Efficacy and safety of olaparib in advanced ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis

Figures & data

Figure 1. The flow diagram of the study selection process.

Figure 2. (a) The risk of bias summary. The risk judgement for each bias item is presented as a percentage of all included studies. (b) The risk of bias graph. The risk judgement for each bias item is presented as a percentage of all included studies.

Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.

Study	Study design	Interventions	Mean age (years)	BRCA status		ECOG performance status	Outcomes
				BRCA1	BRCA2
Kaye et al. 2012	A multicenter, open-label, randomised, phase II study	Olaparib 200 mg (N = 32)	57.2 (8.53)	26	6	0–2	PFS, OS, ORR and AEs
		Olaparib 400 mg (N = 32)	53.8 (8.77)	28	4
		PLD (N = 33)	54.3 (9.32)	27	6
Ledermann et al. 2012	A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study	Olaparib 400 mg (N = 136)	58.0 (21–89)	25	6	0–2	PFS, OS, ORR and AEs
		Placebo (N = 129)	59.0 (33–84)	20	7
Moore et al. 2018	An international, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study	Olaparib 300 mg (N = 260)	53.6 (9.38)	191	66	–	PFS, OS and AEs
		Placebo (N = 131)	53.4 (9.79)	91	40	–
Oza et al. 2015	A randomised, open-label, phase 2 study	Olaparib plus chemotherapy (N = 81)	59 (27–78)	7	5	0–2	PFS, OS, ORR and AEs
		Chemotherapy alone (N = 81)	62 (31–79)	10	2
Pujade-Lauraine et al. 2017	An international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study	Olaparib 300 mg (N = 196)	56 (51–63)	132	58	0–1	PFS, OS and AEs
		Placebo (N = 99)	56 (49–63)	61	35
Ray-Coquard 2019	A randomised, double-blind, international phase 3 study	Olaparib plus Bevacizumab (N = 537)	61.0 (32.0–87.0)	–	–	0–1	PFS and AEs
		Placebo plus Bevacizumab (N = 269)	60.0 (26.0–85.0)	–	–

Figure 3. Forest plot of the HR and 95% CI of the overall survival (OS).

Figure 4. Forest plot of the HR and 95% CI of the progression-free survival (PFS).

Figure 5. Forest plot of the odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI of objective response rate (ORR).

Figure 6. Forest plot of the risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI of adverse events (AEs) (a) and grade ≥ 3 AEs (b).

Kaye, S.B., et al., 2012. Phase II, open-label, randomized, multicenter study comparing the efficacy and safety of olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and recurrent ovarian cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30 (4), 372–379.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ledermann, J., et al., 2012. Olaparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 366 (15), 1382–1392.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Moore, K., et al., 2018. Maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 379 (26), 2495–2505.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Oza, A.M., et al., 2015. Olaparib combined with chemotherapy for recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: a randomised phase 2 trial. The Lancet-Oncology, 16 (1), 87–97.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pujade-Lauraine, E., et al., 2017. Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology, 18 (9), 1274–1284.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ray-Coquard, I., PAOLA-1 Investigators, et al., 2019. Olaparib plus bevacizumab as first-line maintenance in ovarian cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 381 (25), 2416–2428.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar