Among patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation, single-agent talazoparib provided a significant benefit over standard chemotherapy with respect to progression-free survival. Patient-reported outcomes were superior with talazoparib. (Funded by Medivation [Pfizer]; EMBRACA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01945775 .).

Background: In EMBRACA, talazoparib prolonged progression-free survival versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.542 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.413-0.711]; P < 0.0001) and improved patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-mutated advanced breast cancer (ABC). We report final overall survival (OS). Patients and methods: This randomized phase III trial enrolled patients with gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative ABC. Patients received talazoparib or physician's choice of chemotherapy. OS was analyzed using stratified HR and log-rank test and prespecified rank-preserving structural failure time model to account for subsequent treatments. Results: A total of 431 patients were entered in a randomized study (287 talazoparib/144 chemotherapy) with 412 patients treated (286 talazoparib/126 chemotherapy). By 30 September 2019, 216 deaths (75.3%) occurred for talazoparib and 108 (75.0%) chemotherapy; median follow-up was 44.9 and 36.8 months, respectively. HR for OS with talazoparib versus chemotherapy was 0.848 (95% CI 0.670-1.073; P ¼ 0.17); median (95% CI) 19.3 months (16.6-22.5 months) versus 19.5 months (17.4-22.4 months). KaplaneMeier survival percentages (95% CI) for talazoparib versus chemotherapy: month 12, 71% (66% to 76%)/74% (66% to 81%); month 24, 42% (36% to 47%)/ 38% (30% to 47%); month 36, 27% (22% to 33%)/21% (14% to 29%). Most patients received subsequent treatments: for talazoparib and chemotherapy, 46.3%/41.7% received platinum and 4.5%/32.6% received a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, respectively. Adjusting for subsequent PARP and/or platinum use, HR for OS was 0.756 (95% bootstrap CI 0.503-1.029). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 69.6% (talazoparib) and 64.3% (chemotherapy) patients, consistent with previous reports. Extended follow-up showed significant overall improvement and delay in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration in global health status/quality of life and breast symptoms favoring talazoparib versus chemotherapy (P < 0.01 for all), consistent with initial analyses. Conclusions: In gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative ABC, talazoparib did not significantly improve OS over chemotherapy; subsequent treatments may have impacted analysis. Safety was consistent with previous observations. PRO continued to favor talazoparib.

A systematic review was conducted, summarizing international BRCA 1 or 2 ( BRCA1/2 ) mutation prevalence in breast cancer. Databases (eg, Medline and Embase; N=7) and conferences were searched (January 2012 to December 2017). From 17,872 records, 70 studies were included. In 58 large (N>100) studies, BRCA1/2 mutation prevalence varied widely from 1.8% (Spain) in sporadic breast cancer to 36.9% (United States) in estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor low+ (1–9% on immunohistochemistry/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative [HER2-]) breast cancer. In 2 large studies unselected for family history, ethnicity, sex, or age and no/unclear selection by breast cancer stage or hormone receptor (HR) status, germline BRCA (g BRCA ) mutation prevalence was 2.9% (Italy) to 3.0% (South Korea). In the 4 large unselected triple-negative breast cancer studies, g BRCA mutation prevalence varied from 9.3% (Australia) to 15.4% (United States). g BRCA mutation prevalence in 1 large unselected HR positive/HER2- early breast cancer study was 5% (United States). In 2 large unselected metastatic breast cancer studies, g BRCA mutation prevalence was 2.7% (France) and 4.3% (Germany). Locally advanced breast cancer studies were small and not in unselected populations. Poor reporting of g BRCA status and basis of selection implies a need for further large well-reported BRCA mutation prevalence studies in breast cancer.

NCT01945775.

PurposeTo conduct a systematic review of international guidelines on screening and management of patients with BRCA-mutated breast cancer (BC).MethodsMajor electronic databases (MEDLINE and Embase; N=8) and gray literature sources were searched (January 2007 to February 2018). Latest guideline recommendations on genetic screening, counseling, and BC treatment of BRCA mutation carriers were summarized. Guidelines specific to germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutation were captured where available.ResultsA total of 3,775 records were retrieved and 32 guidelines were included; Europe (n=16), USA (n=11), Canada (n=3), Australia (n=1), and Japan (n=1) were included. Across and within guidelines, genetic counseling was recommended at multiple points in the care pathway, though the format was not always clearly defined. US guidelines emphasized that BRCA mutation testing should occur after specialized genetic counseling; other European guidelines are less prescriptive. BRCA testing eligibility criteria differed, with some guidelines being less restrictive; US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) BC guidelines specified that HER2-negative BC patients eligible for single-agent therapy are eligible for gBRCA testing. Fast-track BRCA testing is recommended in the Netherlands if treatment choice will affect survival, but in the UK only as part of clinical trials. More recent European (European School of Oncology–European Society for Medical Oncology 3rd International Consensus Guidelines for Breast Cancer in Young Women 2017, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie 2017 in Germany) and US (NCCN) guidelines have updated recommendations regarding gBRCA-targeted poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy in BC.ConclusionRegional and organizational guidelines differ for genetic screening, counseling, and treatment of patients with BRCA-mutated BC. Guideline harmonization would optimize identification and management of these patients.

First-line cemiplimab (anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)) monotherapy has previously shown significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥50%. EMPOWER-Lung 3 (NCT03409614), a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, examined cemiplimab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for aNSCLC, irrespective of PD-L1 expression or histology. In this study, 466 patients with stage III/IV aNSCLC without EGFR, ALK or ROS1 genomic tumor aberrations were randomized (2:1) to receive cemiplimab 350 mg (n = 312) or placebo (n = 154) every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks in combination with four cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy (followed by pemetrexed maintenance as indicated). In total, 57.1% (266/466 patients) had non-squamous NSCLC, and 85.2% (397/466 patients) had stage IV disease. The primary endpoint was OS. The trial was stopped early per recommendation of the independent data monitoring committee, based on meeting preset OS efficacy criteria: median OS was 21.9 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 15.5–not evaluable) with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus 13.0 months (95% CI, 11.9–16.1) with placebo plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53–0.93; P = 0.014). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy (43.6%, 136/312 patients) and placebo plus chemotherapy (31.4%, 48/153 patients). Cemiplimab is only the second anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agent to show efficacy in aNSCLC as both monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy for both squamous and non-squamous histologies.

Background In the EMBRACA phase III study (NCT01945775), talazoparib was associated with a significantly prolonged progression‐free survival (PFS) compared with physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT) in germline BRCA1/2‐mutated HER2‐negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). Herein, the safety profile of talazoparib is explored in detail. Materials and Methods Overall, 412 patients received ≥1 dose of talazoparib (n = 286) or PCT (n = 126). Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated, including timing, duration, and potential overlap of selected AEs. The relationship between talazoparib plasma exposure and grade ≥3 anemia was analyzed. Time‐varying Cox proportional hazard models assessed the impact of dose reductions on PFS. Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with common AEs and health resource utilization (HRU) were assessed in both treatment arms. Results The most common AEs with talazoparib were hematologic (195 [68.2%] patients) and typically occurred within the first 3–4 months of receiving talazoparib. Grade 3‐4 anemia lasted approximately 7 days for both arms. Overlapping grade 3‐4 hematologic AEs were infrequent with talazoparib. Higher talazoparib exposure was associated with grade ≥3 anemia. Permanent discontinuation of talazoparib due to hematologic AEs was low (<2%). A total of 150 (52.4%) patients receiving talazoparib had AEs associated with dose reduction. Hematologic toxicities were managed by supportive care medication (including transfusion) and dose modifications. Among patients with anemia or nausea and/or vomiting AEs, PROs favored talazoparib. After accounting for the treatment‐emergent period, talazoparib was generally associated with a lower rate of hospitalization and supportive care medication use compared with chemotherapy. Conclusion Talazoparib was associated with superior efficacy, favorable PROs, and lower HRU rate versus chemotherapy in gBRCA‐mutated ABC. Toxicities were manageable with talazoparib dose modification and supportive care. Implications for Practice Talazoparib was generally well tolerated in patients with germline BRCA‐mutated HER2‐negative advanced breast cancer in the EMBRACA trial. Common toxicities with talazoparib were primarily hematologic and infrequently resulted in permanent drug discontinuation (<2% of patients discontinued talazoparib due to hematologic toxicity). Hematologic toxicities typically occurred during the first 3–4 months of treatment and were managed by dose modifications and supportive care measures. A significant efficacy benefit, improved patient‐reported outcomes, lower rate of health resource utilization and a tolerable safety profile support incorporating talazoparib into routine management of germline BRCA‐mutated locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer.

Several ongoing international prostate cancer (PC) clinical trials are exploring therapies that target the DNA damage response (DDR) pathway. This systematic review summarizes the prevalence of DDR mutation carriers in the unselected (general) PC and familial PC populations. A total of 11 electronic databases, 10 conference proceedings, and grey literature sources were searched from their inception to December 2017. Studies reporting the prevalence of somatic and/or germline DDR mutations were summarized. Metastatic PC (mPC), castration-resistant PC (CRPC) and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC) subgroups were included. A total of 11,648 records were retrieved, and 80 studies (103 records) across all PC populations were included; 59 records were of unselected PC and 13 records of familial PC. Most data were available for DDR panels (n=12 studies), ataxia telangiectasia mutated ( ATM ; n=13), breast cancer susceptibility gene ( BRCA ) 1 (n=14) and BRCA2 (n=20). ATM , BRCA2 and partner and localizer of BRCA2 (PALB2) had the highest mutation rates (≥4%). Median prevalence rates for DDR germline mutations were 18.6% in PC (range, 17.2-19%; three studies, n=1,712), 11.6% in mPC (range, 11.4-11.8%; two studies, n=1,261) and 8.3% in mCRPC (range, 7.5-9.1%; two studies, n=738). Median prevalence rates for DDR somatic mutations were 10.7% in PC (range, 4.9-22%; three studies, n=680), 13.2% in mPC (range, 10-16.4%; two studies, n=105) and not reported (NR) in mCRPC. The prevalence of DDR germline and/or somatic mutations was 27% in PC (one study, n=221), 22.67% in mCRPC (one study, n=150) and NR in mPC. In familial PC, median mutation prevalence was 12.1% (range, 7.3-16.9%) for germline DDR (two studies, n=315) and 3.7% (range, 1.3-7.9%) for BRCA2 (six studies, n=945). In total, 88% of studies were at a high risk of bias. The prevalence of DDR gene mutations in PC varied widely within somatic subgroups depending on study size, genetic screening techniques, DDR mutation definition and PC diagnosis; somatic and/or germline DDR mutation prevalence was in the range of 23-27% in PC. These findings support DDR mutation testing for all patients with PC (including those with mCRPC). With the advent of the latest clinical practice PC guidelines highlighting the importance of DDR mutation screening, and ongoing mCRPC clinical trials evaluating DDR mutation-targeted drugs, future larger epidemiological studies are warranted to further quantify the international burden of DDR mutations in PC.