Niraparib treatment for patients with BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer: review of clinical data and therapeutic context

We reviewed clinical data for niraparib monotherapy in BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) epithelial ovarian cancer (OC), contextualizing results with data from other poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis). Niraparib reduced the likelihood of progression or death by 60% as first-line maintenance therapy and by 73-78% in recurrent disease. In heavily pretreated OC, efficacy was greater in the BRCAm versus non-BRCAm cohort. Quality-of-life (QoL) was maintained throughout treatment. Adverse events were consistent with the known niraparib safety profile. Cumulative efficacy, safety and QoL evidence demonstrate niraparib maintenance monotherapy has a positive benefit:risk ratio in BRCAm OC. Niraparib significantly improved progression-free survival as first-line maintenance therapy in all patients with OC (i.e., of any biomarker status).

A Pan-Canadian Consensus Statement on First-Line PARP Inhibitor Maintenance for Advanced, High-Grade Serous and Endometrioid Tubal, Ovarian, and Primary Peritoneal Cancers

The majority of patients with advanced, high-grade epithelial-tubo ovarian cancer (EOC) respond well to initial treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy; however, up to 80% of patients will experience a recurrence. Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have been established as a standard of care maintenance therapy to prolong remission and prevent relapse following a response to first-line platinum-chemotherapy. Olaparib and niraparib are the PARP inhibitors currently approved for use in the first-line maintenance setting in Canada. Selection of maintenance therapy requires consideration of patient and tumour factors, presence of germline and somatic mutations, expected drug toxicity profile, and treatment access. This paper discusses the current clinical evidence for first-line PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy in patients with advanced, high-grade EOC and presents consensus statements and a treatment algorithm to aid Canadian oncologists on the selection and use of PARP inhibitors within the Canadian EOC treatment landscape.

PARP inhibitors rising as an epoch-making strategy in first-line maintenance therapy of ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background To illustrate the accurate location of PARP inhibitor (PARPi) as the first-line maintenance therapy in advanced ovarian cancer (AOC).Methods Search for eligible studies and calculate clinical outcomes.Results PARPi as a first-line maintenance treatment significantly prolonged the BRCAmut population and the HRD positive population.Conclusion PARPi as first-line maintenance therapy significantly improves the PFS in AOC, especially in the BRCAmut and HRD positive populations. PARPi has been becoming the standard first-line maintenance therapy for AOC.

Cost comparison of adverse event management among breast and ovarian cancer patients treated with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors: analysis based on phase 3 clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The economic impact of adverse events (AEs) for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) in ovarian or breast cancer has not been widely evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

Compare PARPi-related AE management costs from a US payer perspective.

METHODS

The frequency of treatment-related grade 3-4 AEs was obtained from published clinical trials of PARPis for the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer (AOC), platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC), and metastatic breast cancer (MBC). AE management costs per patient (2020 USD) per treatment course were calculated by multiplying the AE unit costs by the frequency of AEs for each arm of each trial. Sensitivity analyses were conducted according to the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence interval for AE rates and unit costs, respectively. Scenarios were also performed to explore the uncertainty of outcomes.

RESULTS

Total AE management costs in AOC were: $3,904, olaparib; $5,595, olaparib plus bevacizumab; and $12,215, niraparib. In PSROC, total costs were: $3,894, olaparib; $6,001, rucaparib; and $11,492, niraparib, and in MBC: $3,574, olaparib; and $9,489, talazoparib. Hematological toxicities were the key drivers of AE management costs for PARPis.

CONCLUSIONS

The main AEs among PARPis were hematological. Olaparib was associated with lower AE costs compared to other PARPis.

IOLite: phase 1b trial of doublet/triplet combinations of dostarlimab with niraparib, carboplatin-paclitaxel, with or without bevacizumab in patients with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Doublet combination therapies targeting immune checkpoints have shown promising efficacy in patients with advanced solid tumors, but it is unknown if rational triplet combinations will be well tolerated and associated with improved antitumor activity. The objective of this trial was to determine the recommended phase 2 doses (RP2Ds) and to assess the safety and efficacy of the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor dostarlimab in combination with (1) the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor niraparib with or without vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor bevacizumab or (2) carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab, in patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

IOLite is a multicenter, open-label, multi-arm clinical trial. Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled. Patients received dostarlimab in combination with niraparib with or without bevacizumab or in combination with carboplatin-paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from the study. Prespecified endpoints in all parts were to evaluate the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), RP2Ds, pharmacokinetics (PKs), and preliminary efficacy for each combination.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients were enrolled; patients received dostarlimab and: (1) niraparib in part A (n=22); (2) carboplatin-paclitaxel in part B (n=14); (3) niraparib plus bevacizumab in part C (n=13); (4) carboplatin-paclitaxel plus bevacizumab in part D (n=6). The RP2Ds of all combinations were determined. All combinations were safe and tolerable, with no new safety signals observed. DLTs were reported in 2, 1, 2, and 0 patients, in parts A-D, respectively. Preliminary antitumor activity was observed, with confirmed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 complete/partial responses reported in 4 of 22 patients (18.2%), 6 of 14 patients (42.9%), 4 of 13 patients (30.8%), and 3 of 6 (50.0%) patients, in parts A-D, respectively. Disease control rates were 40.9%, 57.1%, 84.6%, and 83.3%, in parts A-D, respectively. Dostarlimab PK was unaffected by any combinations tested. Coadministration of bevacizumab showed no impact on niraparib PKs. The overall mean PD-1 receptor occupancy was 99.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Dostarlimab was well tolerated in both doublet and triplet regimens tested, with promising antitumor activity observed with all combinations. We observed higher disease control rates in the triplet regimens than in doublet regimens.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03307785.

Adverse Event Profiles of PARP Inhibitors: Analysis of Spontaneous Reports Submitted to FAERS

Background: Several poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) are currently approved for the treatment of a variety of cancers. The safety profile of PARPis has not yet been systemically analyzed in the real world. We conducted this pharmacovigilance analysis using the US FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to explore the difference in adverse events (AEs) among PARPis. Methods: FAERS data (December 2014 to October 2021) were searched for reports of all FDA-approved PARPis across all indications. We used the standardized MedDRA query (SMQ) generalized search AEs on the preferred term (PT) level based on case reports. After filtering duplicate reports, disproportionality analysis was used to detect safety signals by calculating reporting odds ratios (ROR). Reports were considered statistically significant if the 95% confidence interval did not contain the null value. Results: Within the standardized MedDRA queries, significant safety signals were found, including those for olaparib [blood premalignant disorders (ROR = 17.06)], rucaparib [taste and smell disorders (ROR = 9.17)], niraparib [hematopoietic throbocytopenia (ROR = 28.2)], and talazoparib [hematopoietic erythropenia (ROR = 9.38)]. For AEs on the PT level, we found several significant signals, including platelet count decreased with niraparib (ROR = 52.78); red blood cell count decreased with niraparib (ROR = 70.47) and rucaparib (ROR = 15.09); myelodysplastic syndrome with olaparib (ROR = 35.47); acute myeloid leukaemia with olaparib (ROR = 25.14); blood pressure fluctuation with niraparib (ROR = 20.54); lymphangioleiomyomatosis with niraparib (ROR = 471.20); photosensitivity reaction with niraparib (ROR = 21.77) and rucaparib (ROR = 18.92); renal impairment with rucaparib (ROR = 33.32); and interstitial lung disease with Olaparib (ROR = 11.31). All the detected safety signals were confirmed using signals of disproportionality reporting methods. Conclusion: PARPis differed in their safety profile reports. The analysis of the FAERS database revealed significant safety signals that matched previously published case reports, including serious gastrointestinal, blood and lymphatic system, cardiovascular and respiratory complications, which require individualized drug administration according to patients' conditions.

Effectiveness and Safety of Niraparib as Neoadjuvant Therapy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer With Homologous Recombination Deficiency (NANT): Study Protocol for a Prospective, Multicenter, Exploratory, Phase 2, Single-Arm Study

Background

Ovarian cancer (OC) is a heterogeneous gynecological malignancy with a poor prognosis as the majority of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS) is recommended for patients who cannot achieve optimal cytoreduction or cannot endure primary debulking surgery (PDS). As there is an increased risk of chemoresistance for platinum-based NACT, it is important to investigate an alternative option. A Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi), niraparib, has shown high anti-tumor activity, especially in homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) positive patients with OC. Thus, niraparib as a neoadjuvant treatment agent may help improve surgery accessibility and create survival benefits.

Methods

This multicenter, prospective, single-arm, open-label, phase II study plans to recruit 53 patients (aged 18-75 years) with newly diagnosed HRD positive, unresectable (Fagotti score ≥ 8 or upper abdominal computed tomography [CT] score ≥ 3) International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III-IV OC. The HRD status was detected by next-generation sequencing and HRD positive patients will be counseled for study participation. Enrolled patients will receive niraparib capsules QD (200mg or 300mg per day) for two cycles (4 weeks/cycle). After neoadjuvant niraparib treatment, patients exhibiting complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD) will undergo tumor reduction surgery and subsequent standard carboplatin/paclitaxel-based chemotherapy. The primary objectives include the objective response rate (ORR) and R0 resection rate. The rate of treatment interruption/termination and progression-free survival (PFS) will be secondary objectives. The study uses Simon’s optimal two-stage design (24 and 21 patients for the first and second stage respectively). The data manager will record all adverse events (AEs).

Discussion

This is the first prospective study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of niraparib in neoadjuvant treatment for advanced OC. The result of this study will provide a solid base for further expanding the clinical applications of the PAPRi and exploring more therapeutic possibilities for patients with HRD positive advanced OC. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT04507841.

Everything Comes with a Price: The Toxicity Profile of DNA-Damage Response Targeting Agents

Simple Summary

DNA damage induces genome instability, which may elicit cancer development. Defects in the DNA repair machinery further enhance cancer predisposition, but can also be exploited as a therapeutic target. Indeed, targeted agents against specific components of DNA repair, such as PARP inhibitors, are employed in various tumor types, while others, such as ATR, CHK1 or WEE1 inhibitors, are in clinical development. Even though these molecules have proven to be effective in different settings, they display several on- and off-target toxicities, shared by the whole pharmacological class or are drug specific. Among these effects, hematological and gastrointestinal toxicities are the most common, while others are less frequent but potentially life-threatening (e.g., myelodysplastic syndromes). Particular caution is needed in the case of combinatorial therapeutic approaches, which are currently being developed in clinical trials. In any case, it is necessary to recognize and properly manage adverse events of these drugs. This review provides a comprehensive overview on the safety profile of DDR-targeting agents, including indications for their management in clinical practice.

Abstract

Targeting the inherent vulnerability of cancer cells with an impaired DNA Damage Repair (DDR) machinery, Poly-ADP-Ribose-Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have yielded significant results in several tumor types, eventually entering clinical practice for the treatment of ovarian, breast, pancreatic and prostate cancer. More recently, inhibitors of other key components of DNA repair, such as ATR, CHK1 and WEE1, have been developed and are currently under investigation in clinical trials. The inhibition of DDR inevitably induces on-target and off-target adverse events. Hematological and gastrointestinal toxicities as well as fatigue are common with all DDR-targeting agents, while other adverse events are drug specific, such as hypertension with niraparib and transaminase elevation with rucaparib. Cases of pneumonitis and secondary hematological malignancies have been reported with PARP inhibitors and, despite being overly rare, they deserve particular attention due to their severity. Safety also represents a crucial issue for the development of combination regimens incorporating DDR-targeting agents with other treatments, such as chemotherapy, anti-angiogenics or immunotherapy. As such, overlapping and cumulative toxicities should be considered, especially when more than two classes of drugs are combined. Here, we review the safety profile of DDR-targeting agents when used as single agents or in combination and we provide principles of toxicity management.

Molecular methods for increasing the effectiveness of ovarian cancer treatment: a systematic review

Background: The aim of the current study is to analyze and summarize the latest research on improving therapy in ovarian cancer. Materials & methods: Data analysis was based on a review of publications from 2011 to 2021 in the PubMed database with use of the search terms including 'EGFR ovarian cancer', 'folate receptor inhibitors ovarian cancer', 'VEGF ovarian cancer', 'PDGF ovarian cancer' and 'CTLA-4 ovarian cancer'. Results: 6643 articles were found; 238 clinical trials and randomized control trials were analyzed; 122 studies were rejected due to inconsistency with the topic of the work. Conclusion: Extensive research on the treatment of ovarian cancer increases the chance of developing the most effective therapy suited to the individual needs of the patient.

Safety Profile of Niraparib as Maintenance Therapy for Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), treated with niraparib maintenance, present with haematological and gastrointestinal toxicities. Limited data exist on niraparib safety assessment. Objective: To evaluate niraparib safety profile, as maintenance therapy, in women with platinum-sensitive EOC. Methods: PubMed and Cochrane searches were carried out up to April 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating niraparib versus placebo in EOC patients with a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Regarding the meta-analysis, for dichotomous data, the pooled risk ratio (RR) was calculated. Results: A total of 1539 patients from three RCTs revealed that niraparib-treated patients are associated with a significantly higher risk of any grade of nausea (RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.86 to 2.48), fatigue (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.52, p < 0.00001), anemia (RR, 6.86; 95% CI, 2.54 to 18.52, p = 0.0001), thrombocytopenia (RR, 7.02; 95% CI, 1.68 to 29.38, p < 0.00001), vomiting (RR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.50 to 4.19, p = 0.0005), neutropenia (RR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.13 to 7.73, p < 0.00001), headache (RR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.57 to 2.74, p < 0.00001), constipation (RR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.72 to 2.57, p < 0.00001) and insomnia (RR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.52 to 2.89, p = 0.0003) when compared with placebo. For grade 3 or 4 adverse effects, significantly higher risk was only noted for fatigue (RR,6.25; 95% CI, 1.70 to 23.05, p = 0.006), anemia (RR, 16.23; 95% CI, 4.86 to 54.17, p < 0.00001), thrombocytopenia (RR, 35.12; 95% CI, 12.23 to 100.82, p < 0.00001) and neutropenia episodes (RR, 6.35; 95% CI, 2.08 to 19.39, p = 0.001) for those taking niraparib. Notably, incidents of adverse effects and discontinuation rates were substantially lower among patients treated with an individualised niraparib dose than those treated with the standard one. Efficacy was not reduced, and no treatment-related deaths occurred during the included trials. Conclusion: Niraparib is considered an effective and well-tolerated choice, with an improved safety profile, for the maintenance treatment of EOC patients.

Utilization of Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors in Ovarian Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study of US Healthcare Claims Data

Introduction

We aimed to characterize real-world utilization of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) in women with ovarian cancer (OC).

Methods

This retrospective observational study of claims data from US MarketScan^® Commercial/Medicare Supplemental databases included women with OC initiating olaparib, niraparib, or rucaparib from January 1, 2017, to May 31, 2019. Patients were observed from first outpatient prescription until at least 30 days’ follow-up. Clinical events of interest (CEIs), based on adverse reactions in PARPi prescribing information, were identified from claims using ICD-9/10 codes. Other outcomes included dose modification, persistence, adherence, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and cost.

Results

Overall, 303, 348, and 162 women with OC received olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib, respectively. During follow-up, risk of any CEI was higher with niraparib versus olaparib (odds ratio 3.36 [95% confidence interval 2.00–5.65]) and niraparib versus rucaparib (2.09 [1.10–3.95]), with no significant difference between rucaparib and olaparib (1.61 [0.93–2.79]). PARPi dose decreases were observed in 21.1%, 35.1%, and 30.2% of olaparib-, niraparib-, and rucaparib-treated patients, respectively. Persistence (no treatment gaps of more than 90 days) was significantly higher (P < 0.05) with olaparib (62.2%) versus niraparib (35.9%) and rucaparib (48.7%); adherence (medication possession ratio, MPR ≥ 80%) was 80.2% versus 38.6% and 63.2%, respectively (P < 0.001). Inpatient admissions and outpatient service use were higher with niraparib and rucaparib versus olaparib, reflected in mean (± standard deviation) total medical costs (excluding pharmacy) of $5393 ± 8828 for olaparib, $7732 ± 14,054 for niraparib, and $6868 ± 7929 for rucaparib.

Conclusion

Differences between the licensed PARPi were observed in the risk of experiencing a CEI, likelihood of dose modifications, ability to receive continuous PARPi therapy, HCRU, and costs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01959-5.

Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor Inhibition in Ovarian Cancer: A Comprehensive Review

ABSTRACT

The emergence of clinical trial data for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), in BRCA-associated ovarian cancer (epithelial ovarian cancer [EOC]) in 2009 (Lancet 2010;376:245-251) unleashed a rapid series of additional asset development and clinical trial activation across all lines of EOC treatment, ultimately leading to 8 new approvals of 3 different PARPi in EOC since 2014. Monotherapy iPARPi were approved as frontline maintenance treatment for all patients with EOC who respond to platinum-based chemotherapy irrespective of biomarker (niraparib) and for BRCA-associated cancers (olaparib) (https://www.azpicentral.com/lynparza_tb/lynparza_tb.pdf#page=1; https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2020/208447s015s017lbledt.pdf). Combination of olaparib and bevacizumab was approved as maintenance for patients in response to platinum-based and bevacizumab containing frontline therapy whose tumor is characterized as homologous recombination deficient and as approved test by the Food and Drug Administration, inclusive of BRCA-associated cancers (N Engl J Med 2019;381:2416-2428). Niraparib, olaparib, and rucaparib were also approved as maintenance treatment following response to platinum-based therapy in the recurrent setting irrespective of biomarker (https://www.azpicentral.com/lynparza_tb/lynparza_tb.pdf#page=1; https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2020/208447s015s017lbledt.pdf; https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/209115s003lbl.pdf). All 3 PARPi were also approved as treatment in lieu of chemotherapy for patients with BRCA-associated cancers in third line and beyond (https://www.azpicentral.com/lynparza_tb/lynparza_tb.pdf#page=1;https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/209115s003lbl.pdf) and platinum-sensitive homologous recombination deficient in the fourth line and beyond (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2020/208447s015s017lbledt.pdf), as well as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network listed in combination with bevacizumab for treatment of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent disease (https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/ovarian.pdf). Ongoing clinical trials in all lines of treatment are evaluating combinations of therapies to improve efficacy among biomarker negative tumors as well as overcome acquired PARPi resistance due to prior use.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of PARP Inhibitors as a Monotherapy for Platinum-Sensitive Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background

The present COVID-19 pandemic has tended toward normality. To provide convenient, safe, and effective home treatment programs for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC), the clinical efficacy and safety of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) (including olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib) monotherapy as a maintenance treatment for platinum-sensitive ROC were systematically evaluated.

Methods

Numerous electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PARPi maintenance treatment for ROC that were published before June 2021. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoint was grade 3-4 adverse effects (AEs). After data extraction and the quality evaluation of the included studies, Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using R software. The ability of each treatment was ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve.

Results

The analysis included five studies and 1390 patients. The NMA results demonstrated that compared with the placebo, olaparib and niraparib exhibited significant benefits in the gBRCA-mutated population, and respectively reduced the risk of death by 31% (HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53-0.90) and 34% (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.44-0.99). Olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib were all found to be very effective in prolonging PFS in patients with ROC. All three PARPi treatments increased the number of grade 3-4 AEs in patients with ROC as compared with the placebo.

Conclusions

Overall, olaparib and niraparib maintenance treatment can significantly prolong the OS of patients with gBRCA mutations. Furthermore, the three investigated PARPi monotherapy maintenance treatments can prolong PFS regardless of BRCA mutation status. Although the incidence of AEs in the treatment groups was found to be significantly higher than that in the placebo group, the patients in the treatment group tolerated the treatment. Home oral PARPi treatment can balance tumor treatment and pandemic prevention and control, and is the most convenient, safe, and effective home treatment method available against the background of the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Systematic Review Registration

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2021-6-0033/.

An In-Depth Review of Niraparib in Ovarian Cancer: Mechanism of Action, Clinical Efficacy and Future Directions

Niraparib is an oral, potent, highly selective poly-ADP ribose polymerase 1 (PARP1) and PARP2 inhibitor. In most developed countries, it is approved as a maintenance treatment for epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer in patients with complete or partial response to platinum-based therapy. These approvals are based on results of randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, particularly the NOVA trial and more recently the PRIMA trial. In this comprehensive review, we delve into the scientific basis of PARP inhibition, discussing both preclinical and clinical data which have led to the current approval status of niraparib. We also discuss ongoing trials and biological rationale of combination treatments involving niraparib, with particular focus on antiangiogenic drugs, immune checkpoint inhibitors and cyclic GMP-AMP synthase stimulator of interferon genes (cGAS/STING) pathway. In addition, we reflect on potential strategies and challenges of utilising current biomarkers for treatment selection of patients to ensure maximal benefit.

PARP inhibitors: clinical relevance and the role of multidisciplinary cancer teams on drug safety

INTRODUCTION

Cancer is considered one of the most devastating causes of death for humanity. Innovative and targeted therapies have become urgent in the treatment of this large subset of diseases. Over the last decade, the development of PARP (poly (ADP-Ribose) polymerase) inhibitors has emerged as a new target in cancer therapy.

AREAS COVERED

The authors conducted a review focusing on the clinic relevance and adverse effects of the four drugs already approved by drug regulatory agencies, namely: olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib and talazoparib. Despite the targeted action of this drug class, the adverse effects should be carefully monitored for the adequate safety of cancer patients taking them. The role of multidisciplinary cancer teams is crucial to help more and more patients to benefit from these revolutionary agents.

EXPERT OPINION

PARP (poly (ADP-Ribose) polymerase) inhibitors are drugs with great potential in the treatment of several types of cancer. However, their toxicity profiles often lead to treatment interruption or early discontinuation. The daily monitoring of these cancer patients by multidisciplinary cancer teams is essential for the success of therapy and for the promotion of a better quality of life.

Population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of maintenance PARP inhibitor with or without bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone in women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

In patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, bevacizumab and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, alone or in combination, have shown benefit as maintenance treatment following platinum-based chemotherapy. However, no trials have compared a PARP inhibitor plus bevacizumab versus a PARP inhibitor, or a PARP inhibitor versus bevacizumab. We performed an unanchored population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of maintenance treatments for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Analyses were performed using aggregate data from the PRIMA trial and patient-level data from a subset of patients from the PAOLA-1 trial that met surgery and staging eligibility criteria of PRIMA. Propensity weights were used to match baseline characteristics of the PAOLA-1 subset to those of the PRIMA population. Analysis was performed in overall (biomarker-unselected) and homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD)-positive populations.

RESULTS

A total of 595/806 (266/387 HRD-positive) PAOLA-1 patients were included. After matching, the effective sample size for PAOLA-1 was 532 (242 HRD-positive). Maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 43% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47-0.69] versus niraparib and by 40% (HR 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49-0.74) versus bevacizumab in the biomarker-unselected population and by 43% (HR 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.79) and 60% (HR 0.40; 95% CI: 0.29-0.55), respectively, in the HRD-positive population. Progression-free survival (PFS) benefits of maintenance niraparib and bevacizumab arms were comparable in the biomarker-unselected population (HR 1.07; 95% CI: 0.87-1.32); however, niraparib showed a 30% reduced risk compared with bevacizumab (HR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.97) in the HRD-positive population.

CONCLUSIONS

In biomarker-unselected and HRD-positive patients, combination treatment with olaparib plus bevacizumab as maintenance treatment improves PFS for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer compared with either bevacizumab or niraparib alone. Results are hypothesis generating and could guide randomised trial design.

Adherence to PARP inhibitor therapy among women with ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate medical adherence for patients with ovarian cancer who initiated treatment with a PARP inhibitor therapy, and to identify factors associated with nonadherence.

METHODS

We used the MarketScan Database to identify ovarian cancer patients who initiated PARP inhibitor therapy between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2017. The primary outcome was adherence defined as ≥ 80% proportion of days covered (PDC). A secondary outcome included adherence assessed using the medication possession ratio (MPR). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess relation between PDC and explanatory variables. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate impact of dose-adjustments and toxicity-related delays on adherence.

RESULTS

Among 170,976 patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer, 151 patients met inclusion criteria. The median time from diagnosis to initiating therapy was 33 months. Overall, 40 (26.5%) were non-adherent based on a PDC less than 80%. Non-adherent patients were more likely to receive niraparib and have a longer duration of therapy (p < 0.05). We found no significant impact of age, comorbidities, insurance plan, or year of PARP inhibitor initiation on non-adherence. In a sensitivity analysis to assess different definition of adherence, non-adherence ranged from 11.3% to 41.1%. When accounting for possible dose-adjustments, 21.2% of patients were non-adherent.

CONCLUSION

This population based study of ovarian cancer patients found that a quarter of patients may be sub-optimally adherent to PARP inhibitor therapy. Future research should focus on identification of patients at risk for nonadherence and interventions to lower nonadherence among these patients.

Therapeutic Sequences in the Treatment of High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Paving the Way Towards Multimodal Tailored Approaches

Various definitions are currently in use to describe high-risk prostate cancer. This variety in definitions is important for patient counseling, since predicted outcomes depend on which classification is applied to identify patient’s prostate cancer risk category. Historically, strategies for the treatment of localized high-risk prostate cancer comprise local approaches such as surgery and radiotherapy, as well as systemic approaches such as hormonal therapy. Nevertheless, since high-risk prostate cancer patients remain the group with higher-risk of treatment failure and mortality rates, nowadays, novel treatment strategies, comprising hypofractionated-radiotherapy, second-generation antiandrogens, and hadrontherapy, are being explored in order to improve their long-term oncological outcomes. This narrative review aims to report the current management of high-risk prostate cancer and to explore the future perspectives in this clinical setting.

Tolerability of maintenance olaparib in newly diagnosed patients with advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in the randomized phase III SOLO1 trial

Objectives.

In the phase III SOLO1 trial (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation who were in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analyzed the timing, duration and grade of the most common hematologic and non-hematologic adverse events in SOLO1.

Methods.

Eligible patients were randomized to olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily (N = 260)or placebo (N = 131), with a 2-year treatment cap in most patients. Safety outcomes were analyzed in detail in randomized patients who received at least one dose of study drug (olaparib, n = 260; placebo, n = 130).

Results.

Median time to first onset of the most common hematologic (anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematologic (nausea, fatigue/asthenia, vomiting) adverse events was <3 months in olaparibtreated patients. The first event of anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting lasted a median of <2 months and the first event of fatigue/asthenia lasted a median of 3.48 months in the olaparib group. These adverse events were manageable with supportive treatment and/or olaparib dose modification in most patients, with few patients requiring discontinuation of olaparib. Of 162 patients still receiving olaparib at month 24, 64.2% were receiving the recommended starting dose of olaparib 300 mg twice daily.

Conclusions.

Maintenance olaparib had a predictable and manageable adverse event profile in the newly diagnosed setting with no new safety signals identified. Adverse events usually occurred early, were largely manageable and led to discontinuation in a minority of patients.

Identification of different side effects between PARP inhibitors and their polypharmacological multi-target rationale

AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine the differences and potential mechanistic rationale for observed adverse drug reactions (ADRs) between four approved PARP inhibitors (PARPi).

METHODS

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) Yellow Card drug analysis profiles and NHS secondary care medicines database enabled the identification of suspected ADRs associated with the PARPi in the UK from launch to 2020. The polypharmacology of the PARPi were data-mined from several public data sources.

RESULTS

The overall ADRs per 100 000 R_x identified across the four PARPi are statistically significant (χ² test, P < .001). Rucaparib has the greatest relative suspected ADRs, which can be explained by its least clean kinome and physicochemical properties. The suspected gastrointestinal ADRs of rucaparib and niraparib can be ascribed to their kinase polypharmacology. Suspected blood and lymphatic system ADRs of PARPi can be linked to their high volume of distribution (V_d ). The thrombocytopenia rate of niraparib > rucaparib > olaparib tracked with the V_d trend. Hypertension is only associated with niraparib and could be explained by the therapeutically achievable inhibition of DYRK1A and/or transporters. Arrhythmia cases are potentially linked to the structural features of hERG ion-channel inhibition found in rucaparib and niraparib. Enhanced psychiatric/nervous disorders associated with niraparib can be interpreted from the diverse neurotransporter off-targets reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite their similar mode of action, the differential polypharmacology of PARP inhibitors influences their ADR profile.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of niraparib in patients with moderate hepatic impairment

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to characterize niraparib pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety in patients with normal hepatic function (NHF) versus moderate hepatic impairment (MHI).

METHODS

Patients with advanced solid tumors were stratified by NHF or MHI (National Cancer Institute-Organ Dysfunction Working Group criteria [bilirubin > 1.5-3 × upper limit of normal and any aspartate aminotransferase elevation]). In the PK phase, all patients received one 300 mg dose of niraparib. In the extension phase, patients with MHI received niraparib 200 mg daily; patients with NHF received 200 or 300 mg based on weight (< 77 kg, ≥ 77 kg)/platelets (< 150,000/µL, ≥ 150,000/µL). PK parameters included maximum concentration (C_max), area under the curve to last measured concentration (AUC_last) and extrapolated to infinity (AUC_inf). Safety was assessed in both phases. Exposure-response (E-R) modeling was used to predict MHI effects on exposure and safety of niraparib doses ≤ 200 mg or 300/200 mg or 200/100 mg weight/platelet regimens.

RESULTS

In the PK phase (NHF, n = 9; MHI, n = 8), mean niraparib C_max was 7% lower in patients with MHI versus NHF. Mean exposure (AUC_last, AUC_inf) was increased by 45% and 56%, respectively, in patients with MHI without impacting tolerability. In the extension phase (NHF, n = 8; MHI, n = 7), the overall safety profile was consistent with previous trials. In patients with MHI, E-R modeling predicted niraparib 200 mg reduced Grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia incidence, whereas a 200/100 mg regimen yielded exposures below efficacy-associated levels in 15% of patients.

CONCLUSION

These findings support adjusting the 300 mg niraparib starting dose to 200 mg QD in patients with MHI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03359850; registered December 2, 2017.

Movement of Poly-ADP Ribose (PARP) Inhibition into Frontline Treatment of Ovarian Cancer

The use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the front-line management of advanced ovarian cancer has recently emerged as an exciting strategy with the potential to improve outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. In this article, we review the results of four recently published Phase III randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of PARP inhibitors in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer (SOLO1, PRIMA, PAOLA-1, and VELIA). Collectively, the studies suggest that PARP maintenance in the upfront setting is most beneficial among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers (hazard ratios range from 0.31 to 0.44), followed by patients with tumours that harbour homologous recombination deficiencies (hazard ratios range from 0.33 to 0.57). All three studies that included an all-comer population were able to demonstrate benefit of PARP inhibitors, regardless of biomarker status. The FDA has approved olaparib for front-line maintenance therapy among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers, and niraparib for all patients, regardless of biomarker status. In determining which patients should be offered front-line maintenance PARP inhibitors, and which agent to use, there are multiple factors to consider, including FDA indication, dosing preference, toxicity, risks versus benefits for each patient population, and cost. There are ongoing studies further exploring the front-line use of PARP inhibitors, including the potential downstream effects of PARP-inhibitor resistance in the recurrent setting, combining PARP-inhibitors with other anti-angiogenic drugs, immunotherapeutic agents, and inhibitors of pathways implicated in PARP inhibitor resistance.

Evaluation of the management of PARP inhibitor toxicities in ovarian and endometrial cancer within a multi-institution health-system

INTRODUCTION

Poly-adenosine diphosphate ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) have become a cornerstone of therapy in the management ovarian cancer and other cancers. PARPi are associated with significant toxicities and management strategies are primarily founded on clinical trial experience. This study aimed to provide an evaluation of patients receiving PARPi therapy within an academic health-system.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational study of adult patients with gynecologic malignancy was conducted at the University of Pennsylvania Health System. Data was collected on patients prescribed a PARPi between December 2014 and October 2019. The primary endpoint was the status of PARPi therapy at the end of the study period. Key secondary endpoints included toxicity management strategies, time to discontinuation due to toxicity, progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Of the 85 patients included, 45 (53%) received olaparib, 24 (28%) niraparib, and 16 (19%) rucaparib. Twenty-nine patients (34%) continued on therapy, 15 (18%) discontinued due to toxicity, and 41 (48%) discontinued due to progression. Fifty-one percent of patients required a dose reduction due to toxicities. The median time to discontinuation due to toxicity was 69 days (9-353). Median PFS was 181 days (9-365) and median OS was 338 days (9-365).

CONCLUSION

PARPi therapy is associated with numerous toxicities that are best managed through a multi-modal approach. Importantly, about half the patients in the current study required a dose reduction. Overall, this observational study outlines the incidence of PARPi toxicities and reviews potential management strategies, further guiding practitioners in an area with limited real-world experience.

Latest clinical evidence of maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the data supporting the use of maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since December 2016, the United States Food and Drug Administration has approved four drugs for six different ovarian cancer maintenance indications based on the results of clinical trials demonstrating efficacy and tolerability. These include antiangiogenesis and poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) inhibitors (PARP inhibitors). Four drugs are approved for use in maintenance therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer, including bevacizumab (GOG-0213 and OCEANS), niraparib (NOVA), olaparib (Study 19 and SOLO2) and rucaparib (ARIEL3). Two drugs are approved for use in maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, including bevacizumab (GOG-0218) and olaparib (SOLO1). New data were reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress in October 2019 that may lead to the approval of additional strategies in front-line maintenance, including the use of niraparib (PRIMA), veliparib (VELIA) and bevacizumab + olaparib (PAOLA).

SUMMARY

The landscape of maintenance treatment options for ovarian cancer has been rapidly expanding and continues to evolve as new data emerge. Currently approved strategies include antiangiogenesis and PARP inhibitor treatments.

Rationale for combination PARP inhibitor and antiangiogenic treatment in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: A review

Inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) and angiogenesis have demonstrated single-agent activity in women with advanced ovarian cancer. Recent studies have aimed to establish whether combination therapy can augment the response seen with PARP inhibitors or antiangiogenic agents alone. This review provides an overview of PARP inhibitors and antiangiogenics as monotherapy in women with advanced ovarian cancer, explores potential mechanisms of action of PARP inhibitor and antiangiogenic combination treatments, reviews efficacy and safety data from trials evaluating this combination, and outlines ongoing and future trials evaluating this combination, discussing these in the context of the current and future treatment landscape for women with advanced ovarian cancer. Sentinel studies evaluating PARP inhibitor (n = 8), antiangiogenic (n = 4), and combination (n = 7) therapy were identified in women with newly diagnosed (n = 7) and recurrent (n = 12) ovarian cancer. PARP inhibitors included olaparib (n = 9), niraparib (n = 4), rucaparib (n = 1), and veliparib (n = 1). Antiangiogenic agents included bevacizumab (n = 7) and cediranib (n = 4). PARP inhibitors combined with antiangiogenics demonstrated efficacy based on objective response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) in the relapsed disease setting. Maintenance therapy with the PARP inhibitor, olaparib, plus antiangiogenic therapy offered a significant PFS benefit versus the antiangiogenic alone in women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who tested positive for homologous recombination deficiency. Combination therapy was tolerated, with no new safety signals reported compared with monotherapy trials. PARP inhibitors and antiangiogenics have changed the landscape of ovarian cancer treatment. The PARP inhibitor plus antiangiogenic combination is a novel treatment option that appears promising in the first-line advanced and recurrent ovarian cancer settings, although the role of this combination in recurrent disease requires further elucidation. Defining which patients are candidates for monotherapy or combination therapy is critical, taking into consideration safety profiles of therapies alone or in combination, and how these treatments should be sequenced in clinical practice.

Population exposure-efficacy and exposure-safety analyses for rucaparib in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma from Study 10 and ARIEL2

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate correlations between rucaparib exposure and selected efficacy and safety endpoints in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma using pooled data from Study 10 and ARIEL2.

METHODS

Efficacy analyses were limited to patients with carcinomas harboring a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who had received ≥2 prior lines of chemotherapy. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received ≥1 rucaparib dose. Steady-state daily area under the concentration-time curve (AUCss) and maximum concentration (Cmax,ss) for rucaparib were calculated for each patient and averaged by actual dose received over time (AUCavg,ss and Cmax,avg,ss) using a previously developed population pharmacokinetic model.

RESULTS

Rucaparib exposure was dose-proportional and not associated with baseline patient weight. In the exposure-efficacy analyses (n = 121), AUCavg,ss was positively associated with independent radiology review-assessed RECIST response in the subgroup of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent disease (n = 75, p = 0.017). In the exposure-safety analyses (n = 393, 40 mg once daily to 840 mg twice daily [BID] starting doses), most patients received a 600 mg BID rucaparib starting dose, with 27% and 21% receiving 1 or ≥2 dose reductions, respectively. Cmax,ss was significantly correlated with grade ≥2 serum creatinine increase, grade ≥3 alanine transaminase/aspartate transaminase increase, platelet decrease, fatigue/asthenia, and maximal hemoglobin decrease (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The exposure-response analyses provide support for the approved starting dose of rucaparib 600 mg BID for maximum clinical benefit with subsequent dose modification only following the occurrence of a treatment-emergent adverse event in patients with BRCA-mutated recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

The safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of niraparib in Japanese patients with solid tumours: results of a phase I dose-escalation study

Background

Niraparib is the only poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose)-polymerase (PARP) inhibitor available as oral monotherapy for maintenance, regardless of BRCA mutational status.

Methods

This phase I, open-label, non-randomized, dose-escalation study was conducted in Japan using a 3 + 3 design. Adults (≥20 years) with metastatic or locally advanced solid tumours were enrolled. Niraparib 200 mg (cohort 1) or 300 mg (cohort 2) was administered once daily in 21-day cycles (no drug holiday between cycles) until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of niraparib in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumours. The number of patients with dose-limiting toxicities in cycle 1 and number with treatment-emergent adverse events were primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints were pharmacokinetics and tumour response.

Results

There were three patients in cohort 1 and six patients in cohort 2. Only one patient, in cohort 2, developed a dose-limiting toxicity (grade 4 platelet count decreased). All patients in both cohorts developed treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events were decreased appetite (n = 2) in cohort 1, and platelet count decreased as well as aspartate aminotransferase increased (both n = 5) in cohort 2. Mean C_max and AUC_0–24 of niraparib increased dose-proportionally after multiple doses (accumulation ratio of between 1.64 and 3.65); median t_max was 3–4 h. Two patients, both in cohort 2, had a partial response to treatment.

Conclusions

Niraparib (200 or 300 mg/day) was tolerable and had a favourable pharmacokinetic profile in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumours.

The efficacy and safety of niraparib for ovarian cancer: a single-center observational study from China

BACKGROUND

Niraparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, is approved for first/second-line maintenance treatment of ovarian cancer patients with complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy, and multi-line monotherapy in BRCAmt patients or platinum-sensitive recurrence patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). We present real-world experience from a single center of China.

METHODS

Patients treated with niraparib in Jiangsu Cancer Hospital between June 2019 to July 2020 were recruited. The initial dose was given according to individualization. Response and adverse events (AEs) were analyzed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. and National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0, respectively. HRD testing (AmoyDx®) was detected in most patients. Treatment was given until unequivocal progression or intolerable toxicity.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients all received niraparib at a bolus of 200 mg/d. Fifty percent of patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer are HRD-positive. Six patients underwent first-line maintenance therapy. Sixteen patients received exploratory therapy. Ultimately image evaluation revealed that two patients achieved partial response (PR) and one patient achieved stable disease (SD), yielding objective response rate (ORR) of 33.3% (95%CI = 0.060-0.759) and disease control rate (DCR) of 50% (95%CI = 0.140-0.861) in the exploratory multi-line monotherapy group. The most common AEs were nausea, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia were managed by dose reduction and interruption. Leg swelling was observed as a new adverse event.

CONCLUSION

It is feasible that patients receiving a bolus of 200 mg/d in patients from Chinese population can acquire promising efficacy and tolerance. This is the first real-world data about niraparib in ovarian cancer patients with available HRD status from China.

Appropriate Systemic Therapy Dosing for Obese Adult Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To provide recommendations for appropriate dosing of systemic antineoplastic agents in obese adults with cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature collected evidence regarding dosing of chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapies in obese adults with cancer. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, or cohort studies published from November 1, 2010, through March 27, 2020. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

Sixty studies, primarily retrospective, were included in the review. Overall, the evidence supported previous findings that obese adult patients tolerate full, body-size-based dosing of chemotherapy as well as nonobese patients. Fewer studies have addressed the dosing of targeted therapies and immunotherapies in relation to safety and efficacy in obese patients.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel continues to recommend that full, weight-based cytotoxic chemotherapy doses be used to treat obese adults with cancer. New to this version of the guideline, the Panel also recommends that full, approved doses of immunotherapy and targeted therapies be offered to obese adults with cancer. In the event of toxicity, the consensus of the Panel is that dose modifications of systemic antineoplastic therapies should be handled similarly for obese and nonobese patients. Important areas for future research include the impact of sarcopenia and other measures of body composition on optimal antineoplastic dosing, and more customized dosing based on pharmacokinetic or pharmacogenetic factors.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Real-world hematological adverse events in Chinese patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with an individualized starting dose of niraparib

Background

This work set out to examine the hematological adverse events (AEs) of an individualized starting dose (ISD) of niraparib in Chinese patients with ovarian cancer (OC).

Methods

The medical records of 43 patients with OC who were treated with an ISD of niraparib at the Cancer Hospital of The University of Chinese Academy of Sciences between February 2019 and January 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Treatment-emergent hematological AEs were analyzed.

Results

Of the 43 patients with OC, 28 (65.1%) had hematological AEs of ≥ grade 1, including thrombocytopenia (39.5%), leukopenia (37.2%), and anemia (34.9%). Ten (23.3%) patients developed grade 3/4 hematological AEs, including thrombocytopenia (11.6%), leukopenia (9.3%), and anemia (7.0%). Among the individuals who developed AEs during treatment, 9 (32.1%) patients had their treatment interrupted, with treatment being restarted in 8 (28.6%) cases, and 4 (14.3%) patients had the drug dose decreased. No deaths were reported. The median times to the occurrence of any-grade leukopenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia were 30 (range, 7 to 162), 34 (range, 7 to 108), and 20 (range, 13 to 180) days, respectively. Most AEs occurred within the first 3 months of treatment (93.8% leukopenia, 80.0% anemia, and 76.5% thrombocytopenia). Treatments for AEs included supplementation of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (n=5, 17.9%), erythrocytes (n=2, 7.1%), and recombinant human thrombopoietin (n=5, 17.9%).

Conclusions

The incidence of adverse hematological reactions to an ISD of niraparib in Chinese patients with advanced OC is relatively lower in the real world than in the phase III clinical trials PRIMA (also an ISD) and NOVA. These hematological AEs can be managed through dose adjustment and symptomatic therapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Niraparib as Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Extensive-Stage SCLC After First-Line Chemotherapy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Study

INTRODUCTION

ZL-2306-005 is a randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of niraparib, a poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, as first-line maintenance therapy in Chinese patients with platinum-responsive, extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC).

METHODS

Patients with complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) to standardized, platinum-based first-line chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to receive niraparib or placebo (300 mg [baseline body weight ≥ 77 kg, platelet count ≥ 150,000/μL] or 200 mg) once daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) (blinded independent central review) and overall survival (sample size planned: 591 patients). Secondary end points included investigator-evaluated PFS and safety.

RESULTS

ZL-2306-005 was terminated early owing to ES-SCLC treatment landscape changes (data cutoff: March 20, 2020). During July 2018-February 2020, a total of 185 of 272 patients screened were randomized (niraparib: n = 125 [CR = 1, PR = 124]; placebo: n = 60 [CR = 1, PR = 59]). Median (95% confidence interval [CI]) PFS (blinded independent central review) was 1.54 months (1.41-2.69, niraparib) and 1.36 months (1.31-1.48, placebo); hazard ratio (HR) = 0.66 (95% CI: 0.46-0.95, p = 0.0242). Median overall survival was 9.92 months (9.33-13.54, niraparib) and 11.43 months (9.53-not estimable, placebo); HR = 1.03 (95% CI: 0.62-1.73, p = 0.9052). Median investigator-evaluated PFS was 1.48 months (1.41-2.56, niraparib) and 1.41 months (1.31-2.00, placebo); HR = 0.88 (95% CI: 0.61-1.26; p = 0.4653). Grade greater than or equal to 3 adverse events occurred in 34.4% (niraparib) and 25.0% (placebo) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

ZL-2306-005 did not reach primary end points. Nevertheless, niraparib as maintenance therapy modestly improved PFS in patients with platinum-responsive ES-SCLC, with acceptable tolerability profile and no new safety signal.

Differences in PARP Inhibitors for the Treatment of Ovarian Cancer: Mechanisms of Action, Pharmacology, Safety, and Efficacy

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerases (PARP) are proteins responsible for DNA damage detection and signal transduction. PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are able to interact with the binding site for PARP cofactor (NAD+) and trapping PARP on the DNA. In this way, they inhibit single-strand DNA damage repair. These drugs have been approved in recent years for the treatment of ovarian cancer. Although they share some similarities, from the point of view of the chemical structure and pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic properties, these drugs also have some substantial differences. These differences may underlie the different safety profiles and activity of PARPi.

Niraparib in the maintenance treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer: safety and efficacy

Introduction: Approximately 300,000 women worldwide are diagnosed each year with ovarian cancer. Frequently diagnosed in late stages with ambiguous symptomatology, ovarian cancer has a low survival rate.Areas covered: Niraparib, a PARP inhibitor, was approved in 2020 for use in the maintenance treatment of ovarian cancer regardless of biomarker status. Included in the review are PRIMA (NCT02655016), NOVA (NCT01847274), AVANOVA2 (NCT02354131), and QUADRA (NCT02354586) trials which herald the advent of using maintenance oral therapies in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Additionally, with new combination drug trials, exciting avenues for treatment are also discussed with the FIRST (NCT03016338) trial.Expert opinion: Maintenance niraparib treatment regardless of genetic profile offers a new modality for the treatment of ovarian cancer with a low side effect profile and importantly oral dosing. New combinations of synergistic immunotherapeutics, and antiangiogenesis therapies with niraparib also offer exciting new frontiers for patients with ovarian cancer.

Niraparib maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer using an individualized starting dose (NORA): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial☆

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated maintenance treatment with niraparib, a potent inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1/2, in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted at 30 centers in China, adults with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer who had responded to their most recent platinum-containing chemotherapy were randomized 2 : 1 to receive oral niraparib (300 mg/day) or matched placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (NCT03705156). Following a protocol amendment, patients with a bodyweight <77 kg or a platelet count <150 × 10³/μl received 200 mg/day, and all other patients 300 mg/day, as an individualized starting dose (ISD). Randomization was carried out by an interactive web response system and stratified by BRCA mutation, time to recurrence following penultimate chemotherapy, and response to most recent chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by blinded independent central review.

RESULTS

Between 26 September 2017 and 2 February 2019, 265 patients were randomized to receive niraparib (n = 177) or placebo (n = 88); 249 patients received an ISD (300 mg, n = 14; 200 mg, n = 235) as per protocol. In the intention-to-treat population, median PFS was significantly longer for patients receiving niraparib versus placebo: 18.3 [95% confidence interval (CI), 10.9-not evaluable] versus 5.4 (95% CI, 3.7-5.7) months [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.23-0.45; P < 0.0001], and a similar PFS benefit was observed in patients receiving an ISD, regardless of BRCA mutation status. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 50.8% and 19.3% of patients who received niraparib and placebo, respectively; the most common events were neutrophil count decreased (20.3% versus 8.0%) and anemia (14.7% versus 2.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Niraparib maintenance treatment reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 68% and prolonged PFS compared to placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. Individualized niraparib dosing is effective and safe and should be considered standard practice in this setting.

Phase 2 single-arm study on the safety of maintenance niraparib in Japanese patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of niraparib 300 mg/day in Japanese patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer in a maintenance setting.

METHODS

Phase 2, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study enrolled Japanese patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer who had received ≥2 platinum-based regimens. The primary endpoint (incidence of grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia-related events within 30 days after initial niraparib administration) was justified by the incidences of a global pivotal phase 3 study and its post-hoc safety analysis on thrombocytopenia, the major hematological adverse event of niraparib. The overall safety analysis examined other treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

Enrolled patients (n=19) had a median (min, max) body weight of 53.9 (40.8-79.1) kg; all but one patient weighed <77 kg. Most (94.7%) patients initially received niraparib 300 mg/day but this decreased in subsequent cycles (mean±standard deviation dose intensity, 191.6±65.7 mg/day). In total, 6/19 (31.6%) patients experienced grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia-related events within 30 days of initial niraparib administration. Other common TEAEs included nausea, and decreased platelet or neutrophil counts. No progression-free or overall survival events occurred; only 1 of 4 response-evaluable patients had a post-baseline tumor assessment (stable disease).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia-related events in Japanese ovarian cancer patients was similar to that in the corresponding non-Japanese study. Overall, the safety profile was acceptable and consistent with the known safety profile and previous experience with niraparib.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03759587.

Phase 2 single-arm study on the efficacy and safety of niraparib in Japanese patients with heavily pretreated, homologous recombination-deficient ovarian cancer

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of niraparib in Japanese women with heavily pretreated ovarian cancer.

Methods

This Phase 2 open-label, single-arm study enrolled Japanese women with homologous recombination deficiency-positive relapsed, high-grade serous ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who had completed 3–4 lines of therapy. The starting dose of niraparib was 300 mg administered once daily in continuous 28-day cycles until objective progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, consent withdrawal or discontinuation. The primary endpoint, objective response rate (ORR), was assessed by the investigator using RECIST version 1.1. Safety evaluations included the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), including serious TEAEs.

Results

Twenty women were enrolled and the confirmed ORR in the full analysis set (FAS) was 35.0% (7/20), consisting of 1 complete response and 6 partial responses. Disease control rate in the FAS was 90.0%. The most frequently reported TEAEs (>50%) were anemia, nausea, and platelet count decreased. One patient (5.0%) had TEAEs leading to discontinuation of niraparib whereas reductions or interruptions were reported in 14 (70.0%) and 15 (75.0%) patients, respectively. The median dose intensity (202.9 mg daily) corresponded to a relative dose intensity of 67.6%.

Conclusion

Efficacy and safety of niraparib in heavily pretreated Japanese women was comparable to that seen in an equivalent population of non-Japanese women. No new safety signals were identified.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03759600

Avatrombopag Optimizes Response to Niraparib by Managing Thrombocytopenia Associated with Poly-ADP Ribose Polymerase (PARP) Inhibition in Ovarian Cancer and Breast Cancer: A Case Series

Case series

Patients:—

Final Diagnosis: Breast cancer • ovarian cancer

Symptoms: Thrombocytopenia

Medication: —

Clinical Procedure: —

Specialty: Oncology

Comparison of Poly (ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors (PARPis) as Maintenance Therapy for Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian Cancer: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis; inhibitors of a family of enzymes that are primary involved in DNA repair) are considered to be the drug of choice in maintenance therapy for platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. However, despite the FDA approval of three such agents and their availability in clinical practice, thus far, no clinical trial investigated them in a head-to-head direct comparison. In this study, we used a statistical approach that allows comparing direct and indirect evidence (network meta-analysis) in order to compare the three FDA-approved PARPis (olaparib, niraparib and rucaparib). To this end, we used data from six randomized control trials involving a total of 2270 ovarian cancer patients. Interestingly, we found no significant differences in clinical outcomes (overall survival and progression-free survival) between the three agents. However, niraparib was found to be associated with higher risk of certain adverse events (thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, constipation, and headaches) compared to the other two PARPis.

Abstract

Background: Three PARPis (olaparib, niraparib and rucaparib) are currently FDA-approved as maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed and recurrent ovarian cancer. However, thus far, no trial has compared the three approved PARPis in the overall population, in patients with BRCA mutations, or in those with wild-type BRCA. Methods: A frequentist network meta-analysis was used for indirect comparisons between the different PARPis with respect to progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events. Results: Overall, six randomized clinical trials involving 2,770 patients, were included in the analysis. Results from the indirect comparisons revealed no statistically significant differences between the three PARPis with respect to PFS or OS in the entire population and in patients with mutated and wild-type BRCA, separately. Niraparib showed a statistically significant increased risk for grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia (risk-difference [RD] from placebo: 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27‒0.34) and any grade neutropenia (RD from placebo: 0.22; 95% CI, 0.18‒0.25) as compared with the other PARPis. Conclusion: No statistically significant difference was found between the three PARPis with respect to PFS or OS (overall and in subpopulations by BRCA status). There is, however, a statistical difference in toxicity as niraparib is associated with a greater risk for thrombocytopenia and neutropenia.

Long-term safety in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer treated with niraparib versus placebo: Results from the phase III ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial

OBJECTIVE

Niraparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor approved for use in heavily pretreated patients and as maintenance treatment in patients with newly-diagnosed or recurrent ovarian cancer following a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. We present long-term safety data for niraparib from the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of niraparib for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either once-daily niraparib 300 mg or placebo. Two independent cohorts were enrolled based on germline BRCA mutation status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, reported previously. Long-term safety data were from the most recent data cutoff (September 2017).

RESULTS

Overall, 367 patients received niraparib 300 mg once daily. Dose reductions due to TEAEs were highest in month 1 (34%) and declined every month thereafter. Incidence of any-grade and grade ≥ 3 hematologic and symptomatic TEAEs was also highest in month 1 and subsequently declined. Incidence of grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia decreased from 28% (month 1) to 9% and 5% (months 2 and 3, respectively), with protocol-directed dose interruptions and/or reductions. Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were reported in 2 and 6 niraparib-treated patients, respectively, and in 1 placebo patient each. Treatment discontinuations due to TEAEs were <5% in each month and time interval measured.

CONCLUSION

These data demonstrate the importance of appropriate dose reduction according to toxicity criteria and support the safe long-term use of niraparib for maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01847274.

Therapeutic options following second-line platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer: Comparison of active surveillance and maintenance treatment

Most women with advanced ovarian cancer respond to initial treatment, consisting of surgical resection and ≈6 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. However, disease recurrence occurs in most patients, and subsequent therapies become necessary. Historically, close monitoring following treatment (active surveillance) was the only available option, as continued maintenance chemotherapy treatment led to increased toxicity without providing any meaningful clinical benefit. Recently, targeted therapy with the angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab and the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib have demonstrated significant clinical benefits as maintenance treatment for recurrent disease. Despite consensus guidelines recommending their use, maintenance treatments are currently underutilized. Here, we review evidence from pivotal clinical trials of approved second-line maintenance treatments demonstrating efficacy in terms of progression-free survival and postprogression efficacy outcomes for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. Adverse events frequently associated with bevacizumab include hypertension, proteinuria, and non-central nervous system bleeding, whereas PARP inhibitors are associated with nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and anemia. Patient-centered outcomes analyses show that PARP inhibitors provide significant benefits to patient health status, even when accounting for the toxicities associated with treatment. Many factors influence the selection of second-line maintenance treatment for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer, including the maintenance treatment received in the first-line setting. Overall, targeted maintenance treatment represents a new standard of care for patients with ovarian cancer, and we recommend that maintenance treatment should be offered to all eligible patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

Niraparib in the treatment of previously treated advanced ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer

Homologous recombination deficiency is a critical biologic feature of ovarian cancer. This weakness in DNA damage repair relies on functional poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Niraparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, orally available and initially approved for maintenance therapy in women with ovarian cancer by the US FDA in 2017 and by the EMA in 2017 for the same indication. Ovarian cancer represents the most lethal of gynecologic malignancies. The efficacy of niraparib has changed the landscape of ovarian cancer treatment, but overall survival data is still to come. This review summarizes the data regarding niraparib mechanism of action, toxicities, single agent efficacy and novel combinations in ovarian cancer.

PARP inhibition in the ovarian cancer patient: Current approvals and future directions

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have transformed the therapeutic management of solid tumors, particularly ovarian cancer. Initially studied in BRCA deficient tumors, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indications have expanded to include other homologous recombination deficient tumors as well as biomarker-wildtype tumors. They have also gained momentum not only as a treatment strategy, but as a maintenance strategy as well. While PARP inhibitors were initially ev aluated in the recurrent setting, they have now moved to frontline therapy. This review will discuss the current FDA indications of the clinically available PARP inhibitors for treatment and maintenance therapies. We will then review the recently completed and ongoing clinical trials which may inform future clinical approvals.

Front-Line Maintenance Therapy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer-Current Advances and Perspectives

Ovarian tumor is the gynecological cancer associated with the highest mortality. Most diseases are diagnosed at an advanced stage, which impairs the chances of prolonged complete remission. The standard front-line treatment of advanced stages combines surgery in an expert center with platinum-based chemotherapy. Most patients experience a relapse in the years following the initial treatment. During the last decade, anti-angiogenic agents used in the maintenance setting improved progression free survival (PFS) over chemotherapy alone. More recently, PARP inhibitors demonstrated substantial efficacy, mainly in patients with germinal or somatic BRCA mutations or other homologous recombination deficiencies (HRD), all involved in double strand DNA Damage Repair (DDR). Other therapeutic paradigms are currently being explored, including combinations of immune-checkpoints inhibitors, chemotherapy, bevacizumab and PARP inhibitors. In addition to these clinical advances, molecular characterization of the tumors and their correlations with drugs efficacy are needed to better understand which patient will benefit the most from the various treatments available to date.

Real world experience of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor use in a community oncology practice

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to describe the real-world experience, including the clinical and financial burden, associated with PARP inhibitors in a large community oncology practice.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review identified patients prescribed olaparib, niraparib or rucaparib for maintenance therapy or treatment of recurrent ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer across twelve gynecologic oncologists between December 2016 and November 2018. Demographic, financial and clinical data were extracted. One PARP cycle was defined as a single 28-day period. For patients treated with more than one PARPi, each course was described separately.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients and 506 PARP cycles were identified (122 olaparib, 24%; 89 rucaparib, 18%; 294 niraparib, 58%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were similar to previously reported. Toxicity resulted in dose interruption, reduction and discontinuation in 69%, 63% and 29% respectively. Dose interruptions were most frequent for niraparib but resulted in fewer discontinuations (p-value 0.01). Mean duration of use was 7.46 cycles (olaparib 10.52, rucaparib 4.68, niraparib 7.34). Average cost of PARPi therapy was $8018 per cycle. A total of 711 phone calls were documented (call rate 1.4 calls/cycle) with the highest call volume required for care coordination, lab results and toxicity management.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the toxicity profile was similar to randomized clinical trials, this real-world experience demonstrated more dose modifications and discontinuations for toxicity management than previously reported. Furthermore, the clinical and financial burden of PARP inhibitors may be significant and future studies should assess the impact on patient outcomes.

Development of new medical treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer recurrence

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the scariest gynaecological cancer. Many advances have been done with evolving knowledge, leading to the introduction of new drugs, most in maintenance setting. The antiangiogenic Bevacizumab and the three approved PARP-inhibitors-olaparib, niraparib and rucaparib-are gradually improving PFS of patients with EOC, with initial effects on OS too. But recurrence is still a heavy sentence and lethality continues to be high. Ovarian cancer is a complex disease, with different clinical presentation, histological aspect, and molecular expression, leading to disappointing results, when using a single drug. Implementation of biobanking and analysis of patients' tumour samples, before starting a treatment, could be a promising way to better understand molecular aspects of this disease, to identify markers predictive of response and to allow a better use of experimental drugs, as immunomodulators, targeted therapies, and combinations of these, to fight tumour growth and clinical progression. We reviewed the literature on the updated treatments for recurrent ovarian cancer, summarizing all the available drugs and combinations to treat patients with this diagnosis, and focusing the attention on the new approved molecules and the contemporary Clinical Trials, investigating new target therapies and new associations.

The efficacy and safety of the addition of poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors to therapy for ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to explore the efficacy and tolerability of poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in patients with ovarian cancer.

METHODS

The meta-analysis searched the PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane libraries from inception to February 2020 to identify relevant studies. And the main results of this study were long-term prognosis and treatment-related adverse events.

RESULTS

The results showed that the addition of PARP inhibitors could significantly prolong progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with ovarian cancer (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34-0.53, p < 0.001; HR, 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.94, p < 0.001, respectively). In the BRCA 1/2 mutation patients, the HR of PFS was 0.29 (p < 0.001), and the HR was 0.51 (p < 0.001) in the no BRCA 1/2 mutation patients. The HR of PFS was 0.40 (p < 0.001) in the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) mutation patients, while the HR was 0.80 (p < 0.001) in the no HRD mutation patients. Moreover, the analysis found that the use of PARP inhibitors did not significantly increase the risk of all grade adverse events (AEs) (RR = 1.04, p = 0.16). But the incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was increased (RR = 1.87, p = 0.002). In general, the AEs were mainly manifested in the blood system.

CONCLUSIONS

PARP inhibitors can improve the prognosis of ovarian cancer patients with and without genetic mutations (BRCA 1/2 or HRD). Furthermore, PARP inhibitors were tolerable to patients when added to their current therapy, although it inevitably adds the grade 3 and higher AEs.