Randomized phase II study evaluating veliparib (ABT-888) with temozolomide in patients with metastatic melanoma

Veliparib‑Induced Toxicity in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta‑Analysis

In this study, we investigate the veliparib‑induced toxicity in cancer patients. Databases were searched for RCTs treated with veliparib. We found veliparib could increase the risk of hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities. Anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and nausea were the most common toxicities. Patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal tumors tend to have a higher risk of high-grade neutropenia; patients in the first-line setting tend to have a higher risk of high-grade anemia and neutropenia than those in the ≥ second line setting. Patients receiving higher dosage of veliparib tend to have a higher risk of all-grade anemia. Veliparib could also increase the risk of insomnia, myalgia, pneumonia, dyspnea, hyponatremia, and fatigue.

Molecular Frontiers in Melanoma: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Therapeutic Advances

Melanoma, a highly aggressive skin cancer, is characterized by rapid progression and high mortality. Recent advances in molecular pathogenesis have shed light on genetic and epigenetic changes that drive melanoma development. This review provides an overview of these developments, focusing on molecular mechanisms in melanoma genesis. It highlights how mutations, particularly in the BRAF, NRAS, c-KIT, and GNAQ/GNA11 genes, affect critical signaling pathways. The evolution of diagnostic techniques, such as genomics, transcriptomics, liquid biopsies, and molecular biomarkers for early detection and prognosis, is also discussed. The therapeutic landscape has transformed with targeted therapies and immunotherapies, improving patient outcomes. This paper examines the efficacy, challenges, and prospects of these treatments, including recent clinical trials and emerging strategies. The potential of novel treatment strategies, including neoantigen vaccines, adoptive cell transfer, microbiome interactions, and nanoparticle-based combination therapy, is explored. These advances emphasize the challenges of therapy resistance and the importance of personalized medicine. This review underlines the necessity for evidence-based therapy selection in managing the increasing global incidence of melanoma.

Arterial hypertension associated with PARPi: A meta-analysis of 41 placebo randomized controlled trials combined with a World Health Organization's pharmacovigilance study

BACKGROUND

Arterial hypertension has been recently reported from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi).

OBJECTIVE

In a context of increasing use of PARPi, it is crucial to properly assess risk and incidence of this adverse event for clinical practice.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov up to January 4, 2023 with an ongoing surveillance up to June 7, 2023. RCTs comparing PARPi to placebo in adult patients with solid tumors were included if hypertension was reported. The primary outcome was the summary risk ratio (RR, with 95% CIs) of any hypertension of PARPi class in placebo RCTs. Secondary outcomes were the summary risk and incidence of hypertension of each individual PARPi. To provide clinical features of PARPi-associated hypertension, we independently queried the WHO's pharmacovigilance database, up to September 1, 2022.

RESULTS

In total, 41 placebo RCTs (n = 15 264 adult patients) were included. PARPi class was not associated with an increased risk of hypertension compared with placebo. In individual analyses, the risk of hypertension was lower with olaparib than placebo (RR 0.77 [95% CI: 0.68-0.86], P < 0.01; I2  = 19%, χ2 P = 0.26). Niraparib monotherapy increased the risk of any (RR 2.84 [95% CI: 1.76-4.57], P < 0.01; I2  = 66%, χ2 P = 0.01) hypertension with a summary incidence of 19.87% (95% CI: 15.23-25.50). In real-life setting, niraparib-associated hypertension occurs within 20 days and was serious in 66%. Co-prescription of at least one antihypertensive or therapy-induced hypertension was reported in 20.5% or 14.4% of cases, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In a context of extensive assessment of niraparib in combination, these data reinforce the need of a close monitoring of this adverse event to preserve its clinical benefit on patients' survival.

A multi-site phase I trial of Veliparib with standard radiation and temozolomide in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme (GBM)

PURPOSE

A multi-site Phase I trial was conducted to determine the safety, maximum tolerated dose, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of Veliparib, a Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase [PARP] enzyme inhibitor, when administered with temozolomide (TMZ) alone and then with temozolomide and radiation (RT) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

METHODS

Given the potential for myelosuppression when a PARP inhibitor is combined with chemotherapy, the first 6 patients accrued were given Veliparib 10 mg bid and TMZ 75 mg/m2/d daily for six weeks. If this was well tolerated, the same doses of Veliparib and TMZ would be tested along with standard radiation with plans to dose escalate the Veliparib in subsequent patient cohorts. Once a maximal tolerated dose was determined, a 78 patient phase II study was planned. Peripheral blood pharmacokinetics were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were enrolled. In the first 6 patients who received 6 weeks of TMZ with Veliparib only one dose limiting toxicity (DLT) occurred. The next 12 patients received 6 weeks of RT + TMZ + veliparib and 4/12 (33%) had dose limiting hematologic toxicities. As a result, Veliparib was reduced by 50% to 10 mg BID every other week, but again 3/3 patients had dose limiting hematologic toxicities. The trial was then terminated. The mean clearance (± SD) CL/F of Veliparib for the initial dose (27.0 ± 9.0 L/h, n = 16) and at steady-state for 10 mg BID (23.5 ± 10.4 L/h, n = 18) were similar. Accumulation for BID dosing was 56% (± 33%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although Veliparib 10 mg BID administered with TMZ 75 mg/m2 for six weeks was well tolerated, when this regimen was combined with standard partial brain irradiation it was severely myelosuppressive even when the dose was reduced by 50%. This study again highlights the potential of localized cranial radiotherapy to significantly increase hematologic toxicity of marginally myelosuppressive systemic therapies.

PARP inhibitors combined with radiotherapy: are we ready?

PARP was an enzyme found in the nucleus of eukaryotic cells that played a crucial role in repairing damaged DNA. Recently, PARP inhibitors have demonstrated great potential in cancer treatment. Thus, the FDA has approved several small-molecule PARP inhibitors for cancer maintenance therapy. The combination of PARP inhibitors and radiotherapy relies on synthetic lethality, taking advantage of the flaws in DNA repair pathways to target cancer cells specifically. Studies conducted prior to clinical trials have suggested that the combination of PARP inhibitors and radiotherapy can enhance the sensitivity of cancer cells to radiation, intensify DNA damage, and trigger cell death. Combining radiotherapy with PARP inhibitors in clinical trials has enhanced the response rate and progression-free survival of diverse cancer patients. The theoretical foundation of PARP inhibitors combined with radiotherapy is explained in detail in this article, and the latest advances in preclinical and clinical research on these inhibitors for tumor radiotherapy are summarized. The problems in the current field are recognized in our research and potential therapeutic applications for tumors are suggested. Nevertheless, certain obstacles need to be tackled when implementing PARP inhibitors and radiotherapies in clinical settings. Factors to consider when using the combination therapy are the most suitable schedule and amount of medication, identifying advantageous candidates, and the probable adverse effects linked with the combination. The combination of radiotherapy and PARP inhibitors can greatly enhance the effectiveness of cancer treatment.

A Multi-Site Phase I Trial of Veliparib with Standard Radiation and Temozolomide in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)

Purpose

A multi-site Phase I trial was conducted to determine the safety, maximum tolerated dose, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of Veliparib, a Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase [PARP] enzyme inhibitor, when administered with temozolomide (TMZ) alone and then with temozolomide and radiation (RT) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

Methods

Given the potential for myelosuppression when a PARP inhibitor is combined with chemotherapy, the first 6 patients accrued were given Veliparib 10 mg bid and TMZ 75 mg/m2/d daily for six weeks. If this was well tolerated, the same doses of Veliparib and TMZ would be tested along with standard radiation with plans to dose escalate the Veliparib in subsequent patient cohorts. Once a maximal tolerated dose was determined, a 78 patient phase II study was planned. Peripheral blood pharmacokinetics were assessed.

Results

Twenty-four patients were enrolled. In the first 6 patients who received 6 weeks of TMZ with Veliparib only one dose limiting toxicity (DLT) occurred. The next 12 patients received 6 weeks of RT + TMZ + veliparib and 4/12 (33%) had dose limiting hematologic toxicities. As a result, Veliparib was reduced by 50% to 10 mg BID every other week, but again 3/3 patients had dose limiting hematologic toxicities. The trial was then terminated. The mean clearance (± SD) CL/F of Veliparib for the initial dose (27.0 ± 9.0 L/h, n = 16) and at steady-state for 10 mg BID (23.5 ± 10.4 L/h, n = 18) were similar. Accumulation for BID dosing was 56% (± 33%).

Conclusions

Although Veliparib 10 mg BID administered with TMZ 75 mg/m2 for six weeks was well tolerated, when this regimen was combined with standard partial brain irradiation it was severely myelosuppressive even when the dose was reduced by 50%. This study again highlights the potential of localized cranial radiotherapy to significantly increase hematologic toxicity of marginally myelosuppressive systemic therapies.

DNA repair biomarkers to guide usage of combined PARP inhibitors and chemotherapy: A meta-analysis and systematic review

PURPOSE

The addition of PARP inhibitors to chemotherapy has been assessed in > 80 clinical trials across multiple malignancies, on the premise that PARP inhibitors will increase chemotherapy effectiveness regardless of whether cancers have underlying disruption of DNA repair pathways. Consequently, the majority of combination therapy trials have been performed on patients without biomarker selection, despite the use of homologous recombination deficiency to dictate use of PARP inhibitors in the maintenance setting. An unresolved question is whether biomarkers are needed to identify patients who respond to combination PARP inhibitors and chemotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified studies using PARP inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, where the study included a biomarker of DNA repair function (BRCA1, BRCA2, homologous recombination deficiency test, ATM, ERCC1, SLFN11). Hazard ratios (HR) were pooled in a meta-analysis using generic inverse-variance, and fixed or random effects modelling. Subgroup analyses were conducted on biomarker selection and type of malignancy.

RESULTS

Nine studies comprising 2547 patients met the inclusion criteria. Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly better in patients with a DNA repair biomarker (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.48-0.68, p < 0.00001), but there was no benefit in patients who lacked a biomarker (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.82-1.08, p = 0.38). Subgroup analysis showed that BRCA status and SLFN11 biomarkers could predict benefit, and biomarker-driven benefit occurred in ovarian, breast and small cell lung cancers. The addition of PARP inhibitors to chemotherapy was associated with increased grade 3/4 side effects, and particularly neutropenia.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy only improves PFS in patients with identifiable DNA repair biomarkers. This indicates that PARP inhibitors do not sensitise patients to chemotherapy treatment, except where their cancer has a homologous recombination defect, or an alternative biomarker of altered DNA repair. While effective in patients with DNA repair biomarkers, there is a risk of high-grade haematological side-effects with the use of combination therapy. Thus, the benefit in PFS from combination therapy must be weighed against potential adverse effects, as individual arms of treatment can also confer benefit.

Potential agnostic role of BRCA alterations in patients with several solid tumors: One for all, all for one?

Germline BRCA1/2 alterations in the Homologous Recombination (HR) pathway are considered as main susceptibility biomarkers to Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancers (HBOC). The modern molecular biology technologies allowed to characterize germline and somatic BRCA1/2 alterations in several malignancies, broadening the landscape of BRCA1/2-alterated tumors. In the last years, BRCA genetic testing, beyond the preventive value, also assumed a predictive and prognostic significance for patient management. The approval of molecules with agnostic indication is leading to a new clinical model, defined "mutational". Among these drugs, the Poly (ADP)-Ribose Polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) for BRCA1/2-deficient tumors were widely studied leading to increasing therapeutic implications. In this Review we provided an overview of the main clinical studies describing the association between BRCA-mutated tumors and PARPi response, focusing on the controversial evidence about the potential agnostic indication based on BRCA1/2 alterations in several solid tumors.

Advances in targeted therapy and immunotherapy for melanoma (Review)

Melanoma is the most aggressive and deadly type of skin cancer and is known for its poor prognosis as soon as metastasis occurs. Since 2011, new and effective therapies for metastatic melanoma have emerged, with US Food and Drug Administration approval of multiple targeted agents, such as V-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1/mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase inhibitors and multiple immunotherapy agents, such as cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 and anti-programmed cell death protein 1/ligand 1 blockade. Based on insight into the respective advantages of the above two strategies, the present article provided a review of clinical trials of the application of targeted therapy and immunotherapy, as well as novel approaches of their combinations for the treatment of metastatic melanoma in recent years, with a focus on upcoming initiatives to improve the efficacy of these treatment approaches for metastatic melanoma.

Molecular simulations required to target novel and potent inhibitors of cancer invasion

INTRODUCTION

Computer-aided drug design (CADD) is a computational approach used to discover, develop, and analyze drugs and active molecules with similar biochemical properties. Molecular simulation technology has significantly accelerated drug research and reduced manufacturing costs. It is an optimized drug discovery method that greatly improves the efficiency of novel drug development processes.

AREASCOVERED

This review discusses the development of molecular simulations of effective cancer inhibitors and traces the main outcomes of in silico studies by introducing representative categories of six important anticancer targets. The authors provide views on this topic from the perspective of both medicinal chemistry and artificial intelligence, indicating the major challenges and predicting trends.

EXPERT OPINION

The goal of introducing CADD into cancer treatment is to realize a highly efficient, accurate, and desired approach with a high success rate for identifying potent drug candidates. However, the major challenge is the lack of a sophisticated data-filtering mechanism to verify bottom data from mixed-quality references. Consequently, despite the continuous development of algorithms, computer power, and interface optimization, specific data filtering mechanisms will become an urgent and crucial issue in the future.

Homologous Recombination Deficiency (HRD) in Cutaneous Oncology

Skin cancers, including basal cell carcinoma (BCC), cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and melanoma, are the most common malignancies in the United States. Loss of DNA repair pathways in the skin plays a significant role in tumorigenesis. In recent years, targeting DNA repair pathways, particularly homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), has emerged as a potential therapeutic approach in cutaneous malignancies. This review provides an overview of DNA damage and repair pathways, with a focus on HRD, and discusses major advances in targeting these pathways in skin cancers. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have been developed to exploit HRD in cancer cells. PARP inhibitors disrupt DNA repair mechanisms by inhibiting PARP enzymatic activity, leading to the accumulation of DNA damage and cell death. The concept of synthetic lethality has been demonstrated in HR-deficient cells, such as those with BRCA1/2 mutations, which exhibit increased sensitivity to PARP inhibitors. HRD assessment methods, including genomic scars, RAD51 foci formation, functional assays, and BRCA1/2 mutation analysis, are discussed as tools for identifying patients who may benefit from PARP inhibitor therapy. Furthermore, HRD has been implicated in the response to immunotherapy, and the combination of PARP inhibitors with immunotherapy has shown promising results. The frequency of HRD in melanoma ranges from 18% to 57%, and studies investigating the use of PARP inhibitors as monotherapy in melanoma are limited. Further research is warranted to explore the potential of PARP inhibition in melanoma treatment.

Therapeutic targeting of DNA damage repair pathways guided by homologous recombination deficiency scoring in ovarian cancers

The susceptibility of cells to DNA damage and their DNA repair ability are crucial for cancer therapy. Homologous recombination is one of the major repairing mechanisms for DNA double-strand breaks. Approximately half of ovarian cancer (OvCa) cells harbor homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). Considering that HRD is a major hallmark of OvCas, scholars proposed HRD scoring to evaluate the HRD degree and guide the choice of therapeutic strategies for OvCas. In the last decade, synthetic lethal strategy by targeting poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) in HR-deficient OvCas has attracted considerable attention in view of its favorable clinical effort. We therefore suggested that the uses of other DNA damage/repair-targeted drugs in HR-deficient OvCas might also offer better clinical outcome. Here, we reviewed the current small molecule compounds that targeted DNA damage/repair pathways and discussed the HRD scoring system to guide their clinical uses.

Combining Poly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase (PARP) Inhibitors with Chemotherapeutic Agents: Promise and Challenges

Better understanding of molecular drivers and dysregulated pathways has furthered the concept of precision oncology and rational drug development. The role of DNA damage response (DDR) pathways has been extensively studied in carcinogenesis and as potential therapeutic targets to improve response to chemotherapy or overcome resistance. Treatment with small molecule inhibitors of PARP has resulted in clinical response and conferred survival benefit to patients with ovarian cancer, BRCA-mutant breast cancer, HRD-deficient prostate cancer and BRCA-mutant pancreatic cancer, leading to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals. However, the observed clinical benefit with single agent PARP inhibitors is limited to few tumor types within the relevant genetic context. Since DDR pathways are essential for repair of damage caused by cytotoxic agents, PARP inhibitors have been evaluated in combination with various chemotherapeutic agents to broaden the therapeutic application of this class of drugs. In this chapter, we discuss the combination of PARP inhibitors with different chemotherapeutics agents, clinical experience to date, lessons learnt, and future directions for this approach.

Targeting cancer stem cells in the tumor microenvironment: An emerging role of PARP inhibitors

Cancer stem cells (CSCs) constitute a small population of cancer cells in the tumor microenvironment (TME), which are responsible for metastasis, angiogenesis, drug resistance, and cancer relapse. Understanding the key signatures and resistance mechanisms of CSCs may help in the development of novel chemotherapeutic strategies to specifically target CSCs in the TME. PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are known to enhance the chemosensitivity of cancer cells to other chemotherapeutic agents by inhibiting the DNA repair pathways and chromatin modulation. But their effects on CSCs are still unknown. Few studies have reported that PARPi can stall replication fork progression in CSCs. PARPi also have the potential to overcome chemoresistance in CSCs and anti-angiogenic potentiality as well. Previous reports have suggested that epigenetic drugs can synergistically ameliorate the anti-cancer activities of PARPi through epigenetic modulations. In this review, we have systematically discussed the effects of PARPi on different DNA repair pathways with respect to CSCs and also how CSCs can be targeted either as monotherapy or as a part of combination therapy. We have also talked about how PARPi can help in reversal of chemoresistance of CSCs and the role of PARPi in epigenetic modifications to hinder cancer progression. We have also elaborated on the aspects of research that need to be investigated for development of successful therapeutic interventions using PARPi to specifically target CSCs in the TME.

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) for advanced malignancies with multiple DNA-repair genetic aberrations

INTRODUCTION

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) have been approved for the treatment of advanced tumors with defects in genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR), including cancers of the prostate, pancreas, breast, and ovary. In these advanced tumors, PARPi afford 'synthetic lethality' by blocking the PARP-associated repair pathway in cancer cells with HRR genetic mutations, resulting in chromosome instability and cellular apoptosis. According to the synthetic lethality theory, patients with a greater burden of genetic alterations, in proportion (relative quantity) or category, would have more satisfactory outcomes after PARPi administration. However, this issue remains obscure based on the existing sporadic evidence.

AREAS COVERED

We summarize the therapeutic effects of PARPi in advanced tumors with multiple HRR genetic mutations, and attempted to compare these results with those obtained for cancers with a single mutation.

EXPERT OPINION

Limited evidence has provided a possibly encouraging response to PARPi among patients carrying multiple HRR genetic mutations compared with those with a single mutation (although the treatment effect was negative in some patients). Further research is needed to understand the role of PARPi in tumor cells with multiple HRR genetic mutations.

Integrative Genomic Profiling Uncovers Therapeutic Targets of Acral Melanoma in Asian Populations

PURPOSE

Acral melanoma is the major subtype of melanoma seen in Asian patients with melanoma and is featured by its insidious onset and poor prognosis. The genomic study that elucidates driving mutational events is fundamental to the development of gene-targeted therapy. However, research on genomic profiles of acral melanoma in Asian patients is still sparse.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

We carried out whole-exome sequencing (WES) on 60 acral melanoma lesions (with 55 primary samples involved), targeted deep sequencing in a validation cohort of 48 cases, RNA sequencing in 37 acral melanoma samples (all from the 60 undergoing WES), and FISH in 233 acral melanoma specimens (54 of the 60 undergoing WES included). All the specimens were derived from Asian populations.

RESULTS

BRAF, NRAS, and KIT were discerned as significantly mutated genes (SMG) in acral melanoma. The detected COSMIC signature 3 related to DNA damage repair, along with the high genomic instability score, implied corresponding pathogenesis of acral melanoma. Moreover, the copy number gains of EP300 were associated with the response of acral melanoma to targeted therapy of A485 (a p300 inhibitor) and immune checkpoint blockade treatment. In addition, the temporal order in mutational processes of the samples was reconstructed, and copy-number alterations were identified as early mutational events.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provided a detailed view of genomic instability, potential therapeutic targets, and intratumoral heterogeneity of acral melanoma, which might fuel the development of personalized strategies for treating acral melanoma in Asian populations.

Novel Therapeutic Approaches with DNA Damage Response Inhibitors for Melanoma Treatment

Targeted therapies against components of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway and immunotherapies, which block immune checkpoints, have shown important clinical benefits in melanoma patients. However, most patients develop resistance, with consequent disease relapse. Therefore, there is a need to identify novel therapeutic approaches for patients who are resistant or do not respond to the current targeted and immune therapies. Melanoma is characterized by homologous recombination (HR) and DNA damage response (DDR) gene mutations and by high replicative stress, which increase the endogenous DNA damage, leading to the activation of DDR. In this review, we will discuss the current experimental evidence on how DDR can be exploited therapeutically in melanoma. Specifically, we will focus on PARP, ATM, CHK1, WEE1 and ATR inhibitors, for which preclinical data as single agents, taking advantage of synthetic lethal interactions, and in combination with chemo-targeted-immunotherapy, have been growing in melanoma, encouraging the ongoing clinical trials. The overviewed data are suggestive of considering DDR inhibitors as a valid therapeutic approach, which may positively impact the future of melanoma treatment.

Radiotherapy-Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor Combinations: Progress to Date

Radiation resistance remains a huge clinical problem for cancer patients and oncologists in the 21st century. In recent years, the mammalian DNA damage response (DDR) has been extensively characterized and shown to play a key role in determining cellular survival following ionizing radiation exposure. Genomic instability due to altered DDR is a hallmark of cancer, with many tumors exhibiting abnormal DNA repair or lack of redundancy in DDR. Targeting the abnormal DDR phenotype of tumor cells could lead to substantial gains in radiotherapy efficacy, improving local control and survival for patients with cancers that are refractory to current therapies. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are the most clinically advanced DDR inhibitors under investigation as radiosensitisers. Preclinical evidence suggests that PARPi may provide tumor specific radiosensitisation in certain contexts. In addition to inhibition of DNA single strand break repair, PARPi may offer other benefits in combination treatment including radiosensitisation of hypoxic cells and targeting of alternative repair pathways such as microhomology mediated end joining which are increasingly recognized to be upregulated in cancer. Several early phase clinical trials of PARPi with radiation have completed or are in progress. Early reports have highlighted tumor specific challenges, with tolerability dependent upon anatomical location and use of concomitant systemic therapies; these challenges were largely predicted by preclinical data. This review discusses the role of PARP in the cellular response to ionizing radiation, summarizes preclinical studies of PARPi in combination with radiotherapy and explores current early phase clinical trials that are evaluating these combinations.

Targeting the DNA damage response: PARP inhibitors and new perspectives in the landscape of cancer treatment

Cancer derives from alterations of pathways responsible for cell survival, differentiation and proliferation. Dysfunctions of mechanisms protecting genome integrity can promote oncogenesis but can also be exploited as therapeutic target. Poly-ADP-Ribose-Polymerase (PARP)-inhibitors, the first approved targeted agents able to tackle DNA damage response (DDR), have demonstrated antitumor activity, particularly when homologous recombination impairment is present. Despite the relevant results achieved, a large proportion of patients fail to obtain durable responses. The development of innovative treatments, able to overcome resistance and ensure long-lasting benefit for a wider population is still an unmet need. Moreover, improvement in biomarker assays is necessary to properly identify patients who can benefit from DDR targeting agents. Here we summarize the main DDR pathways, explain the current role of PARP inhibitors in cancer therapy and illustrate new therapeutic strategies targeting the DDR, focusing on the combinations of PARP inhibitors with other agents and on cell-cycle checkpoint inhibitors.

Risk of fatigue with PARP inhibitors in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 phase II/III randomized controlled trials

Fatigue was a frequently reported adverse event associated with the use of PARP inhibitors. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to fully investigate the fatigue of PARP inhibitors in cancer patients. Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) treated with PARP inhibitors till July 2020. Twenty-nine RCTs and 9479 patients were included. This meta-analysis suggests that the use of PARP inhibitors significantly increase the risk of developing all-grade (RR, 1.25; 95%CI, 1.20-1.31; p < 0.00001; I2 = 48%) and high-grade fatigue (RR, 1.92; 95%CI, 1.51-2.45; p < 0.00001; I2 = 11%). Veliparib was associated with a relatively lower risk of fatigue. Patients with ovarian cancer tend to be associated with a higher risk of fatigue than those with non-ovarian cancer. Longer duration of therapy was associated with a higher risk of all-grade fatigue. Patients receiving PARP inhibitor monotherapy tends to be associated with a higher risk of all-grade fatigue than those receiving combination treatment.

PARP Inhibitors in Melanoma-An Expanding Therapeutic Option?

Simple Summary

Melanomas with homologous recombination DNA damage repair pathways represent a subset of melanoma that may benefit from PARP inhibitors and immunotherapy. PARP inhibitors have an established role in treating cancers with underlying BRCA mutation through synthetic lethality; however, there is increasing evidence that it can be applied to a larger population including other types of homologous recombination defects. These gene mutations can be found in 20–40% of cutaneous melanoma. To date, PARP inhibitors and immunotherapy have been overlooked in the management of melanoma. This review explores the reasons for combining PARP inhibitors and immunotherapy. There is evidence to suggest that PARP inhibitors can improve the therapeutic effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Therefore, this combination approach has the potential to impact future treatment of patients with melanoma, particularly those with homologous recombination DNA damage repair defects.

Abstract

Immunotherapy has transformed the treatment landscape of melanoma; however, despite improvements in patient outcomes, monotherapy can often lead to resistance and tumour escape. Therefore, there is a need for new therapies, combination strategies and biomarker-guided decision making to increase the subset of patients most likely to benefit from treatment. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors act by synthetic lethality to target tumour cells with homologous recombination deficiencies such as BRCA mutations. However, the application of PARP inhibitors could be extended to a broad range of BRCA-negative cancers with high rates of DNA damage repair pathway mutations, such as melanoma. Additionally, PARP inhibition has the potential to augment the therapeutic effect of immunotherapy through multi-faceted immune-priming capabilities. In this review, we detail the immunological role of PARP and rationale for combining PARP and immune checkpoint inhibitors, with a particular focus on a subset of melanoma with homologous recombination defects that may benefit most from this targeted approach. We summarise the biology supporting this combined regimen and discuss preclinical results as well as ongoing clinical trials in melanoma which may impact future treatment.

Veliparib in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel-based chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

Veliparib is a potent poly(ADP)-ribose polymerase (PARP) 1 and 2 inhibitor that impedes repair of DNA damage induced by cytotoxic and radiation therapies. This phase 1 study evaluated veliparib in combination with chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients received veliparib orally twice daily (BID) in escalating doses (60-240 mg, Day -3 to 1 day after last dose of radiation) combined with weekly carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] 2 mg/mL/min), paclitaxel (45 mg/m²), and daily radiation therapy (60 Gy in 30 fractions), followed by two cycles of veliparib (120-240 mg BID, Days -2 through 5 of each 21-day cycle), carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL/min, Day 1 of each cycle), and paclitaxel (200 mg/m², Day 1 of each cycle) consolidation. Endpoints included veliparib maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were enrolled. The MTD/RP2D of veliparib was 240 mg BID with chemoradiotherapy followed by 120 mg BID with consolidation. The most common any-grade adverse events (AEs) in this cohort for the whole treatment period were nausea (83%), esophagitis (75%), neutropenia (75%), and thrombocytopenia (75%). Dose-proportional pharmacokinetics of veliparib were observed. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 19.6 months (95% CI: 9.7-32.6). Median overall survival was estimated to be 32.6 months (95% CI: 15.0-not reached). In patients treated with the RP2D, mPFS was 19.6 months (95% CI: 3.0-not reached).

CONCLUSIONS

When combined with standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy and consolidation chemotherapy in patients with stage III NSCLC, veliparib demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and antitumor activity with an mPFS of 19.6 months.

PARP inhibition in UV-associated angiosarcoma preclinical models

PURPOSE

Angiosarcoma (AS) is a rare vasoformative sarcoma, with poor overall survival and a high need for novel treatment options. Clinically, AS consists of different subtypes, including AS related to previous UV exposure (UV AS) which could indicate susceptibility to DNA damage repair inhibition. We, therefore, investigated the presence of biomarkers PARP1 (poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase-1) and Schlafen-11 (SLFN11) in UV AS. Based on experiences in other sarcomas, we examined (combination) treatment of PARP inhibitor (PARPi) olaparib and temozolomide (TMZ) in UV AS cell lines.

METHODS

Previously collected UV AS (n = 47) and non-UV AS (n = 96) patient samples and two UV AS cell lines (MO-LAS and AS-M) were immunohistochemically assessed for PARP1 and SLFN11 expression. Both cell lines were treated with single agents PARPi olaparib and TMZ, and the combination treatment. Next, cell viability and treatment synergy were analyzed. In addition, effects on apoptosis and DNA damage were examined.

RESULTS

In 46/47 UV AS samples (98%), PARP1 expression was present. SLFN11 was expressed in 80% (37/46) of cases. Olaparib and TMZ combination treatment was synergistic in both cell lines, with significantly increased apoptosis compared to single agent treatment. Furthermore, a significant increase in DNA damage marker γH2AX was present in both cell lines after combination therapy.

CONCLUSION

We showed combination treatment of olaparib with TMZ was synergistic in UV AS cell lines. Expression of PARP1 and SLFN11 was present in the majority of UV AS tumor samples. Together, these results suggest combination treatment of olaparib and TMZ is a potential novel AS subtype-specific treatment option for UV AS patients.

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in solid tumours: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-inhibitors (PARPis) showed antitumour activity in BRCA1/2-mutated cancers, with more heterogeneous outcomes in tumours harbouring mutations that impair other genes involved in the DNA homologous recombination repair (HRR) or wild-type (wt).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to better assess the role of PARPis in the treatment of metastatic solid tumours, with and without BRCA1/2 mutations. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary end-points were overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). A random-effects model was applied.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies (8,839 patients) were included. PFS was significantly improved (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-0.68, p < 0.001), without being affected by BRCA mutational status (p = 0.65). Significant subgroup differences were observed with regard to the tumour site (p = 0.001), line of therapy (p = 0.002), control arm (p < 0.001), type of PARPi (p < 0.001) and trials' phase (p = 0.006). PARPis were associated with ORR (relative risk: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.16-1.56, p < 0.001), with significant subgroup differences observed with regard to treatment line (p = 0.03), control arm (p = 0.04) and PARPis (p < 0.001) and independent of mutational status (p = 0.44), tumour site (p = 0.86) and trials' phase (p = 0.09). OS was significantly improved by PARPis (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.80-0.92, p < 0.001), regardless of mutational status (p = 0.57), tumour site (p = 0.82), treatment line (p = 0.22), control arm (p = 0.21), PARPis (p = 0.30) and trials' phase (p = 0.26). Finally, an exploratory subgroup analysis showed a significant PFS improvement (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.43-0.60, p < 0.001) with PARPis in BRCA-wt/HRR-deficient tumours.

CONCLUSION

Our results confirm the efficacy of already approved PARPi-based treatments in BRCA1/2-mutant solid tumours, support their role also in BRCA-independent HRR-deficient tumours and suggest a potentially broader efficacy in some wt tumours, perhaps with appropriate therapeutic partners. Prospective studies are warranted.

Temozolomide: An Updated Overview of Resistance Mechanisms, Nanotechnology Advances and Clinical Applications

Temozolomide (TMZ), an oral alkylating prodrug which delivers a methyl group to purine bases of DNA (O6-guanine; N7-guanine and N3-adenine), is frequently used together with radiotherapy as part of the first-line treatment of high-grade gliomas. The main advantages are its high oral bioavailability (almost 100% although the concentration found in the cerebrospinal fluid was approximately 20% of the plasma concentration of TMZ), its lipophilic properties, and small size that confer the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Furthermore, this agent has demonstrated activity not only in brain tumors but also in a variety of solid tumors. However, conventional therapy using surgery, radiation, and TMZ in glioblastoma results in a median patient survival of 14.6 months. Treatment failure has been associated with tumor drug resistance. This phenomenon has been linked to the expression of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase, but the mismatch repair system and the presence of cancer stem-like cells in tumors have also been related to TMZ resistance. The understanding of these mechanisms is essential for the development of new therapeutic strategies in the clinical use of TMZ, including the use of nanomaterial delivery systems and the association with other chemotherapy agents. The aim of this review is to summarize the resistance mechanisms of TMZ and the current advances to improve its clinical use.

Prioritization of Novel Agents for Patients with Rhabdomyosarcoma: A Report from the Children's Oncology Group (COG) New Agents for Rhabdomyosarcoma Task Force

Rhabdomyosarcoma is the most common soft tissue sarcoma diagnosed in children and adolescents. Patients that are diagnosed with advanced or relapsed disease have exceptionally poor outcomes. The Children’s Oncology Group (COG) convened a rhabdomyosarcoma new agent task force in 2020 to systematically evaluate novel agents for inclusion in phase 2 or phase 3 clinical trials for patients diagnosed with rhabdomyosarcoma, following a similar effort for Ewing sarcoma. The task force was comprised of clinicians and basic scientists who collectively identified new agents for evaluation and prioritization in clinical trial testing. Here, we report the work of the task force including the framework upon which the decisions were rendered and review the top classes of agents that were discussed. Representative agents include poly-ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in combination with cytotoxic agents, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibitors in combination with type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGFR1) inhibitors, histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors, and novel cytotoxic agents.

BRAF Gene and Melanoma: Back to the Future

As widely acknowledged, 40-50% of all melanoma patients harbour an activating BRAF mutation (mostly BRAF V600E). The identification of the RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK (MAP kinase) signalling pathway and its targeting has represented a valuable milestone for the advanced and, more recently, for the completely resected stage III and IV melanoma therapy management. However, despite progress in BRAF-mutant melanoma treatment, the two different approaches approved so far for metastatic disease, immunotherapy and BRAF+MEK inhibitors, allow a 5-year survival of no more than 60%, and most patients relapse during treatment due to acquired mechanisms of resistance. Deep insight into BRAF gene biology is fundamental to describe the acquired resistance mechanisms (primary and secondary) and to understand the molecular pathways that are now being investigated in preclinical and clinical studies with the aim of improving outcomes in BRAF-mutant patients.

Glycogen synthase kinase 3β inhibition synergizes with PARP inhibitors through the induction of homologous recombination deficiency in colorectal cancer

Monotherapy with poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors results in a limited objective response rate (≤60% in most cases) in patients with homologous recombination repair (HRR)-deficient cancer, which suggests a high rate of resistance in this subset of patients to PARP inhibitors (PARPi). To overcome resistance to PARPi and to broaden their clinical use, we performed high-throughput screening of 99 anticancer drugs in combination with PARPi to identify potential therapeutic combinations. Here, we found that GSK3 inhibitors (GSK3i) exhibited a strong synergistic effect with PARPi in a panel of colorectal cancer (CRC) cell lines with diverse genetic backgrounds. The combination of GSK3β and PARP inhibition causes replication stress and DNA double-strand breaks, resulting in increased anaphase bridges and abnormal spindles. Mechanistically, inhibition or genetic depletion of GSK3β was found to impair the HRR of DNA and reduce the mRNA and protein level of BRCA1. Finally, we demonstrated that inhibition or depletion of GSK3β could enhance the in vivo sensitivity to simmiparib without toxicity. Our results provide a mechanistic understanding of the combination of PARP and GSK3 inhibition, and support the clinical development of this combination therapy for CRC patients.

Haematologic toxicities with PARP inhibitors in cancer patients: an up-to-date meta-analysis of 29 randomized controlled trials

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have emerged as one of the most exciting new treatments for patients with certain types of cancer. Haematologic toxicities are common adverse events (AEs) for all PARP inhibitors. We conducted a meta-analysis to fully investigate the haematologic toxicities of PARP inhibitors in cancer patients.

STUDY DESIGN

PubMed/Medline and Embase were searched for articles published till September 2020. The relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cancer patients treated with PARP inhibitors were retrieved, and the systematic evaluation was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine RCTs and 9247 patients were included. The current meta-analysis suggests that the use of PARP inhibitors significantly increases the risk of all-grade anaemia (RR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.78-3.01; p < 0.00001), neutropenia (RR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.38-2.07; p < 0.00001) and thrombocytopenia (RR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.87-3.45; p < 0.00001). The use of these agents also significantly increased the risk of high-grade anaemia (RR, 3.06; 95% CI, 2.11-4.43; p < 0.00001), neutropenia (RR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.33-2.07; p < 0.00001) and thrombocytopenia (RR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.83-4.16; p < 0.00001). Anaemia was the most common haematologic toxicity, and all the five included PARP inhibitors were associated with a significant increased risk of anaemia. Combination treatment may reduce the risk of anaemia and thrombocytopenia compared to those receiving PARP inhibitor monotherapy.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The available data suggested that the use of PARP inhibitors was associated with a significantly increased risk of haematologic toxicities.

The promise of DNA damage response inhibitors for the treatment of glioblastoma

Glioblastoma (GBM), the most aggressive primary brain tumor, has a dismal prognosis. Despite our growing knowledge of genomic and epigenomic alterations in GBM, standard therapies and outcomes have not changed significantly in the past two decades. There is therefore an urgent unmet need to develop novel therapies for GBM. The inter- and intratumoral heterogeneity of GBM, inadequate drug concentrations in the tumor owing to the blood-brain barrier, redundant signaling pathways contributing to resistance to conventional therapies, and an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, have all hindered the development of novel therapies for GBM. Given the high frequency of DNA damage pathway alterations in GBM, researchers have focused their efforts on pharmacologically targeting key enzymes, including poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), DNA-dependent protein kinase, ataxia telangiectasia-mutated, and ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related. The mainstays of GBM treatment, ionizing radiation and alkylating chemotherapy, generate DNA damage that is repaired through the upregulation and activation of DNA damage response (DDR) enzymes. Therefore, the use of PARP and other DDR inhibitors to render GBM cells more vulnerable to conventional treatments is an area of intense investigation. In this review, we highlight the growing body of data behind DDR inhibitors in GBM, with a focus on putative predictive biomarkers of response. We also discuss the challenges involved in the successful development of DDR inhibitors for GBM, including the intracranial location and predicted overlapping toxicities of DDR agents with current standards of care, and propose promising strategies to overcome these hurdles.

Myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukaemia in patients treated with PARP inhibitors: a safety meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and a retrospective study of the WHO pharmacovigilance database

BACKGROUND

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have shown efficacy and acceptable safety in a range of neoplasms, particularly in ovarian cancers. However, some concerns have emerged regarding rare and delayed adverse events including cases of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukaemia, for which data are scarce. The aim of this study was to estimate the risk of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukaemia related to PARP inhibitors, via a systematic review and safety meta-analysis, and to describe clinical features of PARP inhibitor-related myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukaemia cases reported in WHO's pharmacovigilance database (VigiBase).

METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PARP inhibitor therapy versus control treatments (placebo and non-placebo) in adults (age ≥18 years) treated for cancer in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry with ongoing surveillance up to May 31, 2020. The date range for included studies was not restricted. By a stepwise method to capture all available adverse events, we first extracted data on myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukaemia cases from ClinicalTrials.gov. If cases were not available, we extracted them from published manuscripts, or subsequently contacted corresponding authors or sponsors to provide data. RCTs without available data from ClinicalTrials.gov, publications, or corresponding authors or sponsors were excluded. The primary outcome was the summary risk of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukaemia related to PARP inhibition versus placebo treatment in RCTs. We used a fixed-effects meta-analysis to obtain Peto odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. In a separate observational, retrospective, cross-sectional pharmacovigilance study of VigiBase, cases of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukaemia related to PARP inhibitor therapy were extracted on May 3, 2020, and clinical features summarised with a focus on median duration of PARP inhibitor exposure, median latency period between first drug exposure and diagnosis, and proportion of cases resulting in death. Our systematic review and safety meta-analysis were registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020175050. Our retrospective pharmacovigilance study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04326023.

FINDINGS

For our safety meta-analysis, initial searches identified 1617 citations, and 31 RCTs were systematically reviewed for eligibility. 28 RCTs with available adverse events were analysed (18 placebo and ten non-placebo RCTs), with 5693 patients in PARP inhibitor groups and 3406 patients in control groups. Based on the 18 placebo RCTs (n=7307 patients), PARP inhibitors significantly increased the risk of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukaemia compared with placebo treatment (Peto OR 2·63 [95% CI 1·13-6·14], p=0·026) with no between-study heterogeneity (I²=0%, χ² p=0·91). The incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukaemia across PARP inhibitor groups was 0·73% (95% CI 0·50-1·07; I²=0%, χ² p=0·87; 21 events out of 4533 patients) and across placebo groups was 0·47% (0·26-0·85; I²=0%, χ² p=1·00; three events out of 2774 patients). All 28 RCTs were rated as having unclear risk of bias. In VigiBase, 178 cases of myelodysplastic syndrome (n=99) and acute myeloid leukaemia (n=79) related to PARP inhibitor therapy were extracted. In cases with available data, median treatment duration was 9·8 months (IQR 3·6-17·4; n=96) and median latency period since first exposure to a PARP inhibitor was 17·8 months (8·4-29·2; n=58). Of 104 cases that reported outcomes, 47 (45%) resulted in death.

INTERPRETATION

PARP inhibitors increased the risk of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukaemia versus placebo treatment. These delayed and often lethal adverse events should be studied further to improve clinical understanding, particularly in the front-line maintenance setting.

FUNDING

None.

Tanshinone&nbsp;I and simvastatin inhibit melanoma tumour cell growth by regulating poly (ADP ribose) polymerase&nbsp;1 expression

Melanoma is one of the most aggressive forms of skin tumour with poor prognosis; no effective therapy has been established for melanoma at the metastatic stage. The present study aimed to investigate the role of poly (ADP ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPis) and PARP1 expression in melanoma progression. In addition, whether high PARP1 expression was associated with poor overall survival in melanoma, and whether a combination effect existed between PARPis and other anti-tumour compounds (e.g., sunitinib) was analysed. The PARP1 expression was detected using western blot analysis and the proliferation of cells was detected with a colony formation assay. In addition, cell viability assays and xenograft tumor experiments were conducted. The results of the present study demonstrated that sunitinib reduced PARP1 expression and proliferation of melanoma cells. Notably, one of the PARPis, veliparib, reversed the inhibitory effect of sunitinib on PARP1 expression and proliferation, indicating that inhibition of PARP1 enzyme activity by PARPi may be different from the inhibition of PARP1 expression in melanoma cell biological function. To further confirm the relationship between PARP1 expression and tumour cell proliferation, seven compounds, including common approved drugs and natural Chinese medicine monomers, were screened, and the results demonstrated that simvastatin and tanshinone I exerted an inhibitory effect on PARP1 expression and melanoma cell proliferation, and their combination was more effective than simvastatin alone in vivo. The results indicated that simvastatin and tanshinone I inhibited melanoma and renal tumour cells by regulating PARP1 expression, and in addition to the enzyme activity of PARP1, the expression of PARP1 protein may serve a role in tumour progression.

Gastrointestinal events with PARP inhibitors in cancer patients: A meta-analysis of phase II/III randomized controlled trials

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

PARP inhibitors are currently one of the most promising PARP targeted drugs for patients with certain types of cancer. Gastrointestinal (GI) events are common adverse events for all PARP inhibitors. We conducted this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to fully investigate the incidence and the relative risk of GI events in cancer patients receiving PARP inhibitors.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trials in cancer patients treated with PARP inhibitors were retrieved, and the systematic evaluation was conducted. Embase and PubMed/Medline were searched for articles published till July 2020.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine RCTs and 9529 patients were included. The present meta-analysis suggests that the use of PARP inhibitors significantly increases the risk of developing all-grade nausea (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.29-1.66; p < .00001), vomiting (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.17-1.64; p = .0001), diarrhoea (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.06-1.23; p = .0003) and decreased appetite (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.14-1.36; p < .00001), but not for constipation. And the use of these agents significantly increased the risk of high-grade nausea (RR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.44-2.74; p < .0001), vomiting (RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.11-2.14; p = .01) and decreased appetite (RR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.22-3.40; p = .007), except for diarrhoea and constipation. Nausea was the most common GI event for these agents. Patients receiving veliparib were associated with a relatively lower risk of all-grade nausea and vomiting. Patients with ovarian cancer tend to have a higher risk of all-grade nausea and vomiting than those with non-ovarian cancer. The risk of all-grade nausea and vomiting tended to be higher when PARP inhibitors treatment was longer.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

PARP inhibitors were associated with a significant increased risk of GI events. Clinicians should be aware of these risks and perform regular monitoring.

PARP Inhibition in Cancer: An Update on Clinical Development

PARP (poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase) inhibitors represent a novel class of anti-cancer therapy; they take advantage of synthetic lethality and induce cell death by exploiting a defect in DNA repair. This class of medication was initially evaluated in patients with BRCA-associated tumors, but efficacy was also demonstrated in other populations. Since 2014, four PARP inhibitors have been approved in various indications: olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib in high-grade serous ovarian cancer, and olaparib and talazoparib in metastatic breast cancer. The exact indications and study populations vary slightly between the different approvals in both disease states but there is significant overlap. PARP inhibitors continue to be investigated in ongoing clinical trials. In line with other targeted therapies, benefit appears to be strongest in a distinct population of patients with BRCA mutations or other defects in homologous recombination repair. Combination therapies, which include anti-angiogenesis agents and immunotherapy, show promise as a strategy to broaden efficacy for unselected patients. Initial studies of PARP inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy were limited by toxicity, but further studies are underway. To date, head-to-head trials comparing various PARP inhibitors have not been conducted, so questions remain in terms of choosing a PARP inhibitor to administer when indications overlap, as well as how to sequence these medications. Here we review both completed and ongoing clinical trials involving PARP inhibitors and mechanisms of resistance to this class of drugs.

Targeting the DNA Damage Response to Overcome Cancer Drug Resistance in Glioblastoma

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a severe brain tumor whose ability to mutate and adapt to therapies is at the base for the extremely poor survival rate of patients. Despite multiple efforts to develop alternative forms of treatment, advances have been disappointing and GBM remains an arduous tumor to treat. One of the leading causes for its strong resistance is the innate upregulation of DNA repair mechanisms. Since standard therapy consists of a combinatory use of ionizing radiation and alkylating drugs, which both damage DNA, targeting the DNA damage response (DDR) is proving to be a beneficial strategy to sensitize tumor cells to treatment. In this review, we will discuss how recent progress in the availability of the DDR kinase inhibitors will be key for future therapy development. Further, we will examine the principal existing DDR inhibitors, with special focus on those currently in use for GBM clinical trials.

EGFR Amplification Induces Increased DNA Damage Response and Renders Selective Sensitivity to Talazoparib (PARP Inhibitor) in Glioblastoma

PURPOSE

Exploration of novel strategies to extend the benefit of PARP inhibitors beyond BRCA-mutant cancers is of great interest in personalized medicine. Here, we identified EGFR amplification as a potential biomarker to predict sensitivity to PARP inhibition, providing selection for the glioblastoma (GBM) patient population who will benefit from PARP inhibition therapy.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Selective sensitivity to the PARP inhibitor talazoparib was screened and validated in two sets [test set (n = 14) and validation set (n = 13)] of well-characterized patient-derived glioma sphere-forming cells (GSC). FISH was used to detect EGFR copy number. DNA damage response following talazoparib treatment was evaluated by γH2AX and 53BP1 staining and neutral comet assay. PARP-DNA trapping was analyzed by subcellular fractionation. The selective monotherapy of talazoparib was confirmed using in vivo glioma models.

RESULTS

EGFR-amplified GSCs showed remarkable sensitivity to talazoparib treatment. EGFR amplification was associated with increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) and subsequent increased basal expression of DNA-repair pathways to counterelevated oxidative stress, and thus rendered vulnerability to PARP inhibition. Following talazoparib treatment, EGFR-amplified GSCs showed enhanced DNA damage and increased PARP-DNA trapping, which augmented the cytotoxicity. EGFR amplification-associated selective sensitivity was further supported by the in vivo experimental results showing that talazoparib significantly suppressed tumor growth in EGFR-amplified subcutaneous models but not in nonamplified models.

CONCLUSIONS

EGFR-amplified cells are highly sensitive to talazoparib. Our data provide insight into the potential of using EGFR amplification as a selection biomarker for the development of personalized therapy.

Phase 1 study of veliparib (ABT-888), a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, with carboplatin and paclitaxel in advanced solid malignancies

PURPOSE

Veliparib is an oral inhibitor of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-1 and -2. PARP-1 expression may be increased in cancer, and this increase confers resistance to cytotoxic agents. We aimed to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), and pharmacokinetics (PK) of veliparib combined with paclitaxel and carboplatin.

METHODS

Eligibility criteria included patients with advanced solid tumors treated with ≤ 3 prior regimens. Paclitaxel and carboplatin were administered on day 3 of a 21-day cycle. Veliparib was given PO BID days 1-7, except for cycle 1 in the first 46 patients to serve as control for toxicity and PK. A standard "3 + 3" design started veliparib at 10 mg BID, paclitaxel at 150 mg/m², and carboplatin AUC 6. The pharmacokinetic (PK) disposition of veliparib, paclitaxel, and carboplatin was determined by LC-MS/MS and AAS during cycles 1 and 2.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients were enrolled. Toxicities were as expected with carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy, including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and peripheral neuropathy. DLTs were seen in two of seven evaluable patients at the maximum administered dose (MAD): veliparib 120 mg BID, paclitaxel 200 mg/m², and carboplatin AUC 6 (febrile neutropenia, hyponatremia). The MTD and RP2D were determined to be veliparib 100 mg BID, paclitaxel 200 mg/m², and carboplatin AUC 6. Median number of cycles of the three-agent combination was 4 (1-16). We observed 22 partial and 5 complete responses. Veliparib did not affect paclitaxel or carboplatin PK disposition.

CONCLUSION

Veliparib, paclitaxel, and carboplatin were well tolerated and demonstrated promising antitumor activity.

PARP Inhibitor PJ34 Protects Mitochondria and Induces DNA-Damage Mediated Apoptosis in Combination With Cisplatin or Temozolomide in B16F10 Melanoma Cells

PARP-1 inhibition has recently been employed in both mono- and combination therapies in various malignancies including melanoma with both promising and contradicting results reported. Although deeper understanding of the underlying molecular mechanisms may help improving clinical modalities, the complex cellular effects of PARP inhibitors make disentangling of the mechanisms involved in combination therapies difficult. Here, we used two cytostatic agents used in melanoma therapies in combination with PARP inhibition to have an insight into cellular events using the B16F10 melanoma model. We found that, when used in combination with cisplatin or temozolomide, pharmacologic blockade of PARP-1 by PJ34 augmented the DNA-damaging and cytotoxic effects of both alkylating compounds. Interestingly, however, this synergism unfolds relatively slowly and is preceded by molecular events that are traditionally believed to support cell survival including the stabilization of mitochondrial membrane potential and morphology. Our data indicate that the PARP inhibitor PJ34 has, apparently, opposing effects on the mitochondrial structure and cell survival. While, initially, it stimulates mitochondrial fusion and hyperpolarization, hallmarks of mitochondrial protection, it enhances the cytotoxic effects of alkylating agents at later stages. These findings may contribute to the optimization of PARP inhibitor-based antineoplastic modalities.

CADM1 is a TWIST1-regulated suppressor of invasion and survival

Metastatic cancer remains a clinical challenge; however, patients diagnosed prior to metastatic dissemination have a good prognosis. The transcription factor, TWIST1 has been implicated in enhancing the migration and invasion steps within the metastatic cascade, but the range of TWIST1-regulated targets is poorly described. In this study, we performed expression profiling to identify the TWIST1-regulated transcriptome of melanoma cells. Gene ontology pathway analysis revealed that TWIST1 and epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) were inversely correlated with levels of cell adhesion molecule 1 (CADM1). Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) studies and promoter assays demonstrated that TWIST1 physically interacts with the CADM1 promoter, suggesting TWIST1 directly represses CADM1 levels. Increased expression of CADM1 resulted in significant inhibition of motility and invasiveness of melanoma cells. In addition, elevated CADM1 elicited caspase-independent cell death in non-adherent conditions. Expression array analysis suggests that CADM1 directed non-adherent cell death is associated with loss of mitochondrial membrane potential and subsequent failure of oxidative phosphorylation pathways. Importantly, tissue microarray analysis and clinical data from TCGA indicate that CADM1 expression is inversely associated with melanoma progression and positively correlated with better overall survival in patients. Together, these data suggest that CADM1 exerts tumor suppressive functions in melanoma by reducing invasive potential and may be considered a biomarker for favorable prognosis.

Poly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibition for Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials

Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy is characterized by pain, numbness, and tingling in the hands and feet and by diminished quality of life. Multiple previous studies, mostly preclinical, suggest that poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors may help with these symptoms. Objective: To assess the relationship between PARP inhibition and prevention/palliation of peripheral neuropathy in a clinical setting. Design: Meta-analysis of placebo-controlled clinical trials with PARP inhibitors. Setting/Subjects: We conducted 9 literature searches that included PubMed and other sources to compile fully published placebo-controlled clinical trials that tested PARP inhibitors and that reported on peripheral neuropathy. Measurements: The relative risks for neuropathy of all grades based on PARP inhibition were calculated for each trial. Each trial was weighted by its respective sample size. A forest plot was constructed. Results: Five trials, inclusive of 843 patients, met this study's eligibility criteria. Four included a concomitant PARP inhibitor (either olaparib or veliparib) and paclitaxel, a neuropathy-causing chemotherapy agent; the remaining trial evaluated long-term monotherapy with olaparib. The pooled overall relative risk for the development of neuropathy with PARP inhibition was 1.06 (95% confidence interval: 1-1.4). Conclusions: PARP inhibition does not appear to reduce the risk of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Whether PARP inhibitors may palliate (rather than prevent) neuropathy remains an area in need of further investigation.

Pharmacologic characterization of fluzoparib, a novel poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor undergoing clinical trials

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) enzymes play an important role in repairing DNA damage and maintaining genomic stability. Olaparib, the first-in-class PARP inhibitor, has shown remarkable clinical benefits in the treatment of BRCA-mutated ovarian or breast cancer. However, the undesirable hematological toxicity and pharmacokinetic properties of olaparib limit its clinical application. Here, we report the first preclinical characterization of fluzoparib (code name: SHR-3162), a novel, potent, and orally available inhibitor of PARP. Fluzoparib potently inhibited PARP1 enzyme activity and induced DNA double-strand breaks, G₂ /M arrest, and apoptosis in homologous recombination repair (HR)-deficient cells. Fluzoparib preferentially inhibited the proliferation of HR-deficient cells and sensitized both HR-deficient and HR-proficient cells to cytotoxic drugs. Notably, fluzoparib showed good pharmacokinetic properties, favorable toxicity profile, and superior antitumor activity in HR-deficient xenografts models. Furthermore, fluzoparib in combination with apatinib or with apatinib plus paclitaxel elicited significantly improved antitumor responses without extra toxicity. Based on these findings, studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluzoparib (phase II) and those two combinations (phase I) have been initiated. Taken together, our results implicate fluzoparib as a novel attractive PARP inhibitor.

Effect of ABT-888 on the apoptosis, motility and invasiveness of BRAFi-resistant melanoma cells

Melanoma is a molecularly heterogeneous disease with many genetic mutations and altered signaling pathways. Activating mutations in the BRAF oncogene are observed in approximately 50% of cutaneous melanomas and the use of BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) compounds has been reported to improve the outcome of patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma. However, the majority of these patients develop resistance within 6-8 months following the initiation of BRAFi treatment. In this study, we examined the possible use of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) inhibitor, ABT-888 (veliparib), as a novel molecule that may be successfully employed in the treatment of BRAFi-resistant melanoma cells. Sensitive and resistant to BRAFi dabrafenib A375 cells were exposed to increasing concentrations of ABT-888. Cell viability and apoptosis were assessed by MTT assay and Annexin V-FITC analysis, respectively. The cell migratory and invasive ability was investigated using the xCELLigence technology and Boyden chamber assays, respectively. ABT-888 was found to reduce cell viability and exhibited pro-apoptotic activity in melanoma cell lines, independently from the BRAF/NRAS mutation status, in a dose-dependent manner, with the maximal effect being reached in the 25-50 µM concentration range. Moreover, ABT-888 promoted apoptosis in both the sensitive and resistant A375 cells, suggesting that ABT-888 may be useful in the treatment of BRAFi-resistant subsets of melanoma cells. Finally, in accordance with the involvement of PARP1 in actin cytoskeletal machinery, we found that the cytoskeletal organization, motility and invasive capability of both the A375 and A375R cells decreased upon exposure to 5 µM ABT-888 for 24 h. On the whole, the findings of this study highlight the pivotal role of PARP1 in the migration and invasion of melanoma cells, suggesting that ABT-888 may indeed be effective, not only as a pro-apoptotic drug for use in the treatment of BRAFi-resistant melanoma cells, but also in suppressing their migratory and invasive activities.

A phase 1 dose-escalation study of veliparib with bimonthly FOLFIRI in patients with advanced solid tumours

Background

Veliparib is a potent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. This phase 1 study aimed to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of veliparib combined with various FOLFIRI regimens in patients with solid tumours.

Methods

Patients received veliparib (10–270 mg BID, days 1–5, 15–19) and FOLFIRI (days 1–3, 15–17) in three regimens containing 5-fluorouracil 2,400 mg/m²: irinotecan 150 mg/m² and folinic acid 400 mg/m² (part 1); irinotecan 180 mg/m², folinic acid 400 mg/m², and 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m² bolus (part 2), or irinotecan 180 mg/m² (part 3). The RP2D was further evaluated in safety expansion cohorts. Preliminary antitumour activity was also assessed.

Results

Ninety-two patients received ≥1 veliparib dose. MTD was not reached; RP2D was set at 200 mg BID veliparib plus FOLFIRI (without 5-fluorouracil bolus). Most common treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (66.3%), diarrhoea, and nausea (60.9% each). Dose-limiting toxicities (n = 4) were grade 3 gastritis and grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. Veliparib exposure was dose-proportional, with no effects on the pharmacokinetics of FOLFIRI components. Fifteen patients had a partial response (objective response rate, 17.6%).

Conclusions

The acceptable safety profile and preliminary antitumour activity of veliparib plus FOLFIRI support further evaluation of this combination.

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of people with metastatic cutaneous melanoma, a skin cancer, is generally poor. Recently, new classes of drugs (e.g. immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs) have significantly improved patient prognosis, which has drastically changed the landscape of melanoma therapeutic management. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to October 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the ASCO database in February 2017, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered RCTs of systemic therapies for people with unresectable lymph node metastasis and distant metastatic cutaneous melanoma compared to any other treatment. We checked the reference lists of selected articles to identify further references to relevant trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data, and a third review author independently verified extracted data. We implemented a network meta-analysis approach to make indirect comparisons and rank treatments according to their effectiveness (as measured by the impact on survival) and harm (as measured by occurrence of high-grade toxicity). The same two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies according to Cochrane standards and assessed evidence quality based on the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 122 RCTs (28,561 participants). Of these, 83 RCTs, encompassing 21 different comparisons, were included in meta-analyses. Included participants were men and women with a mean age of 57.5 years who were recruited from hospital settings. Twenty-nine studies included people whose cancer had spread to their brains. Interventions were categorised into five groups: conventional chemotherapy (including single agent and polychemotherapy), biochemotherapy (combining chemotherapy with cytokines such as interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha), immune checkpoint inhibitors (such as anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies), small-molecule targeted drugs used for melanomas with specific gene changes (such as BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors), and other agents (such as anti-angiogenic drugs). Most interventions were compared with chemotherapy. In many cases, trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies producing the tested drug: this was especially true for new classes of drugs, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs.When compared to single agent chemotherapy, the combination of multiple chemotherapeutic agents (polychemotherapy) did not translate into significantly better survival (overall survival: HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16, 6 studies, 594 participants; high-quality evidence; progression-free survival: HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25, 5 studies, 398 participants; high-quality evidence. Those who received combined treatment are probably burdened by higher toxicity rates (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.71, 3 studies, 390 participants; moderate-quality evidence). (We defined toxicity as the occurrence of grade 3 (G3) or higher adverse events according to the World Health Organization scale.)Compared to chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) improved progression-free survival (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99, 6 studies, 964 participants; high-quality evidence), but did not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06, 7 studies, 1317 participants; high-quality evidence). Biochemotherapy had higher toxicity rates (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61, 2 studies, 631 participants; high-quality evidence).With regard to immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies plus chemotherapy probably increased the chance of progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92, 1 study, 502 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01, 2 studies, 1157 participants; low-quality evidence). Compared to chemotherapy alone, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies is likely to be associated with higher toxicity rates (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.42, 2 studies, 1142 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies (immune checkpoint inhibitors) improved overall survival (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.48, 1 study, 418 participants; high-quality evidence) and probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.61, 2 studies, 957 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may also result in less toxicity than chemotherapy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97, 3 studies, 1360 participants; low-quality evidence).Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.66, 1 study, 764 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.60, 2 studies, 1465 participants; high-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may result in better toxicity outcomes than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91, 2 studies, 1465 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone, the combination of anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies was associated with better progression-free survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46, 2 studies, 738 participants; high-quality evidence). There may be no significant difference in toxicity outcomes (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.92, 2 studies, 764 participants; low-quality evidence) (no data for overall survival were available).The class of small-molecule targeted drugs, BRAF inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma), performed better than chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.57, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.34, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence), and there may be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.33, 2 studies, 408 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, MEK inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma) may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.25, 3 studies, 496 participants; low-quality evidence), but they probably lead to better progression-free survival (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80, 3 studies, 496 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, MEK inhibitors probably have higher toxicity rates (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.41, 1 study, 91 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to BRAF inhibitors, the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.82, 4 studies, 1784 participants; high-quality evidence). BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was also probably better in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71, 4 studies, 1784 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and there appears likely to be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20, 4 studies, 1774 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, the combination of chemotherapy plus anti-angiogenic drugs was probably associated with better overall survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81; moderate-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; moderate-quality evidence). There may be no difference in terms of toxicity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.32; low-quality evidence). All results for this comparison were based on 324 participants from 2 studies.Network meta-analysis focused on chemotherapy as the common comparator and currently approved treatments for which high- to moderate-quality evidence of efficacy (as represented by treatment effect on progression-free survival) was available (based on the above results) for: biochemotherapy (with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2); anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies; anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; BRAF inhibitors; MEK inhibitors, and BRAF plus MEK inhibitors. Analysis (which included 19 RCTs and 7632 participants) generated 21 indirect comparisons.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for progression-free survival was found for the following indirect comparisons:• both combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.51) and small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.26) probably improved progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy;• both BRAF inhibitors (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68) and combinations of small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.39) were probably associated with better progression-free survival compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies;• biochemotherapy (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.51) probably lead to worse progression-free survival compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies;• both biochemotherapy (HR 5.05, 95% CI 3.01 to 8.45) and MEK inhibitors (HR 3.16, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.65) were probably associated with worse progression-free survival compared to the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with worse progression-free survival (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.11) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for toxicity was found for the following indirect comparisons:• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (RR 3.49, 95% CI 2.12 to 5.77) probably increased toxicity compared to chemotherapy;• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.20) compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 3.83, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with lower toxicity (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.Network meta-analysis-based ranking suggested that the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors is the most effective strategy in terms of progression-free survival, whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies are associated with the lowest toxicity.Overall, the risk of bias of the included trials can be considered as limited. When considering the 122 trials included in this review and the seven types of bias we assessed, we performed 854 evaluations only seven of which (< 1%) assigned high risk to six trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-quality evidence that many treatments offer better efficacy than chemotherapy, especially recently implemented treatments, such as small-molecule targeted drugs, which are used to treat melanoma with specific gene mutations. Compared with chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (in this case, chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) and BRAF inhibitors improved progression-free survival; BRAF inhibitors (for BRAF-mutated melanoma) and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies improved overall survival. However, there was no difference between polychemotherapy and monochemotherapy in terms of achieving progression-free survival and overall survival. Biochemotherapy did not significantly improve overall survival and has higher toxicity rates compared with chemotherapy.There was some evidence that combined treatments worked better than single treatments: anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies, alone or with anti-CTLA4, improved progression-free survival compared with anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone. Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival, and a combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival for BRAF-mutated melanoma, compared to BRAF inhibitors alone.The combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors (which can only be administered to people with BRAF-mutated melanoma) appeared to be the most effective treatment (based on results for progression-free survival), whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies appeared to be the least toxic, and most acceptable, treatment.Evidence quality was reduced due to imprecision, between-study heterogeneity, and substandard reporting of trials. Future research should ensure that those diminishing influences are addressed. Clinical areas of future investigation should include the longer-term effect of new therapeutic agents (i.e. immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies) on overall survival, as well as the combination of drugs used in melanoma treatment; research should also investigate the potential influence of biomarkers.