Summary Background Rucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, has anticancer activity in recurrent ovarian carcinoma harbouring a BRCA mutation or high percentage of genome-wide loss of heterozygosity. In this trial we assessed rucaparib versus placebo after response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with high-grade, recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma. Methods In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 87 hospitals and cancer centres across 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma, had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, had achieved complete or partial response to their last platinum-based regimen, had a cancer antigen 125 concentration of less than the upper limit of normal, had a performance status of 0–1, and had adequate organ function. Patients were ineligible if they had symptomatic or untreated central nervous system metastases, had received anticancer therapy 14 days or fewer before starting the study, or had received previous treatment with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. We randomly allocated patients 2:1 to receive oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo in 28 day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six, stratified by homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval after the penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to the most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival evaluated with use of an ordered step-down procedure for three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations (carcinoma associated with deleterious germline or somatic BRCA mutations), patients with homologous recombination deficiencies (BRCA mutant or BRCA wild-type and high loss of heterozygosity), and the intention-to-treat population, assessed at screening and every 12 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01968213; enrolment is complete. Findings Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, we randomly allocated 564 patients: 375 (66%) to rucaparib and 189 (34%) to placebo. Median progression-free survival in patients with a BRCA-mutant carcinoma was 16·6 months (95% CI 13·4–22·9; 130 [35%] patients) in the rucaparib group versus 5·4 months (3·4–6·7; 66 [35%] patients) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·23 [95% CI 0·16–0·34]; p<0·0001). In patients with a homologous recombination deficient carcinoma (236 [63%] vs 118 [62%]), it was 13·6 months (10·9–16·2) versus 5·4 months (5·1–5·6; 0·32 [0·24–0·42]; p<0·0001). In the intention-to-treat population, it was 10·8 months (8·3–11·4) versus 5·4 months (5·3–5·5; 0·36 [0·30–0·45]; p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in...

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.

Objective Informal caregivers (family and friends) of people with cancer are often unprepared for their caregiving role, leading to increased burden or distress. CHESS (Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System) is a web-based lung cancer information, communication and coaching system for caregivers. This randomized trial reports the impact on caregiver burden, disruptiveness and mood of providing caregivers access to CHESS versus the Internet with a list of recommended lung cancer websites. Methods 285 informal caregivers of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to a comparison group that received Internet or a treatment group that received Internet and CHESS. Caregivers were provided a computer and Internet service if needed. Written surveys were completed at pretest and during the intervention period bimonthly for up to 24 months. ANCOVA analyses compared the intervention’s effect on caregivers’ disruptiveness and burden (CQOLI-C), and negative mood (combined Anxiety, Depression, and Anger scales of the POMS) at six months, controlling for blocking variables (site, caregiver’s race, and relationship to patient) and the given outcome at pretest. Results Caregivers randomized to CHESS reported lower burden [t (84) = 2.36, p = .021, d= .39] and negative mood [t (86) = 2.82, p = .006, d= .44] than those in the Internet group. The effect on disruptiveness was not significant. Conclusions Although caring for someone with a terminal illness will always exact a toll on caregivers, eHealth interventions like CHESS may improve caregivers’ understanding and coping skills and, as a result, ease their burden and mood.

Gerburg M. Wulf and Ursula A. Matulonis contributed equally to this work CONTRIBUTORS PAK contributed to study concept, design, oversight, data collection and interpretation and writing of the manuscript. WTB contributed to the study design, data analysis and interpretation, writing and creation of figures. MB, LCC, JFL, MKB contributed to patient recruitment and study design and conception. CA and RLC and SNW contributed to the study design, data interpretation, critically reviewed manuscript drafts. ROC contributed to patient data collection, data interpretation and critically reviewed manuscript drafts. CA and RLC contributed to patient data collection. SHK contributed to data interpretation and writing. JE contributed preclinical data and data interpretation. GC contributed data analysis, data interpretation, manuscript writing. JC contributed to data collection. PK contributed to study oversight, data collection and interpretation. BK contributed to preclinical and correlative work. SP contributed to preclinical work supporting this study. EW contributed to patient recruitment, study design and conception. SF contributed to collection and assembling of data. CW contributed to data collection and assembly. KC contributed to data interpretation, critically reviewed manuscript drafts, and contributed to patient data collection. ELM contributed to patient recruitment, study design and conception. WL contributed to study design, data analysis, data interpretation, reviewed manuscript drafts. GBM contributed to the development of the concepts and the initiation of the trial. EMS contributed to the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation and critically reviewed manuscript drafts. ADD performed preclinical studies supporting this paper. GMW contributed to study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, writing. UAM contributed to the initial study design, holds the FDA IND for this study, enrolled patients to this trial, contributed to data collection, data interpretations and analysis, reviewed manuscript drafts. All authors participated in writing the paper and approved the final version of the paper.

PURPOSE Despite the tissue-agnostic approval of pembrolizumab in mismatch repair deficient (MMRD) solid tumors, important unanswered questions remain about the role of immune checkpoint blockade in mismatch repair–proficient (MMRP) and –deficient endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS This phase II study evaluated the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab in two cohorts of patients with EC: (1) MMRD/ POLE (polymerase ε) cohort, as defined by immunohistochemical (IHC) loss of expression of one or more mismatch repair (MMR) proteins and/or documented mutation in the exonuclease domain of POLE; and (2) MMRP cohort with normal IHC expression of all MMR proteins. Coprimary end points were objective response (OR) and progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS6). Avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenously was administered every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS Thirty-three patients were enrolled. No patient with POLE-mutated tumor was enrolled in the MMRD cohort, and all MMRP tumors were not POLE-mutated. The MMRP cohort was closed at the first stage because of futility: Only one of 16 patients exhibited both OR and PFS6 responses. The MMRD cohort met the predefined primary end point of four ORs after accrual of only 17 patients; of 15 patients who initiated avelumab, four exhibited OR (one complete response, three partial responses; OR rate, 26.7%; 95% CI, 7.8% to 55.1%) and six (including all four ORs) PFS6 responses (PFS6, 40.0%; 95% CI, 16.3% to 66.7%), four of which are ongoing as of data cutoff date. Responses were observed in the absence of PD-L1 expression. IHC captured all cases of MMRD subsequently determined by polymerase chain reaction or genomically via targeted sequencing. CONCLUSION Avelumab exhibited promising activity in MMRD EC regardless of PD-L1 status. IHC for MMR assessment is a useful tool for patient selection. The activity of avelumab in MMRP/non- POLE–mutated ECs was low.