Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27002934›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2016

Phase 2 multicentre trial investigating intermittent and continuous dosing schedules of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib in germline BRCA mutation carriers with advanced ovarian and breast cancer.

Yvette Drew, Jonathan Ledermann, Geoff Hall, Daniel Rea, Ros Glasspool, Martin Highley, Gordon Jayson, Julieann Sludden, James Murray, David Jamieson and 7 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 74 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

74 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Long-term survival of aMolecular and clinical oncology · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Yvette DrewNorthern Institute for Cancer Research and the Northern Centre for Cancer Care, Newcastle Freeman Hospital Newcastle, Newcastle 0191 2139386, UK.
Jonathan LedermannUCL Cancer Institute, CR-UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4TJ, UK.
Geoff HallSt James's University Hospital, Cancer Research UK Clinical Cancer Centre in Leeds, Beckett Street, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.
Daniel ReaUniversity of Birmingham, School of Cancer Sciences, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
Ros GlasspoolBeatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Medical Oncology 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow G12 0YN, UK.
Martin HighleyDerriford Hospital Plymouth Oncology Centre, Plymouth, UK.
Gordon JaysonUniversity of Manchester, Paterson Institute for Cancer Research, Translational Angiogenesis Group, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK.
Julieann SluddenNorthern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle, UK.
James MurrayNorthern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle, UK.
David JamiesonNorthern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle, UK.
Sarah HalfordCancer Research UK, Drug Development Office, The Angel Building, 407 St John Street, London EC1V 4AD, UK.
Gary ActonCancer Research UK, Centre for Drug Development Drug Development, Angel Building, London EC1V 4AD, UK.
Zoe BackholerCancer Research UK, Centre for Drug Development Drug Development, Angel Building, London EC1V 4AD, UK.
Raffaella ManganoCancer Research UK, Centre for Drug Development Drug Development, Angel Building, London EC1V 4AD, UK.
Alan BoddyNorthern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle, UK.
Nicola CurtinNorthern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle, UK.
Ruth PlummerNorthern Institute for Cancer Research and the Northern Centre for Cancer Care, Newcastle Freeman Hospital Newcastle, Newcastle 0191 2139386, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 6870
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRucaparib is an orally available potent selective small-molecule inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) 1 and 2. Rucaparib induces synthetic lethality in cancer cells defective in the homologous recombination repair pathway including BRCA-1/2. We investigated the efficacy and safety of single-agent rucaparib in germline (g) BRCA mutation carriers with advanced breast and ovarian cancers.

methodsPhase II, open-label, multicentre trial of rucaparib in proven BRCA-1/2 mutation carriers with advanced breast and or ovarian cancer, WHO PS 0-1 and normal organ function. Intravenous (i.v.) and subsequently oral rucaparib were assessed, using a range of dosing schedules, to determine the safety, tolerability, dose-limiting toxic effects and pharmacodynamic (PD) and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles.

resultsRucaparib was well tolerated in patients up to doses of 480 mg per day and is a potent inhibitor of PARP, with sustained inhibition ⩾24 h after single doses. The i.v. rucaparib (intermittent dosing schedule) resulted in an objective response rate (ORR) of only 2% but with 41% (18 out of 44) patients achieved stable disease for ⩾12 weeks and 3 patients maintaining disease stabilisation for >52 weeks. The ORR for oral rucaparib (across all six dose levels) was 15%. In the oral cohorts, 81% (22 out of 27) of the patients had ovarian cancer and 12 out of 13, who were dosed continuously, achieved RECIST complete response/partial response (CR/PR) or stable disease (SD) ⩾12 weeks, with a median duration of response of 179 days (range 84-567 days).

conclusionsRucaparib is well tolerated and results in high levels of PARP inhibition in surrogate tissues even at the lowest dose levels. Rucaparib is active in gBRCA-mutant ovarian cancer and this activity correlates with platinum-free interval. The key lessons learned from this study is that continuous rucaparib dosing is required for optimal response, the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for continuous oral scheduling has not been established and requires further exploration and, thirdly, the use of a PD biomarker to evaluate dose-response has its limitations.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Administration ScheduleFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGerm-Line MutationHeterozygoteHumansIndolesMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingBRCA1 ProteinBRCA1 protein, humanBRCA2 ProteinBRCA2 protein, humanIndolesPoly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitorsrucaparib

Identifiers

PMID27002934
PMCPMC4882768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.