Subgroup analysis of rucaparib versus chemotherapy as treatment for BRCA-mutated, advanced, relapsed ovarian carcinoma: Effect of platinum sensitivity in the randomized, phase 3 study ARIEL4.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
5517 Background: In ARIEL4 (NCT02855944), rucaparib significantly improved the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) vs chemotherapy (CT) in patients with advanced, relapsed ovarian carcinoma (OC) harboring a deleterious BRCA1/2 (BRCA) mutation (median PFS 7.4 [95% CI 7.3–9.1] vs 5.7 [5.5–7.3] months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.64 [95% CI 0.49–0.84]; P=0.001). This prespecified exploratory analysis investigated the effect of platinum sensitivity on the efficacy of rucaparib vs CT in ARIEL4. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or 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). In the CT group, patients with platinum-resistant or partially platinum-sensitive disease received weekly paclitaxel 60–80 mg/m2; patients with fully platinum-sensitive disease received investigator’s choice of platinum-based CT (single-agent carboplatin or cisplatin, or platinum doublet). Patients could crossover from CT to rucaparib following radiologic disease progression. Efficacy endpoints were explored in patients with a confirmed BRCA mutation (patients with a reversion mutation were excluded), based on the randomization strata of platinum sensitivity. Results: The visit cutoff date was September 30, 2020. PFS and objective response rates (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 for rucaparib vs CT across subgroups are presented in the Table. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the rucaparib group were anemia/decreased hemoglobin (platinum-resistant patients: rucaparib 47% vs CT 40%; partially platinum-sensitive patients: 63% vs 27%; fully platinum-sensitive patients: 58% vs 20%) and nausea (52% vs 21%; 51% vs 23%; 60% vs 68%). In the intent-to-treat population, 74/116 (64%) patients in the CT group crossed over to receive rucaparib: 39/59 (66%) with platinum-resistant, 25/31 (81%) with partially platinum-sensitive, and 10/26 (38%) with fully platinum-sensitive disease. Conclusions: Results from this exploratory subgroup analysis suggest that rucaparib is a reasonable treatment option for heavily pretreated patients across all platinum sensitivity subgroups. Safety was consistent with prior rucaparib studies. Clinical trial information: NCT02855944. [Table: see text]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".