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...

BackgroundIdentification of families at risk for ovarian cancer offers the opportunity to consider prophylactic surgery thus reducing ovarian cancer mortality. So far, identification of potentially affected families in Germany was solely performed via family history and numbers of affected family members with breast or ovarian cancer. However, neither the prevalence of deleterious variants in BRCA1/2 in ovarian cancer in Germany nor the reliability of family history as trigger for genetic counselling has ever been evaluated.MethodsProspective counseling and germline testing of consecutive patients with primary diagnosis or with platinum-sensitive relapse of an invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. Testing included 25 candidate and established risk genes. Among these 25 genes, 16 genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, PMS2, PTEN, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, TP53) were defined as established cancer risk genes. A positive family history was defined as at least one relative with breast cancer or ovarian cancer or breast cancer in personal history.ResultsIn total, we analyzed 523 patients: 281 patients with primary diagnosis of ovarian cancer and 242 patients with relapsed disease. Median age at primary diagnosis was 58 years (range 16–93) and 406 patients (77.6%) had a high-grade serous ovarian cancer. In total, 27.9% of the patients showed at least one deleterious variant in all 25 investigated genes and 26.4% in the defined 16 risk genes. Deleterious variants were most prevalent in the BRCA1 (15.5%), BRCA2 (5.5%), RAD51C (2.5%) and PALB2 (1.1%) genes. The prevalence of deleterious variants did not differ significantly between patients at primary diagnosis and relapse. The prevalence of deleterious variants in BRCA1/2 (and in all 16 risk genes) in patients <60 years was 30.2% (33.2%) versus 10.6% (18.9%) in patients ≥60 years. Family history was positive in 43% of all patients. Patients with a positive family history had a prevalence of deleterious variants of 31.6% (36.0%) versus 11.4% (17.6%) and histologic subtype of high grade serous ovarian cancer versus other showed a prevalence of deleterious variants of 23.2% (29.1%) and 10.2% (14.8%), respectively. Testing only for BRCA1/2 would miss in our series more than 5% of the patients with a deleterious variant in established risk genes.Conclusions26.4% of all patients harbor at least one deleterious variant in established risk genes. The threshold of 10% mutation rate which is accepted for reimbursement by health care providers in Germany was observed in all subgroups analyzed and neither age at primary diagnosis nor histo-type or family history sufficiently enough could identify a subgroup not eligible for genetic counselling and testing. Genetic testing should therefore be offered to every patient with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer and limiting testing to BRCA1/2 seems to be not sufficient.

Prognosis of patients after developing BMs varies significantly according to the subtype. The outcome in this cohort is similarly poor in triple-negative and HR-positive/HER2-negative patients. Our results underline the high medical need for improvement of treatment and prevention strategies for BMs in breast cancer patients.

Background State-of-the art therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) suitable for platinum-based re-treatment includes bevacizumab-containing combinations (eg, carboplatin/paclitaxel, carboplatin/gemcitabine) or the most active non-bevacizumab regimen: carboplatin/pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD). This head-to-head trial compared a standard bevacizumab-containing regimen versus carboplatin/PLD combined with bevacizumab. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, eligible patients had histologically confirmed epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma with first disease recurrence >6 months after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, and were aged ≥18 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. Patients were stratified by platinum-free interval, residual tumour, prior anti-angiogenic therapy, and study group language, and centrally randomised 1:1 using randomly permuted blocks of size two, four, or six to six intravenous cycles of carboplatin (AUC 4, day 1) plus gemcitabine (1000 mg/m 2 , days 1 and 8) every 3 weeks or six cycles of carboplatin (AUC 5, day 1) plus PLD (30 mg/m 2 , day 1) every 4 weeks, both given with bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) until disease progression or toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Efficacy data were analysed in the intention-to-treat population (all randomised patients). Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01837251.

Taxanes (T) plus bevacizumab (B) and taxanes plus capecitabine (X) showed better progression-free survival (PFS) compared to taxanes alone. Since life-threatening or highly symptomatic situations require polychemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC), combination of taxanes, capecitabine plus bevacizumab appears reasonable. TABEA (NCT01200212), a prospectively randomized, open-label, phase III trial compares taxanes (paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) i.v. d1,8,15 q22 or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) i.v. d1 q22) plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg i.v. d1 q22) with (TBX) or without capecitabine (TB, 1800 mg/m(2) daily d1-14 q22) as first-line therapy in MBC. Histologically confirmed HER2-negative, locally advanced or MBC patients with a chemotherapy indication and measurable or non-measurable target lesions (RECIST criteria) were included. Primary objective was PFS. Secondary objectives were response rate and duration, clinical benefit rate (complete response, partial response, stable disease ≥24 weeks), 3-year overall survival, PFS in patients ≥65 years, toxicity, and compliance. We assumed 10 and 13.3 months PFS for TB and TBX, respectively (HR = 0.75), requiring 432 patients and 386 events. Preplanned interim futility and safety analyses after 100 events in 202 patients showed no efficacy benefit and higher toxicity for TBX. Recruitment and therapy were stopped following advice from the IDMC. Final analysis revealed a HR 1.13 [95 %CI 0.806-1.59], P = 0.474, for PFS. Overall grade 3-4 adverse event (77.3 vs. 62.1 %, P = 0.014) and serious adverse event (40.0 vs. 30.2 %, P = 0.127) rates were higher for TBX after 26.1 months median follow-up, with six deaths for TBX versus 1 for TB. Adding capecitabine to TB cannot be recommended as first-line therapy in MBC.