==== Front Cancer Med Cancer Med 10.1002/(ISSN)2045-7634 CAM4 Cancer Medicine 2045-7634 John Wiley and Sons Inc. Hoboken 37260158 10.1002/cam4.5997 CAM45997 CAM4-2022-10-4344.R1 Research Article RESEARCH ARTICLES Clinical Cancer Research Efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy with pamiparib versus placebo for advanced gastric cancer responding to first‐line platinum‐based chemotherapy: Phase 2 study results Ciardiello et al. Ciardiello Fortunato 1 Bang Yung‐Jue 2 Cervantes Andrés 3 Dvorkin Mikhail 4 Lopez Charles D. 5 Metges Jean‐Philippe 6 Sánchez Ruiz Antonio 7 Calvo Mariona 8 Strickland Andrew H. 9 Kannourakis George https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6880-9795 10 11 Muro Kei https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5572-743X 12 Kawakami Hisato https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3280-4850 13 Wei Jia 14 Borg Christophe 15 16 Zhu Zhaoyin 17 Gupta Neal 17 Pelham Robert J. 17 Shen Lin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8798-4756 18 linshenpku@163.com 1 Dipartimento di Medicina di Precisione Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli Caserta Italy 2 Department of Internal Medicine Seoul National University College of Medicine Seoul South Korea 3 Department of Medical Oncology, Biomedical Research Institute INCLIVA, CiberOnc University of Valencia Valencia Spain 4 Algorithmic Biology Laboratory St. Petersburg Academic University, Russian Academy of Sciences St. Petersburg Russia 5 Department of Medicine Knight Cancer Institute/Oregon Health and Science University Portland Oregon USA 6 Institute of Oncology and Haematology CHU Morvan, Arpego Network Brest France 7 Hospital Puerta de Hierro Majadohonda Madrid Spain 8 Department of Medical Oncology ONCOBELL Program (IDIBELL), Institut Català d'Oncologia‐L'Hospitalet Barcelona Spain 9 Department of Medical Oncology, Monash Health Monash University Melbourne Victoria Australia 10 Ballarat Oncology & Haematology Services Wendouree Victoria Australia 11 The Fiona Elsey Cancer Research Institute Ballarat Victoria Australia 12 Department of Clinical Oncology Aichi Cancer Center Hospital Nagoya Japan 13 Department of Medical Oncology Kindai University Faculty of Medicine Osaka‐Sayama Japan 14 The Comprehensive Cancer Centre of Drum Tower Hospital Medical School of Nanjing University & Clinical Cancer Institute of Nanjing University Nanjing China 15 University Hospital of Besançon Medical Oncology Department, CIC‐BT1431 Besançon France 16 UMR1098, Molecular and Cellular Immune Therapies of Cancers INSERM Besançon France 17 Clinical Development BeiGene Ltd Cambridge Massachusetts USA 18 Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing) Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute Beijing China * Correspondence Lin Shen, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, 52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, 100142, Beijing, China. Email: linshenpku@163.com 01 6 2023 6 2023 12 12 10.1002/cam4.v12.12 1314513154 29 3 2023 05 10 2022 15 4 2023 © 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Background Poly (ADP‐ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) are approved for the treatment of various solid tumors. In gastric cancer, genes commonly harbor mutations in the homologous recombination DNA repair pathway, potentially increasing sensitivity to PARPi. Pamiparib (BGB‐290) is a small molecule inhibitor of PARP1 and PARP2. Methods The PARALLEL‐303 study (NCT03427814) investigated the efficacy and safety of pamiparib 60 mg orally (PO) twice daily (BID) versus placebo PO BID as maintenance therapy in patients with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic gastric cancer that responded to platinum‐based first‐line chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of this double‐blind, randomized, global phase 2 study was progression‐free survival (PFS) (RECIST version 1.1; per investigator assessment). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. Results In total, 136 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive pamiparib (n = 71) or placebo (n = 65). Median PFS was numerically longer with pamiparib versus placebo but did not reach statistical significance (3.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.9, 5.3] vs. 2.1 months [95% CI: 1.9, 3.8]; hazard ratio 0.8 [95% CI: 0.5, 1.2]; p = 0.1428). Median OS was 10.2 months (95% CI: 8.7, 16.3) in the pamiparib arm versus 12.0 months (95% CI: 8.2, not estimable) in the placebo arm. Overall, 8 patients (11.3%) in the pamiparib arm and 2 patients (3.1%) in the placebo arm experienced ≥1 TEAE leading to treatment discontinuation. Conclusions Maintenance pamiparib did not meet statistical significance for superiority versus placebo for PFS, but was well tolerated with few treatment discontinuations; no unexpected safety signals were identified. clinical trial gastric cancer maintenance phase 2 poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase inhibitors BeiGene, Ltd. 10.13039/100017239 source-schema-version-number2.0 cover-dateJune 2023 details-of-publishers-convertorConverter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.3.0 mode:remove_FC converted:03.07.2023 Ciardiello F , Bang Y‐J , Cervantes A , et al. Efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy with pamiparib versus placebo for advanced gastric cancer responding to first‐line platinum‐based chemotherapy: Phase 2 study results. Cancer Med. 2023;12 :13145‐13154. doi:10.1002/cam4.5997 ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03427814. ==== Body pmc1 INTRODUCTION Gastric cancer accounts for 5.6% of all diagnosed cancers and 7.7% of cancer deaths worldwide. 1 Patients with newly diagnosed inoperable locally advanced or metastatic gastric cancer are typically treated with chemotherapy regimens containing a platinum‐based agent and a fluoropyrimidine, or with chemoradiation or best supportive care. 2 , 3 However, the duration of first‐line chemotherapy typically does not exceed 6 months, with limited survival benefit and significant toxicity associated with these regimens. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 Therefore, once maximum tumor reduction is achieved with first‐line chemotherapy, patients require a tolerable treatment option for maintenance therapy. Small molecule inhibitors of poly (ADP‐ribose) polymerase (PARP) 1/2 interfere with DNA repair mechanisms. 9 , 10 , 11 PARP protein inhibitors (PARPi) bind directly to, and inhibit the activity of, PARP enzymes, preventing DNA damage repair and trapping PARP‐DNA complexes at the DNA damage site. 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 The most commonly mutated genes in gastric cancer include members of the homologous recombination DNA repair pathway 15 , 16 (e.g., breast cancer gene (BRCA)1 and BRCA2 10 , 17 ), resulting in tumors with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). 9 HRD leads to increased genomic instability and tumorigenesis, 9 is characterized by loss of heterozygosity (LOH), and can increase tumor sensitivity to platinum‐based chemotherapy and treatment with PARPi. 18 , 19 , 20 In tumors with HRD, both therapies have similar antitumor effects via the mechanism of synthetic lethality, 10 , 11 and HRD status has been shown to correlate with outcomes to PARPi. PARPi are currently used in the treatment of various cancers, including as maintenance therapies. 16 , 21 , 22 , 23 PARPi‐based regimens are not yet recommended for use in patients with gastric cancer, 2 , 3 but are being actively investigated. 16 , 24 Notably, in a phase 3 study of patients with advanced gastric cancer progressing following first‐line therapy, overall survival (OS) was numerically improved with PARPi (olaparib) compared with placebo when used in combination with paclitaxel, supporting the potential clinical benefit of PARPi in gastric cancer, albeit the difference did not reach statistical sigificance. 25 Numerous other studies of PARPi as monotherapy and in combination with targeted drugs and immune checkpoint inhibitors are ongoing in patients with gastric cancers. 16 , 24 Pamiparib is a small molecule PARP1/2 inhibitor currently approved in China for the treatment of patients with previously treated advanced ovarian cancer. 12 , 26 Pamiparib showed strong PARP‐trapping and anti‐proliferative activity, and brain penetration, in animal models with HRD tumors. 12 , 27 , 28 In early‐phase clinical studies, single‐agent pamiparib demonstrated antitumor activity and was generally well tolerated in patients with advanced solid tumors and non‐mucinous high‐grade ovarian cancer. 27 , 28 Subsequent phase 2 studies in patients with previously treated BRCA1/2‐mutated ovarian cancer and HER2‐negative breast cancer have provided further evidence supporting the antitumor activity of pamiparib. 29 , 30 In addition, the combination of pamiparib with the anti‐PD‐1 antibody tislelizumab has been reported to be associated with clinical benefit in patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1 study. 31 Here, we report the results of PARALLEL‐303, a phase 2 study designed to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of maintenance therapy with pamiparib versus placebo in patients with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic gastric cancer that responded to first‐line platinum‐based chemotherapy. 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1 Study design PARALLEL‐303 was a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, randomized, multicenter, global phase 2 study (NCT03427814). This study changed from phase 3 to a phase 2 due to slow enrollment. Patients were recruited from 138 sites across 16 countries/regions (Australia, Belgium, China, Czech Republic, France, Georgia, Hong Kong, Hungary, Japan, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Spain, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States). All relevant Institutional Review Boards/Independent Ethics Committees approved this study, which was carried out in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice Guideline, the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and local laws and regulations. The full protocol (including eligibility criteria, endpoints, assessments, and statistical plan) is available in the Appendix S1. 2.2 Participants Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age, with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)‐negative, histologically proven, inoperable locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of ≤1, had received first‐line platinum chemotherapy for ≤28 weeks with a complete response (CR), as determined by the investigator per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), or a confirmed partial response (PR) maintained for ≥4 weeks. Sufficient tumor tissue must have been provided for central laboratory determination of LOH status for randomization and exploratory biomarker analyses. Exclusion criteria included prior treatment with a PARPi, anticancer therapy ≤14 days prior to randomization (including chemotherapy, biologic therapy, immunotherapy, investigational agents, anticancer Chinese medicine, or herbal remedies), diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome, and patients who received irradiation as part of prior first‐line treatment. 2.3 Interventions Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive pamiparib 60 mg orally (PO) twice a day (BID) or placebo 60 mg PO BID. Randomization was performed using an Interactive Response Technology system, took place ≤8 weeks after the last dose of first‐line platinum chemotherapy, and was stratified by region (China/Hong Kong/Taiwan vs. Australia/Europe/North America vs. Japan/South Korea vs. rest of world) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1). There was no fixed duration of treatment in this study. Treatment with pamiparib or placebo continued until progressive disease (PD), unacceptable toxicity, death, or until another discontinuation criterion was met (including pregnancy, a major protocol deviation, withdrawal of consent, investigator's discretion, or start of a new anticancer therapy). A maximum of two dose reductions were permitted before the patient was permanently withdrawn from the study drug. 2.4 Endpoints The primary endpoint of this study was progression‐free survival (PFS) by investigator assessment per RECIST v1.1. Following the screening tumor assessment, tumor imaging assessments were performed every 8 weeks (±7 days) after Day 1 (the first day of study drug administration). Secondary endpoints included OS, time to second subsequent treatment (TSST), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), and time to response (TTR). ORR was defined as the proportion of patients with a best overall response of CR or PR per RECIST v1.1 by investigator assessment. Safety was evaluated through the incidence and severity of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs), including treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs). TEAEs were graded according to National Cancer Institute‐Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03 or higher. 2.5 Statistical analyses This study was designed to provide 80% power for assessment of the primary PFS endpoint using the following assumptions to determine the sample size: an overall type I error rate of 0.1 (one‐sided), a 1:1 randomization ratio, a median PFS for the placebo arm of 6.0 months, and a PFS hazard ratio (HR; pamiparib/placebo) of 0.63. A sample size of approximately 128 patients (64 per treatment arm) was required to achieve 85 PFS events within the planned study duration of approximately 26 months after the first patient was randomized to the study, assuming an estimated accrual period of 20 months. The intent‐to‐treat analysis set included all randomized patients who were assigned to receive either pamiparib or placebo; used for PFS, OS, and TSST analyses. The efficacy evaluable analysis set included all randomized patients who had measurable disease at baseline and at least one post baseline tumor assessment (unless treatment was discontinued due to clinical progression or death); used for all efficacy analyses related to ORR, DoR, and TTR. The safety analysis set included all patients in the intent‐to‐treat analysis set who received any dose of pamiparib or placebo. The final PFS analysis was performed when 85 PFS events had occurred. A stratified one‐sided log‐rank test at a 0.1 significance level incorporating the randomized stratification factors was used to compare treatment arms for the primary endpoint. The treatment effect on PFS was estimated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model to the PFS, including treatment arm as a factor and stratification factors (region and ECOG PS) as strata. From this model, the HR was estimated and presented with a two‐sided 95% confidence interval (CI). For the OS secondary endpoint, a stratified log‐rank test that incorporated the randomized stratification factors was used to compare treatment arms in the intent‐to‐treat analysis set. The HR and its two‐sided 95% CI were estimated using the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Median OS, TSST, and DoR for each treatment arm was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and the 95% CI was calculated using the Brookmeyer–Crowley method. The ORR and its exact two‐sided 95% CI were calculated for each treatment arm, with the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel score test was used to compare treatment arms in the efficacy evaluable analysis set. TTR was assessed using descriptive statistics. Only patients with a response of CR or PR during the study were included in the DoR and TTR analyses. 3 RESULTS 3.1 Patients and treatment Between July 23, 2018, and April 27, 2020, 136 patients were randomized to receive pamiparib (n = 71) or placebo (n = 65) (Figure 1). There were 136 patients in both the intent‐to‐treat and the safety analysis sets, and 71 patients in the efficacy evaluable analysis set. Patient demographics and baseline characteristics were generally balanced between treatment arms (Table 1). The median age of patients was 64 years, 66.9% of patients were male, and the majority of patients (54.5%) were White, followed by Asian (25.7%). At study entry, 55.1% of patients had an ECOG PS of 1 (80.9% had stage IV disease, 28.7% had undergone prior procedure(s) or surgery, and 5.9% had received prior radiotherapy; Table 1). FIGURE 1 Patient flow. ITT, intent‐to‐treat. TABLE 1 Patient demographics and baseline characteristics. Pamiparib Placebo (n = 71) (n = 65) Median age, years (range) 64.0 (39–82) 64.0 (27–85) Age ≥65 years, n (%) 32 (45.1) 30 (46.2) Sex, n (%) Female 25 (35.2) 20 (30.8) Male 46 (64.8) 45 (69.2) Race, n (%) Asian 20 (28.2) 15 (23.1) Black or African American 0 (0.0) 2 (3.1) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 (0.0) 1 (1.5) White 38 (53.5) 36 (55.4) Other 1 (1.4) 3 (4.6) Not reported/Unknown a 12 (16.9) 8 (12.3) Geographic region, n (%) b China/Hong Kong/Taiwan 12 (16.9) 9 (13.8) Australia/Europe/North America 52 (73.2) 51 (78.5) Japan/South Korea c 6 (8.5) 5 (7.7) Rest of world 1 (1.4) 0 (0.0) ECOG PS, n (%) 0 31 (43.7) 30 (46.2) 1 40 (56.3) 35 (53.8) Number of prior regimens, n (%) 1 66 (93.0) 60 (92.3) 2 3 (4.2) 5 (7.7) ≥3 2 (2.8) 0 (0.0) Best overall response for last therapy, n (%) Complete response 4 (5.6) 6 (9.2) Partial response 67 (94.4) 58 (89.2) Stable disease 0 (0.0) 1 (1.5) Solid tumor stage, n (%) d Stage IIA/B 3 (4.2) 1 (1.5) Stage IIIA–C 4 (5.6) 6 (9.3) Stage IV 59 (83.1) 51 (78.5) Unknown 5 (7.0) 7 (10.8) Prior anticancer therapy, n (%) Platinum‐based therapy 71 (100.0) 65 (100.0) Radiotherapy 3 (4.2) 5 (7.7) Procedures or surgery 25 (35.2) 14 (21.5) Abbreviation: ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. a “Not reported” and “Unknown” include patients from France who did not consent to the collection of race information. b Geographic regions are presented as per the groupings used as stratification factors during randomization. c No patients were enrolled in South Korea. d Solid tumor stage at screening. At data cutoff (June 18, 2020), median follow‐up duration was 8.0 months (pamiparib arm, 7.9 months; placebo arm, 8.0 months). Seventy patients (51.5%) remained in the study, and 23 (16.9%) remained on treatment (Figure 1). Median duration of exposure to study treatment was 2.4 months in the pamiparib arm and 1.9 months in the placebo arm. After study treatment discontinuation, 27 patients (38.0%) versus 31 patients (47.7%) in the pamiparib and placebo arms, respectively, received subsequent treatment (Table S1). 3.2 Efficacy In the intent‐to‐treat analysis set, median PFS was 3.7 months (95% CI: 1.9, 5.3) in the pamiparib arm and 2.1 months (95% CI: 1.9, 3.8) in the placebo arm (Figure 2), however, this difference was not statistically significant (HR 0.8; 95% CI: 0.5, 1.2; p = 0.1428). There were also no significant differences for the secondary efficacy endpoints between the pamiparib and the placebo arms (Table 2): Median OS was 10.2 (95% CI: 8.7, 16.3) versus 12.0 months (95% CI: 8.2, not estimable), and median TSST was 9.8 (95% CI: 8.1, 10.9) versus 9.7 months (95% CI: 7.5, 14.0), respectively. FIGURE 2 Kaplan–Meier plot of progression‐free survival per RECIST v1.1 in the intent‐to‐treat analysis set. PFS was estimated by the Kapan–Meier method, with 95% CIs estimated using the Brookmeyer–Crowley method. *p Value (one‐sided) was based on a stratified (region and ECOG PS) log‐rank test. CI, confidence interval; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; HR, hazard ratio; PFS, progression‐free survival; RECIST v1.1, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. TABLE 2 Summary of secondary efficacy endpoints. a Pamiparib Placebo (n = 71) (n = 65) Median OS, months (95% CI) 10.2 (8.7, 16.3) 12.0 (8.2, NE) Median TSST, months (95% CI) 9.8 (8.1, 10.9) 9.7 (7.5, 14.0) (n = 39) (n = 32) ORR, % (95% CI) 7.7 (1.6, 20.9) 6.3 (0.8, 20.8) Median DoR, months (95% CI) 3.6 (3.5, NE) NE (5.6, NE) Median TTR, months (min, max) 3.7 (1.8, 7.3) 1.9 (1.9, 1.9) Note: OS, TSST, and DoR were estimated by the Kapan–Meier method, with 95% CIs estimated using the Brookmeyer–Crowley method. ORR and its exact two‐sided 95% CI were calculated for each treatment arm, with the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel score test was used to compare treatment arms. TTR was assessed using descriptive statistics. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DoR, duration of response; NE, not evaluable; ORR, objective response rate; OS, overall survival; TSST, time to second subsequent treatment; TTR, time to response. a OS and TSST were analyzed using the intent‐to‐treat analysis set; ORR, DoR, and TTR were analyzed using the efficacy evaluable analysis set. In the efficacy evaluable analysis set, between the pamiparib and the placebo arms, respectively: ORR was 7.7% (95% CI: 1.6, 20.9) [3 PRs] versus 6.3% (95% CI: 0.8, 20.8) [2 PRs], the rate of stable disease was 46.2% (18 patients) versus 37.5% (12 patients), median DoR was 3.6 months and not evaluable, and median TTR was 3.7 months (range: 1.8, 7.3) versus 1.9 months (range: 1.9, 1.9). 3.3 Safety and tolerability There was a similar incidence of TEAEs between treatment arms; 91.5% of patients receiving pamiparib and 93.8% of patients receiving placebo experienced ≥1 TEAE (Table 3). The most common TEAEs were anemia (36.6%), nausea (32.4%), and decreased appetite (26.8%) in the pamiparib arm, and abdominal pain (18.5%), nausea (16.9%), and asthenia (16.9%) in the placebo arm (Table 4). Overall, 40.8% of patients experienced at least one ≥Grade 3 TEAE in the pamiparib arm versus 30.8% in the placebo arm (Table 3). TABLE 3 Summary of TEAE incidence (safety analysis set). Pamiparib Placebo (n = 71) (n = 65) n (%) n (%) Patients with ≥1 TEAE 65 (91.5) 61 (93.8) Patients with ≥1 TRAE 55 (77.5) 34 (52.3) ≥Grade 3 TEAEs 29 (40.8) 20 (30.8) ≥Grade 3 TRAEs 19 (26.8) 6 (9.2) Serious TEAEs 14 (19.7) 10 (15.4) Serious TRAEs 1 (1.4) 3 (4.6) TEAEs leading to dose modification 20 (28.2) 9 (13.8) Leading to dose interruption 18 (25.4) 8 (12.3) Leading to dose reduction 7 (9.9) 1 (1.5) TRAEs leading to dose modification 14 (19.7) 7 (10.8) Leading to dose interruption 12 (16.9) 6 (9.2) Leading to dose reduction 7 (9.9) 1 (1.5) TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation 8 (11.3) 2 (3.1) TRAEs leading to treatment discontinuation 5 (7.0) 1 (1.5) TEAEs leading to death 2 (2.8) 2 (3.1) TRAEs leading to death 0 (0.0) 1 (1.5) Abbreviations: TEAE, treatment‐emergent adverse event; TRAE, treatment‐related adverse event. TABLE 4 TEAEs reported in ≥10% of patients in either arm (safety analysis set). Pamiparib Placebo (n = 71) (n = 65) n (%) n (%) Patients with ≥1 TEAE 65 (91.5) 61 (93.8) Anemia 26 (36.6) 8 (12.3) Nausea 23 (32.4) 11 (16.9) Decreased appetite 19 (26.8) 8 (12.3) Asthenia 15 (21.1) 11 (16.9) Diarrhea 13 (18.3) 7 (10.8) Abdominal pain 8 (11.3) 12 (18.5) Abdominal pain upper 12 (16.9) 7 (10.8) Vomiting 17 (23.9) 1 (1.5) Constipation 8 (11.3) 7 (10.8) Aspartate aminotransferase increased 9 (12.7) 5 (7.7) Alanine aminotransferase increased 8 (11.3) 5 (7.7) Peripheral sensory neuropathy 4 (5.6) 9 (13.8) White blood cell count decreased 8 (11.3) 3 (4.6) Dysphagia 3 (4.2) 8 (12.3) Weight decreased 8 (11.3) 1 (1.5) Abbreviation: TEAE, treatment‐emergent adverse event. The proportions of patients experiencing ≥1 TRAE were 77.5% and 52.3% in the pamiparib and placebo arms, respectively. The most common TRAEs were anemia (pamiparib 22.5%, placebo 10.8%), nausea (pamiparib 23.9%, placebo 6.2%), and decreased appetite (pamiparib 18.3%, placebo 1.5%). Dose modifications due to a TEAE occurred in 28.2% and 13.8% of patients in the pamiparib and placebo arms, respectively. The most common TEAEs leading to dose modification were anemia (7.0%), vomiting (5.6%) and upper abdominal pain (4.2%) in the pamiparib arm, and anemia (3.1%) in the placebo arm. Eight patients (11.3%) in the pamiparib arm and 2 patients (3.1%) in the placebo arm experienced ≥1 TEAE leading to treatment discontinuation (Table 3). The most common TEAEs leading to discontinuation were anemia (2.8%, 2 patients), nausea (1.4%, 1 patient), and increased alanine aminotransferase (1.4%, 1 patient) in the pamiparib arm, and nausea, abdominal pain, asthenia, and sepsis (1.5%, 1 patient each) in the placebo arm. Four patients experienced ≥1 TEAE that led to death: 2 patients (2.8%) in the pamiparib arm (cause listed as death under the general disorder and administration site conditions system organ class, and pneumonia; one patient each [neither were TRAEs]) and 2 patients (3.1%) in the placebo arm (due to sepsis [TRAE] and hepatic rupture [not TRAE], in 1 patient each). 4 DISCUSSION In this phase 2 study, which investigated the efficacy and safety of maintenance pamiparib in patients with platinum‐sensitive locally advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, the median PFS observed in the pamiparib arm was numerically higher than that in the placebo arm (3.7 months vs. 2.1 months, respectively); however, this PFS improvement did not reach statistical significance, nor did the difference in OS between treatment groups. The safety and tolerability profile of pamiparib in this study was consistent with that of pamiparib and PARPi in other tumor types and treatment settings. 27 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 33 Maintenance therapy with pamiparib was tolerable and manageable in this patient population, with few treatment discontinuations due to TEAEs. In the pamiparib arm, the most common TEAEs were anemia, nausea, and decreased appetite, which is consistent with evidence for other PARPi. 25 , 34 These data indicate that there are no safety concerns with continued exploration of pamiparib in patients with gastric cancer. Due to the difficulty in recruiting this patient population, the study was converted from a phase 3 to a phase 2 trial, and was therefore not sufficiently powered for OS analysis. Possible reasons for low recruitment to this study include changes in the treatment landscape for gastric cancer, such as additional first‐line, second‐line, and third‐line treatment options which were not recommended at the time of study design in 2018. 2 , 3 , 35 , 36 Therefore, the inclusion and exclusion criteria may have been outdated versus the current patient profile, in particular with regard to the exclusion of patients who were receiving ongoing therapy with nivolumab, which is now recommended in addition to platinum‐fluoropyrimidine doublet chemotherapy as standard therapy for selected patients. 2 The maintenance setting design in this study requiring patients to have completed first‐line platinum‐based chemotherapy and demonstrated prior CR (or sustained PR for ≥4 weeks) may have limited the potential pool of eligible patients; patients who had received irradiation as part of prior first‐line treatment were also excluded. The inclusion of a placebo arm may also have contributed to low recruitment in Asian countries, where first‐line fluoropyrimidine continued after the cessation of platinum‐based chemotherapy. 37 Therefore, the relatively small sample size restricting full assessment of the efficacy profile was a study limitation. While some targeted agents have been approved for gastric cancer, 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 to date, no PARPi have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration in this setting. To our knowledge, this is the only randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled phase 2 study that investigated the efficacy and safety of a PARPi in gastric cancer, in a global population. Maintenance pamiparib resulted in a numerically higher median PFS versus placebo in patients with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic gastric cancer responding to platinum‐based treatment, and was tolerable with a manageable safety profile in this patient population. Exploration of potential biomarkers of response or resistance to pamiparib maintenance therapy in this setting may help define patient populations for future investigations. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Fortunato Ciardiello: Writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Yung‐Jue Bang: Conceptualization (equal); investigation (equal); supervision (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Andrés Cervantes: Investigation (equal); validation (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Mikhail Dvorkin: Writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Charles D. Lopez: Writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Jean‐Philippe Metges: Writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Antonio Sánchez Ruiz: Investigation (equal); validation (equal);Writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Mariona Calvo: Writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Andrew H. Strickland: Writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). George Kannourakis: Writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Kei Muro: Investigation (equal); validation (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Hisato Kawakami: Writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Jia Wei: Writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Christophe Borg: Writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Zhaoyin Zhu: Data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); methodology (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Neal Gupta: Data curation (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Robert J. Pelham: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); methodology (equal); supervision (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Lin Shen: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); investigation (equal); methodology (equal); supervision (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). FUNDING INFORMATION This study was sponsored by BeiGene, Ltd. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT AC received institutional research funding from Genentech, Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, BeiGene, Bayer, Servier, Lilly, Novartis, Takeda, Astellas, Natera, and Fibrogen; advisory board or speaker fees from Amgen, Merck Serono, and Roche. AHS, JW, MD, JPM, GK, and ASR have no conflicts of interest to disclose. CB received consulting or advisory fees from Roche, Sanofi, MSD, and Bayer. CDL received grants or has contracts with Taiho, Roche, AstraZeneca, Servier, and AACR. HK received grants or has contracts with Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Kobayashi Pharmaceutical CO. Ltd., Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Eisai Co. Ltd; consulting fees from Daiichi Sankyo; payment or honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly Japan K.K, Ono Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Teijin Pharma Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline K.K, Bayer Yakuhin Ltd, MSD K.K., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Merck Biopharma Co., Ltd, Yakult Pharmaceutical Industry, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. KM declares institutional research funding from Astellas, Amgen, Solasia Pharma, Taiho, Merck Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, Parexel International, Pfizer, MSD, ONO Pharmaceutical, Sanofi, and Eisai; advisory board or speaker fees from AstraZeneca, ONO Pharmaceutical, Amgen, Chugai, Takeda, Taiho, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Bayer. LS declares consulting or advisory role with MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Mingji Biopharmaceutical, Harbour BioMed, and Merck; speakers' bureau with Hutchison Whampoa and MSD; research funding from Nanjing Yaojieankang Biotechnology (Inst), Baiji Shenzhou (Beijing) Biotechnology Co. Ltd (Inst), Beijing Xiantong Biomedical Technology Co. Ltd (Inst), QiLu Pharmaceutical (Inst), and Zaiding Pharmaceutical (Inst). MC declares consulting and advisory role or speaker with Roche, Eisai, MSD, and Bayer; safety monitoring board with Nerviano. NG, ZZ, and RJP are employed by and have stock ownership in BeiGene. YJB declares institutional funding from Genentech/Roche, Merck Serano, Astellas, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, and Amgen; consulting fees from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Samyang Biopharm, Hanmi, Merck Serano, Astellas, Alexo Oncology, Daewoong, and Amgen. ETHICS STATEMENT All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions. Informed consent to be included in the study, or the equivalent, was obtained from all patients. Supporting information Appendix S1 Click here for additional data file. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the participants of the study and all the study staff for their contributions. Medical writing support, under the direction of the authors, was provided by Tamsin Grewal, MSc, and Yasmin Issop, PhD, of Ashfield MedComms, an Inizio company, and was funded by BeiGene, Ltd. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT On request, and subject to certain criteria, conditions, and exceptions, BeiGene, Ltd. will provide access to individual de‐identified participant data from BeiGene‐sponsored global interventional clinical studies conducted for medicines (1) for indications that have been approved or (2) in programs that have been terminated. BeiGene will also consider requests for the protocol, data dictionary, and statistical analysis plan. Data requests may be submitted to datadisclosure@beigene.com. ==== Refs REFERENCES 1 Sung H , Ferlay J , Siegel RL , et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71 :209‐249. doi:10.3322/caac.21660 33538338 2 Lordick F , Carneiro F , Cascinu S , et al. Gastric cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow‐up. Ann Oncol. 2022;33 :1005‐1020. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2022.07.004 35914639 3 Wang FH , Zhang XT , Li YF , et al. The Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO): clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer, 2021. Cancer Commun (Lond). 2021;41 :747‐795. doi:10.1002/cac2.12193 34197702 4 Hess LM , Michael D , Mytelka DS , Beyrer J , Liepa AM , Nicol S . Chemotherapy treatment patterns, costs, and outcomes of patients with gastric cancer in the United States: a retrospective analysis of electronic medical record (EMR) and administrative claims data. Gastric Cancer. 2016;19 :607‐615. doi:10.1007/s10120-015-0486-z 25792290 5 Cunningham D , Starling N , Rao S , et al. Capecitabine and oxaliplatin for advanced esophagogastric cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;358 :36‐46. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa073149 18172173 6 Ajani JA , Rodriguez W , Bodoky G , et al. Multicenter phase III comparison of cisplatin/S‐1 with cisplatin/infusional fluorouracil in advanced gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma study: the FLAGS trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28 :1547‐1553. doi:10.1200/jco.2009.25.4706 20159816 7 Fuchs CS , Shitara K , Di Bartolomeo M , et al. Ramucirumab with cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine as first‐line therapy in patients with metastatic gastric or junctional adenocarcinoma (RAINFALL): a double‐blind, randomised, placebo‐controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20 :420‐435. doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30791-5 30718072 8 Cutsem EV , Moiseyenko VM , Tjulandin S , et al. Phase III study of docetaxel and cisplatin plus fluorouracil compared with cisplatin and fluorouracil as first‐line therapy for advanced gastric cancer: a report of the V325 study group. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24 :4991‐4997. doi:10.1200/jco.2006.06.8429 17075117 9 O'Connor MJ . Targeting the DNA damage response in cancer. Mol Cell. 2015;60 :547‐560. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2015.10.040 26590714 10 Lord CJ , Ashworth A . PARP inhibitors: synthetic lethality in the clinic. Science. 2017;355 :1152‐1158. doi:10.1126/science.aam7344 28302823 11 Pommier Y , O'Connor MJ , de Bono J . Laying a trap to kill cancer cells: PARP inhibitors and their mechanisms of action. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8 :362ps317. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf9246 12 Xiong Y , Guo Y , Liu Y , et al. Pamiparib is a potent and selective PARP inhibitor with unique potential for the treatment of brain tumor. Neoplasia. 2020;22 :431‐440. doi:10.1016/j.neo.2020.06.009 32652442 13 Lupo B , Trusolino L . Inhibition of poly(ADP‐ribosyl)ation in cancer: old and new paradigms revisited. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014;1846 :201‐215. doi:10.1016/j.bbcan.2014.07.004 25026313 14 Dziadkowiec KN , Gąsiorowska E , Nowak‐Markwitz E , Jankowska A . PARP inhibitors: review of mechanisms of action and BRCA1/2 mutation targeting. Prz Menopauzalny. 2016;15 :215‐219. doi:10.5114/pm.2016.65667 28250726 15 Chen K , Yang D , Li X , et al. Mutational landscape of gastric adenocarcinoma in Chinese: implications for prognosis and therapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112 :1107‐1112. doi:10.1073/pnas.1422640112 25583476 16 Wang Y , Zheng K , Huang Y , et al. PARP inhibitors in gastric cancer: beacon of hope. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2021;40 :211. doi:10.1186/s13046-021-02005-6 34167572 17 Nielsen FC , van Overeem HT , Sørensen CS . Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: new genes in confined pathways. Nat Rev Cancer. 2016;16 :599‐612. doi:10.1038/nrc.2016.72 27515922 18 Sakai W , Swisher EM , Karlan BY , et al. Secondary mutations as a mechanism of cisplatin resistance in BRCA2‐mutated cancers. Nature. 2008;451 :1116‐1120. doi:10.1038/nature06633 18264087 19 Sakai W , Swisher EM , Jacquemont C , et al. Functional restoration of BRCA2 protein by secondary BRCA2 mutations in BRCA2‐mutated ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2009;69 :6381‐6386. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.Can-09-1178 19654294 20 Basourakos SP , Li L , Aparicio AM , Corn PG , Kim J , Thompson TC . Combination platinum‐based and DNA damage response‐targeting cancer therapy: evolution and future directions. Curr Med Chem. 2017;24 :1586‐1606. doi:10.2174/0929867323666161214114948 27978798 21 Colombo N , Ledermann JA , ESMO Guidelines Committee . Updated treatment recommendations for newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian carcinoma from the ESMO clinical practice guidelines. Ann Oncol. 2021;32 :1300‐1303. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2021.07.004 34293462 22 Gennari A , André F , Barrios CH , et al. ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for the diagnosis, staging and treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2021;32 :1475‐1495. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2021.09.019 34678411 23 Parker C , Castro E , Fizazi K , et al. Prostate cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow‐up. Ann Oncol. 2020;31 :1119‐1134. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.011 32593798 24 Alhusaini A , Cannon A , Maher SG , Reynolds JV , Lynam‐Lennon N . Therapeutic potential of PARP inhibitors in the treatment of gastrointestinal cancers. Biomedicine. 2021;9 :1024. doi:10.3390/biomedicines9081024 25 Bang YJ , Xu RH , Chin K , et al. Olaparib in combination with paclitaxel in patients with advanced gastric cancer who have progressed following first‐line therapy (GOLD): a double‐blind, randomised, placebo‐controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18 :1637‐1651. doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30682-4 29103871 26 Markham A . Pamiparib: first approval. Drugs. 2021;81 :1343‐1348. doi:10.1007/s40265-021-01552-8 34287805 27 Lickliter J , Mileshkin L , Voskoboynik M , et al. Dose escalation/expansion study to investigate the safety, pharmacokinetics, food effect, and antitumor activity of BGB‐290 in patients with advanced solid tumors. Ann Oncol. 2017;28 :v123. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx367.003 28 Xu B , Yin Y , Dong M , et al. Pamiparib dose escalation in Chinese patients with non‐mucinous high‐grade ovarian cancer or advanced triple‐negative breast cancer. Cancer Med. 2021;10 :109‐118. doi:10.1002/cam4.3575 33128299 29 Wu X , Zhu J , Wang J , et al. Pamiparib monotherapy for patients with germline BRCA1/2‐mutated ovarian cancer previously treated with at least two lines of chemotherapy: a multicenter, open‐label, phase II study. Clin Cancer Res. 2022;28 :653‐661. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-21-1186 34844979 30 Xu B , Sun T , Shi Y , et al. Pamiparib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2‐negative breast cancer with germline BRCA mutations: a phase II study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023;197 :489‐501. doi:10.1007/s10549-022-06785-z 36459284 31 Friedlander M , Meniawy T , Markman B , et al. Pamiparib in combination with tislelizumab in patients with advanced solid tumours: results from the dose‐escalation stage of a multicentre, open‐label, phase 1a/b trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20 :1306‐1315. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30396-1 31378459 32 Litton JK , Rugo HS , Ettl J , et al. Talazoparib in patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med. 2018;379 :753‐763. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1802905 30110579 33 González‐Martín A , Pothuri B , Vergote I , et al. Niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381 :2391‐2402. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1910962 31562799 34 Bang Y‐J , Im S‐A , Lee K‐W , et al. Randomized, double‐blind phase II trial with prospective classification by ATM protein level to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of olaparib plus paclitaxel in patients with recurrent or metastatic gastric cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33 :3858‐3865. doi:10.1200/jco.2014.60.0320 26282658 35 Joshi SS , Badgwell BD . Current treatment and recent progress in gastric cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71 :264‐279. doi:10.3322/caac.21657 33592120 36 Smyth EC , Verheij M , Allum W , Cunningham D , Cervantes A , Arnold D . Gastric cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow‐up. Ann Oncol. 2016;27 :v38‐v49. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdw350 27664260 37 National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China . Chinese guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer. Chinese J Cancer Res. 2018;2019 (31 ):707‐737. (English version). doi:10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2019.05.01 38 Shitara K , Bang YJ , Iwasa S , et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan in previously treated HER2‐positive gastric cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382 :2419‐2430. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2004413 32469182 39 Sexton RE , Al Hallak MN , Diab M , Azmi AS . Gastric cancer: a comprehensive review of current and future treatment strategies. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2020;39 :1179‐1203. doi:10.1007/s10555-020-09925-3 32894370 40 US Food and Drug Administration . ROZLYTREK (entrectinib) capsules, for oral use. Accessed April 3, 2023. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2019/212725s000lbl.pdf 41 US Food and Drug Administration . HERCEPTIN® (trastuzumab). Accessed April 3, 2023. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2010/103792s5250lbl.pdf 42 US Food and Drug Administration . VITRAKVI® (larotrectinib) oral solution. Accessed April 3, 2023. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/211710s000lbl.pdf 43 US Food and Drug Safety Administration . KEYTRUDA (Pembrolizumab) Label. Accessed April 3, 2023. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2020/125514s088lbl.pdf 44 US Food and Drug Safety Administration . OPDIVO (Nivolumab) Label. Accessed April 3, 2023. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2020/125554s095lbl.pdf 45 US Food and Drug Administration . HIGHLIGHTS OF PRESCRIBING INFORMATION. ENHERTU® (fam‐trastuzumab deruxtecan‐nxki) for injection, for intravenous use. Accessed April 3, 2023. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2019/761139s000lbl.pdf