Search

INTRODUCTION: Niraparib first-line maintenance (1LM) therapy has demonstrated clinical benefit for patients with ovarian cancer (OC) in clinical trial and real-world settings, but data on factors associated with real-world patient outcomes remain limited. This analysis identified patient characteristics associated with time to next treatment (TTNT), a proxy for real-world progression-free survival, in patients with OC treated with 1LM niraparib monotherapy. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used a USA nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database and included adult patients diagnosed with OC who initiated 1LM niraparib monotherapy after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were followed until the earliest occurrence of last clinical activity, death, or end of study period. TTNT was measured from 1LM niraparib initiation to the start of second-line treatment or death. Cox proportional hazards models assessed univariable and multivariable associations between baseline characteristics and TTNT. RESULTS: Of 7872 patients diagnosed with OC, 526 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this analysis. Median (IQR) duration of follow-up was 14.1 (7.4-23.6) months. In univariable analyses, age, BRCA/homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status, socioeconomic status, stage at initial diagnosis, cytoreductive surgery type, and residual disease status were significantly associated with observed TTNT and were introduced into the multivariable model with other clinically relevant variables. In the multivariable analysis, BRCA/HRD status, cytoreductive surgery type, and residual disease status were significantly associated with observed TTNT after covariate adjustment. Conversely, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, disease stage, niraparib starting dose status, and first-line bevacizumab use were not associated with observed TTNT. CONCLUSION: This real-world, retrospective, observational analysis offers valuable insights on prognostic factors associated with TTNT in patients with OC treated with 1LM niraparib monotherapy after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Future studies are needed to examine how additional patient characteristics associated with clinical outcomes may guide treatment decisions and improve outcomes.

The phase III PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial met its primary endpoint. Niraparib first-line maintenance significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer that responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status. Final overall survival (OS) results are reported. Patients were randomized 2:1 to niraparib or placebo, stratified by response to first-line treatment, receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and tumor HRD status. After reaching 60% target maturity, OS was evaluated via a stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors and summarized using Kaplan–Meier methodology. OS testing was hierarchical [overall population first, then the homologous recombination-deficient (HRd) population]. Other secondary outcomes and long-term safety were assessed; an updated, ad hoc analysis of investigator-assessed PFS was also conducted (cut-off date, 8 April 2024). The median follow-up was 73.9 months. In the overall population, the OS hazard ratio was 1.01 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.23; P = 0.8834] for niraparib (n = 487) versus placebo (n = 246). In the HRd (n = 373) and homologous recombination-proficient (n = 249) populations, the OS hazard ratios were 0.95 (95% CI 0.70-1.29) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.69-1.26), respectively. Subsequent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy was received by 11.7% and 15.8% of niraparib patients and 37.8% and 48.4% of placebo patients in the overall and HRd populations, respectively. The 5-year PFS rate numerically favored niraparib in the overall (niraparib, 22%; placebo, 12%) and HRd populations (niraparib, 35%; placebo, 16%). Myelodysplastic syndromes/acute myeloid leukemia incidence was <2.5% (niraparib, 2.3%; placebo, 1.6%). No new safety signals were observed. In patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer at high risk of recurrence, there was no difference in OS between treatment arms. In the HRd population, patients alive at 5 years were two times as likely to be progression free with niraparib treatment than placebo. Long-term safety remained consistent with the established niraparib safety profile. • No difference in OS was observed between treatment arms in the overall population or by HRD/ BRCA status. • In the HRd population, patients alive at 5 years were two times as likely to be progression free with niraparib than placebo. • A higher rate of subsequent poly(ADP)-ribose polymerase inhibitor therapy was observed in patients who received a placebo. • Long-term safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile of niraparib; no new safety signals were observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patterns of disease recurrence on poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor maintenance therapy are unclear and may affect subsequent treatment. This ad hoc subgroup analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study evaluated patterns of initial recurrence in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC). PRIMA included participants at high risk for disease progression. This ad hoc analysis only evaluated participants randomized to niraparib maintenance without evidence of disease at baseline. The number and site(s) of initial recurrent lesions at investigator-assessed progressive disease (PD) were evaluated. Of the 314 niraparib-treated patients analyzed, 190 developed ≥1 new lesion (median number of new lesions, 1.0; interquartile range, 1–2). In total, 93.2% (177/190) of patients developed 1–3 lesions at first disease progression. The most common sites of recurrence were the peritoneum (30.0% [57/190]), lymph nodes (26.3% [50/190]), and liver (20.5% [39/190]). Similar results were observed when patients with PD were stratified by biomarker status, disease stage at diagnosis, and type of debulking surgery. Patients with homologous recombination-proficient tumors, stage III disease, or a history of primary debulking developed a median of 2.0 new lesions at first progression; patients with homologous recombination-deficient tumors, stage IV disease, or a history of interval debulking developed a median of 1.0 new lesion. Many patients with AOC without lesions at first-line maintenance treatment initiation develop oligometastatic disease at first recurrence. Prospective evaluation is required to determine whether these patients have improved outcomes when local therapies are combined with continuous, systemic, targeted maintenance therapy. • In an ad hoc analysis of PRIMA, 93.2% (177/190) of niraparib-treated patients developed 1–3 lesions at first progression. • The most common sites of progression were the peritoneum (30.0%), lymph nodes (26.3%), and liver (20.5%). • Similar results were seen when patients were stratified by biomarker status, disease stage, and type of debulking surgery. • Thorough evaluation can help identify niraparib-treated patients with advanced ovarian cancer who develop oligometastases. • These patients may benefit from integration of local therapy into an ongoing, systemic, targeted maintenance regimen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction Niraparib first-line maintenance (1LM) therapy has demonstrated clinical benefit for patients with ovarian cancer (OC) in clinical trial and real-world settings, but data on factors associated with real-world patient outcomes remain limited. This analysis identified patient characteristics associated with time to next treatment (TTNT), a proxy for real-world progression-free survival, in patients with OC treated with 1LM niraparib monotherapy. Methods This retrospective observational study used a USA nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database and included adult patients diagnosed with OC who initiated 1LM niraparib monotherapy after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were followed until the earliest occurrence of last clinical activity, death, or end of study period. TTNT was measured from 1LM niraparib initiation to the start of second-line treatment or death. Cox proportional hazards models assessed univariable and multivariable associations between baseline characteristics and TTNT. Results Of 7872 patients diagnosed with OC, 526 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this analysis. Median (IQR) duration of follow-up was 14.1 (7.4–23.6) months. In univariable analyses, age, BRCA/homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status, socioeconomic status, stage at initial diagnosis, cytoreductive surgery type, and residual disease status were significantly associated with observed TTNT and were introduced into the multivariable model with other clinically relevant variables. In the multivariable analysis, BRCA/HRD status, cytoreductive surgery type, and residual disease status were significantly associated with observed TTNT after covariate adjustment. Conversely, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, disease stage, niraparib starting dose status, and first-line bevacizumab use were not associated with observed TTNT. Conclusion This real-world, retrospective, observational analysis offers valuable insights on prognostic factors associated with TTNT in patients with OC treated with 1LM niraparib monotherapy after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Future studies are needed to examine how additional patient characteristics associated with clinical outcomes may guide treatment decisions and improve outcomes.

Abstract Introduction Clinical trials have demonstrated prolonged survival associated with niraparib first-line maintenance (1LM) therapy, compared with placebo, for patients with ovarian cancer (OC). However, data are limited on real-world 1LM niraparib monotherapy use, particularly as switch 1LM, following first-line (1L) combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. This real-world study aimed to describe patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and clinical outcomes of patients with OC receiving 1LM niraparib monotherapy following 1L combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Methods This retrospective observational study used data from a US-based nationwide database of deidentified, electronic health record-derived data. Patients diagnosed with OC during the study period (1 January 2011–30 November 2022, inclusive) were eligible if they received 1L chemotherapy plus bevacizumab treatment followed by 1LM niraparib monotherapy, initiated between 1 January 2017 (inclusive) and 2 September 2022. Patients were followed from index date (initiation of niraparib 1LM) until the first occurrence of death, end of follow-up, or end of study. Clinical outcomes were time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and time to next treatment (TTNT). Kaplan–Meier curves were used to estimate TTD, TTNT, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Among 93 patients selected, median age at index was 67 years (interquartile range [IQR] 60–72 years). Most patients had BRCA wild-type/homologous recombination (HR)-proficient or BRCA wild-type/HR unknown disease (75.3%). In all, 18 (19.4%) patients had HR-deficient disease. Five (5.4%) patients had unknown test results for both BRCA and HR deficiency status. Median follow-up time was 16.3 months (IQR 8.7–25.4 months), and median time from end of 1L therapy to 1LM initiation was 35.0 days (IQR 25.0–53.9 days). Median TTD was 9.3 months (95% CI 6.1–11.3 months). Median TTNT was 12.9 months (95% CI 11.5–19.0 months). Conclusions This real-world study provided insights into switch maintenance with 1LM niraparib monotherapy, which may be a viable treatment option for patients with advanced OC.

Introduction: Clinical trials have demonstrated prolonged survival associated with niraparib first-line maintenance (1LM) therapy, compared with placebo, for patients with ovarian cancer (OC). However, data are limited on real-world 1LM niraparib monotherapy use, particularly as switch 1LM, following first-line (1L) combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. This real-world study aimed to describe patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and clinical outcomes of patients with OC receiving 1LM niraparib monotherapy following 1L combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Methods: This retrospective observational study used data from a US-based nationwide database of deidentified, electronic health record-derived data. Patients diagnosed with OC during the study period (1 January 2011–30 November 2022, inclusive) were eligible if they received 1L chemotherapy plus bevacizumab treatment followed by 1LM niraparib monotherapy, initiated between 1 January 2017 (inclusive) and 2 September 2022. Patients were followed from index date (initiation of niraparib 1LM) until the first occurrence of death, end of follow-up, or end of study. Clinical outcomes were time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and time to next treatment (TTNT). Kaplan–Meier curves were used to estimate TTD, TTNT, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Among 93 patients selected, median age at index was 67 years (interquartile range [IQR] 60–72 years). Most patients had BRCA wild-type/homologous recombination (HR)-proficient or BRCA wild-type/HR unknown disease (75.3%). In all, 18 (19.4%) patients had HR-deficient disease. Five (5.4%) patients had unknown test results for both BRCA and HR deficiency status. Median follow-up time was 16.3 months (IQR 8.7–25.4 months), and median time from end of 1L therapy to 1LM initiation was 35.0 days (IQR 25.0–53.9 days). Median TTD was 9.3 months (95% CI 6.1–11.3 months). Median TTNT was 12.9 months (95% CI 11.5–19.0 months). Conclusions: This real-world study provided insights into switch maintenance with 1LM niraparib monotherapy, which may be a viable treatment option for patients with advanced OC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate the impact of age on the efficacy and safety of niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Post hoc analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study (NCT02655016). Patients in the intent-to-treat population were categorized according to age at baseline (<65 years vs ≥65 years), and progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were evaluated for each age subgroup (clinical cutoff date, May 17, 2019). Safety findings were also evaluated according to a fixed starting dose (FSD) or an individualized starting dose (ISD). Of 733 randomized patients, 289 (39.4%) were ≥65 years (190 niraparib, 99 placebo) at baseline. Median PFS (niraparib vs placebo) and hazard ratios (95% CI) were similar in patients aged <65 years (13.9 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.61 [0.47–0.81]) and ≥65 years (13.7 vs 8.1 months; HR, 0.53 [0.39–0.74]). The incidences of any-grade and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar across age subgroups; in the niraparib arm, TEAEs leading to dose discontinuation occurred in 7.8% of patients <65 years and 18.4% of patients ≥65 years. ISD use lowered the incidence of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia events in niraparib-treated patients compared with the FSD (<65 years: 42.8% vs 18.0%; ≥65 years 57.0% vs 26.1%). HRQOL was comparable across age subgroups. Niraparib efficacy, safety, and HRQOL were generally comparable across age subgroups, although patients ≥65 years had a higher rate of discontinuations due to TEAEs. ISD use reduced grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia events regardless of age. [Display omitted] • Age-based analysis of the efficacy and safety of niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in the phase 3 PRIMA trial. • Niraparib first-line maintenance treatment improved median progression-free survival compared with placebo regardless of age. • The incidences of any-grade and grade ≥3 treatment emergent adverse events were generally similar across all age subgroups. • The individualized starting dose reduced grade ≥3 hematological treatment-emergent adverse events across all age subgroups • Niraparib did not negatively impact health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and HRQOL was similar regardless of age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plain Language Summary What is this summary about? This PLSP provides a short summary of an original scientific article that presented results from the PRIMA study after 3.5 years of follow-up time. The original article was published in the European Journal of Cancer in 2023. The PRIMA study included adult patients with newly diagnosed advanced high-risk ovarian cancer whose tumors shrunk or became undetectable after treatment with chemotherapy with or without surgery. The PRIMA study evaluated how well the drug niraparib, also known as Zejula, worked at delaying or preventing ovarian cancer from coming back (recurring) or getting worse (progressing) compared with placebo (a substance with no effects that a doctor gives to a patient instead of a drug). The first results from the PRIMA study were published in 2019, when patients had participated in the PRIMA study for about 1.2 years. The article this PLSP is based on reports longer-term data from the PRIMA study, when patients had participated in the PRIMA study for about 3.5 years. Patients were monitored (or followed) for a longer time to understand how well niraparib continued to work and to evaluate whether the safety of niraparib changed with additional time being monitored. What were the results? Patients who took niraparib had more time before their cancer came back or got worse than patients who took placebo. In terms of safety, no new types of side effects with niraparib treatment were observed with additional time being monitored as part of the PRIMA study. What do the results mean? These results support that niraparib remains an important treatment option to help delay the cancer from coming back or getting worse in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer that responded to initial treatment. Clinical Trial Registration:NCT02655016 (PRIMA study) (ClinicalTrials.gov) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pre-clinical studies showed the anti-tumor mechanisms of PARP inhibitors (PARPi) and platinum have some crossover and overlap in the DNA damage repair pathway, patients who respond to platinum-based chemotherapy are also more likely to be sensitive to PARPi. This real-world study mainly aimed to evaluate whether TRAE (treatment-related adverse event) between platinum based chemotherapy (PBC) and niraparib are also associated. Methods: Patients received niraparib as maintenance treatment or salvage therapy for advanced ovarian cancer at the First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University from January 2020 to August 2023 were included. Survival data of niraparib treatment and adverse events occurred during the last platinum-based chemotherapy cycle before starting niraparib treatment and during niraparib treatment are documented. Fisher's exact test were used for correlation analysis. Results: 1. 40 patients treated with niraparib were included in the analysis, including 31 patients treated with niraparib for 1st-line maintenance therapy, 6 patients for PSR (platinum-sensitive recurrence) maintenance therapy, and 3 patients for salvage therapy. The overall median follow-up time was 15.0 months (ranged from 2.2 months to 32.1 months). 2. Overall grade=3 TRAE (40% vs 70%, p=0.012) including anemia (20% vs 45%, p=0.041) and neutrophil count decreased (17.5% vs 57.5%, p<0.001) was significantly lower during niraparib treatment compared to during chemotherapy. 3. Any grade TRAE (75% vs 100%, p=0.002) including white blood cell count decreased (47.5% vs 87.5%, p<0.001), red blood cell count decreased (57.5% vs 92.5%, p<0.001), anemia (55% vs 87.5%, p<0.001) and neutrophil count decreased (35% vs 85%, p<0.001) were also significantly lower in niraparib treatment group compared with chemotherapy group. No new safety signals were identified. Conclusion: 1. In this real-world practice, we observed that patients with advanced ovarian cancer who experienced any grade and grade =3 TRAE during chemotherapy were well tolerated when treated with niraparib, particularly the incidence of any grade and grade =3 anemia, and neutrophil count decreased during niraparib treatment were significantly lower compared with that during chemotherapy. 2. For patients with ovarian cancer who have experienced grade =3 hematological adverse reactions during prior platinumbased chemotherapy, greater attention should be paid to the monitoring and management of hematological adverse reactions during subsequent treatment with niraparib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer has been revolutionized by the development of poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors which offer maintenance therapy options that extend progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: Patients from sixteen institutions in Turkey who had International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III or IV epithelial ovarian cancer and complete or partial response to at least four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy were included in this retrospective study regardless of BRCA status and recurrence disease. Results: A total of 67 patients were evaluated. The median age was 58. The median follow-up was 17.5 months. Median PFS was 8.3 months in BRCAwt and 10.9 months in BRCAmut group (p=0.033). There was no significant difference in mPFS between primary and recurrent patients (10.2 vs. 9.4 months, p=0.328). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were anemia (32.8%), thrombocytopenia (16.4%), and neutropenia (16.4%). Conclusion: The Turkish EAP's real-world data supports the efficacy and tolerability of niraparib in routine clinical practice and complements findings from randomized phase III trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Niraparib was recently funded in Canada for the maintenance treatment of ovarian cancer following platinum-based chemotherapy. However, the drug’s safety profile in the real world remains uncertain. We conducted a cohort study to describe the patient population using niraparib and the proportion that experienced adverse events between June 2019 and December 2022 in four Canadian provinces (Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia [BC], and Quebec). We used administrative data and electronic medical records from Ontario Health, Alberta Health Services, and BC Cancer, and registry data from Exactis Innovation. We summarized baseline characteristics using descriptive statistics and reported safety outcomes using cumulative incidence. We identified 514 patients receiving niraparib. Mean age was 67 years and most were initiated on a daily dose of 100 or 200 mg/day. Grade 3/4 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 11–16% of the cohort. In Ontario, the three-month cumulative incidence of grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia was 11.6% (95% CI, 8.3–15.4%), neutropenia was 7.1% (95% CI, 4.6–10.4%), and anemia was 11.3% (95% CI, 8.0–15.2%). Cumulative incidences in the remaining provinces were similar. Initial daily dose and proportions of hematological adverse events were low in the real world and may be related to cautious prescribing and close monitoring by clinicians.

Abstract Background Maintenance therapy with niraparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, has been shown to extend progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of biomarker status. However, there are limited data on niraparib’s efficacy and safety in the neoadjuvant setting. The objective of Cohort C of the OPAL trial (OPAL-C) is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of neoadjuvant niraparib treatment compared with neoadjuvant platinum-taxane doublet chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer with confirmed homologous recombination–deficient tumors. Methods OPAL is an ongoing global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial. In OPAL-C, patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive three 21-day cycles of either neoadjuvant niraparib or platinum-taxane doublet neoadjuvant chemotherapy per standard of care. Patients with a complete or partial response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) will then undergo interval debulking surgery; patients with stable disease may proceed to interval debulking surgery or alternative therapy at the investigator’s discretion. Patients with disease progression will exit the study treatment and proceed to alternative therapy at the investigator’s discretion. After interval debulking surgery, all patients will receive up to three 21-day cycles of platinum-taxane doublet chemotherapy followed by niraparib maintenance therapy for up to 36 months. Adult patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer eligible to receive neoadjuvant platinum-taxane doublet chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery may be enrolled. Patients must have tumors that are homologous recombination–deficient. The primary endpoint is the pre–interval debulking surgery unconfirmed overall response rate, defined as the investigator-assessed percentage of patients with unconfirmed complete or partial response on study treatment before interval debulking surgery per RECIST v1.1. Discussion OPAL-C explores the use of niraparib in the neoadjuvant setting as an alternative to neoadjuvant platinum-taxane doublet chemotherapy to improve postsurgical residual disease outcomes for patients with ovarian cancer with homologous recombination–deficient tumors. Positive findings from this approach could significantly impact preoperative ovarian cancer therapy, particularly for patients who are ineligible for primary debulking surgery. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03574779. Registered on February 28, 2022.

Niraparib was recently funded in Canada for the maintenance treatment of ovarian cancer following platinum-based chemotherapy. However, the drug's safety profile in the real world remains uncertain. We conducted a cohort study to describe the patient population using niraparib and the proportion that experienced adverse events between June 2019 and December 2022 in four Canadian provinces (Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia [BC], and Quebec). We used administrative data and electronic medical records from Ontario Health, Alberta Health Services, and BC Cancer, and registry data from Exactis Innovation. We summarized baseline characteristics using descriptive statistics and reported safety outcomes using cumulative incidence. We identified 514 patients receiving niraparib. Mean age was 67 years and most were initiated on a daily dose of 100 or 200 mg/day. Grade 3/4 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 11–16% of the cohort. In Ontario, the three-month cumulative incidence of grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia was 11.6% (95% CI, 8.3–15.4%), neutropenia was 7.1% (95% CI, 4.6–10.4%), and anemia was 11.3% (95% CI, 8.0–15.2%). Cumulative incidences in the remaining provinces were similar. Initial daily dose and proportions of hematological adverse events were low in the real world and may be related to cautious prescribing and close monitoring by clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Maintenance therapy with niraparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, has been shown to extend progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of biomarker status. However, there are limited data on niraparib's efficacy and safety in the neoadjuvant setting. The objective of Cohort C of the OPAL trial (OPAL-C) is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of neoadjuvant niraparib treatment compared with neoadjuvant platinum-taxane doublet chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer with confirmed homologous recombination–deficient tumors. Methods: OPAL is an ongoing global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial. In OPAL-C, patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive three 21-day cycles of either neoadjuvant niraparib or platinum-taxane doublet neoadjuvant chemotherapy per standard of care. Patients with a complete or partial response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) will then undergo interval debulking surgery; patients with stable disease may proceed to interval debulking surgery or alternative therapy at the investigator's discretion. Patients with disease progression will exit the study treatment and proceed to alternative therapy at the investigator's discretion. After interval debulking surgery, all patients will receive up to three 21-day cycles of platinum-taxane doublet chemotherapy followed by niraparib maintenance therapy for up to 36 months. Adult patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer eligible to receive neoadjuvant platinum-taxane doublet chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery may be enrolled. Patients must have tumors that are homologous recombination–deficient. The primary endpoint is the pre–interval debulking surgery unconfirmed overall response rate, defined as the investigator-assessed percentage of patients with unconfirmed complete or partial response on study treatment before interval debulking surgery per RECIST v1.1. Discussion: OPAL-C explores the use of niraparib in the neoadjuvant setting as an alternative to neoadjuvant platinum-taxane doublet chemotherapy to improve postsurgical residual disease outcomes for patients with ovarian cancer with homologous recombination–deficient tumors. Positive findings from this approach could significantly impact preoperative ovarian cancer therapy, particularly for patients who are ineligible for primary debulking surgery. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03574779. Registered on February 28, 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with ovarian cancer (OC) who received niraparib as first-line maintenance therapy. PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed advanced OC who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomized (2:1) to niraparib or placebo once daily in 28-day cycles until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or death. HRQoL was assessed as a prespecified secondary end point using patient-reported responses to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EORTC QLQ Ovarian Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-OV28), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI), and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. Assessments were collected at baseline and every 8 weeks (±7 days) for 56 weeks, beginning on cycle 1/day 1, then every 12 weeks (±7 days) thereafter while the patient received study treatment. Among trial participants (niraparib, n = 487; placebo, n = 246), PRO adherence exceeded 80% for all instruments across all cycles. Patients reported no decline over time in HRQoL measured via EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL and FOSI overall scores. Scores for abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms (EORTC QLQ-OV28) and nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, and constipation (EORTC QLQ-C30) were higher (worse symptoms) in niraparib-treated patients than placebo-treated patients; except for constipation, these differences resolved over time. Patients did not self-report any worsening from baseline of fatigue, headache, insomnia, or abdominal pain on questionnaires. Despite some early, largely transient increases in gastrointestinal symptoms, patients with OC treated with niraparib first-line maintenance therapy reported no worsening in overall HRQoL. [Display omitted] • Detailed analysis of patient-reported outcomes from the PRIMA trial of niraparib as a first-line maintenance therapy. • Compared with placebo, niraparib-treated patients self-reported worse symptoms of constipation, nausea/vomiting, and appetite loss. • Except for constipation, the increase in gastrointestinal symptoms compared with placebo resolved over time. • No worsening of fatigue, headache, insomnia, or abdominal pain over time were noted on self-reported questionnaires. • Overall quality of life was generally maintained with niraparib treatment despite patient-reported gastrointestinal symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Poly (ADP‐ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have been increasingly used in the treatment of ovarian cancer, with BRCA positivity and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) being common biomarkers used for predicting their efficacy. However, given the limitations of these biomarkers, new ones need to be explored. Methods: This retrospective study included 181 ovarian cancer patients who received olaparib or niraparib at two independent hospitals in Japan between May 2018 and December 2022. Clinical information and blood sampling data were collected. Patient characteristics, treatment history, and predictability of treatment duration based on blood data before treatment initiation were examined. Results: High‐grade serous carcinoma, BRCA positivity, HRD, and maintenance therapy after recurrence treatment were observed more frequently in the olaparib group than in the niraparib group. The most common reasons for treatment interruption were anemia, fatigue, and nausea in the olaparib group and thrombocytopenia in the niraparib group. Regarding response to olaparib treatment, complete response to the most recent treatment, maintenance therapy after the first chemotherapy, high‐grade serous carcinoma, and germline BRCA positivity were observed significantly more frequently among responders than among non‐responders. Furthermore, neutrophil counts were significantly higher among responders than among non‐responders. Conclusions: Inflammation‐related blood data, such as neutrophil count, obtained at the initial pre‐treatment visit might serve as potential predictors for prolonged olaparib treatment. While this study offers valuable insights into potential indicators for prolonged olaparib treatment, it underscores the need for more expansive research to strengthen our understanding of PARP inhibitors and optimize treatment strategies in ovarian cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundThe landscape of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor treatment for ovarian cancer (OC) is continually evolving. This research aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitors compared to placebo as a maintenance therapy for OC patients.MethodsWe conducted a search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the use of PARP inhibitors as maintenance therapy in OC patients, up to 16 June 2024. Data regarding progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), chemotherapy-free interval (CFI), time to first subsequent therapy or death (TFST), time to second subsequent therapy or death (TSST), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were aggregated. Pooled hazard ratio (HR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for PFS, OS, CFI, TFST, and TSST. Additionally, the relative risk (RR) and 95% CI for TEAEs were determined.ResultsThis meta-analysis encompassed 20 RCTs involving 7,832 participants. The overall analysis demonstrated that maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors led to significant improvements in PFS (HR: 0.398, 95% CI = 0.339–0.467, 95% PI = 0.219–0.724), OS (HR: 0.677, 95% CI = 0.582–0.788, 95% PI = 0.546–0.839), CFI (HR: 0.417, 95% CI = 0.368–0.472, 95% PI = 0.265–0.627), TFST (HR: 0.441, 95% CI = 0.391–0.498, 95% PI = 0.308–0.632), and TSST (HR: 0.574, 95% CI = 0.507–0.649, 95% PI = 0.488–0.674) compared with placebo. Subgroup analyses further indicated that PARP inhibitor maintenance treatment significantly improved PFS, regardless of homologous recombination status (all p < 0.05). However, the risks of any grade (RR = 1.046, 95% CI = 1.032–1.059, 95% PI = 1.028–1.055) and grade ≥3 TEAEs (RR = 2.931, 95% CI = 2.641–3.253, 95% PI = 2.128–3.792) were increased by PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy compared to placebo.ConclusionOur research elucidated the benefits of maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors in patients with OC, showing improvements in PFS, OS, CFI, TFST, and TSST. Vigilance regarding TEAEs is paramount for clinicians implementing PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy in clinical practice.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42024560286.

New treatments for ovarian cancer are available that require trade-offs between progression-free survival and quality of life. The aim of this study was to develop a decision aid for patients with homologous recombinant proficient (HRP) tumors, as the benefit–harm ratio of niraparib needs consideration. This decision aid was created with a systematic and iterative development process based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. The decision aid was user-tested for acceptability, usability, and comprehensibility using a survey completed by a sample of patients with ovarian cancer and oncologists. This decision aid follows the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) criteria in its development. User-test respondents (n = 13 patients; 13 physicians) reported that the decision aid used language that was easy to follow (69% patients; 85% physicians), was an appropriate length (69% patients; 62% physicians) and provided the right amount of information (54% patients; 54% physicians). Most respondents (92% patients; 62% physicians) would recommend this decision aid for HRP patients considering niraparib. This is the first decision aid for patients with HRP ovarian cancers who are considering niraparib maintenance therapy. It is available on-line and is being further evaluated in a pragmatic clinical trial in Saskatchewan.

Aim: In Japan, Niraparib maintenance therapy for primary and recurrent ovarian cancer was approved in September 2020 and is expected to improve the prognosis of ovarian cancer. However, the safety of niraparib maintenance therapy in Japanese patients has not been fully evaluated. Methods: Patients with ovarian cancer (including fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer) treated with niraparib at Jichi Medical University Hospital from September 2020 to August 2022 were enrolled in this study. Patient background, starting dose, rates of interruption, reduction, or discontinuation, adverse events (AEs) during treatment, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) trends were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Twenty‐nine patients received niraparib maintenance therapy during the study period, including 21 with primary cancer and 8 patients with recurrent cancer. Seventeen patients (58.6%) required dose interruptions and 16 patients (55.2%) required dose reductions. Only two patients (6.9%) discontinued treatment due to fatigue and nausea. The most frequent AE was creatinine increases in 18 patients (62.1%, all grades). Although eGFR levels decreased significantly after niraparib therapy compared to before niraparib therapy (59.3 vs. 50.3 mL/min/1.73 m2, p < 0.001), the levels returned to pre‐niraparib initiation levels after discontinuation of niraparib (64.6 vs. 64.6 mL/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.96). Multivariate regression analysis showed that diabetes was independently associated with decreased eGFR (p = 0.013). Conclusions: Niraparib maintenance therapy frequently increased serum creatinine, but the change was reversible. Further studies are needed to determine the effects of niraparib on renal function in Japanese patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New treatments for ovarian cancer are available that require trade-offs between progression-free survival and quality of life. The aim of this study was to develop a decision aid for patients with homologous recombinant proficient (HRP) tumors, as the benefit–harm ratio of niraparib needs consideration. This decision aid was created with a systematic and iterative development process based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. The decision aid was user-tested for acceptability, usability, and comprehensibility using a survey completed by a sample of patients with ovarian cancer and oncologists. This decision aid follows the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) criteria in its development. User-test respondents (n = 13 patients; 13 physicians) reported that the decision aid used language that was easy to follow (69% patients; 85% physicians), was an appropriate length (69% patients; 62% physicians) and provided the right amount of information (54% patients; 54% physicians). Most respondents (92% patients; 62% physicians) would recommend this decision aid for HRP patients considering niraparib. This is the first decision aid for patients with HRP ovarian cancers who are considering niraparib maintenance therapy. It is available on-line and is being further evaluated in a pragmatic clinical trial in Saskatchewan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ovarian cancer is the eighth leading cause of cancer-related death among women, characterized by late diagnosis and a high relapse rate. In randomized controlled trials, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitors (PARPi) in treating advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021283150), included all phase II and phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of PARPi on ovarian cancer until the 13th of April, 2022. The main outcomes were progression- free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs). Pooled hazard ratios (HRs), and risk ratios (RRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The random-effects model was applied in all analyses. Results: In the meta-analysis, 16 eligible RCTs were included, with a total of 5,815 patients. In recurrent ovarian cancer, PARPi maintenance therapy showed a significant PFS benefit over placebo in the total population (HR 0.34, CI 0.29–0.40), BRCA mutant (HR 0.24, CI 0.18–0.31), germline BRCA mutant (HR 0.23, CI 0.18–0.30), and BRCA wild-type cases (HR 0.50, CI 0.39–0.65). PARPi monotherapy also improved PFS (HR 0.62, CI 0.51–0.76) compared with chemotherapy in BRCAm patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. The use of PARPi maintenance therapy resulted in an improvement in PFS over placebo in newly-diagnosed cancers in the overall population (HR 0.46, CI 0.30–0.71) and the BRCAm population (HR 0.36, CI 0.29–0.44). Although the risk of severe AEs was increased by PARPi therapy compared to placebo in most settings investigated, these side effects were controllable with dose modification, and treatment discontinuation was required in the minority of cases. Conclusions: PARPis are an effective therapeutic option for newly-diagnosed and recurrent ovarian cancer. Despite a minor increase in the frequency of serious adverse effects, they are generally well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Niraparib, a strong poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, contributed significantly to progression-free survival as a maintenance therapy in the platinum-sensitive period in both first-line and recurrent ovarian cancer, regardless of the BRCA mutation. Grade 3–4 anemia, which has a manageable side effect profile, especially hematological, is seen in almost 1 out of every 4 patients. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no reported case of pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) induced by niraparib treatment. Case Report: A 65-year-old woman diagnosed with stage 3 serous carcinoma of the tuba received niraparib front-line maintenance treatment had grade 4 anemia after 3 months of niraparib treatment. She underwent bone marrow aspiration and biopsy because of refractory anemia, which needs red blood cell (RBC) transfusions despite interruption of treatment. Management and Outcome: The patient was treated with 1 mg/kg methyl prednisolone, after histopathological assessment was consistent with PRCA. The hemoglobin count returned to the normal range with steroid treatment. Discussion: In daily practice, it should be kept in mind that in the case of refractory anemia induced by niraparib, the underlying cause might be PRCA and can be improved with steroid administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Poly (ADP‐ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have been increasingly used in the treatment of ovarian cancer, with BRCA positivity and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) being common biomarkers used for predicting their efficacy. However, given the limitations of these biomarkers, new ones need to be explored. Methods This retrospective study included 181 ovarian cancer patients who received olaparib or niraparib at two independent hospitals in Japan between May 2018 and December 2022. Clinical information and blood sampling data were collected. Patient characteristics, treatment history, and predictability of treatment duration based on blood data before treatment initiation were examined. Results High‐grade serous carcinoma, BRCA positivity, HRD, and maintenance therapy after recurrence treatment were observed more frequently in the olaparib group than in the niraparib group. The most common reasons for treatment interruption were anemia, fatigue, and nausea in the olaparib group and thrombocytopenia in the niraparib group. Regarding response to olaparib treatment, complete response to the most recent treatment, maintenance therapy after the first chemotherapy, high‐grade serous carcinoma, and germline BRCA positivity were observed significantly more frequently among responders than among non‐responders. Furthermore, neutrophil counts were significantly higher among responders than among non‐responders. Conclusions Inflammation‐related blood data, such as neutrophil count, obtained at the initial pre‐treatment visit might serve as potential predictors for prolonged olaparib treatment. While this study offers valuable insights into potential indicators for prolonged olaparib treatment, it underscores the need for more expansive research to strengthen our understanding of PARP inhibitors and optimize treatment strategies in ovarian cancer.

Copyright of Remedia is the property of Medical Tribune CZ, s.r.o. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Abstract Objectives Phase 1 trial to determine the safety and tolerability of everolimus and niraparib in patients with advanced ovarian and breast malignancies. Results Fourteen heavily pretreated patients were enrolled (12 high‐grade serous ovarian cancer, 1 clear cell ovarian cancer, and 1 triple negative breast cancer). All patients were PARP naïve and received comprehensive genomic profiling prior to enrollment. Two DLTs were experienced in cohort 2 (niraparib 200 mg daily and everolimus 5 mg 3 days per week) with one patient experiencing prolonged thrombocytopenia and the other experiencing severe hypertension. Four additional patients were enrolled after dose de‐escalation with one patient again experiencing severe hypertension leading to conclusion of the study. The most frequent grade 3 or greater adverse events were thrombocytopenia, hypertension, anemia, fatigue, neutropenia, and elevated alkaline phosphatase. Two patients had a PR and five patients had SD. ORR was 18% and the CBR was 45% in 11 evaluable patients. Median PFS was 6 months, and median OS is approximately 18 months with three patients still alive at the data cutoff. Conclusions The combination of everolimus and niraparib demonstrated significant toxicity at lower doses and is not feasible due to rapid onset and severe hypertension. This limitation possibly blunted the efficacy of the combination as PFS was modest, but OS was surprisingly robust due to three patients with ovarian cancer remaining alive with platinum refractory disease. Further investigation of multiagent blockade of the PI3K pathway combined with PARP is warranted.

Maintenance therapy with bevacizumab and the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and niraparib after first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer has been approved. However, it is not clear which one should be used for which patients. This paper presents a detailed analysis of data from phase 3 trials in ovarian cancer evaluating bevacizumab (ICON7, GOG-0218), olaparib (SOLO1, PAOLA-1), and niraparib (PRIMA, PRIME). We will discuss how the results of these trials relate to the 'rebound effect,' in which the risk of progression increases after discontinuation of bevacizumab in patients receiving bevacizumab, and to the significant difference in tissue permeability between olaparib and niraparib. In patients with homologous recombination deficiency and no macroscopic residual disease (R0) after primary debulking surgery (PDS), the combination of bevacizumab plus olaparib seems to be the best regimen. Olaparib monotherapy is suitable for patients with BRCA mutations other than PDS R0. Bevacizumab is most useful in cases with a short duration of the rebound effect, i.e. short survival. Niraparib is useful in others but may be more useful in Asians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study assessed the efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the treatment regimen of dostarlimab, a programmed death-1 inhibitor, combined with niraparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, in patients with BRCA wild type (BRCA wt) recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) who had previously received bevacizumab treatment. This Phase II, open-label, single-arm, multicenter study, conducted in the USA, enrolled patients with recurrent PROC to receive niraparib and dostarlimab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (up to 3 years). A preplanned interim futility analysis was performed after the first 41 patients had undergone ≥1 radiographic evaluation (approximately 9 weeks from the first treatment). The prespecified interim futility criterion was met and the study was therefore terminated. For the 41 patients assessed, the objective response rate (ORR) was 7.3% (95% confidence interval: 1.5–19.9); no patients achieved a complete response, 3 patients (7.3%) achieved a partial response (duration of response; 3.0, 3.8, and 9.2 months, respectively) , and 9 patients (22.0%) had stable disease. In total, 39 patients (95.1%) experienced a treatment-related adverse event, but no new safety issues were observed. HRQoL, assessed using FOSI, or Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Ovarian Symptom Index scores, worsened over time compared with baseline scores. The study was terminated due to the observed ORR at the interim futility analysis. This highlights a need for effective therapies in treating patients with recurrent BRCA wt PROC. [Display omitted] • Overall response rate did not improve with niraparib and dostarlimab in recurrent BRCA wt platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (124/125). • Low objective response rate versus standard of care triggered prespecified futility criteria and early study termination (122/125). • No new safety signals were reported for niraparib and dostarlimab combination therapy (87/125). • Health-related quality of life measures worsened over time from baseline, with no control group for comparison (112/125). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introducing PARP inhibitors maintenance therapy into clinical practice significantly improved treatment outcomes in patients with high-grade platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer, the most lethal gynecological malignancy. Niraparib is a potent PARP inhibitor whose safety and efficacy were assessed in the placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial PRIMA. Niraparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival in the overall population of high-grade advanced ovarian cancer regardless of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation and homologous deficiency status compared to placebo. However, the most significant benefit was observed in BRCA mutated and homologous recombination deficient subgroups. Niraparib has a manageable toxicity profile and is well-tolerated by patients. Most common toxicities are hematological and can be managed with drug interruption and/or dose reduction that do not decrease efficacy. Niraparib is recommended for patients who responded to the first-line chemotherapy with platinum compound regardless of homologous recombination status. This review will discuss the use of niraparib in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer patients focusing on its efficacy and tolerability. Additionally, a case series will be presented to further discuss this drug use in clinical practice in Poland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Over the last few years, targeted therapy has become the mainstay maintenance treatment of patients with ovarian cancer including patients with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. Poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are effective in the treatment of patients who are in complete or partial remission. PARPi are known to cause hematological adverse events (AEs), but have not been compared directly to each other. Objective: Primary objective was to compare the incidence of hematological and non-hematological AEs associated with the use of PARPi. Methods: This was a single institution, retrospective study evaluating patients who were treated with PARPi for ovarian cancer from January 2017 to October 2020. Patients were stratified according to which PARP inhibitor they received. Results: Ninety-two patients were included in final analysis. Thirty-one (33.7%) patients received niraparib and 61 (66.3%) patients received olaparib. Median age of patients were 64.3 (range, 33.8 to 92.3) years, 66 (71.7%) were white, and 84 (91.3%) had an ECOG PS of 0/1. Patients in the niraparib group experienced a higher rate of hematologic AEs, with 11 (35.5%), 20 (64.5%), and 18 (58.1%) experiencing neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia, respectively. Eight (13.1%), 24 (39.3%), and 16 (26.2%) patients in the olaparib group experienced neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia, respectively. Conclusion: This single institution retrospective study outlines the hematological toxicities observed between two PARPi. Our results suggested that niraparib tended to be associated with a higher risk for hematologic toxicities than olaparib. Anemia was the most common hematologic toxicity which was consistent with what has been widely documented in the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Real-world data regarding the use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in recurrent ovarian cancer patients with non-BRCA homologous recombination (HR) mutations or somatic BRCA mutations are lacking. Objective: The purpose of our study is to evaluate the response rate, duration of treatment, time to progression (TTP), and toxicities of olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib in somatic BRCAm and non-BRCA HR-mutated patients. Methods: This was a retrospective study using the electronic medical record to identify patients across our health system who were initiated on a PARP inhibitor for ovarian cancer between December 2014 and December 2019. Patients were screened for the presence of a somatic BRCA1/2 mutation or a mutation in non-BRCA HR genes. Data were collected via chart review. Results: For the efficacy analysis, 8 patients had somatic BRCA mutations and 12 patients had HR mutations. The overall response rate (ORR) was 50% for BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) patients and 9.1% for non-BRCA HR-mutated (non-BRCA HRm) patients. 72.7% of patients with non-BRCA HR mutations had stable disease. The duration of therapy ranged from 2 to 66 months. The median TTP was 9.5 months. Overall, 66.7% of patients in the entire cohort started on a reduced dose of PARP inhibitor. Dose reductions due to AEs were observed in 52.4% of patients, while AEs requiring treatment interruption occurred in 61.9%. Conclusion and Relevance: We found that PARP inhibitors provided stable disease in a high proportion of recurrent ovarian cancer patients who had pathogenic HR mutations, with toxicities comparable to major trials. Patients with non-BRCA HR and somatic BRCA mutations could benefit from PARP inhibitors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Phase 1 trial to determine the safety and tolerability of everolimus and niraparib in patients with advanced ovarian and breast malignancies. Results: Fourteen heavily pretreated patients were enrolled (12 high‐grade serous ovarian cancer, 1 clear cell ovarian cancer, and 1 triple negative breast cancer). All patients were PARP naïve and received comprehensive genomic profiling prior to enrollment. Two DLTs were experienced in cohort 2 (niraparib 200 mg daily and everolimus 5 mg 3 days per week) with one patient experiencing prolonged thrombocytopenia and the other experiencing severe hypertension. Four additional patients were enrolled after dose de‐escalation with one patient again experiencing severe hypertension leading to conclusion of the study. The most frequent grade 3 or greater adverse events were thrombocytopenia, hypertension, anemia, fatigue, neutropenia, and elevated alkaline phosphatase. Two patients had a PR and five patients had SD. ORR was 18% and the CBR was 45% in 11 evaluable patients. Median PFS was 6 months, and median OS is approximately 18 months with three patients still alive at the data cutoff. Conclusions: The combination of everolimus and niraparib demonstrated significant toxicity at lower doses and is not feasible due to rapid onset and severe hypertension. This limitation possibly blunted the efficacy of the combination as PFS was modest, but OS was surprisingly robust due to three patients with ovarian cancer remaining alive with platinum refractory disease. Further investigation of multiagent blockade of the PI3K pathway combined with PARP is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Niraparib improved survival in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) patients versus routine surveillance, accompanied by increased costs. Based on the NORA trial, we evaluated for the first time the costeffectiveness of maintenance niraparib with individualized starting dosage (ISD) in China. Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate the costs and health outcomes of each strategy. The total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to estimate model robustness. Scenario analyses were also conducted. Results: Compared to routine surveillance, niraparib additionally increased QALYs by 0.59 and 0.30 in populations with and without germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutations, with incremental costs of $10,860.79 and $12,098.54, respectively. The ICERs of niraparib over routine surveillance were $18,653.67/QALY and $39,212.99/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37,488/QALY, the ISD enhanced the likelihood of cost-effectiveness from 9.35% to 30.73% in the gBRCA-mutated group and from 0.77% to 11.74% in the non-gBRCA mutated population. The probability of niraparib being cost-effective in the region with the highest per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in China was 74.23% and 76.10% in the gBRCA-mutated and non-gBRCA mutated population, respectively. Niraparib was 100% cost-effective for National Basic Medical Insurance beneficiaries under the above WTP thresholds. Conclusion: Compared to routine surveillance, the ISD of niraparib for maintenance treatment of PSROC is cost-effective in the gBRCA-mutated population and more effective but costly in the non-gBRCA mutated patients. The optimized niraparib price, economic status, and health insurance coverage may benefit the economic outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Several treatment options for ovarian carcinoma are available beyond chemotherapy (83). • Maintenance therapy with bevacizumab and/or PARPi can prolong survival (72). • The present consensus-statements are meant to assist clinicians in decision-making (84). • Based on the consensus-statements, two practical treatment algorithms are provided (84). • A novel tool for the assessment and definition of response to treatment is proposed (85). Standard treatment of newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian carcinoma (OC) consists of cytoreductive surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. Maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors and olaparib-bevacizumab has recently shown to significantly improve progression-free survival in the first-line setting. Some practical aspects of maintenance therapy, however, are still poorly defined. To provide guidance to clinicians in the selection of maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian carcinoma. A board of six gynecologic oncologists with expertise in the treatment of OC in Italy convened to address issues related to the new options for maintenance treatment. Based on scientific evidences, the board produced practice-oriented statements. Consensus was reached via a modified Delphi study that involved a panel of 22 experts from across Italy. Twenty-seven evidence- and consensus-based statements are presented, covering the following areas of interest: use of biomarkers (BRCA mutations and presence of homologous recombination deficiency); timing and outcomes of surgery; selection of patients eligible for bevacizumab; definition of response to treatment; toxicity and contraindications; evidence of synergy of bevacizumab plus PARP inhibitor. Two treatment algorithms are also included, for selecting maintenance therapy based on timing and outcomes of surgery, response to platinum-based chemotherapy and biomarker status. A score for the assessment of response to chemotherapy is proposed, but its validation is ongoing. We provide here consensus statements and treatment algorithms to guide clinicians in the selection of appropriate and personalized maintenance therapy in the first-line setting of advanced OC management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of niraparib versus routine surveillance as maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer in China. A three-state partitioned survival model that adopted a lifetime horizon with a 4-week cycle length was developed. Efficacy data were derived from the NORA study. Cost and utility data were obtained from published studies and online databases. The cost and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. In this analysis, the primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were set at 1 to 3 times the gross domestic product per capita of China in 2022 ($12,741 to $38,233/QALY). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of the model results. In the base-case analysis, niraparib was not found to be cost-effective, with an ICER of $42,888/QALY compared with routine surveillance at the WTP thresholds. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the ICER value was most sensitive to the cost of subsequent treatment in placebo group. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that at the WTP thresholds, the probability of niraparib being cost-effective was 2.9% to 50.1%. Niraparib improves the survival benefit of platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer patients. However, it seems to be less cost-effective, as it has higher costs than routine surveillance at the WTP thresholds. Reasonable dose reduction according to the patient's actual situation or lowering the price of niraparib can improve its cost-effectiveness. • Limited economic evidence of niraparib for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer is provided in China. • Niraparib is less cost-effective than routine surveillance in China. • The cost-effectiveness of niraparib will be improved by lowing its price. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Maintenance therapy using poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose)polymerase inhibitors may have adverse events, including hematological toxicity, and may limit therapeutic potential in patients with cancer. Niraparib-induced anemia negatively impacts one’s quality of life. Its amelioration by ferrous iron (for example, sodium ferrous citrate), folic acid, or vitamin B12 has not been supported. Oral ferric citrate hydrate increases circulating levels of iron and hepatic iron accumulation, improving renal anemia in patients with kidney failure receiving hemodialysis. The uptake of ferric iron is considered to be much higher than that of ferrous iron. Case presentation The admitted patient was a 57-year-old Japanese woman with stage IIIB ovarian cancer who underwent primary debulking surgery and standard carboplatin–paclitaxel chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab, followed by niraparib (200 mg/day) maintenance therapy. The patient started oral SFC (100 mg/day) to treat niraparib-related anemia. However, she required two units of packed red blood cell transfusions three times within 3 months after starting niraparib treatment. The patient was diagnosed with niraparib-related anemia. The blood test results after 1 month from the start of niraparib treatment were as follows: red blood cells, 211 × 104/μL; hemoglobin, 7.0 g/dL; hematocrit, 20.8%; reticulocyte, 0.2%; platelet count, 18.0 × 104/μL. She was switched to oral ferric citrate hydrate with a dose of 500 mg per day and resumed niraparib treatment. She did not experience grade 3 niraparib-related hematological toxicity and achieved blood transfusion independence. Conclusions Ferric citrate hydrate may be a safe, effective, and well-tolerated oral drug for treating patients with niraparib-related anemia.

Background: The PRIMA/ENGOT‐OV26/GOG‐3012 (NCT02655016) trial was amended to prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of an individualized starting dose (ISD) regimen of niraparib for first‐line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: In the phase 3 PRIMA trial, patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first‐line platinum‐based chemotherapy (N = 733) were initially treated with a fixed starting dose (FSD) regimen of 300 mg once daily. Subsequently, the protocol was amended so newly enrolled patients received an ISD: 200 mg once daily in patients with baseline body weight < 77 kg or baseline platelet count < 150,000/µL, and 300 mg once daily in all other patients. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed by starting dose. Results: Overall, 475 (64.8%) patients were assigned to an FSD (niraparib, n = 317; placebo, n = 158) and 258 (35.2%) were assigned to an ISD (niraparib, n = 170; placebo, n = 88). Efficacy in patients who received FSD or ISD was similar for the overall (FSD hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.46–0.76] vs. ISD HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48–0.98]) and the homologous recombination–deficient (FSD HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.30–0.64] vs. ISD HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.22–0.72]) populations. In patients with low body weight/platelet count, rates of grades ≥3 and 4 hematologic treatment‐emergent adverse events, dose interruptions, and dose reductions were lower for those who received ISD than for those who received FSD. Conclusions: In PRIMA, similar dose intensity, similar efficacy, and improved safety were observed with the ISD compared with the FSD regimen. Results from the phase 3 PRIMA trial of niraparib first‐line maintenance therapy that prospectively evaluated fixed versus individualized dosing support the selection of a niraparib starting dose based on an individual's body weight and platelet count. In prespecified analyses, patients who received the individualized starting dose of niraparib experienced similar progression‐free survival and improved safety outcomes compared with patients who received the fixed starting dose of niraparib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sweet Syndrome, or acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis, is a rare inflammatory dermatologic disorder that can be spontaneous, associated with malignancy, or drug-induced. Reports of Sweet Syndrome in gynecologic oncology patients are sparse, and the majority are thought to be malignancy-associated. The case presented here represents the third case of drug-induced Sweet Syndrome in a gynecologic oncology patient. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of Sweet Syndrome after initiation of a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) for maintenance therapy in the treatment of high grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC). This represents one of the most severe dermatologic adverse effects of treatment with PARPi reported to date, requiring treatment discontinuation.

Simple Summary: Low cost, reliable predictors of benefit from PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are missing for relapsed BRCA wild-type (WT) ovarian cancer (OC). MITO 37 is a multicenter retrospective study aiming at correlating Ki67 expression at diagnosis with a clinical outcome following platinum treatment and PARPi maintenance. Clinical data were collected from 150 patients with high grade serous or endometroid BRCA WT OC treated with niraparib or rucaparib maintenance in 15 centers within MITO group. Ki67 expression was assessed by certified pathologists on tumor tissue at diagnosis and median Ki67 was used as cut-off. 136 patients were included. Median Ki67 was 45.7% (range 1.0–99.9). No statistically significant differences in response to PARPi neither in progression free survival and overall survival were identified between low and high Ki67 subgroups. High Ki-67 at diagnosis cannot discriminate responders to PARPi among OC BRCA WT patients. Background: There is compelling need for novel biomarkers to predict response to PARP inhibitors (PARPi) in BRCA wild-type (WT) ovarian cancer (OC). Methods: MITO 37 is a multicenter retrospective study aiming at correlating Ki67 expression at diagnosis with a clinical outcome following platinum treatment and PARPi maintenance. Clinical data were collected from high grade serous or endometroid BRCAWT OC treated with niraparib or rucaparib maintenance between 2010–2021 in 15 centers. Ki67 expression was assessed locally by certified pathologists on formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissues. Median Ki67 was used as a cut-off. Results: A total of 136 patients were eligible and included in the analysis. Median Ki67 was 45.7% (range 1.0–99.9). The best response to platinum according to median Ki67 was 26.5% vs. 39.7% complete response (CR), 69.1% vs. 58.8% partial response (PR), 4.4% vs. 1.5% stable disease (SD). The best response to PARPi according to median Ki67 was 19.1% vs. 36.8% CR, 26.5% vs. 26.5% PR, 26.5 vs. 25% SD, 27.9% vs. 16.2% progressive disease (PD). No statistically significant differences in progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were identified between low and high Ki67. PFS and OS are in line with registration trials. Conclusions: Ki67 at diagnosis did not discriminate responders to PARPi. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Platinum-based combination chemotherapy is recommended first choice for relapsed ovarian cancer. However, many of the chemotherapeutic agents are nephrotoxic and can promote kidney dysfunction, which affect the efficacy of cancer treatment and the survival of the patient. There is a need to explore long-term treatments of chemotherapy-free regimen of chronic kidney disease in recurrent ovarian cancer. Case presentation: A 41-year-old female patient was presented with stage IIIC well-differentiated ovarian serous papillary adenocarcinoma in 2009. The patient had recurrence of platinum resistance after secondary cytoreductive surgery, and it was difficult to continue chemotherapy after multiple lines of chemotherapy due to myelosuppression, renal impairment and other factors. The patient accepted Niraparib-based treatment regimen after multi-line chemotherapy-induced stage 4 chronic kidney disease. Niraparib combined with anlotinib achieved median PFS of 11 months, disease re-progression, and the patient was switched to niraparib combined with letrozole from October 2021. No evidence of tumor progression was observed till date and the renal toxicity is acceptable. Conclusions: In patients with relapsed ovarian cancer, treatment becomes increasingly challenging to subsequent therapies because of renal impairment and emerging drug resistance. Niraparib-based treatment regimen may be a good choice for patients with well-differentiated serous adenocarcinoma of the ovary who are intolerant to chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Maintenance therapy with the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian carcinoma (OC) have proven to be effective compared with placebo. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness (CE) of maintenance fuzuloparib compared to routine surveillance (RS), niraparib and olaparib for platinum-sensitive recurrent OC from the Chinese healthcare systems. Method: A partitioned survival model with three-state (progression-free, progressed, death) was constructed utilizing TreeAge Pro 2011 software to evaluate the economic value of fuzuloparib, niraparib and olaparib maintenance treatment for platinum-sensitive recurrent OC based on the clinical data derived from FZOCUS-2, ENGOT-OV16/NOVA and ENGOT-Ov21/SOLO2. Transition probabilities were estimated from the reported survival probabilities in those trials. Cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and lifetime costs were measured for this analysis. A 5 years horizon and 5%/year discount rates were used. One-way analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to explore the model uncertainties. Results: Total cost of fuzuloparib, niraparib and olaparib were $31628.10, $48183.48 and $54605.54, whereas they had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $31992.69, $32216.08 and $23359.26 per additional progression-free survival (PFS) QALYs gained compared with RS, relatively. Model showed that maintenance fuzuloparib achieved at least an 85.5% probability of CE at the threshold of $37654.50/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were sensitive to the PFS and the price of medicines. Conclusion: Fuzuloparib was less cost-effective for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutation and platinum-sensitive recurrent OC compared to olaparib, but was superior to niraparib from the Chinese healthcare systems perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Poly-ADP-ribose polymerase 1 (PARP-1) and PARP-2 are DNA damage sensors that are most active during S-phase of the cell cycle and that have wider-reaching roles in DNA repair than originally described. BRCA1 and BRCA2 (Breast Cancer) proteins are involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR), which requires a homologous chromosome or sister chromatid as a template to faithfully repair DNA double-strand breaks. The small-molecule NAD+ mimetics, olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, veliparib, and talazoparib, inhibit the catalytic activity of PARP-1 and PARP-2 and are currently being studied in later-stage clinical trials. PARP inhibitor clinical trials have predominantly focused on patients with breast and ovarian cancer with deleterious germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (gBRCA1/2+) but are now expanding to include cancers with known, suspected, or more-likely-than-not defects in homologous recombination repair. In ovarian cancer, this group also includes women whose cancers are responsive to platinum therapy. Olaparib was FDA-approved in January 2018 for the treatment of gBRCA1/2+ metastatic breast cancers. gBRCA1+ predisposes women to develop triple-negative breast cancers, while women with gBRCA2+ tend to develop hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative breast cancers. Although PARP inhibitor monotherapy strategies seem most effective in cancers with homologous recombination repair defects, combination strategies may allow expansion into a wider range of cancers. By interfering with DNA repair, PARP inhibitors essentially sensitize cells to DNA-damaging chemotherapies and radiation therapy. Certainly, one could also consider expanding the utility of PARP inhibitors beyond gBRCA1/2+ cancers by causing DNA damage with cytotoxic agents in the presence of a DNA repair inhibitor. Unfortunately, in numerous phase I clinical trials utilizing a combination of cytotoxic chemotherapy at standard doses with dose-escalation of PARP inhibitors, there has generally been failure to reach monotherapy dosages of PARP inhibitors due to myelosuppressive toxicities. Strategies utilizing angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors are generally not hindered by additive toxicities, though the utility of combining PARP inhibitors with treatments that have not been particularly effective in breast cancers somewhat tempers enthusiasm. Finally, there are combination strategies that may serve to mitigate resistance to PARP inhibitors, namely, upregulation of the intracellular PhosphoInositide-3-kinase, AK thymoma (protein kinase B), mechanistic target of rapamycin (PI3K-AKT-mTOR) pathway, or perhaps are more simply meant to interfere with a cell growth pathway heavily implicated in breast cancers while administering relatively well-tolerated PARP inhibitor therapy.

Background: Maintenance therapy using poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose)polymerase inhibitors may have adverse events, including hematological toxicity, and may limit therapeutic potential in patients with cancer. Niraparib-induced anemia negatively impacts one's quality of life. Its amelioration by ferrous iron (for example, sodium ferrous citrate), folic acid, or vitamin B12 has not been supported. Oral ferric citrate hydrate increases circulating levels of iron and hepatic iron accumulation, improving renal anemia in patients with kidney failure receiving hemodialysis. The uptake of ferric iron is considered to be much higher than that of ferrous iron.Case Presentation: The admitted patient was a 57-year-old Japanese woman with stage IIIB ovarian cancer who underwent primary debulking surgery and standard carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab, followed by niraparib (200 mg/day) maintenance therapy. The patient started oral SFC (100 mg/day) to treat niraparib-related anemia. However, she required two units of packed red blood cell transfusions three times within 3 months after starting niraparib treatment. The patient was diagnosed with niraparib-related anemia. The blood test results after 1 month from the start of niraparib treatment were as follows: red blood cells, 211 × 104/μL; hemoglobin, 7.0 g/dL; hematocrit, 20.8%; reticulocyte, 0.2%; platelet count, 18.0 × 104/μL. She was switched to oral ferric citrate hydrate with a dose of 500 mg per day and resumed niraparib treatment. She did not experience grade 3 niraparib-related hematological toxicity and achieved blood transfusion independence.Conclusions: Ferric citrate hydrate may be a safe, effective, and well-tolerated oral drug for treating patients with niraparib-related anemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation polymerase inhibitors (PARPis), which induce synthetic lethality of tumor cells with DNA damage repair defects, have emerged as a promising therapy for ovarian, breast, and pancreatic cancer. Although the PARPi Olaparib is limited to treating cancer patients with DNA repair deficiencies, the PARPi Niraparib is FDA approved to treat ovarian cancer patients regardless of their status in DNA repair pathways. Despite differences in the affinity to PARP enzymes, the rationale behind the clinical use of Niraparib in patients without DNA repair deficiencies is still lacking. Moreover, only Olaparib has been approved for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients with BRCA mutations, accounting for only 5-7% of total PDACs. It remains unclear whether Niraparib could be beneficial to PDACs without BRCA mutations. We found that Niraparib inhibits ovarian and PDAC tumor cell growth, regardless of BRCA mutational status, more effectively than Olaparib. Unlike Olaparib, which is known to activate STAT3, Niraparib inhibits STAT3 activity in ovarian and PDAC cancer cell lines and patient tumors. Moreover, Niraparib regulates the expression of several STAT3 downstream genes involved in apoptosis. Overexpression of a constitutively activated STAT3 mutant rescues Niraparib-induced cancer cell apoptosis. Our results suggest that Niraparib inhibits pSTAT3 by interfering with SRC tyrosine kinase. Collectively, our studies provide a mechanism underlying Niraparib's ability to induce tumor cell apoptosis without BRCA mutations, suggesting the potential use of Niraparib for treating PDAC patients regardless of BRCA status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Synthetic lethality approaches to cancer therapy involves combining events to cause cancer cell death. Using this strategy, major advances have occurred in the treatment of women with ovarian cancer who have defects in the Homologous Recombination Repair (HRR) pathway. When the HRR pathway is defective, due to mutations or epigenetic changes in genes such as BRCA1 or BRCA2, cells can no longer accurately repair double strand breaks (DSBs). Capitalising on this weakness, pharmacological inhibition of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) that function to repair single strand breaks (SSBs) leads to synthetic lethality in cells with defective HRR. PARP inhibitors (PARPis) including olaparib, niraparib and rucaparib are approved for the clinical management of women with ovarian cancer. Understanding and overcoming issues of acquired resistance to PARPis, extending these strategies to benefit more patients and combining PARPis with other drugs, including immunotherapies, are of high priority in the field today. The advent of molecular targeted therapies has made a significant impact on survival of women with ovarian cancer who have defects in homologous recombination repair (HRR). High-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) is the most common histological subtype of ovarian cancer, with over 50% displaying defective HRR. Poly ADP ribose polymerases (PARPs) are a family of enzymes that catalyse the transfer of ADP-ribose to target proteins, functioning in fundamental cellular processes including transcription, chromatin remodelling and DNA repair. In cells with deficient HRR, PARP inhibitors (PARPis) cause synthetic lethality leading to cell death. Despite the major advances that PARPis have heralded for women with ovarian cancer, questions and challenges remain, including: can the benefits of PARPis be brought to a wider range of women with ovarian cancer; can other drugs in clinical use function in a similar way or with greater efficacy than currently clinically approved PARPis; what can we learn from long-term responders to PARPis; can PARPis sensitise ovarian cancer cells to immunotherapy; and can synthetic lethal strategies be employed more broadly to develop new therapies for women with ovarian cancer. We examine these, and other, questions with focus on improving outcomes for women with ovarian cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adjuvant chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab, an angiogenesis inhibitor, can improve the survival of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), but relapse during bevacizumab maintenance therapy may occur. Despite poly adenosine ribosepolymerase (PARP) inhibitors were shown to achieve remission in the relapsed patients upon salvage chemotherapy and long-term maintenance, there is little evidence on their efficacy or criteria for selecting bevacizumab-resistant recurrent EOC patients who would benefit from PARP inhibitors. In this single-center, retrospective, case-series study, we evaluated the efficacy, safety and selection criteria for salvage chemotherapy followed by PARP inhibitors in bevacizumab-resistant EOC patients who recurred during bevacizumab maintenance. The primary endpoint was post-progression survival (PPS), and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. In all, the data of 49 EOC patients, most of whom were graded as stage III (91.8%) with high-grade serous histology (81.6%), were assessed. They were classified into three groups based on platinum-free interval (PFI) and response to salvage chemotherapy: platinum-based chemotherapy followed by PARP inhibitors, platinum-based chemotherapy followed by non-PARP inhibitors, and non-platinum-based chemotherapy. Survival analysis showed the median PFS and median PPS for the platinum-based chemotherapy followed by PARP inhibitors group were 326 and 771 days, which were significantly longer than the other groups. The highly platinum-sensitive relapse (PSR) group (PFI >12 months) achieved prolonged PPS, while there was no relationship between the clinical status on salvage chemotherapy and response to PARP inhibitors. Adverse events during PARP inhibitor led to withdrawal and dose reduction in >40% of patients; however, no patients discontinued the drugs. Altogether, the study results showed that maintenance therapy using PARP inhibitor was effective and feasible for patients selected based on platinum sensitivity from bevacizumab-resistant relapsed EOC. PFI after adjuvant chemotherapy could predict bevacizumab-resistant EOC patients' response to PARP inhibitors, which might be effective despite therapeutically insufficient salvage chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Immune checkpoint blockades (ICBs) therapy showed limited efficacy in ovarian cancer management. Increasing evidence indicated that conventional and targeted therapies could affect tumor-associated immune responses and increase the effectiveness of immunotherapy. However, the effects of Niraparib, one of the poly (ADP) ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, on the immune response remains unclear. Delineating the crosstalk between cytotoxic anticancer agents and cancer-associated immunity may lead to more efficient combinatorial strategies. Methods Programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in human ovarian cancer cells after PARP inhibitors treatment was examined by western blotting (WB) and flow cytometry. The expression of poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP1), PD-L1, and CD8 in human ovarian cancer tissues was detected by immunohistochemistry(IHC). The effect of Niraparib and PD-L1 blockade in ovarian cancer progression was investigated in vivo. The changes of immune cells and cytokines in vitro and in vivo were detected by flow cytometry and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Changes of cGAS/STING signal pathway after Niraparib treatment were determined by WB, ELISA. Results Niraparib upregulated membrane PD-L1 and total PD-L1 expression in ovarian cancer cells and had a synergistic effect with PD-L1 blockade in vivo. In clinical patient samples, Niraparib augmented cytotoxic CD8+T cell proportion and function. In vivo and vitro, Niraparib can also increase the proportion of T cells and combined with PD-L1 blockade could further enhance the effect. Besides, Niraparib activated the cGAS-STING pathway, increasing the levels of cytokines such as CCL5 and CXCL10, which played a vital role in augmenting the infiltration and activation of cytotoxic T cells. Conclusions Niraparib could modulate the immune response via the activation of the cGAS/STING pathway, and combination with PD-L1 blockade could further enhance the effect. These results provide a sound theoretical basis for clinical treatment.

Objective: The aim of NIRVANA-R trial is to investigate the efficacy of niraparib in combination with bevacizumab as a maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer patients who were previously treated with a PARP inhibitor (PARPi). Methods: This study includes patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer who had received at least 2 previous courses of platinum-containing therapy and had been treated with a PARPi. Patients who had responded to the last platinum regimen are eligible to participate in this study. Forty-four patients will be recruited. All enrolled patients are treated with niraparib and bevacizumab for maintenance therapy until disease progression. The primary endpoint of the study is 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. A Simon 2-stage design was utilized. Target accrual was 22 patients in the first stage; =13 patients without progressive disease within 6 months was required to proceed to second stage. Results: We report the results from the first stage. Median age was 56 years old, high grade serous and most of the patients (90.9%) had high-grade serous carcinoma. Of the 22 patients from the first stage, 9 had progressive disease within 6 months (6-month PFS rate=66.5%; 95% confidence interval=48.9%-90.2%). The efficacy boundary to proceed to the second stage was met. No grade 4 treatment-related adverse events were reported, and no TRAEs leading to treatment discontinuation. Conclusion: Our findings indicate encouraging safety and activity of niraparib + bevacizumab as a maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer patients who were previously treated with a PARPi in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The PRIMA phase 3 trial showed niraparib significantly prolongs median progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (OC) responsive to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, including those who had tumors with homologous recombination deficiency (HRd). This analysis of PRIMA examined the qualityadjusted PFS (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease or toxicity (Q-TWiST) of patients on maintenance niraparib versus placebo. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive once-daily maintenance niraparib (n = 487) or placebo (n = 246). QA-PFS was defined as the PFS of patients adjusted for their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) prior to disease progression, measured using European Quality of Life Five-Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire index scores from the PRIMA trial. Q-TWiST was calculated by combining data on PFS, duration of symptomatic grade X2 adverse events (fatigue or asthenia, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and abdominal bloating) prior to disease progression, and EQ-5D index scores. Analyses used data collected up to the last date of PFS assessment (May 17, 2019). Results: The restricted mean QA-PFS was significantly longer with niraparib versus placebo in the HRd (n = 373) and overall intention-to-treat (ITT; n = 733) populations (mean gains of 6.5 [95% confidence interval; CI, 3.9-8.9] and 4.1 [95% CI, 2.2-5.8] months, respectively). There were also significant improvements in restricted mean Q-TWiST for niraparib versus placebo (mean gains of 5.9 [95% CI, 3.5-8.6] and 3.5 [95% CI, 1.7-5.6] months, respectively) in the HRd and ITT populations. Conclusions: In patients with advanced OC, first-line niraparib maintenance was associated with significant gains in QA-PFS and Q-TWiST versus placebo. These findings demonstrate that niraparib maintenance treatment is associated with a PFS improvement and that treatment benefit is maintained even when HRQoL and/or toxicity data are combined with PFS in a single measure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]