indicated that niraparib was also efficacious in patients who were homologous recombination deficiency negative or homologous recombination proficient (HRp). Niraparib has a manageable tolerability profile with myelosuppression as the main safety concern. Haematological reactions were managed with monitoring and dose reduction or interruption. A weight- and platelet count-based individualised dosage regimen introduced during the trial (and subsequently approved) appeared to improve haematological tolerability. Niraparib is a useful option for first-line maintenance therapy for advanced ovarian cancer in adults who responded to platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of homologous-recombination deficiency status and is a promising option for HRp patients, for whom maintenance treatment options are limited.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11523-021-00841-2.

Olaparib: A Review as First-Line Maintenance Therapy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

Olaparib (Lynparza®) is a poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor approved for first-line maintenance treatment in adults with advanced ovarian cancer who are in complete or partial response to first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. Originally approved as monotherapy, olaparib is also approved to be administered in combination with bevacizumab in patients whose cancer is associated with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), defined by either a BRCA1/2 mutation and/or genomic instability. In phaseIII trials, olaparib monotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) relative to placebo (SOLO-1), as did olaparib plus bevacizumab relative to placebo plus bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), in patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had responded to platinum-based chemotherapy. In PAOLA-1, improvements in PFS with olaparib plus bevacizumab were not seen in patients with HRD-negative tumours relative to placebo plus bevacizumab. Both olaparib monotherapy and olaparib in combination with bevacizumab had generally manageable tolerability profiles. Olaparib, alone or in combination with bevacizumab, is a useful option for the first-line maintenance treatment of adults with HRD-positive, advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer who are in complete or partial response to first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy.

Budget impact analysis of niraparib for first-line maintenance therapy in advanced ovarian cancer from a US payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer (OC) is the fifth leading cause of cancer death in women and has the highest mortality rate of gynecological cancers. Niraparib was recently approved by the FDA for the maintenance treatment of adult patients with advanced epithelial OC in complete or partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) regardless of biomarker status. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the direct economic impact on US payers of adding niraparib as a first-line maintenance therapy for patients with advanced OC. METHODS: The model considered 2 scenarios: a current scenario in which niraparib does not have regulatory approval for first-line maintenance therapy and a future scenario in which niraparib has regulatory approval for first-line maintenance therapy. The budget impact was calculated as the difference in cost between the 2 scenarios. The budget impact model (BIM) considered 2 different US health care payer perspectives: a commercial health plan and a Medicare plan. Both payer perspectives were assumed to have a hypothetical 1 million affiliates that were covered. Epidemiological data was used to estimate the eligible incident population of patients with OC. Active surveillance, bevacizumab (as a monotherapy), and olaparib (as a monotherapy restricted to patients with the breast cancer gene [BRCA] mutation) were included in the model as alternative maintenance treatment options (maintenance treatment options required 1% market share for inclusion). Cost categories considered in the BIM included diagnostic testing, treatment acquisition and administration, treatment-emergent adverse events, and subsequent therapy. Results were presented as an incremental budget impact to payers over 3 years. RESULTS: For a commercial health plan of 1 million affiliates, the estimated impact of adding niraparib as a first-line maintenance treatment option for advanced epithelial OC was calculated as $87,906, $93,106, and $87,037 for years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The average budget impact per member per month was $0.007. For a Medicare health plan of 1 million affiliates, the estimated impact was calculated as $206,785, $219,017, and $204,739 for years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The average budget impact per member per month was $0.018. One-way sensitivity analyses suggested that budget impact was most sensitive to the treatment duration and market share of niraparib, the non-treatment-specific data on overall survival rates, and the treatment duration of bevacizumab. Treatment of drug-specific adverse events had little impact on the budget model. CONCLUSIONS: The model estimated a minimal budget impact to both a commercial or Medicare health plan following the introduction of niraparib as a first-line maintenance therapy for patients with advanced epithelial OC who are in complete or partial response to first-line PBC regardless of biomarker status. DISCLOSURES: This study was financially supported by GlaxoSmithKline. Liu, Hawkes, Maiese, and Hurteau are employees of GlaxoSmithKline. Travers was employed by GlaxoSmithKline at the time of this study. Spalding and Walder are employees of FIECON Ltd., which was contracted by GlaxoSmithKline to develop the budget impact model used in this study.

Reasons for first-line maintenance therapy discontinuation among patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer treated in real-world settings.

290 Background: PARP inhibitor (PARPi) and bevacizumab have been integrated into the first-line (1L) maintenance therapy for patients (pts) with ovarian cancer (OC). However, due to adverse events, the rate of PARPi maintenance discontinuation was 12% in the SOLO1 clinical trial. We aimed to better understand the rate and cause of maintenance therapy discontinuation in real-world practice. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using de-identified electronic health record (EHR)–derived data from the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health database. From January 1, 2016, to February 29, 2020, data were obtained for pts with newly diagnosed stage III/IV epithelial OC who received primary debulking surgery followed by 6–9 cycles of 1L platinum-based chemo or neoadjuvant chemo followed by interval debulking surgery. Index date was the end of 1L systemic therapy. Results: Of 675 pts with stage III/IV OC who underwent primary systemic therapy, 144 (21.3%) received 1L maintenance therapy and were included in the analysis. Mean age was 65.0 y. Most pts were treated in community practice (93.1%), had ECOG score of 0–1 at diagnosis (81.3%), and were shown to be BRCA wild type (66.7%). Bevacizumab was the most common 1L maintenance therapy (n = 69, 47.9%), followed by olaparib (n = 46, 31.9%), paclitaxel (n = 18, 12.5%), rucaparib (n = 10, 6.9%), and gemcitabine (n = 1, 0.7%). Overall, 34 (23.6%) pts discontinued 1L maintenance therapy. The most common reason for discontinuation was disease progression (n = 19, 13.2%), followed by treatment-related toxicity (n = 13, 9.0%; Table). Of 56 pts who received PARPi (olaparib or rucaparib) 1L maintenance therapy, 21 (37.5%) pts discontinued treatment: 11 (19.6%) because of disease progression, 9 (16.0%) treatment-related toxicity, and 1 for other reasons. Conclusions: In pts with advanced OC who received 1L maintenance therapy in clinical practice, disease progression was the most common reason for maintenance therapy discontinuation. The rates of toxicity-related discontinuations were comparable with those reported in clinical trials.[Table: see text]

Real-world patterns and predictors of first-line maintenance use among patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer: Is there an opportunity for change?

294 Background: With the advent of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), options for first-line (1L) maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer (OC) have evolved in the US. This study described the use of 1L maintenance and assessed predictors of 1L maintenance use among PARPi-eligible patients (pts) with OC in a real-world setting. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included pts with newly diagnosed stage III/IV epithelial OC who received 6–9 cycles of 1L platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) and primary or interval debulking surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy between Jan 1, 2016, and Feb 29, 2020, from the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record–derived deidentified database. The end of the last cycle of 1L PBC was defined as the index date. Those pts who started second-line chemotherapy within 2 months of the index date were excluded. Logistic regression was used to analyze variables with regard to 1L maintenance use. Results: In total, 463 pts were included; 21% received maintenance therapy, 79% received active surveillance. Baseline characteristics are shown in the table. Overall maintenance therapy use increased over the study period, from 7.7% to 37.7%. Pts with BRCA wild type were significantly less likely to receive maintenance therapy (odds ratio [OR]: 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16–0.59) than pts with BRCA mutation. Pts treated in 2018 (OR: 2.73; 95% CI, 1.25–5.98) and 2019 (OR: 8.78; 95% CI, 4.15–18.55) were significantly more likely to receive maintenance therapy than pts treated in 2017. Age, race, practice type, ECOG score, and residual disease status were not significant predictors of 1L maintenance use. Conclusions: Nearly 40% of pts with advanced stage OC received upfront maintenance therapy with an increasing trend over time, particularly in those with biomarker guidance. Research is warranted toward addressing barriers to the appropriate use of maintenance therapy.[Table: see text]

1360TiP First-line (1L) maintenance therapy with niraparib (nira) + pembrolizumab (pembro) vs placebo + pembro in advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Phase III ZEAL-1L study

Pembro (programmed death protein 1 [PD-1] inhibitor) ± platinum (Pt)-based chemotherapy (CT), with pembro maintained until progression, is a standard 1L treatment for advanced/metastatic NSCLC. However, durable long-term benefit is limited to a small subset of patients. Nira, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi), promotes PARP trapping, activates the STING pathway, recruits T cells, and upregulates PD-L1, making it a promising partner for PD-1 inhibitors. Nira crosses the blood–brain barrier in animal models with 34-fold higher brain tissue exposure than other PARPi, suggesting it may reduce risk/progression of brain metastasis (BM).