Search

BACKGROUND: In the BROCADE3 trial, addition of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, veliparib, to carboplatin/paclitaxel improved progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.57-0.88; P = 0.002) in patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, germline BRCA1/2-mutated breast cancer. A subset of patients discontinued both carboplatin and paclitaxel before progression and continued on veliparib/placebo maintenance monotherapy until progression. Analyses in this patient subgroup are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to veliparib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel or placebo plus carboplatin/paclitaxel. Veliparib (120 mg twice daily) or placebo was given on days -2 to 5, carboplatin (area under the curve 6 mg/ml) on day 1, and paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of 21-day cycles. Patients who discontinued both carboplatin and paclitaxel before progression received blinded study drug monotherapy at an increased dose of 300-400 mg twice daily continuously. PFS was the primary endpoint. Exploratory analyses were carried out in the subgroup of patients who received blinded study drug as monotherapy. A time-varying Cox model including data from all patients was also used to evaluate treatment effect in the combination and monotherapy phases. RESULTS: A total of 136 of 337 patients randomized to veliparib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel and 58/172 patients randomized to placebo plus carboplatin/paclitaxel discontinued both carboplatin and paclitaxel before progression and continued on blinded veliparib or placebo monotherapy. In this blinded monotherapy subgroup, investigator-assessed median PFS from randomization was 25.7 months with veliparib versus 14.6 months with placebo. Hazard ratios from a time-varying Cox model favored veliparib during both combination therapy and monotherapy. Any-grade adverse events occurring in the monotherapy phase were primarily gastrointestinal. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were neutropenia and anemia (4% each with veliparib; 5% and 2%, respectively, with placebo). CONCLUSIONS: Veliparib maintenance monotherapy had a tolerable safety profile and may extend PFS following combination chemotherapy. ispartof: ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY vol:33 issue:3 pages:299-309 ispartof: location:England status: published

Purpose: PARP inhibitors synergize with topoisomerase inhibitors, and veliparib plus modified (m) FOLFIRI (no 5-FU bolus) had preliminary activity in metastatic pancreatic cancers. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of second-line treatment with veliparib and mFOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI (control) for metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods: This randomized phase II clinical trial led by the SWOG Cancer Research Network enrolled patients between September 1, 2016 and December 13, 2017. The median follow-up was 9 months (IQR 1–27). BRCA1/2 and homologous recombination DNA damage repair (HR-DDR) genetic defects were tested in blood and tumor biopsies. Patients received veliparib 200 mg twice daily, days 1–7 with mFOLFIRI days 3–5, or FOLFIRI in 14-day cycles. Results: After 123 of planned 143 patients were accrued, an interim futility analysis indicated that the veliparib arm was unlikely to be superior to control, and the study was halted. Median overall survival (OS) was 5.4 versus 6.5 months (HR, 1.23; P = 0.28), and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.1 versus 2.9 months (HR, 1.39; P = 0.09) with veliparib versus control. Grade 3/4 toxicities were more common with veliparib (69% vs. 58%, P = 0.23). For cancers with HR-DDR defects versus wild-type, median PFS and OS were 7.3 versus 2.5 months (P = 0.05) and 10.1 versus 5.9 months (P = 0.17), respectively, with FOLFIRI, and 2.0 versus 2.1 months (P = 0.62) and 7.4 versus 5.1 months (P = 0.10), respectively, with veliparib plus mFOLFIRI. Conclusions: Veliparib plus mFOLFIRI did not improve survival for metastatic pancreatic cancer. FOLFIRI should be further studied in pancreatic cancers with HR-DDR defects.

Objectives Both combinations of the PARP inhibitor veliparib plus platinum doublet chemotherapy (CT), and the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab plus CT have demonstrated encouraging efficacy for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase 1 dose-escalation study (NCT02944396) evaluated the quadruple combination of veliparib with nivolumab and doublet CT in patients with unresectable advanced/metastatic NSCLC. Materials and Methods Patients were enrolled into five dosing cohorts: patients received veliparib 120 mg twice daily (BID) combined with nivolumab 360 mg, carboplatin AUC 6 mg/mL∙min, and paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 (C/PAC) or veliparib 80/120/200/240 mg BID in combination with nivolumab 360 mg, carboplatin AUC 6 mg/mL∙min, and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 (C/PEM). Primary objective was to identify the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of veliparib + nivolumab + CT. Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of this combination were also assessed. Results Twenty-five patients were enrolled: 6 patients received veliparib 120 mg BID + nivolumab + C/PAC and 19 received veliparib (80–240 mg BID) + nivolumab + C/PEM. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported, and the RP2Ds were veliparib 120 mg BID + nivolumab + C/PAC, and veliparib 240 mg BID + nivolumab + C/PEM. The most common any-grade adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (56%), nausea (52%), and anemia (48%). Grade 3/4 AEs included anemia (32%) and neutropenia (24%), and the most frequent serious AE was malignant neoplasm progression (12%). Veliparib exhibited approximately dose proportional kinetics in the dose range 80–240 mg BID combined with nivolumab and C/PEM, with no effects on pemetrexed pharmacokinetics. Overall, the confirmed objective response rate was 40%, and best overall response was 64%. Conclusion Veliparib combined with nivolumab and platinum doublet CT was tolerated in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC, and no evidence of drug–drug interaction was observed. Although preliminary, this quadruple therapy may have promising antitumor activity.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) is a key mediator of various forms of DNA damage repair and plays an important role in the progression of several cancer types. The enzyme is activated by binding to DNA single-strand and double-strand breaks. Its contribution to chromatin remodeling makes PARP1 crucial for gene expression regulation. Inhibition of its activity with small molecules leads to the synthetic lethal effect by impeding DNA repair in the treatment of cancer cells. At first, PARP1 inhibitors (PARPis) were developed to target breast cancer mutated cancer cells. Currently, PARPis are being studied to be used in a broader variety of patients either as single agents or in combination with chemotherapy, antiangiogenic agents, ionizing radiation, and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Ongoing clinical trials on olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib, veliparib, and the recent talazoparib show the advantage of these agents in overcoming PARPi resistance and underline their efficacy in targeted treatment of several hematologic malignancies. In this review, focusing on the crucial role of PARP1 in physiological and pathological effects in myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia, we give an outline of the enzyme’s mechanisms of action and its role in the pathophysiology and prognosis of myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia and we analyze the available data on the use of PARPis, highlighting their promising advances in clinical application.

Purpose Veliparib (V), an oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, potentiates effects of alkylating agents and topoisomerase inhibitors in preclinical tumor models. We conducted a phase I trial of V with iv cyclophosphamide (C) and V plus iv doxorubicin (A) and C. Methods Objectives were to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combinations, characterize V pharmacokinetics (PK) in the presence and absence of C, measure PAR in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and γH2AX in circulating tumor cells (CTCs). In Group 1, dose escalations of V from 10 to 50 mg every 12 h Days 1-4 plus C 450 to 750 mg/m2 Day 3 in 21-day cycles were evaluated. In Group 2, V doses ranged from 50 to 150 mg every 12 h Days 1-4 with AC (60/600 mg/m2) Day 3 in 21-day cycles. In Group 3, patients received AC Day 1 plus V Days 1-7, and in Group 4, AC Day 1 plus V Days 1-14 was given in 21-day cycles to evaluate effects on γH2AX foci. Results Eighty patients were enrolled. MTD was not reached for V and C. MTD for V and AC was V 100 mg every 12 h Days 1-4 with AC (60/600 mg/m2) Day 3 every 21 days. V PK appears to be dose-dependent and has no effect on the PK of C. Overall, neutropenia and anemia were the most common adverse events. Objective response in V and AC treated groups was 22% (11/49). Overall clinical benefit rate was 31% (25/80). PAR decreased in PBMCs. Percentage of γH2AX-positive CTCs increased after treatment with V and AC. Conclusion V and AC can be safely combined. Activity was observed in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Addition of veliparib to carboplatin-paclitaxel, with continuation of veliparib monotherapy if carboplatin-paclitaxel was discontinued, improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with germline BRCA-associated locally advanced/metastatic HER2- breast cancer and ≤2 lines of previous cytotoxic therapy for metastatic disease in BROCADE3. A pre-planned subgroup analysis evaluated efficacy and safety in patients without previous cytotoxic therapy for metastatic disease. METHODS: Patients were randomised 2:1 to receive veliparib (120 mg orally BID) or placebo on days -2 to 5. Carboplatin (AUC 6) was administered on day 1, and paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) on days 1, 8 and 15 (21-day cycles). Patients discontinuing carboplatin-paclitaxel for reasons besides progression could continue veliparib/placebo monotherapy (300 mg BID, increasing to 400 mg BID if tolerated) until progression. The primary end-point was PFS assessed by investigator. RESULTS: Of 509 patients in the intention-to-treat population (98.6% female; mean age 47, standard deviation 11), 413 (81%) had no previous cytotoxic therapy for metastatic disease (274, veliparib; 139, placebo). In the first-line subgroup, median PFS was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 13.4-18.7) versus 13.1 months (95% CI 11.4-14.5) for the veliparib versus control groups (hazard ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.54-0.89, P = .004). More patients were alive and progression-free at 2 years (36% versus 23.2%) and 3 years (27.9% versus 13.3%) in the veliparib versus control group. Adverse events unrelated to progression leading to study drug discontinuation occurred in 25 (9.1%) and 8 (5.8%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Veliparib with carboplatin-paclitaxel led to durable disease control among first-line patients, suggesting a benefit of this treatment approach in early lines. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02163694. ispartof: European Journal Of Cancer vol:154 pages:35-45 ispartof: location:England status: accepted

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of poly-(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) 1 and 2 inhibitor veliparib and temozolomide in metastatic breast cancer patients with and without germline BRCA1/2 mutations. In this single-arm phase II trial, patients with metastatic breast cancer received veliparib 30 to 40 mg twice daily on days 1 to 7 with concurrent temozolomide 150 mg/m2 on days 1 to 5 of a 28-day cycle. The primary cohort was unselected for BRCA mutation status, and an expansion cohort enrolled only BRCA1/2 carriers. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in each cohort. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), clinical benefit rate (CBR), and evaluation of safety and tolerability. In the primary cohort of 41 unselected patients, which included 9 BRCA mutation carriers, the ORR was 10% and clinical benefit rate at 4 months (CBR) was 27%. In the expansion cohort of 21 BRCA1/2 carriers, the ORR was 14% and CBR was 43%. Among all 30 BRCA1/2 carriers, the ORR was 23% versus 0% among non-carriers. In the subset of BRCA1/2 carriers, the ORR was 32% among platinum-naive patients versus 9% among platinum-exposed patients. The median PFS was 3.3 months among BRCA1/2 carriers compared to 1.8 months among non-carriers (HR: 0.48, p = 0.006). A longer median PFS of 6.2 months was observed among BRCA1/2 carriers who had no prior platinum therapy. The most common grade 3 and 4 toxicities were thrombocytopenia (32%) and neutropenia (21%) that generally improved with dose modifications. Veliparib and temozolomide demonstrated clinical activity in platinum-naive BRCA-associated metastatic breast cancer with manageable toxicity at doses of veliparib well below the single-agent active dose. Although the study did not meet its primary endpoint in unselected nor BRCA-associated breast cancer, this regimen was further evaluated in the BROCADE 2 study. NCT01009788 (ClinicalTrials.gov), November 9, 2009

Poly ADP ribose polymerase 1 (PARP-1) inhibitors are approved for post-chemotherapy maintenance in BRCA mutated ovarian carcinoma. Various PARP-1 inhibitors such as olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib, and veliparib are approved for this indication. These PARP-1 inhibitors are costly as well as having toxic potential, anemia, and neutropenia is the major side effects. Most of the middle-aged women in Indian subcontinent are anemic and prescription of PARP-1 inhibitors is tricky in such conditions, besides their cost is at times unaffordable as maintenance chemotherapy. Hence, we need an affordable yet lesser toxic PARP-1 inhibitor to solve this problem. Nicotinamide, a vitamin B3 amide can be re-purposed as PARP-1 inhibitor. Nicotinamide, albeit at a higher dose, can be efficacious as well as economical in its use as maintenance chemotherapy. It has toxic potential but the toxicity is both rare and manageable. We need a clinical trial for this purpose. Following perspective is on the current evidence on high dose nicotinamide and it is re-purposing as PARP-1 inhibitor.

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

OBJECTIVE: In the phase 3 VELIA/GOG-3005 trial, veliparib added to carboplatin-paclitaxel and continued as maintenance improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to carboplatin-paclitaxel alone in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian carcinoma. Primary analysis of PFS was by investigator (INV) assessment, with a supplemental analysis of PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR).METHODS: Patients received veliparib or placebo with carboplatin-paclitaxel (6 cycles) and as maintenance (30 additional cycles). The primary analysis compared PFS in the veliparib-throughout arm to the carboplatin-paclitaxel only arm in the BRCA mutation (BRCAm), homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), and intention-to-treat (ITT) populations. Exploratory analyses of PFS in BRCA wildtype (BRCAwt), homologous recombination proficient (HRP), and HRD + BRCAwt populations were also performed. PFS per BICR and overall concordance rates between INV and BICR assessments were analyzed.RESULTS: Hazard ratios for PFS by INV and BICR were consistent in each of the primary analysis and exploratory populations. In the ITT population, median PFS per INV was 23.5 months in the veliparib-throughout arm versus 17.3 months in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.683, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.562-0.831; P CONCLUSIONS: Hazard ratios for PFS per BICR and per INV were consistent, with no suggestion of investigator bias. These findings support the reliability of PFS by INV in ovarian cancer trials.

Purpose: This study investigated the efficacy and safety of oral PARP inhibitor veliparib, plus carboplatin and etoposide in patients with treatment-naïve, extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to veliparib [240 mg twice daily (BID) for 14 days] plus chemotherapy followed by veliparib maintenance (400 mg BID; veliparib throughout), veliparib plus chemotherapy followed by placebo (veliparib combination only), or placebo plus chemotherapy followed by placebo (control). Patients received 4–6 cycles of combination therapy, then maintenance until unacceptable toxicity/progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) with veliparib throughout versus control. Results: Overall (N = 181), PFS was improved with veliparib throughout versus control [hazard ratio (HR), 0.67; 80% confidence interval (CI), 0.50–0.88; P = 0.059]; median PFS was 5.8 and 5.6 months, respectively. There was a trend toward improved PFS with veliparib throughout versus control in SLFN11-positive patients (HR, 0.6; 80% CI, 0.36–0.97). Median overall survival (OS) was 10.1 versus 12.4 months in the veliparib throughout and control arms, respectively (HR, 1.43; 80% CI, 1.09–1.88). Grade 3/4 adverse events were experienced by 82%, 88%, and 68% of patients in the veliparib throughout, veliparib combination-only and control arms, most commonly hematologic. Conclusions: Veliparib plus platinum chemotherapy followed by veliparib maintenance demonstrated improved PFS as first-line treatment for ED-SCLC with an acceptable safety profile, but there was no corresponding benefit in OS. Further investigation is warranted to define the role of biomarkers in this setting.

Veliparib (ABT‐888) is a poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase inhibitor in development for the treatment of high‐grade ovarian cancer or BRCA‐mutated breast cancer in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel. The population pharmacokinetics of veliparib were characterized using combined data from 1470 adult subjects with ovarian cancer, breast cancer, or other solid tumors enrolled in 6 phase 1 studies, 1 phase 2 study, and 2 phase 3 studies of veliparib oral doses of 10 to 400 mg twice daily as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. A 1‐compartment model with linear clearance and first‐order absorption best characterized veliparib pharmacokinetics. The predicted apparent oral clearance (CL/F) and volume of distribution (Vc/F) were 479 L/day and 152 L, respectively. The significant covariates in the final model included albumin, creatinine clearance, strong inhibitors of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6, and sex on CL/F and albumin, body weight, and sex on Vc/F. Mild and moderate renal impairment increased veliparib median (95%CI) steady‐state AUC (AUCss) by 27.3% (23.7%‐30.9%) and 65.4% (56.0%‐75.5%), respectively, compared with normal renal function. Male subjects had 16.5% (7.53%‐23.9%) lower AUCss compared with female subjects and coadministration with strong CYP2D6 inhibitors increased AUCss by 13.0% (6.11%‐20.8%). Race, age, region, cancer type, or enzyme (CYP3A4, CYP2C19) or transporter (P‐glycoprotein, multidrug and toxin extrusion protein 1/2, organic cation transporter 2) inhibiting/inducing comedications were not found to significantly impact veliparib pharmacokinetics. Other than baseline creatinine clearance and hence renal impairment effect on veliparib clearance, no other covariates had a clinically meaningful effect on veliparib exposure warranting dose adjustment.

Purpose: Safety, efficacy, and exploratory biomarker analyses were evaluated in patients with advanced HER2-negative germline breast cancer susceptibility gene (gBRCA)-associated breast cancer enrolled in the BROCADE3 trial who received crossover veliparib monotherapy after disease progression on placebo plus carboplatin/paclitaxel. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients (N = 513) were randomized 2:1 to veliparib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel or placebo plus carboplatin/paclitaxel; patients had variable platinum-free intervals (PFI) at progression. In the placebo arm, patients were eligible to receive crossover veliparib monotherapy (300–400 mg twice daily continuous). Antitumor activity and adverse events were assessed during crossover veliparib treatment. BRCA reversion mutations at crossover were analyzed retrospectively using next-generation sequencing on plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Results: Seventy-five patients in the placebo plus carboplatin/paclitaxel arm received ≥1 dose of crossover veliparib postprogression (mean treatment duration: 154 days). Eight of 50 (16%) patients with measurable disease had a RECIST v1.1 response. Activity was greater in patients with PFI ≥180 days compared with Conclusions: Crossover veliparib monotherapy demonstrated limited antitumor activity in patients who experienced disease progression on placebo plus carboplatin/paclitaxel. PFI appeared to affect veliparib activity. BRCA reversion mutations may promote cross-resistance and limit veliparib activity following progression on platinum.

BackgroundTemozolomide offers minimal benefit in patients with glioblastoma with unmethylated O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter status, hence, the need for novel therapies. This study evaluated whether veliparib, a brain-penetrant poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, acts synergistically with radiation and temozolomide.MethodsVERTU was a multicenter 2:1 randomized phase II trial in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and MGMT-unmethylated promotor status. The experimental arm consisted of veliparib and radiotherapy, followed by adjuvant veliparib and temozolomide. The standard arm consisted of concurrent temozolomide and radiotherapy, followed by adjuvant temozolomide. The primary objective was to extend the progression-free survival rate at six months (PFS-6m) in the experimental arm.ResultsA total of 125 participants were enrolled, with 84 in the experimental arm and 41 in the standard arm. The median age was 61 years, 70% were male, 59% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0, and 87% underwent macroscopic resection. PFS-6m was 46% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 36%-57%) in the experimental arm and 31% (95% CI: 18%-46%) in the standard arm. Median overall survival was 12.7 months (95% CI: 11.4-14.5 months) in the experimental arm and 12.8 months (95% CI: 9.5-15.8 months) in the standard arm. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, with no new safety signals.ConclusionThe veliparib-containing regimen was feasible and well tolerated. However, there was insufficient evidence of clinical benefit in this population. Further information from correlative translational work and other trials of PARP inhibitors in glioblastoma are still awaited.

Objective To evaluate how women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), dichotomized by BRCA status, tolerate intravenous (IV) or intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy given with veliparib and bevacizumab (bev) on a GOG phase I study (GOG 9923, NCT00989651). Methods This is an unplanned, post hoc analysis of an IRB approved, multi-institutional, prospective study (GOG 9923). Clinical characteristics and toxicity data based on BRCA status were evaluated and descriptive statistics were used to summarize baseline patient characteristics and toxicities. The Kaplan Meier method was used to generate survival estimates. Results Four hundred twenty-four patients were evaluable. Patients were treated with IV carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bev every 21 days (regimen 1), weekly IV paclitaxel with carboplatin and bev (regimen 2) or IV paclitaxel and bev with IP cisplatin (regimen 3). Bev was continued as maintenance in all arms. Within each of these regimens, veliparib was given either twice daily for the entirety of each cycle (continuous) or on days −2 to 5 (intermittent). Ten percent of patients treated on regimen 1, 12% on regimen 2, and 19.8% on regimen 3 had BRCA-associated tumors. Patients with BRCA-associated tumors, when compared to wild type, experienced similar rates of anemia, febrile neutropenia (, abdominal pain, colonic perforation, nausea, vomiting, and peripheral sensory neuropathy. Median progression free survival (PFS) was not significantly different between BRCA-associated and wild type cancers (HR 0.96, CI 0.65–1.42), though this study's primary aim was not to evaluate outcomes. Conclusions Germline BRCA mutations positively affect chemosensitivity in EOC, but whether differences in toxicities among BRCA-associated and BRCA wild type tumors existed was previously not reported. In this population with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer no differences in reported toxicity between the two groups was observed.

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.

Metastatic triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) has an aggressive phenotype with a predilection for visceral organs and brain. Best responses to chemotherapy are predominately in the first line. Recent studies have demonstrated improved progression free survival with the combination of atezolizumab/pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in programmed death-ligand 1 positive metastatic TNBC. However, a recent trial in a similar population showed no benefit for atezoli-zumab and paclitaxel which led to a Food and Drug Administration alert. Two phase III trials (OLYMPIAD and BROCADE3) demonstrated a benefit in progression free survival (PFS) but not overall survival in patients with BRCA-associated metastatic TNBC treated with Olaparib or Talazoparib respectively. For those treated with Talazoparib, the time to deterioration in health related-quality of life was also longer compared to chemotherapy. The BROCADE3 trial demonstrated that the combination of a platinum and veliparib increased PFS in first-line metastatic TNBC but at the cost of increased toxicity. There are no head-to-head comparisons of a poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and platinums. There are unanswered questions regarding the role of PARPi maintenance after platinum therapy as is standard of care in BRCA-associated ovarian cancer. Other areas of therapeutic interest include targeting aberrations in the phosphoinositide 3-kinase pathway, protein kinase B, mammalian target of rapamycin or utilising antibody drug conjugates. This review focusses on recent and emerging therapeutic options in metastatic TNBC. We searched PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov and recent international meetings from American Society of Clinical Oncology, San Antonio Breast Cancer Conference and the European Society of Medical Oncology.

Background Poly (ADP-ribose)-polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) have been approved for cancer patients with germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2) mutations, and efforts to expand the utility of PARPi beyond BRCA1/2 are ongoing. In preclinical models of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) with intact DNA repair, we have previously shown an induced synthetic lethality with combined EGFR inhibition and PARPi. Here, we report the safety and clinical activity of lapatinib and veliparib in patients with metastatic TNBC. Methods A first-in-human, pilot study of lapatinib and veliparib was conducted in metastatic TNBC (NCT02158507). The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints were objective response rates and pharmacokinetic evaluation. Gene expression analysis of pre-treatment tumor biopsies was performed. Key eligibility included TNBC patients with measurable disease and prior anthracycline-based and taxane chemotherapy. Patients with gBRCA1/2 mutations were excluded. Results Twenty patients were enrolled, of which 17 were evaluable for response. The median number of prior therapies in the metastatic setting was 1 (range 0–2). Fifty percent of patients were Caucasian, 45% African–American, and 5% Hispanic. Of evaluable patients, 4 demonstrated a partial response and 2 had stable disease. There were no dose-limiting toxicities. Most AEs were limited to grade 1 or 2 and no drug–drug interactions noted. Exploratory gene expression analysis suggested baseline DNA repair pathway score was lower and baseline immunogenicity was higher in the responders compared to non-responders. Conclusions Lapatinib plus veliparib therapy has a manageable safety profile and promising antitumor activity in advanced TNBC. Further investigation of dual therapy with EGFR inhibition and PARP inhibition is needed. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02158507. Registered on 12 September 2014

Purpose: Poly (ADP-ribose)-polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) have been approved for cancer patients with germline BRCA1/2(gBRCA1/2) mutations, and efforts to expand the utility of PARPi beyond BRCA1/2 are ongoing. In preclinical models of triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) with intact DNA repair, we previously showed an induced synthetic lethality with combined EGFR inhibition and PARPi. We report the safety and clinical activity of lapatinib and veliparib in patients with metastatic TNBC. Experimental Design: A first-in-human, pilot study of lapatinib and veliparib was conducted in metastatic TNBC (NCT02158507). The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints were objective response rates and pharmacokinetic evaluation. Gene expression analysis of pre-treatment tumor biopsies was performed. Key eligibility included TNBC patients with measurable disease and prior anthracycline and taxane therapy. Patients with gBRCA1/2 mutations were excluded. Results: Twenty patients were enrolled of which 17 were evaluable for response. Median number of prior therapies in the metastatic setting was 1 (range 0-2). Fifty percent of patients were Caucasian, 45% African-American, and 5% Hispanic. Of evaluable patients, 4 demonstrated a partial response and 2 had stable disease. There were no dose-limiting toxicities. Most AEs were limited to grade 1 or 2 and no drug-drug interactions noted. Gene expression analysis suggest baseline DNA repair pathway score was lower and baseline immunogenicity was higher in the responders compared to non-responders. Conclusions: Lapatinib plus veliparib therapy has a manageable safety profile and promising antitumor activity in advanced TNBC. Further investigation of dual therapy with EGFR inhibition and PARP inhibition is needed. Citation Format: Erica M Stringer-Reasor, Jori E May, Eva Olariu, Valeria Caterinicchia, Yufeng Li, Deborah Della Manna, Gabrielle B Rocque, Christos Vaklavas, Carla I Falkson, Lisle M Nabell, Edward P Acosta, Andres Forero-Torres, Eddy S Yang. An open label, pilot study of veliparib and lapatinib in patients with metastatic, triple negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS10-30.

Ovarian cancer is one of the leading causes of death from gynecologic cancers in Russia: in 2018, 7616 women died from this disease and the proportion of patients who is under observation for 5 years or more was only 3.4%, which probably indicates very low 5-year survival. At the same time, there was is a tremendous paradigm shift in the treatment of BRCA-associated ovarian cancer. A number of large phase III trials have been published on the use of PARP inhibitors in this subtype of the disease. Their results demonstrated a marked reduction in the risk of disease progression or death with PARP inhibitors after first-line therapy for advanced ovarian cancer. Here we present a comparative analysis of the efficacy of various PARP inhibitors in BRCA-associated ovarian cancer. The relative risk reduction in disease progression or death for olaparib, niraparib and veliparib was 70%, 60% and 56%, respectively and advantage of using these drugs noted in all patient subgroups. Comparative analysis of the safety of various PARP inhibitors was carried out as well, the risks of developing various toxicity were assessed. Based on a comparison of published data on their safety profile, it was concluded that olaparib is the safest drug of this class, especially in the context of therapy on an outpatient basis. Possible ways to optimize the use of PARP inhibitors in disseminated ovarian cancer have been analyzed.

Purpose: Up to 17% of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) harbor pathogenic (germline or somatic) mutations in a homologous recombination, DNA damage response and repair (HR-DDR) gene, such as BRCA1/2, or PALB2. Platinum-based chemotherapy, or treatment with PARP inhibitors are of particular benefit in these patients. However, there may be even greater benefit when platinums and PARP inhibitors are combined. Patients and Methods: We performed a single-arm, open-label, phase I/II study of the PARP inhibitor, veliparib, with 5-fluorouracil (no 5FU bolus) and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) for patients with metastatic PDAC. Thirty-one patients were enrolled in a phase I dose escalation of veliparib (40 mg to 250 mg twice a day, days 1–7 of each 14-day cycle), to identify the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of veliparib for the combination. Another 33 patients were enrolled in two parallel phase II trials to assess the objective response rate (ORR) in untreated or in previously treated patients. If available, germline or somatic testing was collected to identify pathogenic HR-DDR mutations. Results: The combination of veliparib and FOLFOX was tolerable at a RP2D of veliparib of 200 mg twice a day. The primary endpoint for both phase II cohorts was met, and the ORR overall was 26%. There was greater activity in platinum-naïve patients, and those who harbored a pathogenic HR-DDR mutation. Specifically, the ORR of HR-DDR mutated, platinum-naïve patients was 57%. Conclusions: The combination of veliparib and FOLFOX was safe for patients with metastatic PDAC and showed promising activity particularly in patients with platinum-naïve disease that harbors a pathogenic HR-DDR mutation.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is on track to be the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2030 and has an overall 5-year survival rate of 10% [1]. Although multi-a...

Purpose The majority of colorectal cancers are resistant to cancer immune checkpoint inhibitors. Ionizing radiation (IR) and several radiosensitizers, including PARP inhibitors, can enhance responsiveness to immune checkpoint inhibitors by potentially complementary mechanisms of action. We assessed the ability of radiation and PARP inhibition to induce proimmunogenic changes in tumor cells and enhance their in vivo responsiveness to anti-PD-1 antibodies. Methods and Materials We performed a candidate drug screen and used flow cytometry to assess effects of the PARP inhibitor veliparib on IR-mediated changes in MHC-1 antigen presentation and surface localization of immune-modulating proteins including PD-L1 and calreticulin in colorectal cancer tumor models. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction was used to assess the effects of veliparib and radiation on the expression of proinflammatory and immunosuppressive cytokines. The ability of concurrent PARP inhibition and subablative doses of radiation therapy to enhance in vivo responsiveness to anti-PD-1 antibodies was assessed using unilateral flank-tumor models with or without T-cell depletion. Results Veliparib was a potent radiosensitizer in both cell lines. Radiation increased surface localization of MHC-1 and PD-L1 in a dose-dependent manner, and veliparib pretreatment significantly enhanced these effects with high (8 Gy) but not with lower radiation doses. Enhancement of MHC-1 and PD-L1 surface localization by IR and IR+ veliparib remained significant 1, 3, and 7 days after treatment. IR significantly increased delayed tumoral expression of proinflammatory cytokines interferon-Ƴ and CXCL10 but had no significant effect on the expression of IL-6 or TGF-β. Concurrent administration of veliparib and subablative radiation therapy (8 Gy × 2) significantly prolonged anti-PD-1–mediated in vivo tumor growth delay and survival in both tumor models. Moreover, these effects were more pronounced in the microsatellite instability-mutated MC38 tumor model. Enhancement of anti-PD-1 mediated tumor growth delay with veliparib and IR was attenuated by CD8+ T-cell depletion. Conclusions We provide preclinical evidence for a novel therapeutic strategy to enhance responsiveness of colorectal tumors to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are a unique class of antineoplastic agents that function by inducing synthetic lethality. Synthetic lethality occurs when PARPi and either another agent or an underlying genetic alteration together lead to overwhelming DNA damage and ultimately cell death. PARPi first showed promise as a cancer therapy in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and have become part of standard treatment for breast and ovarian cancer. In prostate cancer, two PARPi, rucaparib and olaparib, have been FDA approved for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). While both agents are approved for tumors with BRCA1/2 alterations, for olaparib the indication is also expanded to patients with 12 other homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) gene alterations including ATM and PALB2. PARPi differ in their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and additional studies are being conducted with niraparib, veliparib, and talazoparib in prostate cancer. While PARPi are fairly well tolerated, common toxicities include hematologic (anemia/thrombocytopenia) and gastrointestinal effects (nausea/vomiting). Ongoing studies are being conducted combining PARPi with other agents in patients with and without HRD alterations. Early data are promising for the combination of PARPi with second-generation antiandrogens and with immunotherapy. As additional trials are developed and reported, the hope is that the patient population who may benefit from PARPi will continue to expand.

IntroductionWe aimed to evaluate poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor (PARPi) regimens in BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer for patients responsive to front-line platinum (bevacizumab and olaparib, veliparib and chemotherapy, olaparib) or platinum-sensitive relapsed (olaparib, rucaprib, niraparib) patients in phase III randomized controlled trials.MethodsA network meta-analysis was utilized to generate the direct and indirect comparisons. The primary outcomes for network meta-analysis were efficacy (hazard ratios for progression-free survival in BRCA mutation cohort) and toxicity (odds ratios for all grade 3–4 adverse events). The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) value framework was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the PARPi regimens.ResultsNetwork meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant differences in efficacy and toxicity among the assessed upfront or relapsed PARPi regimens (95% CI included 1). The ASCO value framework indicated that current PARPi regimens were similar in clinical benefits, toxicity, and net health benefit in the upfront (bevacizumab and olaparib, veliparib and chemotherapy, olaparib) and relapsed setting (olaparib, rucaprib, niraparib). The addition of bevacizumab to olaparib ($353.72) increased the cost per unit net health benefit for patients compared with olaparib monotherapy ($260.57). The upfront PARPi regimens had lower toxic scores than the regimens used at relapse.ConclusionsThe choice of PARPi regimens both in the upfront and relapsed setting should consider not only efficacy and toxicity but also costs in BRCA mutation patients. Current combining PARPi regimens are not recommended for such patients in the upfront setting from the cost-effective perspective. Upfront PARPi regimens are less toxic than those used at relapse.

In prostate cancer , there has recently been an emerging interest in mutations in genes belonging to the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway and in the inhibition of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) proteins.Mutations in the HRR genes, including BRCA1, BRCA2, and Ataxia-Telangiesctasia mutated (ATM), have been reported in prostate cancer, with different incidence in the localized and advanced settings. The PARP enzyme complex is involved in repair of DNA damage and its inhibition causes the accumulation of DNA mutations in HRR deficient cells. Several PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are under development, such as olaparib, talazoparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and veliparib. In metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), olaparib has been the most studied and its clinical efficacy has been validated in a phase III clinical trial. Rucaparib and niraparib have also shown promising results in the preliminary analyzes of two phase II trials, while talazoparib is currently under development.PARPi have become part of the treatment of mCRPC. Early results of combination therapy with PARPi and new hormonal therapy are promising and are supported by a strong biological rationale. Current results need to be validated in randomized phase III-controlled trials in order to translate the use of PARPi into real world practice.

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have demonstrated significant anticancer activity in cancers harboring homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), exemplified by high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSC). PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are being used in women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer as well as in the recurrent setting. PARPi combination therapies are in development.This review discusses the treatment of ovarian cancer, key PARPi clinical trials, mechanisms of action of PARPi, and novel PARPi combination regimens under investigation. PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for PARPi trials. Active development was confirmed via PharmaProjects.PARPi have shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) for women with HGSC as monotherapy in both frontline and recurrent maintenance settings and as monotherapy as treatment for recurrence. These benefits are greatest in HGSC with underlying HRD, in particular for those with deleterious

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) have transformed the treatment landscape in front-line and recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Maintenance strategies with PARPi have been assessed in randomized phase III trials in ovarian cancer; switch maintenance in the case of olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib; and concurrent followed by continuation maintenance with veliparib. These studies have shown progression-free survival advantage with PARPi maintenance, with no major adverse changes in the quality of life; however, overall survival data remain immature to date. PARPi have also been incorporated in clinical practice as a single-agent treatment strategy in high-grade serous ovarian cancer, mainly in women who harbor alterations in the BRCA1/2 genes or have alterations in the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) pathway. Contemporary studies are looking into potentially synergistic combination strategies with anti-angiogenics and immune checkpoint inhibitors, among others. The expansion of PARPi treatment has not been limited to ovarian cancer; talazoparib is licensed in patients with HER2-negative breast cancer with germline BRCA mutations (BRCAm), and front-line olaparib maintenance in patients with pancreatic cancer with germline BRCAm. Numerous studies assessing PARPi either in monotherapy or in combination with other agents are ongoing in multiple tumors, including prostate, endometrial, brain, and gastric cancers. Many patients are being treated with PARPi, some for prolonged periods of time. As a result, a thorough knowledge of the potential short- and long-term adverse events and their management is warranted to improve patient safety, treatment efficacy, and towards maintaining an appropriate dose intensity.

Purpose: Emergence of mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency is a frequent mechanism of acquired resistance to the alkylating chemotherapeutic temozolomide (TMZ) in gliomas. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) have been shown to potentiate TMZ cytotoxicity in several cancer types, including gliomas. We tested whether PARP inhibition could re-sensitize MSH6-null MMR-deficient gliomas to TMZ, and assessed the role of the base excision repair (BER) DNA damage repair pathway in PARPi-mediated effects. Experimental Design: Isogenic pairs of MSH6 wild-type and MSH6-inactivated human glioblastoma (GBM) cells (including both IDH1/2 wild-type and IDH1 mutant), as well as MSH6-null cells derived from a patient with recurrent GBM were treated with TMZ, the PARPi veliparib or olaparib, and combination thereof. Efficacy of PARPi combined with TMZ was assessed in vivo. We used genetic and pharmacological approaches to dissect the contribution of BER. Results: While having no detectable effect in MSH6 wild-type GBMs, PARPi selectively restored TMZ sensitivity in MSH6-deficient GBM cells. This genotype-specific restoration of activity translated in vivo, where combination treatment of veliparib and TMZ showed potent suppression of tumor growth of MSH6-inactivated orthotopic xenografts, compared with TMZ monotherapy. Unlike PARPi, genetic and pharmacological blockage of BER pathway did not re-sensitize MSH6-inactivated GBM cells to TMZ. Similarly, CRISPR PARP1 knockout did not re-sensitize MSH6-inactivated GBM cells to TMZ. Conclusions: PARPi restoration of TMZ chemosensitivity in MSH6-inactivated glioma represents a promising strategy to overcome acquired chemoresistance caused by MMR deficiency. Mechanistically, this PARPi-mediated synthetic phenotype was independent of BER blockage and was not recapitulated by loss of PARP1.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma is a lethal childhood brain cancer with dismal prognosis and MR imaging is the primary methodology used for diagnosis and monitoring. Our aim was to determine whether advanced diffusion, perfusion, and permeability MR imaging metrics predict survival and pseudoprogression in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A clinical trial using the poly (adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor veliparib concurrently with radiation therapy, followed by maintenance therapy with veliparib + temozolomide, in children with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma was conducted by the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium. Standard MR imaging, DWI, dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion, and DSC perfusion were performed at baseline and approximately every 2 months throughout treatment. ADC histogram metrics of T2-weighted FLAIR and enhancing tumor volume, dynamic contrast-enhanced permeability metrics for enhancing tumors, and tumor relative CBV from DSC perfusion MR imaging were calculated. Baseline values, post-radiation therapy changes, and longitudinal trends for all metrics were evaluated for associations with survival and pseudoprogression. RESULTS: Fifty children were evaluable for survival analyses. Higher baseline relative CBV was associated with shorter progression-free survival (P = .02, Q = 0.089) and overall survival (P = .006, Q = 0.055). Associations of higher baseline mean transfer constant from the blood plasma into the extravascular extracellular space with shorter progression-free survival (P = .03, Q = 0.105) and overall survival (P = .03, Q = 0.102) trended toward significance. An increase in relative CBV with time was associated with shorter progression-free survival (P

INTRODUCTION Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are already part of the armamentarium of drugs available against ovarian and breast cancer. There is less data available on the efficacy of these drugs in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). AREAS COVERED The authors have analyzed the preclinical studies that justified the use of PARPi in NSCLC. They then evaluate the in vivo efficacy of the combination of these drugs with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy. EXPERT OPINION Data from clinical trials available to date have discouraged the use of PARPi in association with chemotherapy or radiotherapy in NSCLC. The knowledge available to date opens the door to the use of PARPi in association with immunotherapy. In fact, the activity of these drugs would not be based only on direct cytotoxic action, but also on the modification of the intra-tumor microenvironment, in particular by increasing the expression of PD-L1 on tumor cells. This action might potentially enhance available treatments with a modest increase in toxicity.

Background: Machine learning relies on algorithms that learn patterns in large, complex datasets to predict outcomes. The adaptive, neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 TRIAL evaluates novel agents added to standard therapy, and identifies their most responsive subtype. While previously proposed genes/signatures reflecting an agent’s mechanism of action predicted pathologic complete response (pCR) in some treatment arms/subtypes, not all arms had strong predictive biomarkers. We leverage machine learning to explore the limitations of using only known mechanisms of action in predicting pCR, and the extent to which biology outside known drug action improves response prediction in the first 10 arms of the trial. Methods: Our study involves 986 patients with pre-treatment gene expression and pCR data across 10 treatment arms including inhibitors of HER2: neratinib (N), pertuzumab (P), TDM1/P; AKT (MK-2206; M); IGF1R (ganitumab); HSP90 (ganetespib); PARP/DNA repair (veliparib/carboplatin; VC); ANG1/2 (AMG386); immune checkpoints (pembrolizumab; Pembro); and a shared control arm (Ctr). Each arm/receptor subtype group was evaluated independently for groups with at least 20 patients (n=19), with 25% of data held out as independent test sets. We implemented a 3-fold cross validation technique with 10 repeats using Random Forest ensemble algorithm with recursive feature elimination. In combination with clinical data, a three-pronged feature-selection approach was employed: (1) restricted to mechanism of action genes: AKT/PI3K/HER (m=10 genes), IGF1 (m=11), HSP90 (m=88), DNA repair (m=79), TIE1/2 (m=11), and immune (m=61), as well as HER2 amplicon genes; (2) expanded to include targeted pathways for all 10 agents/combinations plus ESR1 and proliferation genes (m=339); (3) an unbiased whole genome approach (m=17,990). Models were considered predictive if AUROC ≥ 0.75, Sensitivity ≥ 0.6 and Specificity ≥ 0.6 in cross validation and independent test sets. Results: Table 1 summarizes the results of our analysis (Yes=predictive; NA=no/insufficient data). Prediction of pCR using only genes reflecting the known mechanism of the drug succeeded in 5 subgroups, with DNA repair genes predicting VC response and immune genes predicting Pembro response in HR+HER2- and HR-HER2- subsets, and AKT/PI3K/HER + HER2 amplicon genes predicting (P) response in HR+HER2+ patients. Expansion of the feature set to include genes associated with all mechanisms of action of all drugs proved sufficient to produce good predictive models in 8 of 19 subgroups. Examples include DNA repair + immune genes predicting response to ganitumab in HR+HER2- and to (N) in HR+HER2+. An unbiased approach using all data yielded predictive power in 8 of 19 subgroups, including 5 with no predictive models from the first two approaches. Examples include HR-HER2- (N) predictors enriched for metabolic, cell division and membrane protein proteolytic processes; HR+HER2+ TDM1/P enriched for metabolic, stress response and cell cycle processes; and HR-HER2- MK-2206 predictors containing Ser/Thr kinases. In total, we identify predictive biomarkers in 14 of 19 subgroups across the three feature selection approaches. Conclusion: Our results suggests that hypothesis driven analysis restricted to assumed mechanisms of action of the experimental agents may be insufficient, and that exploration of possible off target effects may be needed to understand the underlying biology of response or resistance. Table 1. Model results across feature selection approachesHR+HER2-HR-HER2-HR+HER2+HR-HER2+Number of PatientsMechanism of ActionAll Mechanisms of ActionUnbiasedNumber of PatientsMechanism of ActionAll Mechanisms of ActionUnbiasedNumber of PatientsMechanism of ActionAll Mechanisms of ActionUnbiasedNumber of PatientsMechanism of ActionAll Mechanisms of ActionUnbiasedneratinib (pan anti-HER)NA32NoNoYes42NoYesYes23NoNoYespertuzumab (anti-HER2)NANA29YesYesNoNATDM1/Pertuzumab (anti-HER2)NANA35NoNoYesNAMK−2206 (AKT inhibitor)28NoNoNo32NoNoYesNANAganitumab (IGFR inhibitor)58NoYesNo48NoNoNoNANAganetespib (HSP90 inhibitor)48NoYesYes45NoNoNoNANAvelirapib/carboplatin (PARP inhibitor/DNA damage)33YesYesNo39YesYesNoNANAAMG386 (ANG1/2 inhibitor)62NoYesYes53NoNoNoNANApembrolizumab (immune checkpoint inhibitor)38YesYesNo29YesNoNoNANAHER2+ controlNANANANAHER2- control94NoNoYes84NoNoNoNANA Citation Format: Rosalyn W. Sayaman, Denise M. Wolf, Christina Yau, Julie Wulfkuhle, Emanuel Petricoin, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Smita M. Asare, Gillian L. Hirst, Laura Sit, Nicholas O'Grady, Diane Hedistian, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Laura J. Esserman, Mark A. LaBarge, Laura J van 't Veer. Application of machine learning to elucidate the biology predicting response in the I-SPY 2 neoadjuvant breast cancer trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-21-08.

Background: Randomized studies have demonstrated that adding Cb to P as part of NACT for stage II-III TNBC significantly increases pathologic complete response (pCR) rates, but its optimal dose and schedule are uncertain. Since hematologic toxicities associated with higher dose (AUC 5-6) q3wk Cb with P necessitate treatment delays or omissions in some patients (pts), some oncologists favor administering lower dose (AUC 1.5-2) weekly Cb with P instead. While many believe that this approach is better tolerated, there is limited published data on its efficacy in TNBC. Oncologists at University of Vermont and Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island decided to analyze results achieved with weekly Cb/P in this setting, particularly pCR rate, and to compare them to those achieved with q3wk Cb/P. Methods: Databases at our institutions were reviewed to identify pts who received P and Cb as initial NACT for TNBC over the past 10 years for whom pathologic results and post-op follow-up were available. pCR was defined as ypT0/isN0, as reported by the institutional pathologists. We also assessed delivery of P and Cb. Disease-free survival was censored as of the patient’s last follow-up visit. Results: Of 76 pts identified (median age 49), 47 received weekly Cb/P and 29 q3wk Cb/P. All but 4 (all in the weekly Cb cohort) subsequently received doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC). In the q3wk Cb cohort, 15 pts also received bevacizumab and 3 each may have received veliparib or atezolizumab on blinded clinical trials. pCR rates are tabulated below: Patient groupNpCR (95% CI)vs. q3week CbAll7654% (42-65%)Stage IIA-IIIA6058%Stage IIIB-IIIC1638%BRCA1/2 mutated989%q3week Cb/P2955% (36-74%)Weekly Cb/P4753% (38-68%)p>0.99 Most pts - 89% of weekly Cb and 90% of q3wk Cb - received ≥11 doses of weekly P; 83% of weekly Cb pts received ≥11 doses of Cb and 90% of q3wk Cb pts received all 4 planned doses of Cb. At median follow-up of 19 months (range Conclusions In this retrospective analysis, treatment with weekly Cb/P (typically followed by AC) resulted in a pCR rate similar to that seen with q3wk Cb/P, both in our own pts and as reported from CALGB 40603 (54%) and BrighTNess (58%). Given the ongoing debate on the role of Cb in NACT for TNBC, we believe that the weekly Cb/P regimen should be explored further, as it may be easier to administer without sacrificing efficacy. Citation Format: Kitty E Victoria, Pouyan N Changizzadeh, Bernard Cole, Pulluri Bhargavi, Jessica L Lyon, Marie E Wood, William M Sikov. Weekly vs. every-3-week (q3wk) carboplatin (Cb) with paclitaxel (P) in neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC): A retrospective analysis background [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-16-23.

OBJECTIVE: Poly(ADP-Ribosyl) polymerases (PARPs) are nuclear enzymes with roles in DNA damage recognition and repair. PARP1 inhibition enhances the effects of DNA-damaging agents like doxorubicin. We sought to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of veliparib with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in breast and recurrent gynecologic cancer patients. METHODS: Veliparib and PLD were administered in a standard phase 1, 3+3 dose-escalation design starting at 50 mg veliparib BID on days 1–14 with PLD 40 mg/mg2 on day 1 of a 28-day cycle. Dose escalation proceeded in two strata: A (prior PLD exposure) and B (no prior PLD exposure). Patients underwent limited pharmacokinetic (PK) sampling; an expansion PK cohort was added. RESULTS: 44 patients with recurrent ovarian or triple negative breast cancer were enrolled. Median age 56 years; 23 patients BRCA mutation carriers; median prior regimens 4. Patients received a median of 4 cycles of veliparib/PLD. Grade 3/4 toxicities were observed in 10% of patients. Antitumor activity was observed in both sporadic and BRCA-deficient cancers. Two BRCA mutation carriers had complete responses. Two BRCA patients developed oral squamous cell cancers after completing this regimen. PLD exposure was observed to be higher when veliparib doses were >200 mg BID. CONCLUSIONS: The RP2D is 200 mg veliparib BID on days 1–14 with 40 mg/m2 PLD on day 1 of a 28-day cycle. Anti-tumor activity was seen in both strata. However, given development of long-term squamous cell cancers and the PK interaction observed, efforts should focus on other targeted combinations to improve efficacy.

Triple negative tumors represent 15% of breast cancer and are characterized by the lack of estrogen receptors, progesterone receptor, and HER2 amplification or overexpression. Approximately 25% of patients diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer carry a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. They have an aggressive biology, and chemotherapy has been the mainstay of treatment for a long time. Despite intensive therapies, prognosis is still poor, and many patients will eventually relapse or die due to cancer. Therefore, novel targeted agents that can increase the treatment options for this disease are urgently needed. Recently, a new class of molecules has emerged as a standard of care for patients with triple negative breast cancer and germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: poly (ADP-ribose) (PARP) inhibitors. In the first part of the review, we summarize and discuss evidence supporting the use of PARP inhibitors. Currently, two PARP inhibitors have been approved for triple negative metastatic breast cancer—olaparib and talazoparib—based on two phase III trials, which showed a progression-free survival benefit when compared to chemotherapy. Safety profile was manageable with supportive therapies and dose reductions/interruptions. In addition, other PARP inhibitors are currently under investigation, such as talazoparib, rucaparib, and veliparib. Subsequently, we will discuss the potential role of PARP inhibitors in the future. Clinical research areas are investigating PARP inhibitors in combination with other agents and are including patients without germline BRCA mutations: ongoing phase II/III studies are combining PARP inhibitors with immunotherapy, while phases I and II trials are combining PARP inhibitors with other targeted agents such as ATM and PIK3CA inhibitors. Moreover, several clinical trials are enrolling patients with somatic BRCA mutation or patients carrying mutations in genes, other than BRCA1/2, involved in the homologous recombination repair pathway (e.g., CHECK2, PALB2, RAD51, etc.).

Poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors act in cells with defects in homologous recombination DNA repair (HRR) caused by genomic aberrations such as BRCA mutations. This phenomenon called synthetic lethality is known now to be more common in prostate cancer than previously thought. Olaparib and rucaparib, two PARP inhibitors, were successfully tested in clinical trials for HRR-deficient metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. They received a breakthrough US FDA approval in HRR altered metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in May 2020. Consequently, the combination of PARP inhibitors with other agents such as androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors or DNA damage inducing chemotherapy are being currently largely studied. In our review, we aim to summarize the key PARP inhibitors published and ongoing trials in prostate cancer.

We performed a pairwise and network meta-analysis to compare pathological complete response (pCR) among neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. We searched PubMed for randomized clinical trials between January 1, 2000 and December 1, 2020. Abstracts from meetings were also searched. A frequentist random-effect model was applied to compare pCR and toxicities. The P-score was used to rank treatment effects. Nineteen trials with 16 treatments and 7794 patients were included. On the basis of SoC, the addition of carboplatin (OR = 1.82, 95% CI, 1.24 to 2.68, P < .01) and the addition of checkpoint inhibitors (OR = 1.69, 95% CI, 1.23 to 2.32, P < .01) increased pCR in pairwise meta-analysis; compared with paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel did not improve pCR rates (OR = 1.81, 95% CI, .80 to 4.12, P = .16). The anthracycline-sparing regimen led to similar pCR compared with the anthracycline-containing regimen (OR = 1.50, 95% CI, .82 to 2.76, P = .19). In network meta-analysis, the addition of carboplatin plus a PD-1 inhibitor (pembrolizumab), carboplatin plus bevacizumab, and carboplatin plus veliparib ranked as the top three treatments for achieving pCR, with corresponding P-scores of .91, .84, and .72, respectively. Among patients with homologous recombination deficiency, the addition of carboplatin (OR = 1.31, 95% CI, .69 to 2.50, P = .41) or carboplatin plus PARP inhibitors (OR = 1.19, 95% CI, .58 to 2.47, P = .63) did not increase pCR. For triple-negative breast cancer, combining carboplatin with taxane-anthracycline-containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy could be the standard of care, and the combination containing checkpoint inhibitor is promising. However, their role in long-term oncologic outcome remains to be determined.

In the BrighTNess trial, carboplatin added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) was associated with increased pathologic complete response (pCR) rates in patients with stage II/III triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). In this matched cohort study, cases with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation (gBRCA; n = 75) were matched 1:2 with non-gBRCA controls (n = 150) by treatment arm, lymph node status, and age to evaluate pCR rates and association of benefit from platinum/PARP inhibitors with validated RNA expression-based immune, proliferation, and genomic instability scores among gBRCA with the addition of carboplatin ± veliparib to NAC. Among the well-matched cohorts, odds of pCR were not higher in gBRCA cancers who received standard NAC with carboplatin (OR 0.24, 95% CI [0.04-1.24], p = 0.09) or with carboplatin/veliparib (OR 0.44, 95% CI [0.10-1.84], p = 0.26) compared to non-gBRCA cancers. Higher PAM50 proliferation, GeparSixto immune, and CIN70 genomic instability scores were each associated with higher pCR rate in the overall cohort, but not specifically in gBRCA cases. In this study, gBRCA carriers did not have higher odds of pCR than non-gBRCA controls when carboplatin ± veliparib was added to NAC, and showed no significant differences in molecular, immune, chromosomal instability, or proliferation gene expression metrics.

Simple Summary Advanced epithelial ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis, but targeted therapies have been developed and are providing new hope. We reviewed recent results with PARP inhibitors as treatment and/or maintenance therapy following chemotherapy in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. Data confirm the benefit of PARP inhibitors in this setting, especially in subgroups with genomic instability. We describe the implications of these trial results for clinical practice, focusing on the need for a personalized treatment approach based on biomarker profile and other factors, including tolerability, cost considerations, and physician and patient preference. We have developed a systemic treatment algorithm for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer, intended as a tool for clinicians to aid decision making in their daily practice. We also consider areas of future research, such as exploring further options for patients whose disease relapses following PARP inhibitor treatment. Abstract Recent data have demonstrated substantial efficacy with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors as treatment and/or maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Here, we review efficacy and safety results from four recent Phase III trials in newly diagnosed EOC: SOLO1 (olaparib), PAOLA-1 (olaparib in combination with bevacizumab), PRIMA (niraparib), and VELIA (veliparib). The implications of these data for current clinical practice and areas for future research are discussed, including ongoing studies of targeted agents in the newly diagnosed setting. Data from SOLO1, PAOLA-1, PRIMA, and VELIA confirm the benefit of PARP inhibitors (olaparib, niraparib, veliparib) for women with newly diagnosed EOC. The greatest benefit was seen in patients with a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation or in the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-test positive subgroup. These four well-conducted studies have generated practice-changing data. However, deciding how to apply these results in clinical practice is challenging, and substantial differences in trial design impede cross-trial comparisons. Recent PARP inhibitor approvals (olaparib, niraparib) in the newly diagnosed EOC setting have provided new maintenance treatment options for a broader patient population. The results of these studies call for personalized medicine based on biomarker profile and other factors, including tolerability, cost considerations, and physician and patient preference. Important areas for future research include appropriate use of both BRCA mutation and HRD testing to inform magnitude of PARP inhibitor benefit as well as exploring further options for patients who are HRD-test negative and for those who become PARP inhibitor resistant.

Background: Veliparib (Vel) is a potent PARP1/2 inhibitor with demonstrated antitumor activity when administered alone or combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel (C/P). The phase 3 randomized, double-blind, multicenter BROCADE3 study (NCT02163694) evaluated the efficacy and safety of Vel + C/P treatment compared with placebo (Pbo) + C/P treatment in patients (pts) with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and HER2-negative metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer (BC). Vel + C/P significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with Pbo + C/P treatment (14.5 months [mo] vs 12.6 mo, hazard ratio [HR]=0.71 [95% CI: 0.57, 0.88]; P=0.002). Previous studies have identified increased acute hematologic toxicity in response to chemotherapy in pts with BC carrying BRCA1 mutations compared with BRCA2 mutations or wildtype BRCA1/2. Herein we report a subgroup analysis of the efficacy and safety of Vel + C/P treatment in pts with BRCA1- or BRCA2-positive BC. Methods: Pts ≥18 years of age who received ≤2 prior lines of cytotoxic chemotherapy for metastatic disease were randomized 2:1 to receive Vel + C/P or Pbo + C/P: Vel (120 mg PO BID) or Pbo on days -2 to 5, C (AUC 6 IV) on day 1, and P (80 mg/m2 IV) on days 1, 8, and 15 in 21-day cycles. Pts who discontinued C/P in the absence of disease progression could continue receiving Vel or Pbo monotherapy (300-400 mg BID continuous). Subgroup analysis of PFS stratified by BRCA1/2 status was preplanned. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to NCI CTCAE version 4.0. Ten pts with both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were excluded from the analyses presented here. Results: In the intent-to-treat population, 256 pts had BRCA1 mutations and 243 pts had BRCA2 mutations. The proportion of as-treated pts with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations was comparable between the Vel + C/P (51.4% BRCA1, 48.6% BRCA2) and Pbo + C/P (50.9% BRCA1, 49.1% BRCA2) study arms. Investigator-assessed PFS for the Vel + C/P and Pbo + C/P arms was 14.2 mo vs 12.6 mo, respectively, in the BRCA1 subgroup (HR=0.75 [95% CI: 0.55, 1.03]; P=0.073) and 14.6 mo vs 12.6 mo, respectively, in the BRCA2 subgroup (HR=0.69 [95% CI: 0.50, 0.95]; P=0.021). Safety data in the as-treated population are presented in the Table. Regarding any grade AEs, thrombocytopenia and anemia were slightly more frequent in pts in the BRCA1 subgroup compared with the BRCA2 subgroup, whereas pts in the BRCA2 subgroup experienced slightly more frequent nausea, fatigue, and neuropathy. Conclusions: Globally, there was no clinically relevant difference in toxicity between BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroups. Comparisons between treatment arms were generally consistent with findings in the overall study population, with more frequent thrombocytopenia and anemia of any grade reported in the Vel + C/P arm within both the BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroups. Vel + C/P treatment improved PFS similarly in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroups over C/P alone. BRCA1-Positive Subgroup (n=253)BRCA2-Positive Subgroup (n=241)Vel + C/P (n=168)Pbo + C/P (n=85)Vel + C/P (n=159)Pbo + C/P (n=82)Any grade AE [≥50% of pts], n (%)Any event167 (99.4)85 (100)158 (99.4)82 (100)Neutropenia151 (89.9)78 (91.8)140 (88.1)74 (90.2)Thrombocytopenia140 (83.3)66 (77.6)124 (78.0)54 (65.9)Anemia139 (82.7)64 (75.3)122 (76.7)52 (63.4)Nausea118 (70.2)49 (57.6)119 (74.8)58 (70.7)Alopecia89 (53.0)43 (50.6)89 (56.0)41 (50.0)Fatigue79 (47.0)37 (43.5)87 (54.7)48 (58.5)Peripheral sensory neuropathy69 (41.1)37 (43.5)82 (51.6)49 (59.8)Any grade ≥3 AE [≥30% of pts], n (%)Any event164 (97.6)82 (96.5)152 (95.6)77 (93.9)Anemia73 (43.5)31 (36.5)67 (42.1)35 (42.7)Leukopenia54 (32.1)20 (23.5)44 (27.7)25 (30.5)Neutropenia136 (81.0)72 (84.7)131 (82.4)67 (81.7)Thrombocytopenia72 (42.9)30 (35.3)59 (37.1)18 (22.0)Serious AEs, n (%)58 (34.5)26 (30.6)56 (35.2)22 (26.8)AEs of special interest, n (%)Infections within 14 days of neutropenia64 (38.1)34 (40.0)59 (37.1)25 (30.5)Hemorrhages within 14 days of thrombocytopenia14 (8.3)5 (5.9)17 (10.7)7 (8.5)Any AE leading to study drug discontinuation not due to disease progression, n (%)16 (9.5)5 (5.9)15 (9.4)4 (4.9)Any AE leading to study drug interruption, n (%)153 (91.1)77 (90.6)139 (87.4)67 (81.7)Any AE leading to study drug reduction, n (%)28 (16.7)6 (7.1)27 (17.0)7 (8.5)Any AE leading to death with reasonable possibility related to study drug, n (%)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)AE, adverse event; BRCA, breast cancer susceptibility gene; C/P, carboplatin plus paclitaxel; Pbo, placebo; pts, patients; Vel, veliparib. Citation Format: Hans Wildiers, Jean-Pierre Ayoub, Michael Friedlander, Bella Kaufman, Banu K. Arun, Hyo S. Han, Shannon L. Puhalla, David Maag, Dai Feng, Christine K. Ratajczak, Bruce A. Bach, Véronique Diéras. Safety and efficacy of veliparib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with HER2-negative metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer: A subgroup analysis of germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations from the phase 3 BROCADE3 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS11-03.

Poly (ADP‑ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, including olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, talazoparib and veliparib, have emerged as one of the most exciting new treatments for solid tumors, particularly in patients with breast‑related cancer antigen 1/2 mutations. Oral administration is convenient and shows favorable compliance with the majority of patients, but it may be affected by numerous factors, including food, metabolic enzymes and transporters. These interactions may be associated with serious adverse drug reactions or may reduce the treatment efficacy of PARP inhibitors. In fact, numerous pharmacokinetic (PK)‑based drug‑drug interactions (DDIs) involve the metabolism of PARP inhibitors, particularly those metabolized via cytochrome P450 enzymes. The present review aims to characterize and summarize the metabolism‑related PK‑based DDIs of PARP inhibitors, and to provide specific recommendations for reducing the risk of clinically significant DDIs.

PURPOSE Squamous non–small-cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC) is genetically complex with evidence of DNA damage. This phase III study investigated the efficacy and safety of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor veliparib in combination with conventional chemotherapy for advanced sqNSCLC ( NCT02106546 ). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients age ≥ 18 years with untreated, advanced sqNSCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to carboplatin and paclitaxel with veliparib 120 mg twice daily (twice a day) or placebo twice a day for up to six cycles. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the veliparib arm versus the control arm in current smokers, based on phase II findings. Archival tumor samples were provided for biomarker analysis using a 52-gene expression histology classifier (LP52). RESULTS Overall, 970 patients were randomly assigned to carboplatin and paclitaxel plus either veliparib (n = 486) or placebo (n = 484); 57% were current smokers. There was no significant OS benefit with veliparib in current smokers, with median OS 11.9 versus 11.1 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.905; 95% CI, 0.744 to 1.101; P = .266). In the overall population, OS favored veliparib; median OS was 12.2 versus 11.2 months (HR, 0.853; 95% CI, 0.747 to 0.974), with no difference in progression-free survival (median 5.6 months per arm). In patients with biomarker-evaluable tumor samples (n = 360), OS favored veliparib in the LP52-positive population (median 14.0 v 9.6 months; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.89), but favored placebo in the LP52-negative population (median 11.0 v 14.4 months; HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.86). No new safety signals were observed in the experimental arm. CONCLUSION In current smokers with advanced sqNSCLC, there was no therapeutic benefit of adding veliparib to first-line chemotherapy. The LP52 signature may identify a subgroup of patients likely to derive benefit from veliparib with chemotherapy.

PurposeBreast cancer type 1 susceptibility (BRCA) mutations not only increase breast cancer (BC) risk but also result in poor survival and prognosis for BC patients. This study will analyze the effect and safety of therapeutic regimens for the treatment of BC patients with germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutations by network meta-analysis.MethodsPublic databases were searched from inception to 29 April 2021. Frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted to analyze the benefit of chemotherapy and targeted drug-related strategies.ResultsSeventeen articles were included in the analysis. For progression-free survival (PFS), olaparib (hazard ratio (HR): 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43 – 0.79), platinum (HR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.22 – 0.89), and talazoparib (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.41 – 0.71) were significantly better than platinum-free chemotherapy (Chemo). The results based on indirect comparisons showed that veliparib (Vel) + platinum + Chemo was also significantly better than Chemo (HR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.20 – 0.69). For overall survival (OS), olaparib was significantly better than Chemo only in the population who did not receive prior chemotherapy. For pathologic complete response (pCR), bevacizumab+Chemo had a significant advantage over platinum agents (OR: 3.64; 95% CI: 1.07 - 12.39). Olaparib and talazoparib both showed significantly higher objective response rates (ORRs) than Chemo.ConclusionThe PFS results suggested that olaparib, talazoparib, and Vel+platinum agent+Chemo were ideal regimens for overall, TNBC, and advanced BC patients with gBRCA mutations. Whether PARPis are suitable for patients with gBRCA mutations who have received prior platinum therapy still needs to be clarified.

Several poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are now in clinical use for tumours with defects in BReast CAncer genes BRCA1 or BRCA2 that result in deficient homologous recombination repair (HRR). Use of olaparib, niraparib or rucaparib for the treatment of high-grade serous ovarian cancer, including in the maintenance setting, has extended both progression free and overall survival for women with this malignancy. While different PARP inhibitors (PARPis) are mechanistically similar, differences are apparent in their chemical structures, toxicity profiles, PARP trapping abilities and polypharmacological landscapes. We have treated ovarian cancer cell line models of known BRCA status, including the paired cell lines PEO1 and PEO4, and UWB1.289 and UWB1.289+BRCA1, with five PARPis (olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, talazoparib and veliparib) and observed differences between PARPis in both cell viability and cell survival. A cell line model of acquired resistance to veliparib showed increased resistance to the other four PARPis tested, suggesting that acquired resistance to one PARPi may not be able to be rescued by another. Lastly, as a proof of principle, HRR proficient ovarian cancer cells were sensitised to PARPis by depletion of BRCA1. In the future, guidelines will need to emerge to assist clinicians in matching specific PARPis to specific patients and tumours.

Objectives: Previous phase 3 trials of front-line maintenance with the PARP inhibitors (PARPi) olaparib and niraparib only included patients (pts) with complete (CR) or partial (PR) response following front-line chemotherapy (CT); both agents were adopted as standard of care (SOC) in these pts. This prevented the systematic study of all pts who are eligible for PARPi maintenance therapy after front-line CT or to predict their responses. The phase 3 VELIA study (NCT02470585) added veliparib (VEL) to front-line CT at diagnosis, followed by VEL maintenance in the absence of progressive disease (PD), permitting treatment of a broader cohort of pts. This exploratory analysis evaluated baseline characteristics associated with first-line CT response, to understand if predictive variables exist that could identify those who would be eligible vs ineligible for SOC PARPi maintenance. Methods: Pts with untreated Stage III/IV ovarian cancer were randomized to carboplatin/paclitaxel (CP) + placebo (PBO) followed by PBO maintenance (control arm), CP + VEL followed by PBO maintenance (VEL combination only), or CP + VEL followed by VEL maintenance (VEL throughout). Pts without progression after combination treatment transitioned to assigned maintenance therapy. In this exploratory analysis, pts with germline or somatic BRCA mutations (BRCAm) were grouped as maintenance eligible (ME; with CR/PR or non-PD with surgical complete resection) or maintenance not eligible (MNE; with stable disease/progression/non-CR/non-PD). Progression-free survival (PFS) in pts starting maintenance was measured from initiation of maintenance treatment. Results: Of 1,140 randomized pts, 298 had germline or somatic BRCAm; of these, 278 could be classified according to maintenance eligibility. MNE pts (n=56) were distributed equally among the control, VEL combination only, and VEL throughout arms (21%, 19%, and 21% of evaluable pts, respectively). MNE subgroups were enriched for advanced disease (18-39% of MNE subgroups vs 13-19% of ME subgroups had Stage IV disease) and less favorable performance status (41-67% MNE vs 20-40% of ME pts had ECOG performance status ≥1). For ME pts (n=222), median PFS from initiation of maintenance was not reached in the VEL throughout arm vs 19.7 months in the control arm (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.52, Figure). For MNE pts, median PFS was 16.4 months in the VEL throughout arm and 18.9 months in the control arm (HR 1.331, 95% CI 0.52-3.44); however, sample sizes (n=18 and n=16, respectively) limit a meaningful analysis of PFS in these pts. Download : Download high-res image (79KB) Download : Download full-size image Conclusions: The results of this exploratory analysis suggest that VEL has robust efficacy in pts with BRCA-mutated tumors eligible for SOC PARPi maintenance. Baseline characteristics of advanced disease and less favorable performance status were more common in MNE pts than ME pts. Molecular characterization is ongoing to identify mechanisms of sensitivity that predict eligibility for, and response to, PARPi therapy.

Recent data have revealed antitumor activity for four PARP inhibitors, two of which (olaparib and rucaparib) are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer with selected DNA repair defects. Additional clinical trials are in progress for talazoparib, veliparib, and niraparib. More progress can be anticipated in the near future.

Patients with metastatic and recurrent cervical cancer (CC) have a poor prognosis with limited palliative treatment options. Increasing understanding of the cellular aberrations inherent to cancer cells has allowed the development of therapies to target biological pathways, an important step toward the individualization of cancer therapy. The poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) family of enzymes is important in several DNA repair pathways. Drugs that inhibit these PARP enzymes have been investigated in many types of cancer and their application in the treatment of gynecologic malignancies has rapidly evolved. Although the majority of data for PARPi in gynecologic malignancies has been specifically regarding ovarian cancer, their role in the treatment of uterine and CC is currently being investigated. This review will examine PARP inhibitors in CC, summarizes the critical clinical trials of PARP inhibitors that have been completed, provides an overview of the on-going trials, presents the confirmed conclusions and notes the issues that need to be addressed in future studies.

Overexpression of ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporter is one of the most important factors taking responsibility for the progress of multidrug resistance (MDR) in multiple cancers. In this study, we investigated that veliparib, a PARP inhibitor which is in clinical development, could overcome ABCB1-mediated MDR in liver cancer cells. Veliparib could significantly enhance the cytotoxic effects of a series of conventional chemotherapeutic drugs in ABCB1-overexpression liver cancer cells. Mechanism study showed that veliparib could significantly enhance the accumulation of doxorubicin in ABCB1-overexpression liver cancer cells, without down-regulating the expression level of ABCB1. Finally, veliparib could significantly inhibit the ATPase activity of ABCB1 transporter. This study could provide information that combine veliparib with other chemotherapeutic drugs may benefit liver cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding the use of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, such as veliparib, in combination with chemotherapy followed by maintenance as initial treatment in patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. METHODS: In an international, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, we assessed the efficacy of veliparib added to first-line induction chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel and continued as maintenance monotherapy in patients with previously untreated stage III or IV high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive chemotherapy plus placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control), chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by placebo maintenance (veliparib combination only), or chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by veliparib maintenance (veliparib throughout). Cytoreductive surgery could be performed before initiation or after 3 cycles of trial treatment. Combination chemotherapy was 6 cycles, and maintenance therapy was 30 additional cycles. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the veliparib-throughout group as compared with the control group, analyzed sequentially in the BRCA-mutation cohort, the cohort with homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD) (which included the BRCA-mutation cohort), and the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: A total of 1140 patients underwent randomization. In the BRCA-mutation cohort, the median progression-free survival was 34.7 months in the veliparib-throughout group and 22.0 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 0.68; P

Veliparib, a poly(ADP-ribose)-polymerase (PARP) 1 and 2 enzyme inhibitor, was administered at 120 mg twice daily (BID) for 7 days in a 21-day cycle with carboplatin/paclitaxel in the Phase 2 BROCADE study in patients with BRCA-deficient recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, a dose based on Phase 1 results. Population pharmacokinetic (PK) and exposure–response analyses were undertaken to retrospectively evaluate whether an optimal dose was used in BROCADE. A population PK analysis was performed using data from 168 patients in BROCADE along with data from 288 subjects in another 5 studies. The relationship between veliparib exposure and efficacy variables (including progression-free survival [PFS] and objective response rate [ORR]) and safety variables (selected grade 3 or greater hematological adverse events) were analyzed. Veliparib PK parameters in BROCADE were comparable to the previous studies. Creatinine clearance on veliparib apparent clearance and lean body weight on veliparib apparent volume of distribution were identified as covariates. A trend of better efficacy (PFS and ORR) in the veliparib arm compared to placebo was observed. However, veliparib exposure-efficacy response was relatively flat with higher veliparib exposures not showing better efficacy. No exposure–response relationship was observed in grade 3 or greater hematological toxicities (anemia, neutropenia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia). The exposure–response analysis suggested that intermittent 7-day veliparib 120 mg BID dosing in a 21-day cycle provided additional efficacy without meaningfully impacting the safety and tolerability when co-administered with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with BRCA-deficient breast cancer. A higher dose of veliparib is unlikely to provide greater benefit in this combination in patients with BRCA-deficient recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.