A phase III study comparing single-agent olaparib or the combination of cediranib and olaparib to standard platinum-based chemotherapy in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer

• Published in: Journal of clinical oncology Vol. 38; no. 15_suppl; p. 6003
• Main Authors: Liu, Joyce F., Brady, Mark F., Matulonis, Ursula A., Miller, Austin, Kohn, Elise C., Swisher, Elizabeth M., Tew, William P., Cloven, Noelle Gillette, Muller, Carolyn, Bender, David, Moore, Richard G., Michelin, David Paul, Waggoner, Steven E., Geller, Melissa Ann, Fujiwara, Keiichi, D'Andre, Stacy D., Carney, Michael, Secord, Angeles Alvarez, Moxley, Katherine M., Bookman, Michael A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English; Japanese
• Published: 20.05.2020
• ISSN: 0732-183X; 1527-7755
• DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.6003

Abstract only 6003 Background: Combination cediranib (C) and olaparib (O) improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with relapsed platinum (plat)-sensitive high-grade ovarian cancer (ovca) compared to O alone in a Phase 2 trial (NCT01116648). We conducted this randomized, open-label Phase 3 trial (NCT02446600) to assess whether combination C+O, or O alone, was superior to standard of care (SOC) plat-based therapy in relapsed plat-sensitive ovca. Methods: Eligible pts had recurrent plat-sensitive [ > 6-month plat-free interval (PFI)] high-grade serous or endometrioid, or BRCA-related, ovca. One prior non-plat therapy and unlimited prior plat-therapies were allowed; prior anti-angiogenics in the recurrent setting or prior PARP inhibitor were exclusions. Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to SOC (carboplatin/paclitaxel; carboplatin/gemcitabine; or carboplatin/liposomal doxorubicin), O (300mg twice daily), or C+O (C 30mg daily + O 200mg twice daily). Randomization was stratified by g BRCA status, PFI (6-12 vs > 12 months), and prior anti-angiogenic therapy. Target sample size was 549 pts; primary analysis occurred 2 years after the last pt enrolled. The primary endpoint was PFS. Type 1 error = 0.025 was controlled by a gatekeeping hierarchy that assessed C+O vs SOC, then O alone vs SOC, and finally C+O vs O. All maintenance therapy was prohibited. Results: Between 4FEB2016 and 13NOV2017, 565 pts enrolled (187 SOC, 189 O, 189 C+O), and 528 pts initiated treatment (166 SOC, 183 O, 179 C+O). 23.7% of patients had g BRCAmut. Median follow-up was 29.1 months. 53 pts on SOC initiated non-protocol therapy (predominantly PARP inhibitor maintenance) before disease progression. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.856 (95% CI 0.66-1.11, p = 0.08, 1-tail) between C+O and SOC and 1.20 (95% CI 0.93-1.54) between O and SOC, with median PFS of 10.3, 8.2, and 10.4 months for SOC, O, and C+O, respectively. Response rates were 71.3% (SOC), 52.4% (O), and 69.4% (C+O). In gBRCA pts, HR for PFS was 0.55 (95% CI 0.73-1.30) for C+O vs SOC, and 0.63 (95% CI 0.37-1.07) for O vs SOC. In non-g BRCA pts, HR for these comparisons was 0.97 (95% CI 0.73-1.30) and 1.41 (1.07-1.86). No OS differences between arms were observed at 44% events. Pts receiving C+O (vs SOC) had more frequent Grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal (30.1% vs 8.4%), hypertension (31.7% vs 1.8%), and fatigue events (17.5% vs 1.8%). Conclusion: C+O demonstrated similar activity to SOC in relapsed plat-sensitive ovca but did not meet the primary endpoint of improved PFS. Clinical trial information: NCT02446600.