Background Olaparib is an oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor and cediranib is an oral anti-angiogenic with activity against VEGFR-1, 2, and 3. Both agents have antitumor activity in women with recurrent ovarian cancer, and the combination of these agents was active and had manageable toxicities in a Phase 1 trial. We asked whether the combination of cediranib and olaparib could improve progression-free survival compared to olaparib monotherapy in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Methods We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 2 study to evaluate the activity of olaparib monotherapy compared with combination cediranib and olaparib in women with ovarian cancer with measurable platinum-sensitive, relapsed, high-grade serous or endometrioid disease or those with deleterious germline BRCA1/2 mutations (gBRCAm). Patients were randomized using permuted blocks within stratum defined by gBRCA status and prior anti-angiogenic therapy to receive olaparib capsules 400mg twice daily or the combination at the recommended phase 2 dose of cediranib 30mg daily and olaparib capsules 200mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) analyzed under intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01116648. The Phase 2 portion of the trial reported here is no longer accruing patients. Findings Forty-six of 90 randomized patients received olaparib alone, and 44 received cediranib/olaparib. Median PFS was significantly longer with cediranib/olaparib (17.7 vs. 9.0 mos, HR 0.42; p = 0.005). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more common with cediranib/olaparib, including fatigue (12 vs. 5), diarrhea (10 vs. 0), and hypertension (18 vs. 0). Subset analysis within stratum defined by BRCA1/2 status demonstrated activity of cediranib/olaparib in both gBRCAm and gBRCAwt/u (wild-type/unknown) patients. Significant improvement in PFS occurred in gBRCAwt/u women receiving cediranib/olaparib (16.5 vs. 5.7 mos, p = 0.008) with a smaller trend towards increased PFS in gBRCAm patients (19.4 vs. 16.5 mos, p = 0.16). Interpretation The combination of cediranib and olaparib significantly extended PFS by 8.7 months compared to olaparib alone in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. The activity observed with this oral combinaton in both gBRCAmt and gBRCAwt/u patients is encouraging and should be further explored as a potential alternative to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Given the side effect profile, such explorations should include assessments on quality of life and patient-reported outcomes to understand the effects of an ongoing oral regimen to that of intermittent chemotherapy.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Olaparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor and cediranib is an oral anti-angiogenic. In the primary analysis of this phase II study, combination cediranib/olaparib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with olaparib alone in relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. This updated analysis was conducted to characterize overall survival (OS) and update PFS outcomes.Patients and methods: Ninety patients were enrolled to this randomized, open-label, phase II study between October 2011 and June 2013 across nine United States-based academic centers. Data cut-off was 21 December 2016, with a median follow-up of 46 months. Participants had relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer of high-grade serous or endometrioid histology or had a deleterious germline BRCA1/2 mutation (gBRCAm). Participants were randomized to receive olaparib capsules 400 mg twice daily or cediranib 30 mg daily and olaparib capsules 200 mg twice daily until disease progression.Results: In this updated analysis, median PFS remained significantly longer with cediranib/olaparib compared with olaparib alone (16.5 versus 8.2 months, hazard ratio 0.50; P ¼ 0.007). Subset analyses within stratum defined by BRCA status demonstrated statistically significant improvement in PFS (23.7 versus 5.7 months, P ¼ 0.002) and OS (37.8 versus 23.0 months, P ¼ 0.047) in gBRCA wild-type/unknown patients, although OS was not statistically different in the overall study population (44.2 versus 33.3 months, hazard ratio 0.64; P ¼ 0.11). PFS and OS appeared similar between the two arms in gBRCAm patients. The most common CTCAE grade 3/4 adverse events with cediranib/olaparib remained fatigue, diarrhea, and hypertension.Conclusions: Combination cediranib/olaparib significantly extends PFS compared with olaparib alone in relapsed platinumsensitive ovarian cancer. Subset analyses suggest this margin of benefit is driven by PFS prolongation in patients without gBRCAm. OS was also significantly increased by the cediranib/olaparib combination in this subset of patients. Additional studies of this combination are ongoing and should incorporate analyses based upon BRCA status.

No abstract

IntroductionSeveral common alleles have been shown to be associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Recent genome-wide association studies of breast cancer have identified eight additional breast cancer susceptibility loci: rs1011970 (9p21, CDKN2A/B), rs10995190 (ZNF365), rs704010 (ZMIZ1), rs2380205 (10p15), rs614367 (11q13), rs1292011 (12q24), rs10771399 (12p11 near PTHLH) and rs865686 (9q31.2).MethodsTo evaluate whether these single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, we genotyped these SNPs in 12,599 BRCA1 and 7,132 BRCA2 mutation carriers and analysed the associations with breast cancer risk within a retrospective likelihood framework.ResultsOnly SNP rs10771399 near PTHLH was associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers (per-allele hazard ratio (HR) = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.94, P-trend = 3 × 10-4). The association was restricted to mutations proven or predicted to lead to absence of protein expression (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.90, P-trend = 3.1 × 10-5, P-difference = 0.03). Four SNPs were associated with the risk of breast cancer for BRCA2 mutation carriers: rs10995190, P-trend = 0.015; rs1011970, P-trend = 0.048; rs865686, 2df-P = 0.007; rs1292011 2df-P = 0.03. rs10771399 (PTHLH) was predominantly associated with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer for BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.90, P-trend = 4 × 10-5) and there was marginal evidence of association with ER-negative breast cancer for BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.00, P-trend = 0.049).ConclusionsThe present findings, in combination with previously identified modifiers of risk, will ultimately lead to more accurate risk prediction and an improved understanding of the disease etiology in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

During the past 35 years, survival rates for children with extracranial malignant germ cell tumors (GCTs) have increased significantly. Success has been achieved primarily through the application of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens; however, clinical challenges in GCTs remain. Excellent outcomes are not distributed uniformly across the heterogeneous distribution of age, histologic features, and primary tumor site. Despite good outcomes overall, the likelihood of a cure for certain sites and histologic conditions is less than 50%. In addition, there are considerable long-term treatment-related effects for survivors. Even modest cisplatin dosing can cause significant long-term morbidities. A particular challenge in designing new therapies for GCT is that a variety of specialists use different risk stratifications, staging systems, and treatment approaches for three distinct age groups (childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood). Traditionally, pediatric cancer patients younger than 15 years have been treated by pediatric oncologists in collaboration with their surgical specialty colleagues. Adolescents and young adults with GCTs often are treated by medical oncologists, urologists, or gynecologic oncologists. The therapeutic dilemma for all is how to best define disease risk so that therapy and toxicity can be appropriately reduced for some patients and intensified for others. Further clinical and biologic insights can only be achieved through collaborations that do not set limitations by age, sex, and primary tumor site. Therefore, international collaborations, spanning different cooperative groups and disciplines, have been developed to address these challenges.

No abstract