Trial reportCancer medicine2021
Maintenance treatment with rucaparib for recurrent ovarian carcinoma in ARIEL3, a randomized phase 3 trial: The effects of best response to last platinum-based regimen and disease at baseline on efficacy and safety.
Trial report in Cancer medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Predictive biomarkers for the efficacy of PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer: an updated systematic review.BJC reports · 2025Article
- Therapeutic Targeting of DNA Damage Repair in the Era of Precision Oncology and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors at 20 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe efficacy and safety of rucaparib maintenance treatment in ARIEL3 were evaluated in subgroups based on best response to most recent platinum-based chemotherapy and baseline disease.
methodsPatients were randomized 2:1 to receive either oral rucaparib at a dosage of 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutated, homologous recombination deficient (HRD; BRCA mutated or wild-type BRCA/high loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat (ITT) population.
resultsMedian PFS for patients in the ITT population with a complete response to most recent platinum-based chemotherapy was 11.1 months in the rucaparib arm (126 patients) versus 5.6 months in the placebo arm (64 patients) (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.23-0.48]), and in patients with a partial response (249 vs. 125), it was 9.0 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.38 [0.30-0.49]). In subgroups of the ITT population based on baseline disease, median PFS was 8.2 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.40 [0.28-0.57]) in patients with measurable disease (141 rucaparib vs. 66 placebo), 10.4 versus 4.5 months (HR, 0.31 [0.20-0.48]) in those with nonmeasurable but evaluable disease (104 vs. 56), and 14.1 versus 7.3 months (HR, 0.35 [0.24-0.51]) in those with no residual disease (130 vs. 67). Across subgroups, significantly longer median PFS was observed with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA-mutated and HRD cohorts. Objective responses were reported in patients with measurable disease and in patients with nonmeasurable but evaluable baseline disease. Safety was consistent across subgroups.
conclusionRucaparib maintenance treatment provided clinically meaningful efficacy benefits across subgroups based on response to last platinum-based chemotherapy or baseline disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.