Cargando…
Patient-Centered Outcomes in ARIEL3, a Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Rucaparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Carcinoma
PURPOSE: To investigate quality-adjusted progression-free survival (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) in a post hoc exploratory analysis of the phase III ARIEL3 study of rucaparib maintenance treatment versus placebo. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with platinu...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Society of Clinical Oncology
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7571791/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32840418 http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.03107 |
_version_ | 1783597220194418688 |
---|---|
author | Oza, Amit M. Lorusso, Domenica Aghajanian, Carol Oaknin, Ana Dean, Andrew Colombo, Nicoletta Weberpals, Johanne I. Clamp, Andrew R. Scambia, Giovanni Leary, Alexandra Holloway, Robert W. Gancedo, Margarita Amenedo Fong, Peter C. Goh, Jeffrey C. O’Malley, David M. Armstrong, Deborah K. Banerjee, Susana García-Donas, Jesus Swisher, Elizabeth M. Cella, David Meunier, Juliette Goble, Sandra Cameron, Terri Maloney, Lara Mörk, Ann-Christin Bedel, Josh Ledermann, Jonathan A. Coleman, Robert L. |
author_facet | Oza, Amit M. Lorusso, Domenica Aghajanian, Carol Oaknin, Ana Dean, Andrew Colombo, Nicoletta Weberpals, Johanne I. Clamp, Andrew R. Scambia, Giovanni Leary, Alexandra Holloway, Robert W. Gancedo, Margarita Amenedo Fong, Peter C. Goh, Jeffrey C. O’Malley, David M. Armstrong, Deborah K. Banerjee, Susana García-Donas, Jesus Swisher, Elizabeth M. Cella, David Meunier, Juliette Goble, Sandra Cameron, Terri Maloney, Lara Mörk, Ann-Christin Bedel, Josh Ledermann, Jonathan A. Coleman, Robert L. |
author_sort | Oza, Amit M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To investigate quality-adjusted progression-free survival (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) in a post hoc exploratory analysis of the phase III ARIEL3 study of rucaparib maintenance treatment versus placebo. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma were randomly assigned to rucaparib (600 mg twice per day) or placebo. QA-PFS was calculated as progression-free survival function × the 3-level version of the EQ-5D questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) index score function. Q-TWiST analyses were performed defining TOX as the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) or the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 2 TEAEs of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and asthenia. Q-TWiST was calculated as μTOX × TOX + TWiST, with μTOX calculated using EQ-5D-3L data. RESULTS: The visit cutoff was Apr 15, 2017. Mean QA-PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (375 randomly assigned to rucaparib v 189 randomly assigned to placebo; difference, 6.28 months [95% CI, 4.85 to 7.47 months]); BRCA-mutant cohort (130 rucaparib v 66 placebo; 9.37 months [95% CI, 6.65 to 11.85 months]); homologous recombination deficient (HRD) cohort (236 rucaparib v 118 placebo; 7.93 months [95% CI, 5.93 to 9.53 months]); and BRCA wild-type/loss of heterozygosity (LOH) low patient subgroup (107 rucaparib v 54 placebo; 2.71 months [95% CI, 0.31 to 4.44 months]). With TOX defined using grade ≥ 3 TEAEs, the difference in mean Q-TWiST (rucaparib v placebo) was 6.88 months (95% CI, 5.71 to 8.23 months), 9.73 months (95% CI, 7.10 to 11.94 months), 8.11 months (95% CI, 6.36 to 9.49 months), and 3.35 months (95% CI, 1.66 to 5.40 months) in the ITT population, BRCA-mutant cohort, HRD cohort, and BRCA wild-type/LOH low patient subgroup, respectively. Q-TWiST with TOX defined using select grade ≥ 2 TEAEs also consistently favored rucaparib. CONCLUSION: The significant differences in QA-PFS and Q-TWiST confirm the benefit of rucaparib versus placebo in all predefined cohorts. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7571791 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | American Society of Clinical Oncology |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75717912020-10-20 Patient-Centered Outcomes in ARIEL3, a Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Rucaparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Carcinoma Oza, Amit M. Lorusso, Domenica Aghajanian, Carol Oaknin, Ana Dean, Andrew Colombo, Nicoletta Weberpals, Johanne I. Clamp, Andrew R. Scambia, Giovanni Leary, Alexandra Holloway, Robert W. Gancedo, Margarita Amenedo Fong, Peter C. Goh, Jeffrey C. O’Malley, David M. Armstrong, Deborah K. Banerjee, Susana García-Donas, Jesus Swisher, Elizabeth M. Cella, David Meunier, Juliette Goble, Sandra Cameron, Terri Maloney, Lara Mörk, Ann-Christin Bedel, Josh Ledermann, Jonathan A. Coleman, Robert L. J Clin Oncol RAPID COMMUNICATIONS PURPOSE: To investigate quality-adjusted progression-free survival (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) in a post hoc exploratory analysis of the phase III ARIEL3 study of rucaparib maintenance treatment versus placebo. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma were randomly assigned to rucaparib (600 mg twice per day) or placebo. QA-PFS was calculated as progression-free survival function × the 3-level version of the EQ-5D questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) index score function. Q-TWiST analyses were performed defining TOX as the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) or the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 2 TEAEs of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and asthenia. Q-TWiST was calculated as μTOX × TOX + TWiST, with μTOX calculated using EQ-5D-3L data. RESULTS: The visit cutoff was Apr 15, 2017. Mean QA-PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (375 randomly assigned to rucaparib v 189 randomly assigned to placebo; difference, 6.28 months [95% CI, 4.85 to 7.47 months]); BRCA-mutant cohort (130 rucaparib v 66 placebo; 9.37 months [95% CI, 6.65 to 11.85 months]); homologous recombination deficient (HRD) cohort (236 rucaparib v 118 placebo; 7.93 months [95% CI, 5.93 to 9.53 months]); and BRCA wild-type/loss of heterozygosity (LOH) low patient subgroup (107 rucaparib v 54 placebo; 2.71 months [95% CI, 0.31 to 4.44 months]). With TOX defined using grade ≥ 3 TEAEs, the difference in mean Q-TWiST (rucaparib v placebo) was 6.88 months (95% CI, 5.71 to 8.23 months), 9.73 months (95% CI, 7.10 to 11.94 months), 8.11 months (95% CI, 6.36 to 9.49 months), and 3.35 months (95% CI, 1.66 to 5.40 months) in the ITT population, BRCA-mutant cohort, HRD cohort, and BRCA wild-type/LOH low patient subgroup, respectively. Q-TWiST with TOX defined using select grade ≥ 2 TEAEs also consistently favored rucaparib. CONCLUSION: The significant differences in QA-PFS and Q-TWiST confirm the benefit of rucaparib versus placebo in all predefined cohorts. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020-10-20 2020-08-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7571791/ /pubmed/32840418 http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.03107 Text en © 2020 by American Society of Clinical Oncology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | RAPID COMMUNICATIONS Oza, Amit M. Lorusso, Domenica Aghajanian, Carol Oaknin, Ana Dean, Andrew Colombo, Nicoletta Weberpals, Johanne I. Clamp, Andrew R. Scambia, Giovanni Leary, Alexandra Holloway, Robert W. Gancedo, Margarita Amenedo Fong, Peter C. Goh, Jeffrey C. O’Malley, David M. Armstrong, Deborah K. Banerjee, Susana García-Donas, Jesus Swisher, Elizabeth M. Cella, David Meunier, Juliette Goble, Sandra Cameron, Terri Maloney, Lara Mörk, Ann-Christin Bedel, Josh Ledermann, Jonathan A. Coleman, Robert L. Patient-Centered Outcomes in ARIEL3, a Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Rucaparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Carcinoma |
title | Patient-Centered Outcomes in ARIEL3, a Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Rucaparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Carcinoma |
title_full | Patient-Centered Outcomes in ARIEL3, a Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Rucaparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Carcinoma |
title_fullStr | Patient-Centered Outcomes in ARIEL3, a Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Rucaparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Carcinoma |
title_full_unstemmed | Patient-Centered Outcomes in ARIEL3, a Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Rucaparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Carcinoma |
title_short | Patient-Centered Outcomes in ARIEL3, a Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Rucaparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Carcinoma |
title_sort | patient-centered outcomes in ariel3, a phase iii, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of rucaparib maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma |
topic | RAPID COMMUNICATIONS |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7571791/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32840418 http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.03107 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ozaamitm patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT lorussodomenica patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT aghajaniancarol patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT oakninana patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT deanandrew patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT colombonicoletta patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT weberpalsjohannei patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT clampandrewr patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT scambiagiovanni patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT learyalexandra patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT hollowayrobertw patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT gancedomargaritaamenedo patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT fongpeterc patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT gohjeffreyc patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT omalleydavidm patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT armstrongdeborahk patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT banerjeesusana patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT garciadonasjesus patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT swisherelizabethm patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT celladavid patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT meunierjuliette patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT goblesandra patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT cameronterri patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT maloneylara patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT morkannchristin patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT bedeljosh patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT ledermannjonathana patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma AT colemanrobertl patientcenteredoutcomesinariel3aphaseiiirandomizedplacebocontrolledtrialofrucaparibmaintenancetreatmentinpatientswithrecurrentovariancarcinoma |