Maintenance treatment with rucaparib for recurrent ovarian carcinoma in ARIEL3, a randomized phase 3 trial: The effects of best response to last platinum-based regimen and disease at baseline on efficacy and safety

Efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitors for maintenance treatment of ovarian cancer, regardless of BRCA or HRD status: a comprehensive updated meta-analysis

Without taking into account existing biomarkers like genetic mutations (BRCA mutation, Homologous recombination deficiency) with advanced ovarian cancer (OC), the overall survival (OS), progress-free survival (PFS) of the aggregate all groups that have been classified were hazard ratio (HR): 0.72, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.66-0.79 and HR: 0.48, 95%CI: 0.44-0.52, respectively. Meanwhile, the OS and PFS of the whole population (regardless of existing genetic mutation markers) were HR: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.64-0.87 and HR: 0.52, 95%CI: 0.42-0.65, separately. Furthermore, the OS and PFS of positive gene mutation markers were HR: 0.71, 95%CI: 0.61-0.83 (HRD and BRACm) and HR: 0.47, 95%CI: 0.42-0.52 (HRD and BRACm), individually. The poly ADP-ribose polymers (PARP) inhibitors have desired efficiency and security in the maintenance treatment of advanced OC patients with BRCAm or BRCAwt, HRD or HRP and unknown gene status.

Therapeutic Targeting of DNA Damage Repair in the Era of Precision Oncology and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Cancer manifestation is a multistep process involving accumulation of various genetic and epigenetic changes that results in oncogenic "hallmarks of cancer" processes including genomic instability. Exploitation of aberrant DNA-damage response (DDR) mechanisms in cancer is in part a goal of many therapeutic strategies, and recent evidence supports the role of targeting DDR in modulating the tumor immune microenvironment to enhance immunotherapeutic response. Improved cancer profiling, including next-generation and whole-genome mutational sequencing of tumor tissue, as well as circulating nucleic acids, has enhanced our understanding of the genetic and epigenetic molecular mechanisms in tumorigenesis and will become fundamental to precisely target tumors and achieve cancer control. With the successes of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and immunotherapies, the intersection of DDR molecular machinery and corresponding antitumor immune response has gained much interest with a focus on achieving therapeutic synergy using DNA damage-targeting agents and immunotherapy. In this review, we provide a bench-to-bedside overview of the fundamentals of DDR signaling and repair as they relate to cancer therapeutic strategies including novel DDR-targeting agents. We also discuss the underlying mechanisms that link DDR signaling to antitumor immunity and immunotherapy efficacy, and how this knowledge can be used to improve precision medicine approaches in the treatment of cancer.

Tumor BRCA Testing in Epithelial Ovarian Cancers: Past and Future-Five-Years' Single-Institution Experience of 762 Consecutive Patients

Simple Summary

Tumor BRCA testing is crucial in the clinical management of women affected by epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). In the present study, we aimed to report the results of five years of experience in tumor BRCA testing performed in a single-institution diagnostic setting. We profiled 762 consecutive EOC patients with a failure rate of less than 1% and less than two weeks of turnaround time, which is consistent with the clinical needs. We identified 23.4% of cases with pathogenic/likely pathogenic mutations, including 76% of patients affected by germline and 24% by somatic alterations. Here, we proposed a comprehensive and multidisciplinary clinical workflow that could be successfully followed for the identification of somatic as well as germline alterations, maximizing the benefit of BRCA testing both from a therapeutic and risk assessment perspective.

Abstract

The establishment of PARP inhibitors in the treatment of epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) has prompt BRCA assessment at the time of diagnosis. We described our five years of experience of tumor BRCA testing, as part of a multidisciplinary workflow for the management of EOC patients. We used a BRCA next-generation sequencing (NGS) test for profiling formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) EOCs of 762 consecutive patients, with a success rate of 99.7% and a median turnaround time of 12 days. We found 178 (23.4%) cases with pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) mutations, 74 (9.7%) cases with variants of uncertain significance and 508 (66.8%) wild type tumors. Among 174 patients without P/LP mutations and investigated with multiple-ligation probe-amplification analysis on peripheral blood, two (1.1%) were positive for large rearrangements. Patients with P/LP alterations and/or with positive family history were referred to genetic counselling. Comparing tumor and blood NGS test results of 256 patients, we obtained a tumor test negative predictive value of 100% and we defined 76% of P/LP alterations as germline and 24% as somatic variants. The proposed workflow may successfully identify EOC patients with BRCA1/2 alteration, guiding both therapeutic and risk assessment clinical decisions.

Maintenance treatment with rucaparib for recurrent ovarian carcinoma in ARIEL3, a randomized phase 3 trial: The effects of best response to last platinum-based regimen and disease at baseline on efficacy and safety

Background

The efficacy and safety of rucaparib maintenance treatment in ARIEL3 were evaluated in subgroups based on best response to most recent platinum‐based chemotherapy and baseline disease.

Methods

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either oral rucaparib at a dosage of 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator‐assessed PFS was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA‐mutated, homologous recombination deficient (HRD; BRCA mutated or wild‐type BRCA/high loss of heterozygosity), and the intent‐to‐treat (ITT) population.

Results

Median PFS for patients in the ITT population with a complete response to most recent platinum‐based chemotherapy was 11.1 months in the rucaparib arm (126 patients) versus 5.6 months in the placebo arm (64 patients) (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.23–0.48]), and in patients with a partial response (249 vs. 125), it was 9.0 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.38 [0.30–0.49]). In subgroups of the ITT population based on baseline disease, median PFS was 8.2 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.40 [0.28–0.57]) in patients with measurable disease (141 rucaparib vs. 66 placebo), 10.4 versus 4.5 months (HR, 0.31 [0.20–0.48]) in those with nonmeasurable but evaluable disease (104 vs. 56), and 14.1 versus 7.3 months (HR, 0.35 [0.24–0.51]) in those with no residual disease (130 vs. 67). Across subgroups, significantly longer median PFS was observed with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA‐mutated and HRD cohorts. Objective responses were reported in patients with measurable disease and in patients with nonmeasurable but evaluable baseline disease. Safety was consistent across subgroups.

Conclusion

Rucaparib maintenance treatment provided clinically meaningful efficacy benefits across subgroups based on response to last platinum‐based chemotherapy or baseline disease.