TY - JOUR
T1 - Niraparib for Advanced Breast Cancer with Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations
T2 - the EORTC 1307-BCG/BIG5-13/TESARO PR-30-50-10-C BRAVO Study
AU - BRAVO Steering Committee and the BRAVO investigators
AU - Turner, Nicholas C
AU - Balmaña, Judith
AU - Poncet, Coralie
AU - Goulioti, Theodora
AU - Tryfonidis, Konstantinos
AU - Honkoop, Aafke H
AU - Zoppoli, Gabriele
AU - Razis, Evangelia
AU - Johannsson, Oskar T
AU - Colleoni, Marco
AU - Tutt, Andrew N
AU - Audeh, William
AU - Ignatiadis, Michail
AU - Mailliez, Audrey
AU - Trédan, Olivier
AU - Musolino, Antonino
AU - Vuylsteke, Peter
AU - Juan-Fita, Maria Jose
AU - Macpherson, Iain R J
AU - Kaufman, Bella
AU - Manso, Luis
AU - Goldstein, Lori J
AU - Ellard, Susan L
AU - Láng, István
AU - Jen, Kai Yu
AU - Adam, Virginie
AU - Litière, Saskia
AU - Erban, John
AU - Cameron, David A
N1 - ©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.
PY - 2021/10/15
Y1 - 2021/10/15
N2 - PURPOSE: To investigate the activity of niraparib in patients with germline-mutated BRCA1/2 (gBRCAm) advanced breast cancer.PATIENTS AND METHODS: BRAVO was a randomized, open-label phase III trial. Eligible patients had gBRCAm and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer previously treated with ≤2 prior lines of chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer or had relapsed within 12 months of adjuvant chemotherapy, and were randomized 2:1 between niraparib and physician's choice chemotherapy (PC; monotherapy with eribulin, capecitabine, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine). Patients with hormone receptor-positive tumors had to have received ≥1 line of endocrine therapy and progressed during this treatment in the metastatic setting or relapsed within 1 year of (neo)adjuvant treatment. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), PFS by local assessment (local-PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety.RESULTS: After the pre-planned interim analysis, recruitment was halted on the basis of futility, noting a high degree of discordance between local and central PFS assessment in the PC arm that resulted in informative censoring. At the final analysis (median follow-up, 19.9 months), median centrally assessed PFS was 4.1 months in the niraparib arm (n = 141) versus 3.1 months in the PC arm [n = 74; hazard ratio (HR), 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65-1.44; P = 0.86]. HRs for OS and local-PFS were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.63-1.42) and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46-0.93), respectively. ORR was 35% (95% CI, 26-45) with niraparib and 31% (95% CI, 19-46) in the PC arm.CONCLUSIONS: Informative censoring in the control arm prevented accurate assessment of the trial hypothesis, although there was clear evidence of niraparib's activity in this patient population.
AB - PURPOSE: To investigate the activity of niraparib in patients with germline-mutated BRCA1/2 (gBRCAm) advanced breast cancer.PATIENTS AND METHODS: BRAVO was a randomized, open-label phase III trial. Eligible patients had gBRCAm and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer previously treated with ≤2 prior lines of chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer or had relapsed within 12 months of adjuvant chemotherapy, and were randomized 2:1 between niraparib and physician's choice chemotherapy (PC; monotherapy with eribulin, capecitabine, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine). Patients with hormone receptor-positive tumors had to have received ≥1 line of endocrine therapy and progressed during this treatment in the metastatic setting or relapsed within 1 year of (neo)adjuvant treatment. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), PFS by local assessment (local-PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety.RESULTS: After the pre-planned interim analysis, recruitment was halted on the basis of futility, noting a high degree of discordance between local and central PFS assessment in the PC arm that resulted in informative censoring. At the final analysis (median follow-up, 19.9 months), median centrally assessed PFS was 4.1 months in the niraparib arm (n = 141) versus 3.1 months in the PC arm [n = 74; hazard ratio (HR), 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65-1.44; P = 0.86]. HRs for OS and local-PFS were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.63-1.42) and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46-0.93), respectively. ORR was 35% (95% CI, 26-45) with niraparib and 31% (95% CI, 19-46) in the PC arm.CONCLUSIONS: Informative censoring in the control arm prevented accurate assessment of the trial hypothesis, although there was clear evidence of niraparib's activity in this patient population.
U2 - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0310
DO - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0310
M3 - Article
C2 - 34301749
SN - 1078-0432
VL - 27
SP - 5482
EP - 5491
JO - Clin. Cancer Res.
JF - Clin. Cancer Res.
IS - 20
ER -