Author(s): Shannon N. Westin, MD, MPH1; Kathleen Moore, MD2; Hye Sook Chon, MD3; Jung-Yun Lee, MD4; Jessica Thomes Pepin, MD5; Michael Sundborg, MD6; Ayelet Shai, MD, PhD7; Joseph de la Garza, MD8; Shin Nishio, MD9; Michael A. Gold, MD10; Ke Wang, MD11; Kristi McIntyre, MD12; Todd D. Tillmanns, MD13; Stephanie V. Blank, MD14; Ji-Hong Liu, MD15; Michael McCollum, MD16; Fernando Contreras Mejia, MD17; Tadaaki Nishikawa, MD18; Kathryn Pennington, MD19; Zoltan Novak, MD, PhD20; Andreia Cristina De Melo, MD21; Jalid Sehouli, MD22; Dagmara Klasa-Mazurkiewicz, MD23; Christos Papadimitriou, MD24; Marta Gil-Martin, MD25; Birute Brasiuniene, MD, PhD26; Conor Donnelly, PhD27; Paula Michelle del Rosario, MD28; Xiaochun Liu, MD, PhD29; Els Van Nieuwenhuysen, MD30
PURPOSE
Immunotherapy and chemotherapy combinations have shown activity in endometrial cancer, with greater benefit in mismatch repair (MMR)–deficient (dMMR) than MMR-proficient (pMMR) disease. Adding a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor may improve outcomes, especially in pMMR disease.
METHODS
This phase III, global, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned eligible patients with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer 1:1:1 to: carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control arm); carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib placebo (durvalumab arm); or carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib (durvalumab + olaparib arm). The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) in the durvalumab arm versus control and the durvalumab + olaparib arm versus control.
RESULTS
Seven hundred eighteen patients were randomly assigned. In the intention-to-treat population, statistically significant PFS benefit was observed in the durvalumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.89]; P = .003) and durvalumab + olaparib arms (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.69]; P < .0001) versus control. Prespecified, exploratory subgroup analyses showed PFS benefit in dMMR (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.80]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control], 0.41 [95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75]) and pMMR subgroups (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.97]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control] 0.57; [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.73]); and in PD-L1–positive subgroups (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.83]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.57]). Interim overall survival results (maturity approximately 28%) were supportive of the primary outcomes (durvalumab v control: HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.56 to 1.07]; P = .120; durvalumab + olaparib v control: HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.83]; P = .003). The safety profiles of the experimental arms were generally consistent with individual agents.
CONCLUSION
Carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab with or without olaparib demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful PFS benefit in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.
Author Affiliations
1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; 2Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma Medical Center, Oklahoma, OK; 3H.Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; 4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; 5Minnesota Oncology, Minneapolis, MN; 6FirstHealth Moore Regional Hospital, Pinehurst, NC; 7RAMBAM Health Care Campus, Haifa, and Israeli Society of Gynecologic Oncology (ISGO), Israel; 8Texas Oncology-San Antonio Medical Center, San Antonio, TX; 9Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurume, Fukuoka, Japan; 10Oklahoma Cancer Specialists and Research Institute, Tulsa, OK; 11Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, China; 12Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, Dallas, TX; 13West Cancer Center Research Institute & University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; 14Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, and GOG Foundation (GOG-F), USA; 15Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China; 16Virginia Oncology Associates, Brock Cancer Center, Norfolk, VA, and GOG Foundation (GOG-F), USA; 17National Cancer Institute of Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia; 18Department of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan; 19Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA; 20National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, and Central and Eastern European Gynecologic Oncology Group (CEEGOG), Hungary; 21Clinical Research and Technological Development Division, Brazilian National Cancer Institute, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 22Charité—Department of Gynecology with Center of Oncological Surgery, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, and North Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology (NOGGO), Germany; 23Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gynecological Oncology and Gynecological Endocrinology, Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, and Polish Gynecologic Oncology Group (PGOG), Poland; 24Aretaieion University Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, and Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG), Greece; 25Medical Oncology Department, Catalan Institute of Oncology-Institut d’Investigació Biomédica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL), Hospital Duran i Reynals, L’Hospitalet-Barcelona, Barcelona, and Grupo Español de Investigación en Cáncer de Ovario (GEICO), Spain; 26Department of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Institute of Lithuania, Faculty of Medicine of Vilnius University, Vilnius, and Nordic Society of Gynaecological Oncology (NSGO), Lithuania; 27Oncology Biometrics, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, United Kingdom; 28Oncology R&D, Global Medicines Development, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, United Kingdom; 29Oncology R&D, Late-stage Development, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD; 30University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, and Luxembourg Gynaecological Oncology Group (BGOG), Belgium