A real-world study of treatment patterns following disease progression in epithelial ovarian cancer patients undergoing poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor maintenance therapy

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of subsequent therapy after poly-ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor maintenance treatment has raised concerns. Retrospective studies show worse outcomes for platinum-based chemotherapy after progression of PARP inhibitor-maintenance therapy, especially in BRCA-mutant patients. We aimed to describe subsequent therapy in ovarian cancer patients after PARP inhibitor-maintenance therapy and evaluate their response to treatment. We focused on chemotherapy for patients with a progression-free interval (PFI) of ≥ 6 months after prior platinum treatment, based on BRCA status.

METHODS

We analyzed real-world data from Peking University Cancer Hospital, subsequent therapy after progression to PARP inhibitor-maintenance therapy for epithelial ovarian cancer between January 2016 and December 2022. Clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes were extracted from medical records. The last follow-up was in May 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients were included, of which 29 (28.4%) had a germline BRCA1/2 mutation and 73 (71.6%) exhibited BRCA1/2 wild-type mutations. The PARP inhibitors used were Olaparib (n = 62, 60.8%), Niraparib (n = 35, 34.3%), and others (n = 5, 4.9%). The overall response rate (ORR) was 41.2%, and the median time to second progression (mTTSP) was 8.1 months (95%CI 5.8-10.2). Of 91 platinum-sensitive patients (PFI ≥ 6 months) after progression to PARP inhibitor-maintenance therapy, 65 patients subsequently received platinum regimens. Among them, 30 had received one line of chemotherapy before PARP inhibitor-maintenance therapy. Analysis of these 30 patients by BRCA status showed an ORR of 16.7% versus 33.3% and mTTSP of 7.1 (95% CI 4.9-9.1) versus 6.2 months (95% CI 3.7-8.3, P = 0.550), for BRCA-mutant and wild-type patients, respectively. For the remaining 35 patients who had received two or more lines of chemotherapy before PARP inhibitor-maintenance therapy, ORR was 57.1% versus 42.9%, and mTTSP was 18.0 (95% CI 5.0-31.0) versus 8.0 months (95% CI 4.9-11.1, P = 0.199), for BRCA-mutant and wild-type patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

No differences in survival outcomes were observed among patients with different BRCA statuses. Furthermore, for patients who had undergone two or more lines of chemotherapy before PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy, no negative effects of PARP inhibitors on subsequent treatment were found, regardless of BRCA status.

Weekly paclitaxel, carboplatin and cetuximab (PCE) combination followed by nivolumab for recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN)

OBJECTIVES

Cetuximab-based chemotherapy is a standard 1st-line treatment for recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). However, few studies have reported survival data for a treatment sequence consisting of a PCE regimen (paclitaxel + carboplatin + cetuximab) followed by an immune checkpoint inhibitor.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively assessed 37 patients with R/M SCCHN from the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, and larynx who received PCE as 1st-line treatment followed by nivolumab as 2nd-line at the National Cancer Center Hospital East between December 2016 and July 2021. For comparison, we also analyzed 14 patients who did not receive nivolumab after PCE.

RESULTS

Of the 37 patients who received nivolumab, overall response rate (ORR) by PCE was 48.6%, and median time to response and median progression-free survival (PFS) were 2.1 months (range: 0.8-4.8) and 4.4 months, respectively. In the nivolumab phase, ORR was 10.8%. 23 patients received 3rd-line therapy. Median PFS2, PFS3, and overall survival (OS) were 6.8, 11.6, and 19.5 months, respectively. Subgroup analysis by PD-L1 expression showed no significant difference in OS. Analysis of the comparison group revealed a trend toward improved OS in those who received nivolumab compared to those who did not (HR 0.47, 95%CI [0.19-1.13], p = 0.084).

CONCLUSION

PCE followed by nivolumab shows a favorable survival outcome, representing the potential for rapid tumor response with PCE and extension of OS by the addition of nivolumab regardless of combined positive score.

Median time to progression with TKI-based therapy after failure of immuno-oncology therapy in metastatic kidney cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-based therapy after previous immuno-oncology therapy (IO) failure has been addressed before. However, summary efficacy estimates have never been generated in these reports. We addressed this void.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We systematically examined TKI efficacy after IO-failure and generated weighted median progression-free survival (PFS) estimates for Pazopanib, Axitinib, Cabozantinib, Sunitinib. A systematic review according to PRISMA was conducted. PubMed and abstracts were queried. Only studies proving median PFS were included. Weighted medians were computed for each TKI alternative.

RESULTS

Of 245 articles, nine eligible studies were included in the current study with 952 analysed patients. Weighted PFS medians after any previous IO-based therapy were respectively 13.7 (range from 4.6 to 24.4), 8.1 (range from 4.7 to 13.2), 8.5 (range from 4.7 to 15.2) and 6.9 months (range from 2.9 to 11.6) for Pazopanib, Axitinib, Cabozantinib, Sunitinib. Specific second-line weighted PFS median was 14.8 months (range from 5.6 to 24.4), 10.1 months (range from 6.4 to 13.2), 8.7 months (range from 4.7 to 15.2) and 6.0 months (range from 2.9 to 8.0) for Pazopanib, Axitinib, Cabozantinib, Sunitinib, respectively, after first-line IO.

CONCLUSION

Pazopanib results in the longest weighted median PFS, after previous IO-failure, regardless of treatment line, as well as in specific second-line, post-first-line IO failure settings. Pending novel studies, Pazopanib appears to represent the most promising treatment option after prior IO.

Long-term real-world experience with ipilimumab and non-ipilimumab therapies in advanced melanoma: the IMAGE study

Background

Ipilimumab has shown long-term overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trials, but robust real-world evidence is lacking. We present long-term outcomes from the IMAGE study (NCT01511913) in patients receiving ipilimumab and/or non-ipilimumab (any approved treatment other than ipilimumab) systemic therapies.

Methods

IMAGE was a multinational, prospective, observational study assessing adult patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab or non-ipilimumab systemic therapies between June 2012 and March 2015 with ≥3 years of follow-up. Adjusted OS curves based on multivariate Cox regression models included covariate effects. Safety and patient-reported outcomes were assessed.

Results

Among 1356 patients, 1094 (81%) received ipilimumab and 262 (19%) received non-ipilimumab index therapy (systemic therapy [chemotherapy, anti–programmed death 1 antibodies, or BRAF ± MEK inhibitors], radiotherapy, and radiosurgery). In the overall population, median age was 64 years, 60% were male, 78% were from Europe, and 78% had received previous treatment for advanced melanoma. In the ipilimumab-treated cohort, 780 (71%) patients did not receive subsequent therapy (IPI-noOther) and 314 (29%) received subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (IPI-Other) on study. In the non-ipilimumab–treated cohort, 205 (78%) patients remained on or received other subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (Other-Other) and 57 (22%) received subsequent ipilimumab therapy (Other-IPI) on study. Among 1151 patients who received ipilimumab at any time during the study (IPI-noOther, IPI-Other, and Other-IPI), 296 (26%) reported CTCAE grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events, most occurring in year 1. Ipilimumab-treated and non-ipilimumab–treated patients who switched therapy (IPI-Other and Other-IPI) had longer OS than those who did not switch (IPI-noOther and Other-Other). Patients with prior therapy who did not switch therapy (IPI-noOther and Other-Other) showed similar OS. In treatment-naive patients, those in the IPI-noOther group tended to have longer OS than those in the Other-Other group. Patient-reported outcomes were similar between treatment cohorts.

Conclusions

With long-term follow-up (≥ 3 years), safety and OS in this real-world population of patients treated with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg were consistent with those reported in clinical trials. Patient-reported quality of life was maintained over the study period. OS analysis across both pretreated and treatment-naive patients suggested a beneficial role of ipilimumab early in treatment.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01511913. Registered January 19, 2012 – Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01511913

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08032-y.

Analysis of subsequent therapy in Japanese patients with hormone receptor‒positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‒negative advanced breast cancer who received palbociclib plus endocrine therapy in PALOMA-2 and -3

BACKGROUND

In the double-blind, phase 3 PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 studies, palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival versus placebo plus ET in patients with hormone receptor‒positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‒negative advanced breast cancer. This analysis assessed subsequent treatment patterns after palbociclib therapy in Japanese patients enrolled in the PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 studies.

METHODS

PALOMA-2 included postmenopausal women who had not received prior systemic therapy for advanced disease. PALOMA-3 included pre- or postmenopausal women who had progressed on previous ET. Types of subsequent therapy were assessed, and treatment durations of subsequent therapy were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Japanese patients were enrolled in PALOMA-2 (n = 46) and PALOMA-3 (n = 35). In both studies, the most common first subsequent therapy was ET (PALOMA-2, 77% in the palbociclib group and 75% in the placebo group; PALOMA-3, 55% and 43%, respectively), followed by chemotherapy (PALOMA-2, 18% and 8%; PALOMA-3, 32% and 57%). The median (95% CI) duration of first subsequent therapy was 6.4 (2.3‒13.9) months with palbociclib plus letrozole and 6.7 (2.8‒13.0) months with placebo plus letrozole in PALOMA-2 and 3.8 (2.4‒5.7) months with palbociclib plus fulvestrant and 9.7 (1.0‒not estimable) months with placebo plus fulvestrant in PALOMA-3.

CONCLUSIONS

The types of first subsequent therapy received by Japanese patients in the palbociclib plus ET and placebo plus ET groups were similar. Further evaluation of subsequent therapy data in the real-world setting is warranted considering the small sample size of this analysis.

Apalutamide and Overall Survival in Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

The phase 3 SPARTAN study evaluated apalutamide versus placebo in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) and prostate-specific antigen doubling time of ≤10 mo. At primary analysis, apalutamide improved median metastasis-free survival (MFS) by 2 yr and overall survival (OS) data were immature.

OBJECTIVE

We report the prespecified event-driven final analysis for OS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1207 patients with nmCRPC (diagnosed by conventional imaging) were randomised 2:1 to apalutamide (240mg/d) or placebo, plus on-going androgen deprivation therapy. After MFS was met and the study was unblinded, 76 (19%) patients still receiving placebo crossed over to apalutamide.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

OS and time to cytotoxic chemotherapy (TTChemo) were analysed by group-sequential testing with O'Brien-Fleming-type alpha spending function.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

At median 52-mo follow-up, 428 deaths had occurred. The median treatment duration was 32.9 mo for apalutamide group and 11.5 mo for placebo group. Median OS was markedly longer with apalutamide versus placebo, reaching prespecified statistical significance (73.9 vs 59.9 mo, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.64-0.96]; p=0.016). Apalutamide also lengthened TTChemo versus placebo (HR: 0.63 [95% CI, 0.49-0.81]; p=0.0002). Discontinuation rates in apalutamide and placebo groups due to progressive disease were 43% and 74%, and due to adverse events 15% and 8.4%, respectively. Subsequent life-prolonging therapy was received by 371 (46%) patients in the apalutamide arm and by 338 (84%) patients in the placebo arm including 59 patients who received apalutamide after crossover. Safety was consistent with previous reports; when adverse events were adjusted for treatment exposure, rash had the greatest difference of incidence between the apalutamide and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Extension of OS with apalutamide compared with placebo conferred impactful benefit in patients with nmCRPC. There was a 22% reduction in the hazard of death in the apalutamide group despite 19% crossover (placebo to apalutamide) and higher rates of subsequent therapy in the placebo group.

PATIENT SUMMARY

With data presented herein, all primary and secondary study end points of SPARTAN were met; findings demonstrate the value of apalutamide as a treatment option for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Subsequent Chemotherapy and Treatment Patterns After Abiraterone Acetate in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Post Hoc Analysis of COU-AA-302

BACKGROUND

Treatment patterns for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have changed substantially in the last few years. In trial COU-AA-302 (chemotherapy-naïve men with mCRPC), abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA) significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) when compared to placebo plus prednisone (P).

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc analysis investigated clinical responses to docetaxel as first subsequent therapy (FST) among patients who progressed following protocol-specified treatment with AA, and characterized subsequent treatment patterns among older (≥75 yr) and younger (<75 yr) patient subgroups.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Data were collected at the final OS analysis (96% of expected death events). Subsequent therapy data were prospectively collected, while response and discontinuation data were collected retrospectively following discontinuation of the study drug.

INTERVENTION

At the discretion of the investigator, 67% (365/546) of patients from the AA arm received subsequent treatment with one or more agents approved for mCRPC.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Efficacy analysis was performed for patients for whom baseline and at least one post-baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values were available.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Baseline and at least one post-baseline PSA values were available for 100 AA patients who received docetaxel as FST. While acknowledging the limitations of post hoc analyses, 40% (40/100) of these patients had an unconfirmed ≥50% PSA decline with first subsequent docetaxel therapy, and 27% (27/100) had a confirmed ≥50% PSA decline. The median docetaxel treatment duration among these 100 patients was 4.2 mo. Docetaxel was the most common FST among older and younger patients from each treatment arm. However, 43% (79/185) of older patients who progressed on AA received no subsequent therapy for mCRPC, compared with 17% (60/361) of younger patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with mCRPC who progress with AA treatment may still derive benefit from subsequent docetaxel therapy. These data support further assessment of treatment patterns following AA treatment for mCRPC, particularly among older patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00887198.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Treatment patterns for advanced prostate cancer have changed substantially in the last few years. This additional analysis provides evidence of clinical benefit for subsequent chemotherapy in men with advanced prostate cancer whose disease progressed after treatment with abiraterone acetate. Older patients were less likely to be treated with subsequent therapy.

Potential efficacy of therapies targeting intrahepatic lesions after sorafenib treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

We investigated the contribution of subsequent therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma refractory or intolerant to sorafenib. Further, we investigated the impact of sorafenib on overall survival using individual data.

Methods

We reviewed the medical records of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib. Survival after sorafenib treatment and overall survival were defined as the time when we discovered that patients were either refractory or intolerant to sorafenib and the period from the start of sorafenib treatment, respectively, until death during the study. We compared patients’ prognoses according to their subsequent treatment as follows: group A, therapies targeting intrahepatic lesions; group B, systemic therapies alone; group C, no subsequent therapy. We used linear regression analysis to determine whether there was an association with survival after sorafenib treatment and with overall survival.

Results

Of 79 patients, 63 (79.7 %) received one or more subsequent therapies (44 and 19 patients in groups A and B, respectively). The five patients who survived more than two years after sorafenib treatment was discontinued responded to therapies targeting intrahepatic lesions. The median survival times of groups A, B, and C were 11.9 months, 5.8 months, and 3.6 months, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that group A, Child-Pugh score, serum α-fetoprotein level, and cause of failure of sorafenib treatment were independent prognostic factors for survival after sorafenib treatment. Individual survival after sorafenib treatment correlated highly with overall survival.

Conclusions

Targeting intrahepatic lesions may be useful for treating patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients after sorafenib treatment is discontinued.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-016-2380-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.