Phase Ib with expansion study of olaparib plus weekly (Metronomic) carboplatin and paclitaxel in relapsed ovarian cancer patients

Targeting the DNA repair pathway for breast cancer therapy: Beyond the molecular subtypes

DNA repair is a vital mechanism in cells that protects against DNA damage caused by internal and external factors. It involves a network of signaling pathways that monitor and transmit damage signals, activating various cellular activities to repair DNA damage and maintain genomic integrity. Dysfunctions in this repair pathway are strongly associated with the development and progression of cancer. However, they also present an opportunity for targeted therapy in breast cancer. Extensive research has focused on developing inhibitors that play a crucial role in the signaling pathway of DNA repair, particularly due to the remarkable success of PARP1 inhibitors (PARPis) in treating breast cancer patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. In this review, we summarize the current research progress and clinical implementation of BRCA and BRCAness in targeted treatments for the DNA repair pathway. Additionally, we present advancements in diverse inhibitors of DNA repair, both as individual and combined approaches, for treating breast cancer. We also discuss the clinical application of DNA repair-targeted therapy for breast cancer, including the rationale, indications, and summarized clinical data for patients with different breast cancer subtypes. We assess their influence on cancer progression, survival rates, and major adverse reactions. Last, we anticipate forthcoming advancements in targeted therapy for cancer treatment and emphasize prospective areas of development.

Cisplatin with veliparib or placebo in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer and BRCA mutation-associated breast cancer (S1416): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are effective in germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation-associated metastatic breast cancer. However, studies evaluating PARP inhibitors plus platinum-based chemotherapy in germline BRCA1/2-wildtype triple-negative breast cancer are scarce. A large proportion of germline BRCA1/2-wildtype triple-negative breast cancer shows homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), resulting in a BRCA-like phenotype that might render sensitivity to PARP inhibitors. The S1416 trial assessed the efficacy of cisplatin combined with the PARP inhibitor veliparib in three predefined groups of metastatic breast cancer: germline BRCA1/2-mutated, BRCA-like, and non-BRCA-like.

METHODS

S1416 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial conducted at 154 community and academic clinical sites across the USA. Eligible patients aged 18 years or older had metastatic or recurrent triple-negative breast cancer or germline BRCA1/2-associated metastatic or recurrent breast cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had received up to one line of chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via the National Clinical Trials Network open interactive system with dynamic balancing on number of previous cytotoxic regimens for metastatic disease to receive intravenous cisplatin (75 mg/m2, day 1) combined with either veliparib or matching placebo (300 mg orally twice a day, days 1-14) on a 21-day cycle. Investigators, patients, and the sponsors were masked to treatment assignment; the study statisticians were unmasked. Central testing after ran domisation classified patients as having mutated or wildtype germline BRCA1/2. A biomarker panel established a priori was used to classify patients with wildtype germline BRCA1/2 into BRCA-like and non-BRCA-like phenotype groups, with BRCA-like status based on at least one of the biomarkers: genomic instability score (≥42), somatic BRCA1/2 mutations, BRCA1 promoter methylation, or non-BRCA1/2 homologous recombination repair germline mutations. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed separately for the three predefined biomarker groups with a prespecified α value for each analysis. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat and included all eligible patients. Safety analyses of toxicities attributed to treatment included all patients who received at least one dose of veliparib or placebo. The study is ongoing and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02595905.

FINDINGS

Between July 7, 2016, and June 15, 2019, 335 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. 320 patients (n=162 to cisplatin plus veliparib, all women; and n=158 to cisplatin plus placebo, 157 women and one man) were eligible for efficacy evaluation. 247 patients were classified into the three biomarker groups: germline BRCA1/2-mutated (n=37), BRCA-like (n=101), and non-BRCA-like (n=109). 73 patients could not be classified due to missing biomarker information. Median follow-up was 11·1 months (IQR 5·6-20·8). In the germline BRCA1/2-mutated group, median progression-free survival was 6·2 months (95% CI 2·3-9·2) in the cisplatin plus veliparib group and 6·4 months (4·3-8·2) in the cisplatin plus placebo group (HR 0·79 [95% CI 0·38-1·67]; log-rank p=0·54). In the BRCA-like group, median progression-free survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 4·3-7·8) in the cisplatin plus veliparib group versus 4·2 months (2·3-5·0) in the cisplatin plus placebo group (HR 0·57 [95% CI 0·37-0·88]; p=0·010). In the non-BRCA-like group, median progression-free survival was 4·0 months (95% CI 2·5-4·7) in the cisplatin plus veliparib group versus 3·0 months (2·2-4·4) in the cisplatin plus placebo group (HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·60-1·33]; p=0·57). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events attributed to treatment were neutropenia (71 [46%] of 155 patients in the cisplatin plus veliparib group vs 29 [20%] of 147 in the cisplatin plus placebo group), leukopenia (42 [27%] vs 11 [7%]), anaemia (35 [23%] vs 12 [8%]), and thrombocytopenia (29 [19%] vs four [3%]). Serious adverse events attributed to treatment occurred in 48 (31%) patients in the cisplatin plus veliparib group and 53 (36%) patients in the cisplatin plus placebo group. Treatment-related adverse events led to death in one patient in the cisplatin plus veliparib group (sepsis) and one patient in the cisplatin plus placebo group (acute kidney injury due to cisplatin plus heart failure from previous doxorubicin exposure).

INTERPRETATION

The addition of veliparib to cisplatin significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with BRCA-like metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, but not in patients with non-BRCA-like metastatic breast cancer. PARP inhibitors combined with platinum-based chemotherapy should be explored further in BRCA-like triple-negative breast cancer.

FUNDING

National Cancer Institute and National Institute of General Medical Sciences (US National Institutes of Health); AbbVie; Myriad Genetics; the Biomarker, Imaging, and Quality of Life Studies Funding Program (awarded by the National Cancer Institute); and The University of Kansas Cancer Center.

DNA Damage Response Alterations in Ovarian Cancer: From Molecular Mechanisms to Therapeutic Opportunities

The DNA damage response (DDR), a set of signaling pathways for DNA damage detection and repair, maintains genomic stability when cells are exposed to endogenous or exogenous DNA-damaging agents. Alterations in these pathways are strongly associated with cancer development, including ovarian cancer (OC), the most lethal gynecologic malignancy. In OC, failures in the DDR have been related not only to the onset but also to progression and chemoresistance. It is known that approximately half of the most frequent subtype, high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC), exhibit defects in DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair by homologous recombination (HR), and current evidence indicates that probably all HGSCs harbor a defect in at least one DDR pathway. These defects are not restricted to HGSCs; mutations in ARID1A, which are present in 30% of endometrioid OCs and 50% of clear cell (CC) carcinomas, have also been found to confer deficiencies in DNA repair. Moreover, DDR alterations have been described in a variable percentage of the different OC subtypes. Here, we overview the main DNA repair pathways involved in the maintenance of genome stability and their deregulation in OC. We also recapitulate the preclinical and clinical data supporting the potential of targeting the DDR to fight the disease.

Neoadjuvant treatment in ovarian cancer: New perspectives, new challenges

Ovarian cancer remains the leading cause of death from gynecological cancer. Survival is significantly related to the stage of the disease at diagnosis. Of quite importance is primary cytoreductive surgery, having as a goal to remove all visible tumor tissue, and is the standard primary treatment in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy for patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma.

Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been implemented mostly in treating advanced disease, with studies performed having numerous limitations. Data extrapolated from these studies have not shown inferiority survival of NACT, compared to primary debulking surgery. The role of NACT is of particular interest because of the intrinsic mechanisms that are involved in the process, which can be proven as therapeutic approaches with enormous potential. NACT increases immune infiltration and programmed death ligand-1 (PDL-1) expression, induces local immune activation, and can potentiate the immunogenicity of immune-exclude high grade serous ovarian tumors, while the combination of NACT with bevacizumab, PARP inhibitors or immunotherapy remains to be evaluated. This article summarizes all available data on studies implementing NACT in the treatment of ovarian cancer, focusing on clinical outcomes and study limitations. High mortality rates observed among ovarian cancer patients necessitates the identification of more effective treatments, along with biomarkers that will aid treatment individualization.

Metronomic Chemotherapy for Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Literature Review

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is the ultimately lethal form of prostate cancer. Docetaxel chemotherapy was the first life-prolonging treatment for mCRPC; however, the standard maximally tolerated dose (MTD) docetaxel regimen is often not considered for patients with mCRPC who are older and/or frail due to its toxicity. Low-dose metronomic chemotherapy (LDMC) is the frequent administration of typically oral and off-patent chemotherapeutics at low doses, which is associated with a superior safety profile and higher tolerability than MTD chemotherapy. We conducted a systematic literature review using the PUBMED, EMBASE, and MEDLINE electronic databases to identify clinical studies that examined the impact of LDMC on patients with advanced prostate cancer. The search identified 30 reports that retrospectively or prospectively investigated LDMC, 29 of which focused on mCRPC. Cyclophosphamide was the most commonly used agent integrated into 27/30 (90%) of LDMC regimens. LDMC resulted in a clinical benefit rate of 56.8 ± 24.5% across all studies. Overall, there were only a few non-hematological grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported. As such, LDMC is a well-tolerated treatment option for patients with mCRPC, including those who are older and frail. Furthermore, LDMC is considered more affordable than conventional mCRPC therapies. However, prospective phase III trials are needed to further characterize the efficacy and safety of LDMC in mCRPC before its use in practice.

A phase I study of talazoparib (BMN 673) combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors (NCI9782)

Background

Inhibitors of poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase (PARP) proteins potentiate antitumor activity of platinum chemotherapy. This study sought to determine the safety and tolerability of PARP inhibitor talazoparib with carboplatin and paclitaxel.

Methods

We conducted a phase I study of talazoparib with carboplatin AUC5‐6 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m² days 1, 8, 15 of 21‐day cycles in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients enrolled using a 3 + 3 design in two cohorts with talazoparib for 7 (schedule A) or 3 days (schedule B). After induction with 4–6 cycles of triplet therapy, patients received one of three maintenance options: (a) continuation of triplet (b) carboplatin/talazoparib, or (c) talazoparib monotherapy.

Results

Forty‐three patients were treated. The MTD for both schedules was talazoparib 250mcg daily. The main toxicity was myelosuppression including grade 3/4 hematologic treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs). Dose modification occurred in 87% and 100% of patients for schedules A and B, respectively. Discontinuation due to TRAEs was 13% in schedule A and 10% in B. Ten out of 22 evaluable patients in schedule A and 5/16 patients in schedule B had a complete or partial response. Twelve out of 43 patients received ≥6 cycles of talazoparib after induction, with a 13‐month median duration of maintenance.

Conclusion

We have established the recommended phase II dose of Talazoparib at 250mcg on a 3‐ or 7‐day schedule with carboplatin AUC6 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m² on days 1, 8, 15 of 21‐day cycles. This regimen is associated with significant myelosuppression, and in addition to maximizing supportive care, modification of the chemotherapy component would be a consideration for further development of this combination with the schedules investigated in this study.

The evolving role of PARP inhibitors in advanced ovarian cancer

The field of ovarian cancer has been revolutionized with the use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, which present greater inhibition effect in epithelial subtype due to high rates of homologous recombination deficiency. PARP inhibition exploits this cancer pitfall by disrupting DNA repair, leading to genomic instability and apoptosis. Three PARP inhibitors (olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib) are now approved for use in women with epithelial ovarian cancer, while others are under development. Among women with BRCA1/2 mutations, maintenance PARP therapy has led to a nearly fourfold prolongation of PFS, while those without BRCA1/2 mutations experience an approximately twofold increase in PFS. Differences in trial design, patient selection and primary analysis population affect the conclusions on PARP inhibitors. Limited OS data have been published and there is also limited experience regarding long-term safety. With regard to toxicity profile, there are no differences in serious adverse events between the experimental and control groups. However, combining adverse event data from maintenance phases, a trend towards more events in the experimental group, compared with controls, has been shown. The mechanisms of PARP-inhibitor resistance include restoration of HR through reversion mutations in HR genes, leading to resumed HR function. Other mechanisms that sustain sufficient DNA repair are discussed as well. PARP inhibitors play a pivotal role in the management of ovarian cancer, affecting the future treatment choices. Defining exactly which patients will benefit from them is a challenge and the need for HRD testing to define ‘BRCA-ness’ will add additional costs to treatment.

Neoadjuvant chemoteraphy in unresectable ovarian cancer with olaparib and weekly carboplatin plus paclitaxel: a phase II, open label multicenter study (NUVOLA trial)

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with interval debulking surgery represents an alternative treatment for advanced ovarian cancer. Currently, there are few data about the use of poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase inhibitors in the neoadjuvant setting.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the administration of olaparib in combination with standard chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting can improve tumor response.

STUDY HYPOTHESIS

The addition of a poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase inhibitor to standard chemotherapy will achieve a higher response rate in BRCA mutated patients compared with standard chemotherapy TRIAL DESIGN: This is a multicenter, phase II, single arm, open label trial. Eligible patients will receive three cycles of weekly carboplatin plus paclitaxel, and intermittent olaparib administration. Responding patients will undergo an interval debulking surgery with pathological evaluation of response to chemotherapy.

MAJOR ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Patients must have histologically confirmed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages III-IV primary ovarian, peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancers, high grade serous or endometrioid histology, not suitable for primary cytoreductive surgery with a documented BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline and/or somatic mutation.

PRIMARY ENDPOINT

Rate of complete pathological response after three cycles of the experimental chemotherapy regimen.

SAMPLE SIZE

A total of 35 patients will be enrolled in the study.

ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS

Expected complete 42 accrual in January 2022, with presentation of results by June 2022.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04261465.

Updates and New Options in Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Treatment

The medical and surgical treatment strategies for women with epithelial ovarian cancer continue to evolve. In the past several years, there has been significant progress backed by landmark clinical trials. Although primary epithelial ovarian cancer is still treated with a combination of surgery and systemic therapy, more complex surgical procedures and novel therapeutics have emerged as standard of care. Cytotoxic chemotherapy and maximal surgical effort remain mainstays, but targeted therapies are becoming more widespread and new data have called into question the role of surgery for women with recurrent disease. Poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors have improved progression-free survival outcomes in both the frontline and recurrent settings, and their use has become increasingly widespread. The recent creation of treatment categories based on genetic changes reinforces the recommendation that all women with epithelial ovarian cancer have germline genetic testing, and new biomarker-driven drug approvals indicate that women may benefit from somatic molecular testing as well. To continue to identify novel strategies, however, enrollment on clinical trials remains of the utmost importance. With the evolving data on surgical approaches, targeted therapies such as antiangiogenics and poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors, and the new therapeutic agents and combinations in development, we hope that advanced epithelial ovarian cancer will eventually transition from an almost universally fatal disease to one that can increasingly be cured.

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

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

Efficacy and Prognostic Factors for PARP Inhibitors in Patients With Ovarian Cancer

Background: The prognostic factors for efficacy of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in ovarian cancer remain unknown. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of PARP inhibitors and to explore their prognostic factors in ovarian cancer. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and conference databases were searched for relevant prospective clinical trials. The primary outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and their prognostic factors. Secondary outcomes included PFS2, time to first subsequent therapy (TFST), time to second subsequent therapy (TSST), chemotherapy-free interval (CFI), and their prognostic factors. Hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as an effect measure. Results: PARP inhibitors significantly prolonged PFS in patients with ovarian cancer regardless of their BRCA and HRD status (HR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.36-0.55). BRCA mutation, HRD-positive status, and sensitivity to platinum represented effective prognostic factors for PFS (Pinteraction < 0.01 and within-trial interaction HR < 1). Other clinicopathological factors did not predict the benefit of PFS (Pinteraction > 0.10). Moreover, PARP inhibitors significantly increased PFS2, TFST, TSST, and CFI, with significant BRCA-related differences. However, HRD-related differences could not be evaluated due to the lack of eligible studies. Furthermore, PARP inhibitors did not translate into prolonged OS, although there was a benefit associated with OS (HR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.70-1.02). PARP inhibitors used as maintenance therapy after first or subsequent line therapy improved OS (HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.63-0.93). Conclusions: PARP inhibitors can significantly prolong PFS, PFS2, TFST, TSST, and CFI in ovarian cancer patients. BRCA mutation, HRD-positive status, and sensitivity to platinum are effective prognostic factors for the efficacy of PARP inhibitors. However, despite the PFS improvement, this does not translate into prolonged OS for patients.

Ovarian Cancer, Cancer Stem Cells and Current Treatment Strategies: A Potential Role of Magmas in the Current Treatment Methods

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) constitutes 90% of ovarian cancers (OC) and is the eighth most common cause of cancer-related death in women. The cancer histologically and genetically is very complex having a high degree of tumour heterogeneity. The pathogenic variability in OC causes significant impediments in effectively treating patients, resulting in a dismal prognosis. Disease progression is predominantly influenced by the peritoneal tumour microenvironment rather than properties of the tumor and is the major contributor to prognosis. Standard treatment of OC patients consists of debulking surgery, followed by chemotherapy, which in most cases end in recurrent chemoresistant disease. This review discusses the different origins of high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), the major sub-type of EOC. Tumour heterogeneity, genetic/epigenetic changes, and cancer stem cells (CSC) in facilitating HGSOC progression and their contribution in the circumvention of therapy treatments are included. Several new treatment strategies are discussed including our preliminary proof of concept study describing the role of mitochondria-associated granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor signaling protein (Magmas) in HGSOC and its unique potential role in chemotherapy-resistant disease.