J Ettl1, R G W Quek2, K-H Lee3, H S Rugo4, S Hurvitz5, A Gonçalves6, L Fehrenbacher7, R Yerushalmi8, L A Mina9, M Martin10, H Roché11, Y-H Im12, D Markova2, H Bhattacharyya13, A L Hannah2, W Eiermann14, J L Blum15, J K Litton16. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. Electronic address: johannes.ettl@tum.de. 2. Pfizer Inc., San Francisco, USA. 3. Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 4. UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco. 5. University of California, Los Angeles, USA. 6. Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France. 7. Kaiser Permanente, Northern California, Vallejo, USA. 8. Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Hospital, Petah Tikva, Israel. 9. Banner Health, Phoenix, USA. 10. Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, CIBERONC, GEICAM, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain. 11. Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse, Toulouse, France. 12. Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. 13. Pfizer Inc., New York, USA. 14. Interdisziplinäres Onkologisches Zentrum München, Munich, Germany. 15. Baylor Sammons Cancer Center, Texas Oncology, US Oncology, Dallas. 16. MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
Abstract
Background: In the EMBRACA phase III trial, talazoparib (1 mg daily, orally) demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT; capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine) in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer carrying a germline BRCA1/2 mutation; we evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to receive talazoparib or PCT. PROs were assessed at day 1 (baseline), the start of each treatment cycle (every 3 weeks), and at the end of treatment, using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-30) and its breast cancer module, QLQ-BR23. Prespecified exploratory analyses included a longitudinal mixed-effect model comparing treatment arms and a time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration (TTD) analysis carried out in the global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL), and all functional and symptom scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and -BR23 questionnaires. Between-arm TTD comparisons were made using a stratified log-rank test and a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Baseline scores were similar between arms. Statistically significant estimated overall improvement from baseline in GHS/QoL was seen for talazoparib compared with statistically significant deterioration for PCT {3.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2, 4.8] versus -5.4 [95% CI -8.8, -2.0]; between arms, P < 0.0001}. A statistically significant greater delay was observed in TTD in GHS/QoL, favoring talazoparib over PCT [hazard ratio, 0.38 (95% CI 0.26, 0.55; median, 24.3 versus 6.3 months, respectively; P < 0.0001)]. A statistically significant overall change and a statistically significant delay in TTD, all favoring talazoparib, were also observed in multiple functions and symptoms. Conclusion: Patients who received talazoparib had significant overall improvements and significant delay in TTD in multiple cancer-related and breast cancer-specific symptoms, functions, and GHS/QoL. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01945775.
RCT Entities:
Background: In the EMBRACA phase III trial, talazoparib (1 mg daily, orally) demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT; capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine) in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer carrying a germline BRCA1/2 mutation; we evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to receive talazoparib or PCT. PROs were assessed at day 1 (baseline), the start of each treatment cycle (every 3 weeks), and at the end of treatment, using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-30) and its breast cancer module, QLQ-BR23. Prespecified exploratory analyses included a longitudinal mixed-effect model comparing treatment arms and a time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration (TTD) analysis carried out in the global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL), and all functional and symptom scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and -BR23 questionnaires. Between-arm TTD comparisons were made using a stratified log-rank test and a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Baseline scores were similar between arms. Statistically significant estimated overall improvement from baseline in GHS/QoL was seen for talazoparib compared with statistically significant deterioration for PCT {3.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2, 4.8] versus -5.4 [95% CI -8.8, -2.0]; between arms, P < 0.0001}. A statistically significant greater delay was observed in TTD in GHS/QoL, favoring talazoparib over PCT [hazard ratio, 0.38 (95% CI 0.26, 0.55; median, 24.3 versus 6.3 months, respectively; P < 0.0001)]. A statistically significant overall change and a statistically significant delay in TTD, all favoring talazoparib, were also observed in multiple functions and symptoms. Conclusion:Patients who received talazoparib had significant overall improvements and significant delay in TTD in multiple cancer-related and breast cancer-specific symptoms, functions, and GHS/QoL. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01945775.
Authors: Jennifer K Litton; Marion E Scoggins; Kenneth R Hess; Beatriz E Adrada; Rashmi K Murthy; Senthil Damodaran; Sarah M DeSnyder; Abenaa M Brewster; Carlos H Barcenas; Vicente Valero; Gary J Whitman; Jill Schwartz-Gomez; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Alastair M Thompson; Thorunn Helgason; Nuhad Ibrahim; Helen Piwnica-Worms; Stacy L Moulder; Banu K Arun Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S Thijssen; H Wildiers; K Punie; B Beuselinck; P Clement; C Remmerie; P Berteloot; S Han; E Van Nieuwenhuysen; T Van Gorp; I Vergote; A Smeets; I Nevelsteen; G Floris; C Weltens; J Menten; H Janssen; A Laenen; P Neven Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Yolanda Jerez; Ivan Márquez-Rodas; Inmaculada Aparicio; Manuel Alva; Miguel Martín; Sara López-Tarruella Journal: Drugs Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 9.546
Authors: Amelia M Taylor; David Lok Hang Chan; Martin Tio; Sujata M Patil; Tiffany A Traina; Mark E Robson; Mustafa Khasraw Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-04-22
Authors: Harold J Burstein; Mark R Somerfield; Debra L Barton; Ali Dorris; Lesley J Fallowfield; Dharamvir Jain; Stephen R D Johnston; Larissa A Korde; Jennifer K Litton; Erin R Macrae; Lindsay L Peterson; Praveen Vikas; Rachel L Yung; Hope S Rugo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 44.544