Article Text

Download PDFPDF

O009/#786 Rucaparib vs chemotherapy in patients with advanced, relapsed ovarian cancer and a deleterious brca mutation: efficacy and safety from ariel4, a randomized phase 3 study
  1. R Kristeleit1,
  2. A Lisyanskaya2,
  3. A Fedenko3,
  4. M Dvorkin4,
  5. AC De Melo5,
  6. Y Shparyk6,
  7. I Rakhmatullina7,
  8. I Bondarenko8,
  9. N Colombo9,
  10. V Svintsitskiy10,
  11. L Biela11,
  12. M Nechaeva12,
  13. F Raspagliesi13,
  14. G Scambia14,
  15. D Cibula15,
  16. R Póka16,
  17. A Oaknin17,
  18. T Safra18,
  19. B Mackowiak-Matejczyk19 and
  20. L Ma20
  1. 1Department of Oncology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, Great Maze Pond, London, UK
  2. 2St. Petersburg State Budgetary Institution of Healthcare, Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
  3. 3Department of Chemotherapy, N.n. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russian Federation
  4. 4Omsk Region Clinical Oncologic Dispensary, Tba, Omsk, Russian Federation
  5. 5Brazilian National Cancer Institute, Division of Clinical Research, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  6. 6Department of Chemotherapy, Lviv Regional Oncology Dispensary, Lviv, Ukraine
  7. 7Department of Chemotherapy, Republic Clinical Oncology Dispensary of The Ministry of Healthcare of Republic of Bashkortostan, Ufa, Russian Federation
  8. 8Dnipropetrovsk Medical Academy, Oncology and Medical Radiology Department, dnipro, Ukraine
  9. 9University of Milan-Bicocca and European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Gynecologic Oncology, Milan, Italy
  10. 10National Cancer Institute, Oncogynecology, Kiyv, Ukraine
  11. 11Instituto de Oncologia do Parana (IOP), Clinical Research Center, Curitiba, Brazil
  12. 12Arkhangelsk Clinical Oncological Dispensary, Department of Chemotherapy, Arkhangelsk, Russian Federation
  13. 13Fondazione IRCCS Istituto nazionale Tumori – Milan, Surgery, Milan, Italy
  14. 14Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS and Scientific Directorate, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Rome, Italy
  15. 15General Faculty Hospital in Prague, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Prague, Czech Republic
  16. 16Clinical Center, University of Debrecen, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, TBA, Hungary
  17. 17Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Medical Oncology, Barcelona, Spain
  18. 18TLVMC, Gynecologic Oncology, Tel Aviv, Israel
  19. 19Marii Sklodowskiej-Curie, Bialostockie Centrum Onkologii Im, Białystok, Poland
  20. 20TBA, Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers, Lakewood, USA


Objectives Prospective studies comparing poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors with standard-of-care (SOC) chemotherapy (CT) in patients (pts) with relapsed ovarian cancer (OC) are currently limited. ARIEL4 (NCT02855944) is a phase 3, randomized, open-label, international, multicenter study of the efficacy and safety of rucaparib vs SOC CT as treatment for PARP-inhibitor naïve pts with relapsed high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer, who had a deleterious BRCA1/2 (BRCA) mutation and had received ≥2 prior CT regimens.

Methods Pts were randomized 2:1 to oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or SOC CT and stratified based on progression-free interval (≥1 to <6 months = platinum resistant; ≥6 to <12 months = partially platinum sensitive; ≥12 months = fully platinum sensitive). Pts in the CT arm with platinum-resistant or partially platinum-sensitive disease received weekly paclitaxel 60–80 mg/m2; pts with fully platinum-sensitive disease received investigator’s choice of platinum-based CT (single-agent carboplatin or cisplatin, or platinum doublet [carboplatin + paclitaxel, carboplatin + gemcitabine, or cisplatin + gemcitabine]). Pre-study-treatment plasma samples were assessed for BRCA reversion mutations. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST and safety. Each efficacy endpoint was first evaluated in the efficacy population (randomized pts with deleterious BRCA mutations excluding those with BRCA reversion mutations), stepping down to the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (all randomized pts).

Results 233 pts were randomized to rucaparib and 116 to CT (visit cutoff Sep 30, 2020); 179 (51.3%) had platinum-resistant, 96 (27.5%) had partially platinum-sensitive, and 74 (21.2%) had fully platinum-sensitive disease. 23 pts (6.6%) with BRCA reversion mutations and 1 pt without a BRCA mutation were excluded from the efficacy population. Median PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib vs CT in both the efficacy and ITT populations (Table). In an exploratory analysis of pts with BRCA reversion mutations, median PFS was shorter with rucaparib (n=13) vs CT (n=10); 2.9 vs 5.5 months, hazard ratio 2.769 (95% CI, 0.989–7.755). ORR was not significantly different between the rucaparib and CT arms in both populations (Table). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of rucaparib and CT.

Abstract O009/#786 Table 1

Conclusions Patients with BRCA-mutated advanced, relapsed OC who received rucaparib had a significant improvement in PFS vs SOC CT. No new safety signals were identified. This is the first prospective report from a randomized trial demonstrating that the presence of a BRCA reversion mutation predicts for primary resistance to rucaparib.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.