Avelumab Plus Talazoparib in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Preclinical data suggest that poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have synergistic activity when combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); however, it is unknown which tumor types or molecular subtypes may benefit from this combination. Objective: To investigate responses associated with the combination of avelumab and talazoparib in different tumor types and/or molecular subtypes. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this phase 1b and 2 basket nonrandomized controlled trial, patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled in the following cohorts: non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); DNA damage response (DDR)-positive NSCLC; triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC); hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2)-negative, DDR-positive breast cancer; recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (OC); recurrent, platinum-sensitive, BRCA1/2-altered OC; urothelial cancer; metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC); DDR-positive mCRPC; and BRCA1/2- or ATM-altered solid tumors. Data were analyzed between June 17, 2021, and August 6, 2021. Interventions: All patients in phases 1b and 2 received avelumab plus talazoparib. Main Outcomes and Measures: The phase 1b primary end point was dose-limiting toxic effects. The phase 2 primary end point was objective response, measured as objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included safety, time to response, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival, time to prostate-specific antigen progression and PSA response of 50% or greater (for mCRPC), cancer antigen 125 response (for OC), pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and biomarkers. Results: A total of 223 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.2 [11.0] years; 117 [52.5%] men) were treated, including 12 patients in phase 1b and 211 patients in phase 2. The recommended phase 2 dose was avelumab 800 mg every 2 weeks plus talazoparib 1 mg once daily. In phase 2, the ORR was 18.2% (95% CI, 5.2%-40.3%) in patients with TNBC; 34.8% (95% CI, 16.4%-57.3%) in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, and DDR-positive BC; and 63.6% (95% CI, 30.8%-89.1%) in patients with platinum-sensitive, BRCA1/2-altered OC. Responses occurred more frequently in patients with BRCA1/2-altered tumors. Durable responses were observed in patients with TNBC (median [range] DOR, 11.1 [3.4-20.4] months); HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, and DDR-positive BC (median [range] DOR, 15.7 [3.9 to ≥20.6] months); and BRCA1/2-altered OC (median DOR not reached; range, 5.6 to ≥18.4 months). The most common grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events were anemia (75 patients [33.6%]), thrombocytopenia (48 patients [21.5%]), and neutropenia (31 patients [13.9%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This nonrandomized controlled trial found that ORRs for avelumab plus talazoparib were comparable with those with PARP inhibitor or ICI monotherapy. Prolonged DOR in patients with TNBC; HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, and DDR-positive BC; and BRCA1/2-altered OC warrant further investigation in randomized clinical trials. These data highlight the importance of prospective patient selection in future studies of ICI and PARP-inhibitor combinations. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03330405.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".