Niraparib Reduces Risk of Progression, Death for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer
In a phase III trial, niraparib as maintenance therapy reduced the risk of progression or death by 73% for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.
Mansoor Raza Mirza, MD
The PARP 1/2 inhibitor niraparib, when used as maintenance therapy for patients with germline BRCA-positive, platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer, reduced the risk of progression or death by 73%, according to findings from the phase III NOVA trial presented at the 2016 ESMO Congress and published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).1,2
After a median follow-up of 16.9 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) with maintenance niraparib was 21.0 months compared with 5.5 months for placebo in patients with germline BRCA mutations (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.17-0.41; P <.001). These findings remained consistent across subgroups of patients, including those without BRCAmutations.
“This is a breakthrough for patients with ovarian cancer,” lead investigator Mansoor Raza Mirza, MD, chief oncologist at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark, said in a statement. “We have never seen such large benefits in progression-free survival in recurrent ovarian cancer. Once it is approved by the regulatory authorities, I’ll consider niraparib for all my patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who respond to platinum, regardless of BRCA status."
The phase III study randomized patients in a 2:1 ratio across 2 independent cohorts. In the first cohort, 201 patients with germline BRCA mutations received niraparib at 300 mg daily (n = 138) or placebo (n = 65). In the second cohort, 345 patients with non-germlineBRCA-mutant tumors received the PARP Inhibitor (n = 231) or placebo (n = 114). Patients in this group were tested for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), and could be either positive (n = 162) or negative (n = 134). Of those who tested positive, 47 had somatic BRCA mutations and 115 were wild-type.
Patient demographics were well balanced between the arms for each cohort. In the germline BRCA group, the median age was 57 years and 65.9% had an ECOG performance status (PS) of 0. In the placebo group, the median age was 58 years and 73.8% of patients had an ECOG PS of 0. Overall, 48.6% and 53.8% of patients had received ≥3 prior therapies, in the niraparib and placebo arms, respectively.
Across both cohorts, the majority of patients had stage III cancer (68.8% to 74.1%). Approximately half of patients had achieved a complete response to prior platinum-based therapy and a quarter had received prior bevacizumab. In the non-BRCA-mutant arm, 33.8% and 32.8% of patients had received ≥3 prior therapies.
In the germline BRCA mutation group, the chemotherapy-free interval was 22.8 months with niraparib compared with 9.4 months for placebo (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.17-0.41; P<.001). The median time to subsequent therapy was 21 months with niraparib versus 8.4 months with placebo (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21-0.48).
"The effectiveness of platinum-based chemotherapy diminishes over time, and PFS and platinum-free intervals generally become shorter after each round of platinum treatment. In addition, the incidence of infection and risk of neuropathy and hypersensitivity with certain chemotherapy agents rises with subsequent cycles," Mirza noted. "An oral maintenance treatment that could lengthen the PFS interval between rounds of platinum-based chemotherapy would be very meaningful for patients with ovarian cancer, who often live with a fear of recurrence after ending active treatment."
The median time to progression or death during the first subsequent therapy following the study (PFS2) was 25.8 months for those who received maintenance niraparib versus 19.5 months for placebo (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.28-0.82; P = .006).
Findings for overall survival were not yet mature (fewer than 20% of events). At the time of the analysis, niraparib had reduced the risk of death by 27% versus placebo, although this finding was not statistically significant (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.480-1.125; P = .1545).
"Niraparib significantly improved all endpoints across a broad patient population, representing 70% of all ovarian cancer patients," said Mirza. "These landmark results could change the way we treat this disease.”
In patients with HRD-positive, BRCA wild-type tumors, median PFS was 9.3 versus 3.7 months for niraparib and placebo, respectively (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.63; P <.001). In those with HRD-positive, somatic BRCA-mutated tumors, the median PFS was 20.9 months with niraparib versus 11.0 months for placebo (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08-0.90; P = .02). In patients with HRD-negative, non-germline BRCA-mutated tumors, median PFS was 6.9 versus 3.8 months for niraparib and placebo, respectively (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36-0.92; P = .02).
In those with non-germline BRCA mutations regardless of HRD status, the median chemotherapy-free interval was 12.7 versus 8.6 months for niraparib and placebo, respectively (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37-0.67; P <.001). The median time to subsequent therapy was 11.8 versus 7.2 months (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.41-0.72; P <.001) and the median PFS2 was 18.6 and 15.6 months for the niraparib and placebo arms, respectively (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; P = .03).
“Personalized medicine has arrived in high-grade serous ovarian cancer,” commented Andrés Poveda, MD, head of the Gynecological Cancer Clinic, Oncology Foundation Institute Valencia, Spain, in a statement released by ESMO. “This was the first trial to use HRD to select patients for treatment and showed that it is a useful strategy. We also know that PARP inhibitors benefit patients with BRCA mutations.”
Across cohorts, 14.7% of 367 niraparib-treated patients discontinued therapy due to an adverse event (AE) compared with 2.2% of the 179 patients in the placebo arm. There were no treatment-related deaths in the study. In the follow-up period, 1 patient in the niraparib arm and 2 in the placebo group died of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia. One of these deaths in each arm was deemed to be treatment related.
The most common all-grade AEs for niraparib versus placebo, respectively, were nausea (73.6% vs 35.2%, respectively), thrombocytopenia (61.3% vs 5.6%), fatigue (59.4% vs 41.3%), anemia (50.1% vs 6.7%), constipation (39.8% vs 20.1%), vomiting (34.3% vs 16.2%), and neutropenia (30.2% vs 6.1%).
The most common grade 3/4 AEs in the niraparib arm were hematologic, and included thrombocytopenia (33.8%), anemia (25.3%), and neutropenia (19.6%). The most common non-hematologic AEs were hypertension (8.2%), fatigue (8.2%), and nausea (3%). A majority of hematologic AEs were experienced in the first 3 cycles.
“The current options for maintenance therapy in the European Union (EU) are bevacizumab, which can only be given once and improves progression-free survival by just a few months, and the PARP inhibitor olaparib, which is only approved in patients with a germline BRCA mutation (about 10% to 15% of ovarian cancer patients)," said Mirza. "No maintenance therapy is approved outside the EU.”
Tesaro, the company developing niraparib, initiated a rolling submission of data from the NOVA trial for a new drug application in September 2016, after receiving a fast track designation from the FDA. The company expects a full submission of the data to be complete by the end of the year. A similar marketing authorization application is anticipated in the EU.
- Mirza MR, Monk BJ, Oza A, et al. A randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial of maintenance therapy with niraparib vs placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial). Presented at: 2016 ESMO Congress; October 7-11, 2016; Copenhagen, Denmark. Abstract LBA3_PR.
- Mirza MR, Monk B, Herrstedt J, et al. Niraparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer [published online October 8, 2016]. N Engl J Med. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611310.