Gynecologic oncology · 2023
Comparison of survival outcomes between olaparib and niraparib maintenance therapy in BRCA-mutated, newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Ji Hyun, Kim Se Ik, Park Eun Young, Kim Eun Taeg, Kim Hyesu, Kim Sangeon, Park Sang-Yoon, Lim Myong Cheol
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This multicenter retrospective cohort study aimed to compare survival outcomes and adverse events between maintenance therapy with two poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, olaparib and niraparib, in patients with BRCA-mutated, newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) who responded to platinum-based chemotherapy.
METHODS: We enrolled stage III-IV EOC patients with germline and/or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations that had received maintenance therapy with olaparib or niraparib. A 3:1 propensity score matching was conducted using two variables: residual disease size and the presence of germline variants. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary outcomes were time to first subsequent therapy (TFST), overall survival (OS), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).
RESULTS: In the propensity score-matched analysis, 80 patients who received olaparib and 31 patients who received niraparib were matched (3:1). In the propensity score-matched cohort, median PFS with olaparib vs. niraparib was not reached vs 31.5 months (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.47-2.52; p = 0.854). The median TFST was not reached vs 31.8 months (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.51-2.81; p = 0.682), and neither olaparib nor niraparib reached the median OS (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.01-17.61; p = 0.649). In terms of the incidence rates of any-grade hematologic or non-hematologic TEAEs, higher rates of thrombocytopenia (p = 0.021) and neutropenia (p = 0.011) were observed in the niraparib group.
CONCLUSION: Advanced EOC patients with BRCA1/2 mutations exhibited no significant difference in OS between olaparib and niraparib, indicating the need to consider individualized strategies for selecting PARP inhibitors based on adverse event profiles.
METHODS: We enrolled stage III-IV EOC patients with germline and/or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations that had received maintenance therapy with olaparib or niraparib. A 3:1 propensity score matching was conducted using two variables: residual disease size and the presence of germline variants. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary outcomes were time to first subsequent therapy (TFST), overall survival (OS), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).
RESULTS: In the propensity score-matched analysis, 80 patients who received olaparib and 31 patients who received niraparib were matched (3:1). In the propensity score-matched cohort, median PFS with olaparib vs. niraparib was not reached vs 31.5 months (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.47-2.52; p = 0.854). The median TFST was not reached vs 31.8 months (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.51-2.81; p = 0.682), and neither olaparib nor niraparib reached the median OS (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.01-17.61; p = 0.649). In terms of the incidence rates of any-grade hematologic or non-hematologic TEAEs, higher rates of thrombocytopenia (p = 0.021) and neutropenia (p = 0.011) were observed in the niraparib group.
CONCLUSION: Advanced EOC patients with BRCA1/2 mutations exhibited no significant difference in OS between olaparib and niraparib, indicating the need to consider individualized strategies for selecting PARP inhibitors based on adverse event profiles.