Advertisement


Bradley J. Monk, MD, on Ovarian Cancer: New Data on Rucaparib Monotherapy vs Placebo as Maintenance Treatment

2022 ASCO Annual Meeting

Advertisement

Bradley J. Monk, MD, of the University of Arizona College of Medicine and Creighton University School of Medicine, discusses phase III findings from the ATHENA–MONO (GOG-3020/ENGOT-ov45) trial. It showed that rucaparib as first-line maintenance treatment, following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, improved progression-free survival in patients with ovarian cancer, irrespective of homologous recombination deficiency status (Abstract LBA5500).



Transcript

Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
ATHENA-MONO was a randomized Phase 3 trial looking at rucaparib versus placebo in frontline maintenance after responding to platinum-based therapy. Now you may say, "We already use that." There was another study, which I'm very proud of, called PRIMA that I was the last author on. That study is very helpful and gained FDA approval as you know in April 2020, but this adds confidence to that. In fact, the ASCO guidelines say that all patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who respond to a platinum-based therapy should be considered for a PARP inhibitor. So hopefully if you're not doing it, you'll begin, that ATHENA-MONO will add confidence to it. Now, the medication that we studied was rucaparib. Rucaparib is a PARP inhibitor. It has four doses, 600, 500, 400, 300. The primary endpoint was in patients who had a molecular signature consistent with homologous recombination according to the FoundationOne CDx. When we randomized patients, and they're randomized 4:1, 528 patients in 24 countries in more than 200 sites, we reached our primary endpoint. Think of this. The hazard ratio versus placebo in the rucaparib patients, according to the HRD biomarker, which is about half of the patients based on the investigator, was 28.7 months. Think of that. Newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer, stage three and four that respond to platinum-based therapy now can live more than two years versus placebo where they live less than a year, 11.3 months. Based on a step-down analysis, we pivoted to an intent-to-treat analysis and it was still double: placebo, 9.2 months, the rucaparib arm, 20.2 months, hazard ratio of 0.52. Even in the biomarker negative subgroup there was still a statistically significant and clinically relevant impact in progression-free survival. Now that comes with a cost. About half of the patients required a dose reduction after an interruption, but the quality of life was maintained, and because of the dosing flexibility, again, 600, 500, 400, 300 twice daily, more than 70% of the patients could be maintained on 80% of the dose, which was 500 or 600. What's next? Next is ATHENA-COMBO. So in this ATHENA-MONO arm, the rucaparib was the experimental arm, but in ATHENA-COMBO, which is a fully powered independent but related study, now the rucaparib is the control arm. The experimental arm now randomized 1:1, 400 patients in each arm, will be rucaparib/nivolumab. You recall that JAVELIN 100 was negative adding avelumab to frontline chemotherapy. You'll recall that IMAGINE 50 was negative adding atezolizumab to bevacizumab, but now this is maintenance in PARP plus IO. So stay tuned. We hope to have the results to ATHENA-COMBO potentially next year against its event-driven analysis. It's my pleasure to share these data with you that were also published simultaneously in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on June 6, 2022.

Related Videos

Head and Neck Cancer
Immunotherapy

Nabil F. Saba, MD, on Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Phase II Findings on Pembrolizumab and Cabozantinib

Nabil F. Saba, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, discusses new data from a trial of pembrolizumab and cabozantinib in patients with recurrent metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. The study met its primary endpoint of overall response rate. The regimen was well tolerated and exhibited encouraging clinical activity in this patient population (Abstract 6008).

Neuroendocrine Tumors

Mairéad G. McNamara, PhD, MBBCh, on Neuroendocrine Carcinoma: Findings on Liposomal Irinotecan Plus Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid or Docetaxel

Mairéad G. McNamara, PhD, MBBCh, of The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, discusses phase II findings of the NET-02 trial, which explored an unmet need in the second-line treatment of patients with progressive, poorly differentiated extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma. In the trial, the combination of liposomal irinotecan, fluorouracil, and folinic acid, but not docetaxel, met the primary endpoint of 6-month progression-free survival rate (Abstract 4005).

Sarcoma

Martin McCabe, PhD, on Ewing Sarcoma: Assessment of Topotecan, Cyclophosphamide, and High-Dose Ifosfamide

Martin McCabe, PhD, of the University of Manchester, discusses a phase III assessment of chemotherapy for patients with recurrent and primary refractory Ewing sarcoma. The trial, called rEECur, is the first study to provide comparative toxicity and survival data for the four most commonly used chemotherapy regimens in this disease. The analysis showed that high-dose ifosfamide is more effective in prolonging survival than topotecan plus cyclophosphamide (Abstract LBA2).

Lymphoma
Immunotherapy

Stephen M. Ansell, PhD, MD, on Hodgkin Lymphoma: An Updated Analysis on First-Line Brentuximab Vedotin Plus Chemotherapy

Stephen M. Ansell, PhD, MD, of Mayo Clinic, discusses updated data from the ECHELON-1 trial, which showed that, when administered to patients with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma, the combination of brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine resulted in a 41% reduction in the risk of death. These outcomes, says Dr. Ansell, confirm A+AVD as a preferred option for previously untreated disease (Abstract 7503).

Supportive Care

Manali I. Patel, MD, MPH, on Equitable, Value-Based Care: The Effectiveness of Community Health Worker–Led Interventions

Manali I. Patel, MD, MPH, of Stanford University School of Medicine, discusses clinical trial findings on the best ways to integrate community-based interventions into cancer care delivery for low-income and minority populations. Such interventions may improve quality of life and patient activation (often defined as patients having the knowledge, skills, and confidence to manage their health), as well as reduce hospitalizations and the total costs of care (Abstract 6500).

Advertisement

Advertisement




Advertisement