Search

Background: Adavosertib is a first-in-class, selective small-molecule inhibitor of Wee1. Olaparib is an inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP). Preclinical data suggest that adavosertib enhances the antitumor effect of PARP inhibitors., Objective: The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of adavosertib plus olaparib were evaluated in patients with refractory solid tumors to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D)., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients in part A (dose finding) had a refractory solid tumor for which there is no established treatment and had received ≥ 1 prior course of systemic therapy; in part B (dose expansion), patients had platinum-sensitive extensive-stage or relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Patients received adavosertib [once (qd) or twice daily (bid)] for 3 consecutive days with 4 days off treatment (3/4), or 5 consecutive days with 2 days off (5/2), plus olaparib (bid) for 14 or 21 days of a 21-day cycle., Results: A total of 130 patients were enrolled in the study, 120 in part A and 10 in part B. The MTD for adavosertib bid was 175 mg (days 1-3, 8-10/21-day cycle) plus continuous olaparib 200 mg bid; the once-daily MTD (and RP2D) was adavosertib 200 mg (days 1-3, 8-10/21-day cycle) plus continuous olaparib 200 mg bid. In the MTD/RP2D cohort, one patient (7%) experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of thrombocytopenia. The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in the cohorts in which MTD/RP2D for bid dosing and RP2D for qd dosing were determined were fatigue (64.3% and 15.4%, respectively), diarrhea (42.9% and 30.8%), decreased appetite (35.7% and 23.1%), nausea (35.7% and 15.4%), and anemia (35.7% and 38.5%). In the SCLC dose-expansion cohort, TRAEs occurred in eight patients (88.9%), including thrombocytopenia (66.7%) and anemia (55.6%). In part A, objective response rate (ORR) was 14.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.7-22.9] overall; for the cohorts in which MTD/RP2D for bid dosing and RP2D for qd dosing were determined, ORR was 30.8% (9.1-61.4) and 9.1% (0.2-41.3), respectively. ORR was 11.1% [95% CI 0.3-48.2; one partial response (PR)], disease control rate was 22.2% (2.8-60.0; one PR, one stable disease), and median progression-free survival was 1.5 months (1.3-4.2) in the SCLC dose-expansion cohort., Conclusions: Adverse events and DLTs observed in the bid MTD and once-daily MTD/RP2D dosing schedules were manageable and consistent with known adavosertib and olaparib safety profiles. Limited antitumor activity was observed with adavosertib plus olaparib combination therapy., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02511795 (registration: 28 July 2015)., Competing Interests: Declarations Funding This study was funded by AstraZeneca and is part of an alliance between AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA, who are codeveloping olaparib. Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interests Erika P. Hamilton: Institutional funding (AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Puma Biotechnology, Daiichi Sankyo, Mersana, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cascadian Therapeutics, Hutchinson MediPharma, OncoMed, MedImmune, Stem CentRx, Curis, Verastem, Zymeworks, Syndax, Lycera, Rgenix, Millennium, TapImmune, BerGenBio, Medivation, Tesaro, Eisai, H3 Biomedicine, Radius Health, Acerta Pharma, Takeda, Macrogenics, Abbvie, Immunomedics, Fujifilm, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Merus, Nucana, Regeneron, Leap Therapeutics, Taiho Pharmaceutical, EMD Serono, Clovis, CytomX, InventisBio, Novartis, Silverback, Black Diamond, ArQule, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Sutro Biopharma, Zenith Epigenetics, Arvinas, Torque Therapeutics, Harpoon Therapeutics, Fochon Pharmaceuticals, Orinove, Molecular Templates, Unum Therapeutics, Aravive, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, G1 Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, and Compugen) and non-financial support (Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genzyme, Helsinn Therapeutics, HERON, Lexicon, Medivation, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sysmex, Guardant Health, Foundation Medicine, Deciphera, and NanoString). Gerald S. Falchook: Royalties, self (Wolters Kluwer); advisory role, institution (AbbVie, Fujifilm, Silicon, Navire, Turning Point, Predicine, Inspirna, Regeneron, Jubilant, BostonGene, Teon, Merck, Sanofi, and BridgeBio); advisory role, self (EMD Serono); speaker’s honorarium for CME (Total Health Conferencing and Rocky Mountain Oncology Society); travel, self, for work and/or research related to institution [Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Fujifilm, Millennium, Sarah Cannon Research Institute (employer), and Synthorx/Sanofi]; research funding, to institution (3-V Biosciences, Abbisko, Abbvie, ABL Bio, ADC Therapeutics, Accutar, Agenus, Aileron, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Amgen, ARMO/Eli Lilly, Artios, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bioatla, Bioinvent, Biothera, Bicycle, Black Diamond, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celldex, Ciclomed, Curegenix, Curis, Cyteir, Daiichi, DelMar, eFFECTOR, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Epizyme, Erasca, Exelixis, Freenome, Fujifilm, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Hutchison MediPharma, IGM Biosciences, Ignyta, Immunitas, ImmunoGen/MacroGenics, Incyte, Jacobio, Jazz, Jounce, Jubilant, Kolltan, Loxo/Bayer, MedImmune, Merck, Metabomed, Millennium, Mirati, miRNA Therapeutics, Molecular Templates, National Institutes of Health, Navire/BridgeBio, NGM Bio, NiKang, Novartis, OncoMed, Oncorus, Oncothyreon, Poseida, Precision Oncology, Prelude, PureTech, Pyramid, RasCal, Regeneron, Relay, Rgenix, Ribon, Samumed, Sapience, Seagen, Silicon, Simcha, Sirnaomics, Strategia, Syndax, Synthorx/Sanofi, Taiho, Takeda, Tallac, Tarveda, Teneobio, Tesaro, Tocagen, Turning Point, U.T. MD Anderson Cancer Center, Vegenics, Xencor, and Zhuhai Yufan). Judy S. Wang: Consulting fees (Janssen, Stemline/Menarini, BioNTech, and Kanaph Therapeutics); honoraria for speakers’ bureau (AstraZeneca and Eisai); research funding to institution only (Syndax, AstraZeneca, Phoenix, Accutar, Celgene, BMS, Tenebio, LOXO, Nurix, Step Pharma, BioNTech, Moderna, Merck, Compugen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kymab, Sanofi, Bicycle, Cyteir, Daiichi Sankyo, Xencor, Ribon, Klus Pharma, Artios, Genentech, Treadwell, MabSpace, IGM, Immunogen, PureTech, Erasca, Bayer, 7.8 Pharma, NGMBio, Zymeworks, Immuno-Onc, Astellas, Immunitas, Prelude, Blueprint, Beigene, Pionyr, Agenus, Adagene, Macrogenics, Jazz, StingThera, Coherus, Takeda, Taiho, Jounce, Evelo, Vedanta, Stemline, GSK, Janssen, Black Diamond, Vigeo, Relay, and Jacobio). Siqing Fu: Clinical trial research support/grant funding, institution {National Institutes of Health [NIH]/National Cancer Institute [NCI] P30CA016672 – Core Grant [Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG) Shared Resources]; Abbisko; BeiGene; BioAtla, LLC.; Boehringer Ingelheim; CUE Biopharma, Inc.; Eli Lilly & Co.; Exelisis; Greenfire Bio, Inc.; Hookipa Biotech; IMV, Inc.; Innovent Biologics, Co., Ltd.; K-Group Beta; Lyvgen Biopharm, Co., Ltd.; MacroGenics; MediLink Therapeutics, Co. Ltd.; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Nerviano Medical Sciences; NeuPharma, Inc.; NextCure, Inc.; Ningbo NewBay Technology Development Co., Ltd.; Novartis; NovoCure; Nykode Therapeutics AS.; Parexel International, LLC; Pionyr Immunotherapeutics, Inc.; PureTech Health, LLC; Sellas Life Sciences Group; Soricimed Biopharma, Inc.; SQZ Biotechnologies; Sumitomo Dainippon; Taiho Oncology and NCCN; Treadwell Therapeutics; Turnstone Biologics; Tyligand Bioscience, Ltd.; and Virogin Biotech, Ltd}. Amit M. Oza: principal investigator (PI) and steering committees (AstraZeneca, GSK, and Clovis); advisory boards (AstraZeneca, Morphosys); CEO [Ozmosis Research (uncompensated)], institutional support for clinical trials (AstraZeneca, GSK, Esperas Pharm, Clovis, Karyopharm, Ocellaris, Senhwa, Merck, ImmunoGen, Immunovaccine, Pfizer, Aravive, Mersana, Seagen, Alkermes, Verastem, Zentalis, Shuttck Labs, Sutro, NovoCure, Plexxikon, and Amgen). Esteban Rodrigo Imedio: Former employee (AstraZeneca). Sanjeev Kumar: Employee and stock ownership (AstraZeneca). Lone Ottesen: Former employee and stock ownership (AstraZeneca). Ganesh M. Mugundu: Former employee and stock ownership (AstraZeneca). Elza C. de Bruin: Employee and stock ownership (AstraZeneca). Mark J. O’Connor: Employee and stock ownership (AstraZeneca). Suzanne F. Jones: Consulting/advisory role (Amgen) – all payments to institution; stock ownership (HCA Healthcare). David R. Spigel: Institutional funding (AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbvie, Foundation Medicine, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Takeda, Amgen, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center – Simmons Cancer Center, G1 Therapeutics, Neon Therapeutics, Celldex, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, Acerta Pharma, Oncogenex, Astellas Pharma, GRAIL, Transgene, Aeglea Biotherapeutics, Tesaro, Ipsen, ARMO BioSciences, and Millennium); consultation (AstraZeneca, TRM Oncology, Precision Oncology, Evelo Therapeutics, Illumina, PharmaMar, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbvie, Foundation Medicine, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, and Merck); travel and expenses (AstraZeneca, Genzyme, Intuitive Surgical, Purdue Pharma, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Sysmex, EMD Serono, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbvie, Foundation Medicine, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, and Merck). Bob T. Li: Uncompensated advisor and consultant (Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bolt Biotherapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, and Lilly); research grants, institution (Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bolt Biotherapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Hengrui USA, and Lilly); academic travel support (Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and MORE Health); inventor on two institutional patents at MSK (US62/685,057 and US62/514,661); intellectual property rights as a book author at Karger Publishers and Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press. Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate The institutional review boards of all participating sites approved the study, all patients provided written informed consent, and the study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Consent to Publish Not applicable. Availability of Data and Material Data underlying the findings described in this manuscript may be obtained in accordance with AstraZeneca’s data sharing policy described at https://astrazenecagrouptrials.pharmacm.com/ST/Submission/Disclosure. Data for studies directly listed on Vivli can be requested through Vivli at www.vivli.org. Data for studies not listed on Vivli could be requested through Vivli at https://vivli.org/members/enquiries-about-studies-not-listed-on-the-vivli-platform/. AstraZeneca Vivli member page is also available outlining further details: https://vivli.org/ourmember/astrazeneca/. Code Availability Not applicable. Author Contributions Writing – original draft; writing – review and editing: E.P. Hamilton, G.S. Falchook, J.S. Wang, S. Fu, A.M. Oza, E.R. Imedio, S. Kumar, L. Ottesen, G.M. Mugundu, E. de Bruin, M. J. O’Connor, S.F. Jones, D.R. Spigel, and B.T. Li. Investigation: E.P. Hamilton, G.S. Falchook, J.S. Wang, S. Fu, A.M. Oza, and B.T. Li. Methodology: E.R. Imedio, S. Kumar, G.M. Mugundu, S.F. Jones, and D.R. Spigel. Conceptualization: E.R. Imedio, S. Kumar, G.M. Mugundu, M. J. O’Connor, S.F. Jones, and D.R. Spigel. Supervision: E.R. Imedio, S. Kumar, and G.M. Mugundu. Project administration: E.R. Imedio, S. Kumar, and G.M. Mugundu., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: 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 and Methods: 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)., Results: 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., Conclusions: 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., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) harboring pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, olaparib maintenance monotherapy (OMT) is a viable option. Our study aimed to evaluate the impact of different BRCA1/2 PV in survival outcomes and safety of OMT in BRCA1/2-mutated PSROC patients, focusing on the type and location of PV., Methods: We assessed the outcomes of 100 BRCA1/2-mutated PSROC patients treated at our institute, analyzing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Germline and tumor BRCA1/2 genotyping was conducted using Illumina's next-generation sequencing (NGS)., Results: PFS and OS were significantly shorter in PSROC patients with PV in BRCA1 compared to those with PV in BRCA2 (PFS:14.0 vs. 38.8 months, p = 0.007, OS: 21.8 vs. 62.0 months, p = 0.011). Notably, there was a significant difference in PFS based on the intragenic location of BRCA1 PV, with shorter PFS in patients with 1st/2nd relapse, harboring PV in BRCA1 RING domain compared to those with PV in the DNA binding domain (DBD) and BRCT domains (12.4 vs. 23.0 months, p = 0.046). No differences in PFS and OS were observed between patients with germline versus somatic BRCA1/2 PV (PFS:14.9 vs.19.3, p = 0.316, OS: not reached vs. 25.8 months; p = 0.224). However, there were significant differences in the reasons for OMT discontinuation between patients with germline and somatic BRCA1/2 PV, primarily due to adverse side effects., Conclusions: In summary, the type and location of BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV provide additional insight into the expected survival outcomes of olaparib MT in PSROC patients., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN42408038, Name of registry: ISRCTN registry, Date of registration: 24/11/2015., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite recent advances in treatment, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) continues to have a high mortality rate. Currently, NSCLC pathogenesis requires further investigation, and therapeutic drugs are still under development. Homologous recombination repair (HRR) repairs severe DNA double-strand breaks. Homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD) occurs when HRR is impaired and causes irreparable double-strand DNA damage, leading to genomic instability and increasing the risk of cancer development. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors can effectively treat HRD-positive tumors. Extracellular heat shock protein 90α (eHSP90α) is highly expressed in hypoxic environments and inhibits apoptosis, thereby increasing cellular tolerance. Here, we investigated the relationship between eHSP90α and HRR in NSCLC. DNA damage models were established in NSCLC cell lines (A549 and H1299). The activation of DNA damage and HRR markers, apoptosis, proliferation, and migration were investigated. In vivo tumor models were established using BALB/c nude mice and A549 cells. We found that human recombinant HSP90α stimulation further activated HRR and reduced DNA damage extent; however, eHSP90α monoclonal antibody, 1G6-D7, effectively inhibited HRR. HRR inhibition and increased apoptosis were observed after LRP1 knockdown; this effect could not be reversed with hrHSP90α addition. The combined use of 1G6-D7 and olaparib caused significant apoptosis and HRR inhibition in vitro and demonstrated promising anti-tumor effects in vivo. Extracellular HSP90α may be involved in HRR in NSCLC through LRP1. The combined use of 1G6-D7 and PARP inhibitors may exert anti-tumor effects by inhibiting DNA repair and further inducing apoptosis of NSCLC cells., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Current clinical trial data on PARP inhibitors (PARPis)-related acute renal failure (ARF) are not entirely representative of real-world situations. Therefore, in this study, the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) was used to evaluate PARPis-related ARF., Research Design and Methods: Data were obtained from 1 January 2015, to 30 September 2023. ARF event reports were analyzed based on four algorithms. The time-to-onset (TTO) and clinical outcomes of PARPis-associated ARF were assessed., Results: The total included cases were 2726. Significant signals were observed for olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib (reporting odds ratio (ROR): 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.49-1.78, 1.25, 95% CI: 1.19-1.32 and 1.59, 95% CI: 1.47-1.72 respectively). The median TTO of ARF onset was 57, 36, and 85 days for olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib, respectively. The proportion of deaths with olaparib (9.88%) was significantly higher than for niraparib (2.52%) and rucaparib (2.94%) ( p  < 0.005). The proportion of life-threatening adverse events associated with niraparib (4.89%) was significantly higher than for rucaparib (0.98%) ( p  < 0.005)., Conclusions: ARF and PARPi were related, with the exception of talazoparib. More emphasis should be given to PARPis-related ARF due to the high proportion of serious AEs and delayed adverse reactions.

Introduction: Prostate cancer has entered the era of precision medicine with the introduction of PARP inhibitors for patients with specific mutations in genes associated with DNA damage repair. Recent studies have shown benefit in combination therapy with PARP inhibitors like olaparib and antiandrogens like abiraterone., Areas Covered: This review discusses the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of olaparib as well as the data supporting combination therapy with olaparib and abiraterone., Expert Opinion: Co-targeting the androgen receptor and PARP pathway has shown clear clinical benefit in the management of patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer and mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, and ATM. The benefit in patients without these mutations is less clear, and the benefit of olaparib combination therapy in the management of hormone sensitive disease remains to be seen.

Objectives: 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)., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: 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., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Mitchell R. Kamrava reports receiving book royalties from Springer, serving on data safety and monitoring boards for Alessa and GT Medical Technologies, and receiving consulting fees from Theragenics and Pfizer. Antonio Gonzalez-Martin reports support from GSK; grants from Roche and TESARO; consulting fees from Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Genmab, ImmunoGen, Novartis, Pfizer/Merck, Roche, Sutro, Amgen, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar and Sotio; payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche and GSK; and travel support from AstraZeneca, Roche, Pharmamar and GSK. Bhavana Pothuri reports institutional grant support from AstraZeneca, Celsion, Clovis Oncology, Duality Bio, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Karyopharm, Merck, Mersana, Seagen, Sutro Biopharma, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Tesaro/GSK, Toray, and VBL Therapeutics; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BioNtech, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GOG Foundation, Lily, Merck, Mersana, Seagen, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro/GSK, Onconova, and Toray; and travel support from GSK and BioNtech. Ignace Vergote reports consulting fees from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Karyopharm, Mersana, MSD, Molecular Partners, Novocure, Novartis, Oncoinvent, Regeneron, Seagen, Verastem Oncology, Zai Lab, and Zentalis. Whitney Graybill reports institutional research support from NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA008748) and support grants from ArsenalBio, AstraZeneca/Merck, Atara Biotherapeutics/Bayer, Genentech, Genmab, GSK, Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) Foundation, Juno Therapeutics, Kite/Gilead, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Lyell Therapeutics, OnCusp Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sellas Life Sciences, Stemcentrx, Syndax, TapImmune, and TCR2 Therapeutics; participation on advisory boards for Bayer, Carina Biotech, Immunogen, Miltenyi, Loxo, Regeneron, R-Pharm, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro/GSK; personal fees from GOG Foundation; travel fees from Hitech Health; and service as a noncompensated steering committee member for the DUO-O (olaparib) and PRIMA and Moonstone (niraparib) studies. Colleen McCormick reports participation on advisory boards for GSK, Merck, Immunogen and Clovis. Domenica Lorusso reports medical writing support from Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar; institutional funding for work in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Novartis, PharmaMar, Roche, and Seagen; consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, PharmaMar, and Seagen; payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, and PharmaMar; travel for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, PharmaMar, and Roche; participation on Data Safety Monitoring Boards or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Merck Serono, MSD, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Seagen, and Sutro; and is a member of the board of directors for GCIG (no compensation). Gilles Freyer reports consulting fees and payment/honoraria from GSK. David M. O'Malley reports grants from Ajinomoto, BMS, Cerulean Pharma, GOG Foundation, INC Research, InVentiv Health Clinical, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Ludwig Cancer Research, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, PRA International, Serono, Stemcentrx, Tracon Pharmaceuticals, and Yale University; has been a consultant/advisory board member for AbbVie, Ambry, Amgen, Array Biopharma, Clovis, EMD Serono, Ergomed, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Myriad Genetics, Novocure, Regeneron, Tarveda, and VentiRx; was a member of a steering committee for Genentech/Roche and Merck; and received personal fees from Agenus, Eisai, GSK and Immunogen. Whitney York is an employee of GSK. Izabela A. Malinowska is an employee of GSK. Bradley J. Monk reports consulting fees from Agenus, Akeso Biopharma, Amgen, Aravive, Bayer, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Iovance, Karyopharm, Macrogenics, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Sorrento, US Oncology Research, and VBL; and payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Merck, Roche/Genentech and Tesaro/GSK., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of olaparib plus trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC) and germinal BRCA mutations (gBRCAm)., Methods: OPHELIA (NCT03931551) was a single-arm, open-label, phase 2 clinical trial. Patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with HER2-positive ABC with germinal deleterious mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 who had received at least one prior systemic regimen for advanced disease were enrolled. Patients received olaparib plus trastuzumab until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed clinical benefit rate for at least 24 weeks as per RECIST v.1.1. Key secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR) and safety profile., Results: A total of 68 pre-treated HER2-positive ABC patients were screened. Due to slow accrual the trial was stopped after enrolling 5 patients instead of the planned sample size of 20. Four patients achieved clinical benefit (80.0 %, 95 % CI; 28.4-99.5, p < 0.001) and the primary endpoint was met. The ORR was 60.0 % (95 % CI; 14.7-94.7), including one complete response. Four (80.0 %) patients experienced at least one treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Most TEAEs were grade 1 or 2. There were no treatment-related deaths and no new safety signals were identified., Conclusions: This study suggests that the combination of olaparib plus trastuzumab may be effective and safe in pre-treated patients with HER2-positive gBRCAm ABC. This ABC patient population should be further studied and not be pre-emptively excluded from clinical trials of targeted therapy for BRCA1/2-driven cancers., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest J.E.A.M. reports receiving travel compensation from AstraZeneca, Roche; and research grants from AstraZeneca. J.B. has participated as invited speaker for AstraZeneca; has institutional, personal and financial interests in AstraZeneca; has institutional and other financial interests in AstraZeneca-MSD; has been involved in educational programs for AstraZeneca-MSD, declares participation in steering committees for AstraZeneca; reports institutional and financial interests in MEDSIR; and declares being a local principal investigator at MEDSIR. J.A.G.S. declares consultative and advisory services for Seagen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Novaris, Gilead, Menarini; consultancy/speaker fees from Celgene, Eli Lilly, EISAI, MSD, Exact Sciences, Tecnofarma, Nolver (Adium), Asofarma, Roche; institution and research funding from AstraZeneca; and travel support from Gilead, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo. I.P. reports receiving honoraria from MSD, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gildead; and consultancy or advisory role for AstraZeneca. M.F.A. declares speakers' bureaus from Daiichi-AstraZeneca, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai; expert testimony for Lilly; and receiving travel expenses from Roche, Novartis. B.B. reports receiving fees for medical education as consulting or advisory role with MSD, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Seagen; and speakers' bureau with Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Palex, Eisai, Daichii, Astra Zeneca, Seagen. M.H.L.C. reports speaker honoraria from Daichii, Novartis & Pierre Fabre; and travel and training grants from Roche, Pfizer, MSD & Novartis. J.P.E. is a full-time employee at MEDSIR. L.C. is a full-time employee at MEDSIR. M.S.C. reports participating in an advisory board for Optimapharm, Ability Pharma, and MD Anderson; and is a full-time employee at MEDSIR. J.M.P.G. declares having a consulting or advisory role for Lilly, Roche, Eisai, Daichii Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, MSD; travel compensation from Roche; and employment at MEDSIR. J.C. reports serving as a consultant/advisor Roche, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Merck Sharp&Dohme, Leuko, Bioasis, Clovis Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses, Hibercell, BioInvent, Gemoab, Gilead, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal Genomics, Scorpion Therapeutics, Expres2ion Biotechnologies, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, BridgeBio; receiving honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, Pfizer, Lilly, Merck Sharp&Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo, Astrazeneca, Gilead, Steamline Therapeutics; research funding to the Institution from Roche, Ariad pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Baxalta GMBH/Servier Affaires, Bayer healthcare, Eisai, F.Hoffman-La Roche, Guardanth health, Merck Sharp&Dohme, Pfizer, Piqur Therapeutics, Iqvia, Queen Mary University of London; stock of MEDSIR, MAJ3 Capital, Leuko (relative); travel, accommodation, expenses from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Astrazeneca, Gilead, Merck Sharp&Dhome, Steamline Therapeutics; and patents: (1) Pharmaceutical Combinations of A Pi3k Inhibitor And A Microtubule Destabilizing Agent.Javier Cortés Castán, Alejandro Piris Giménez, Violeta Serra Elizalde. WO 2014/199294 A. ISSUED. (2) Her2 as a predictor of response to dual HER2 blockade in the absence of cytotoxic therapy.Aleix Prat, Antonio Llombart, Javier Cortés.US 2019/0338368 A1. LICENSED A.L.C. reports receiving research support from Roche, Agendia, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Gilead, and Daichii-Sanyo; consulting or advisory role for Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speakers’ bureaus from Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme; travel support from Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca; and stock or other ownership of MEDSIR and Initia-Research. P.S.R., F.J.S.B., S.M., A.L.M., N.F., P.Z., T.D.R., and M.G. declare that they have not conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Deleterious germline/somatic homologous recombination repair mutations (HRRm) are present in ∼25% of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Preclinically, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition demonstrated synergism with androgen receptor pathway (ARP)-targeted therapy. This trial evaluated the efficacy of ARP inhibitor versus PARP inhibitor versus their combination as first-line therapy in patients with mCRPC with HRRms., Patients and Methods: BRCAAway is a biomarker preselected, randomized, phase 2 trial. Patients with BRCA1/2 and/or ATM alterations were randomized 1:1:1 to Arm1: abiraterone (1,000 mg)/prednisone (5 mg BID) (Abi/pred), Arm2: olaparib (300 mg BID) (Ola), or Arm3: abiraterone/prednisone + olaparib (Abi/pred + Ola). Single-agent arms could cross over at progression. Exploratory Arm4 patients with other HRRms received olaparib alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoints were objective response, PSA response, and safety., Results: Sixty-one of 165 eligible patients had BRCA1/2 or ATM mutations: median age: 67 (IQR, 62-73) years. Mutations: BRCA1 n = 3, BRCA2 n = 46, ATM n = 11, and multiple n = 1; 33 germline and 28 somatic mutations. Median PFS [95% confidence interval (CI)]: Abi/pred, 8.6 months (m; 2.9, 17), Ola, 14 m (8.4, 20), and Abi/pred + Ola, 39 m [22, not reached (NR)]. There were no G4/5 adverse events; 8/19 patients on Abi/pred treatment crossed over to Ola, and 8/21 vice versa. Median PFS (95% CI) from crossover: Ola-after-Abi/pred, 8.3 m (5.5, 15) and Abi/pred-after-Ola, 7.2 m (2.8, NR). Median PFS (95% CI) from randomization: Ola-after-Abi/pred, 16 m (7.8, 25) and Abi/pred-after-Ola, 16 m (11, NR). Seventeen of 165 patients with other HRRms received olaparib: median PFS (95% CI): 5.5 m (2, 11)., Conclusions: In patients with mCRPC with BRCA1/2 or ATM HRRm, Abi/pred + Ola was well tolerated and demonstrated longer PFS versus either agent alone or sequentially., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

This study aims to enhance the solubility of Olaparib, classified as biopharmaceutical classification system (BCS) class IV due to its low solubility and bioavailability using a solid self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system (S-SNEDDS). For this purpose, SNEDDS formulations were created using Capmul MCM as the oil, Tween 80 as the surfactant, and PEG 400 as the co-surfactant. The SNEDDS formulation containing olaparib (OLS-352), selected as the optimal formulation, showed a mean droplet size of 87.0 ± 0.4 nm and drug content of 5.53 ± 0.09%. OLS-352 also demonstrated anticancer activity against commonly studied ovarian (SK-OV-3) and breast (MCF-7) cancer cell lines. Aerosil® 200 and polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) K30 were selected as solid carriers, and S-SNEDDS formulations were prepared using the spray drying method. The drug concentration in S-SNEDDS showed no significant changes (98.4 ± 0.30%, 25℃) with temperature fluctuations during the 4-week period, demonstrating improved storage stability compared to liquid SNEDDS (L-SNEDDS). Dissolution tests under simulated gastric and intestinal conditions revealed enhanced drug release profiles compared to those of the raw drug. Additionally, the S-SNEDDS formulation showed a fourfold greater absorption in the Caco-2 assay than the raw drug, suggesting that S-SNEDDS could improve the oral bioavailability of poorly soluble drugs like olaparib, thus enhancing therapeutic outcomes. Furthermore, this study holds significance in crafting a potent and cost-effective pharmaceutical formulation tailored for the oral delivery of poorly soluble drugs., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists.)

Background: About one-quarter of patients with advanced prostate cancer have alterations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes. In a global phase 3 study, talazoparib plus enzalutamide significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with HRR-deficient metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)., Objectives: This article reviews the role of oncology nurses and advanced practice providers (APPs) in administering talazoparib plus enzalutamide in patients with mCRPC., Methods: This review and hypothetical case study illustrate the role of oncology nurses and APPs in the administration of talazoparib plus enzalutamide and the management of adverse events to ensure safe and effective use in clinical practice., Findings: Oncology nurses and APPs play an important role in the dosing and administration of talazoparib plus enzalutamide and can recognize and manage adverse events in patients with HRR-deficient mCRPC.

Purpose: The phase II, multiarm, signal-searching BALTIC study (NCT02937818) assessed novel treatment combinations for platinum-refractory/resistant extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC)., Patients and Methods: Patients with ES-SCLC with progressive disease during or within 90 days of completing first-line platinum-based chemotherapy received one of three regimens: durvalumab plus tremelimumab followed by durvalumab monotherapy (arm A), adavosertib plus carboplatin (arm B), or ceralasertib plus olaparib (arm C). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate. Prespecified exploratory biomarker analyses were conducted in arms A and C., Results: In arm A (n = 41), arm B (n = 10), and arm C (n = 21), the confirmed objective response rates were 7.3%, 0%, and 4.8%, respectively. Safety profiles in all arms were consistent with those of the individual drugs. In arm A, patients with PD-L1 expression (tumor cells or immune cells) ≥1% seemed to have a greater likelihood of achieving disease control with durvalumab plus tremelimumab than those with PD-L1 (tumor cells and immune cells) <1%, and lower baseline ctDNA and reduction in the on-treatment ctDNA level were both associated with longer overall survival. Among patients treated with ceralasertib plus olaparib in arm C, specific immune response-relevant circulating chemokines and cytokines were identified as early biomarkers of survival and pharmacodynamic biomarkers., Conclusions: In BALTIC, all combination regimens demonstrated tolerable safety profiles, but antitumor activity was limited in refractory/resistant ES-SCLC. Among patients treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab, an association of on-treatment reduction in ctDNA with longer overall survival suggests the potential use of ctDNA as a surrogate of treatment response, warranting further investigation., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: The use of immunotherapy in mismatch repair proficient colorectal cancer (pMMR-CRC) or pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with limited efficacy. DAPPER (NCT03851614) is a phase 2, basket study randomizing patients with pMMR CRC or PDAC to durvalumab with olaparib (durvalumab + olaparib) or durvalumab with cediranib (durvalumab + cediranib)., Methods: PDAC or pMMR-CRC patients were randomized to either durvalumab+olaparib (arm A), or durvalumab + cediranib (arm B). Co-primary endpoints included pharmacodynamic immune changes in the tumor microenvironment (TME) and safety. Objective response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined. Paired tumor samples were analyzed by multiplexed immunohistochemistry and RNA-sequencing., Results: A total of 31 metastatic pMMR-CRC patients were randomized to arm A (n = 16) or B (n = 15). In 28 evaluable patients, 3 patients had stable disease (SD) (2 patients treated with durvalumab + olaparib and 1 patient treated with durvalumab + cediranib) while 25 had progressive disease (PD). Among patients with PDAC (n = 19), 9 patients were randomized to arm A and 10 patients were randomized to arm B. In 18 evaluable patients, 1 patient had a partial response (unconfirmed) with durvalumab + cediranib, 1 patient had SD with durvalumab + olaparib while 16 had PD. Safety profile was manageable and no grade 4-5 treatment-related adverse events were observed in either arm A or B. No significant changes were observed for CD3+/CD8+ immune infiltration in on-treatment biopsies as compared to baseline for pMMR-CRC and PDAC independent of treatment arms. Increased tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes at baseline, low baseline CD68+ cells and different immune gene expression signatures at baseline were associated with outcomes., Conclusions: In patients with pMMR-CRC or PDAC, durvalumab + olaparib and durvalumab + cediranib showed limited antitumor activity. Different immune components of the TME were associated with treatment outcomes., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Talazoparib monotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated, early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) showed activity in the neoadjuvant setting in the phase II NEOTALA study (NCT03499353). These biomarker analyses further assessed the mutational landscape of the patients enrolled in the NEOTALA study., Methods: Baseline tumor tissue from the NEOTALA study was tested retrospectively using FoundationOne ® CDx. To further hypothesis-driven correlative analyses, agnostic heat-map visualizations of the FoundationOne ® CDx tumor dataset were used to assess overall mutational landscape and identify additional candidate predictive biomarkers of response., Results: All patients enrolled (N = 61) had TNBC. In the biomarker analysis population, 75.0% (39/52) and 25.0% (13/52) of patients exhibited BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, respectively. Strong concordance (97.8%) was observed between tumor BRCA and germline BRCA mutations, and 90.5% (38/42) of patients with tumor BRCA mutations evaluable for somatic-germline-zygosity were predicted to exhibit BRCA loss of heterozygosity (LOH). No patients had non-BRCA germline DNA damage response (DDR) gene variants with known/likely pathogenicity, based on a panel of 14 non-BRCA DDR genes. Ninety-eight percent of patients had TP53 mutations. Genomic LOH, assessed continuously or categorically, was not associated with response., Conclusion: The results from this exploratory biomarker analysis support the central role of BRCA and TP53 mutations in tumor pathobiology. Furthermore, these data support assessing germline BRCA mutational status for molecular eligibility for talazoparib in patients with TNBC., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Although overall survival data are still premature, the PROpel study found radiological progression-free survival (PFS) benefits of abiraterone and olaparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, for patients who have not been genetically tested or lack BRCA1/2 mutations (BRCAm), this combination therapy has been questioned as a first-line conventional treatment for mCRPC, mainly due to significant health economics and side effects. In our retrospective study, we found that treatment with low-dose abiraterone plus olaparib as a late-line treatment for mCRPC could lead to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and symptom PFS in selective cases even without BRCAm. The median PSA-PFS was 8 months (IQR: 6.5-11.5), with a median follow-up duration of 39.0 months (IQR: 27.5-64.5). Gene tests were conducted in all patients, identifying non-BRCA mutations through ctDNA testing (24%), tumor tissue testing (12%), or both (64%). Adverse events occurred in 72% of patients, with 16% experiencing Grade ≥ 3 events. Common adverse events included anemia (64%), decreased appetite (48%), and fatigue (25%). Our findings support low-dose abiraterone plus olaparib as a potential option for mCRPC patients without BRCAm, offering manageable safety and efficacy profiles., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality rate and lowest survival rate among female reproductive system malignancies. There are treatment options of surgery and chemotherapy, but both are limited. In this study, we developed and evaluated micelles composed of D-α-tocopheryl polyethylene-glycol (PEG) 1000 succinate (TPGS) and Soluplus ® (SOL) loaded with olaparib (OLA), a poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, and rapamycin (RAPA), a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor in ovarian cancer., Methods: We prepared micelles containing different molar ratios of OLA and RAPA embedded in different weight ratios of TPGS and SOL (OLA/RAPA-TPGS/SOL) were prepared and physicochemical characterized. Furthermore, we performed in vitro cytotoxicity experiments of OLA, RAPA, and OLA/RAPA-TPGS/SOL. In vivo toxicity and antitumor efficacy assays were also performed to assess the efficacy of the mixed micellar system., Results: OLA/RAPA-TPGS/SOL containing a 4:1 TPGS:SOL weight ratio and a 2:3 OLA:RAPA molar ratio showed synergistic effects and were optimized. The drug encapsulation efficiency of this formulation was >65%, and the physicochemical properties were sustained for 180 days. Moreover, the formulation had a high cell uptake rate and significantly inhibited cell migration (** p < 0.01). In the in vivo toxicity test, no toxicity was observed, with the exception of the high dose group. Furthermore, OLA/RAPA-TPGS/SOL markedly inhibited tumor spheroid and tumor growth in vivo., Conclusion: Compared to the control, OLA/RAPA-TPGS/SOL showed significant tumor inhibition. These findings lay a foundation for the use of TPGS/SOL mixed micelles loaded with OLA and RAPA in the treatment of ovarian cancer., Competing Interests: Professor Dae Hwan Shin reports a pending patent “TPGS/Soluplus Micelles containing olaparib and rapamycin, and uses thereof”. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2024 Shin et al.)

The present study aimed to clarify the hypothesis that auger emitter 125 I particles in combination with PARP inhibitor Olaparib could inhibit pancreatic cancer progression by promoting antitumor immune response. Pancreatic cancer cell line (Panc02) and mice subcutaneously inoculated with Panc02 cells were employed for the in vitro and in vivo experiments, respectively, followed by 125 I and Olaparib administrations. The apoptosis and CRT exposure of Panc02 cells were detected using flow cytometry assay. QRT-PCR, immunofluorescence, immunohistochemical analysis, and western blot were employed to examine mRNA and protein expression. Experimental results showed that 125 I combined with Olaparib induced immunogenic cell death and affected antigen presentation in pancreatic cancer. 125 I in combination with Olaparib influenced T cells and dendritic cells by up-regulating CD4, CD8, CD69, Caspase3, CD86, granzyme B, CD80, and type I interferon (IFN)-γ and down-regulating Ki67 in vivo. The combination also activated the cyclic GMP-AMP synthase stimulator of IFN genes (Sting) pathway in Panc02 cells. Moreover, Sting knockdown alleviated the effect of the combination of 125 I and Olaparib on pancreatic cancer progression. In summary, 125 I in combination with Olaparib inhibited pancreatic cancer progression through promoting antitumor immune responses, which may provide a potential treatment for pancreatic cancer., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: To estimate the annual percentage of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) who could be eligible for and benefit from PARP inhibitor therapy amidst changing US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications., Methods: This is a simulated retrospective observational study using publicly available data on patients with advanced-stage EOC. PARPi eligibility is based on FDA approvals and withdrawals from 2014 through 2023, along with published demographic and genomic data. Clinical trial data is used to estimate treatment benefit. PARPi including olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib are analyzed in aggregate with sub-analyses by molecular classification and treatment timing. Results are reported as the percentage of EOC patients appropriate for any cancer-directed therapy., Results: PARPi were approved for 9 different indications in EOC between 2014 and 2021; reduced to 6 indications by 2023. Eligibility increased from 2.0% (95% CI,1.3%-1.6%) in 2014 to a maximum of 93.4% (95% CI,90.1%-94.6%) in 2021. The maximum percentage of patients with 2-year PFS benefit was 22.0% (95% CI, 17.2%-26.8%) in 2021, projected to decrease to 13.0% (95% CI, 9.9%-15.9%) in 2024. Most of this decrease was seen in the homologous recombination deficient, BRCA wild-type population (8.4% to 4.0%)., Conclusions: PARPi eligibility increased at a greater rate than benefit resulting in a low population-level benefit-to-eligibility ratio until 2021. Recent FDA withdrawals improved this ratio with an accompanied decrease in the absolute number of patients benefiting. To further optimize population-level benefit-to-eligibility ratio of targeted therapies in ovarian cancer, we need to identify better biomarkers, treatment combinations, and novel therapeutic targets., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have declared no conflicts of interest. The following are the supplementary data related to this article. Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.05.014., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Combination cediranib/olaparib has reported activity in relapsed ovarian cancer. This phase 2 trial investigated the activity of cediranib/olaparib in relapsed ovarian cancer and its association with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)., Methods: Seventy patients were enrolled to cohorts of either platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer and received olaparib tablets 200 mg twice daily and cediranib tablets 30 mg once daily under a continuous dosing schedule. HRD testing was performed on pre-treatment, on-treatment and archival biopsies by sequencing key homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes and by genomic LOH analysis. The primary objective for the platinum-sensitive cohort was the association of HRD, defined as presence of HRR gene mutation, with progression-free survival (PFS). The primary objective for the platinum-resistant cohort was objective response rate (ORR), with a key secondary endpoint evaluating the association of HRD status with activity., Results: In platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (N = 35), ORR was 77.1% (95% CI 59.9-89.6%) and median PFS was 16.4 months (95% CI 13.2-18.6). Median PFS in platinum-sensitive HRR-HRD cancers (N = 22) was 16.8 months (95% CI 11.3-18.6), and 16.4 months (95% CI 9.4-NA) in HRR-HR proficient cancers (N = 13; p = 0.57). In platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (N = 35), ORR was 22.9% (95% CI 10.4-40.1%) with median PFS 6.8 months (95% CI 4.2-9.1). Median PFS in platinum-resistant HRR-HRD cancers (N = 7) was 10.5 months (95% CI 3.6-NA) and 5.6 months (95% CI 3.6-7.6) in HRR-HR proficient cancers (N = 18; p = 0.23)., Conclusions: Cediranib/olaparib had clinical activity in both platinum-sensitive and -resistant ovarian cancer. Presence of HRR gene mutations was not associated with cediranib/olaparib activity in either setting., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are a novel option to treat patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Niraparib plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) is indicated for BRCA1/2 mutation-positive mCRPC. Niraparib plus AAP demonstrated safety and efficacy in the phase 3 MAGNITUDE trial (NCT03748641). In the absence of head-to-head studies comparing PARPi regimens, the feasibility of conducting indirect treatment comparisons (ITC) to inform decisions for patients with first-line BRCA1/2 mutation-positive mCRPC has been explored., Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify evidence from randomized controlled trials on relevant comparators to inform the feasibility of conducting ITCs via network meta-analysis (NMA) or population-adjusted indirect comparisons (PAIC). Feasibility was assessed based on network connectivity, data availability in the BRCA1/2 mutation-positive population, and degree of within- and between-study heterogeneity or bias., Results: NMAs between niraparib plus AAP and other PARPi regimens (olaparib monotherapy, olaparib plus AAP, and talazoparib plus enzalutamide) were inappropriate due to the disconnected network, differences in trial populations related to effect modifiers, or imbalances within BRCA1/2 mutation-positive subgroups. The latter issue, coupled with the lack of a common comparator (except for olaparib plus AAP), also rendered anchored PAICs infeasible. Unanchored PAICs were either inappropriate due to lack of population overlap (vs. olaparib monotherapy) or were restricted by unmeasured confounders and small sample size (vs. olaparib plus AAP). PAIC versus talazoparib plus enzalutamide was not possible due to lack of published arm-level baseline characteristics and sufficient efficacy outcome data in the relevant population., Conclusion: The current randomized controlled trial evidence network does not permit robust comparisons between niraparib plus AAP and other PARPi regimens for patients with 1L BRCA-positive mCRPC. Decision-makers should scrutinize any ITC results in light of their limitations. Real-world evidence combined with clinical experience should inform treatment recommendations in this indication., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) sacituzumab govitecan (SG) comprises the topoisomerase 1 (TOP1) inhibitor (TOP1i) SN-38, coupled to a monoclonal antibody targeting trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (TROP-2). Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition may synergize with TOP1i and SG, but previous studies combining systemic PARP and TOP1 inhibitors failed due to dose-limiting myelosuppression. Here, we assess the proof-of-mechanism and clinical feasibility for SG and talazoparib (TZP) employing an innovative sequential dosing schedule., Patients and Methods: In vitro models tested pharmacodynamic endpoints, and in a phase 1b clinical trial (NCT04039230), 30 patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) received SG and TZP in a concurrent (N = 7) or sequential (N = 23) schedule. Outcome measures included safety, tolerability, preliminary efficacy, and establishment of a recommended phase 2 dose., Results: We hypothesized that tumor-selective delivery of TOP1i via SG would reduce nontumor toxicity and create a temporal window, enabling sequential dosing of SG and PARP inhibition. In vitro, sequential SG followed by TZP delayed TOP1 cleavage complex clearance, increased DNA damage, and promoted apoptosis. In the clinical trial, sequential SG/TZP successfully met primary objectives and demonstrated median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.6 months without dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), while concurrent dosing yielded 2.3 months PFS and multiple DLTs including severe myelosuppression., Conclusions: While SG dosed concurrently with TZP is not tolerated clinically due to an insufficient therapeutic window, sequential dosing of SG followed by TZP proved a viable strategy. These findings support further clinical development of the combination and suggest that ADC-based therapy may facilitate novel, mechanism-based dosing strategies., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: The National Cancer Institute-Children's Oncology Group Pediatric Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) precision oncology platform trial enrolled children aged 1-21 years with treatment-refractory solid tumors and predefined actionable genetic alterations. Patients with tumors harboring alterations in DNA damage repair (DDR) genes were assigned to receive olaparib., Methods: Tumor and blood samples were submitted for centralized molecular testing. Tumor and germline sequencing were conducted in parallel. Olaparib was given twice daily for 28-day cycles starting at a dose 30% lower than the adult recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The primary endpoint was the objective response., Results: Eighteen patients matched (1.5% of those screened) based on the presence of a deleterious gene alteration in BRCA1/2, RAD51C/D, or ATM detected by tumor sequencing without germline subtraction or analysis of loss of heterozygosity (LOH). Eleven (61%) harbored a germline mutation, with only one exhibiting LOH. Six patients enrolled and received the olaparib starting dose of 135 mg/m2/dose. Two participants were fully evaluable; 4 were inevaluable because <85% of the prescribed dose was administered during cycle 1. There were no dose-limiting toxicities or responses. Minimal hematologic toxicity was observed., Conclusion: Most DDR gene alterations detected in Pediatric MATCH were germline, monoallelic, and unlikely to confer homologous recombination deficiency predicting sensitivity to olaparib monotherapy. The study closed due to poor accrual., Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03233204. IRB approved: initial July 24, 2017., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: The randomized, open-label, phase III LYNK-003 study assessed the efficacy of first-line maintenance olaparib, alone or in combination with bevacizumab, versus bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine in participants with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We present results of the prespecified interim futility analysis., Methods: Eligible participants were ≥18 years of age with unresectable or mCRC that had not progressed after induction with first-line bevacizumab plus 5-fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin plus leucovorin (FOLFOX) or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX). Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to olaparib plus bevacizumab, olaparib alone, or bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil or capecitabine). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 by central review., Results: Between August 2020 and May 2022, 309 participants were assigned to olaparib plus bevacizumab (n = 104), olaparib (n = 107), or bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine (n = 98). At interim analysis, with a median follow-up of 7.6 months (range 0.1-19.7 months), the median PFS was 3.7 months (95% CI 2.8-5.3) with olaparib plus bevacizumab (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.02-2.27; P = 0.982) and 3.5 months (95% CI 2.0-3.7) with olaparib (HR 2.11; 95% CI 1.39-3.18; P = 0.999) versus 5.6 months (95% CI 3.8-5.9) with bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 64 (62%), 52 (50%), and 57 (59%) participants, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths., Conclusion: The LYNK-003 study was stopped prematurely as criteria for futility were met. Maintenance olaparib with or without bevacizumab did not demonstrate clinical efficacy compared with bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine., Gov Registration: NCT04456699., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Atsuo Takashima reports grants and payment or honoraria from Lilly, Ono Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharma, Takeda, and Merck Serono. Pilar García Alfonso reports honoraria for speakers’ bureau from, travel support from, and advisory board participation for Amgen, Roche, Merck Serono, MSD, Sanofi-Aventis, Pierre Fabre, and Servier. Matthew Burge reports consulting fees from Servier; payment or honoraria and travel support from MSD; and advisory board participation for BMS, MSD, and AstraZeneca. Takayuki Yoshino reports honoraria from Bayer, Chugai, Merck Biopharma, MSD, Ono, and Takeda; consulting fees from Sumitomo Corporation; and institutional research funding from Amgen, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, FALCO Biosystems, Genomedia Inc., Molecular Health, MSD, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Ono, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, Sysmex, and Taiho. Tae Won Kim reports institutional research funding from Genentech. Karen Cui reports stock or stock options with AstraZeneca. Chenxiang Li reports employment with Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (MSD). Rishi Jain reports employment with Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and stock or stock options with Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. David Adelberg reports employment with Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and stock or stock options with Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. Julien Taieb reports consulting fees and honoraria for speakers’ bureau from Amgen, BMS, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier. Raimundo Manneh, Ali Ayberk Beşen, Yong Sang Hong, Pieter-Jan Cuyle, and Patricio Yanez report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aim: In this study, we aimed to investigate patient characteristics, efficacy, prognostic factors, and safety of olaparib maintenance therapy for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer at our institution., Methods: Patients responding to platinum-based therapy and starting olaparib maintenance therapy for recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer at Kurume University Hospital between January 2018 and November 2021 were enrolled in the study. Their data were extracted retrospectively from medical records., Results: In all, 50 patients were included. The median (range) age of the patients, follow-up time, and duration of olaparib maintenance therapy were 62 (39-87) years, 21.6 (2.2-45.9) months, and 7.2 (2-45.9) months, respectively. Among the 29 patients tested for homologous recombination (HR) status, 22 (75.9%) were positive for HR deficiency (HRD), 12 (54.5%) of whom had BRCA-positive tumors. The median progression-free survival was 8.9 months (95% confidence interval: 6.2-12.6), and the median overall survival was 27.1 months (95% confidence interval: 22.5-40.3). Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors revealed that HRD was an independent prognostic factor for both progression-free survival and overall survival. The most common adverse event was nausea (any grade, n = 30, 60%), resulting in drug interruption (n = 23, 46%), dose reduction (n = 17, 34%), and discontinuation of treatment (n = 1, 2%)., Conclusion: Olaparib maintenance therapy for recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer at our institution was effective, with acceptable adverse events. HRD was the most significant prognostic factor for patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer., (© 2024 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.)

Background: Poly (ADP- ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) has been increasingly adopted for metastatic castration-resistance prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD). However, it is unclear which PARPi is optimal in mCRPC patients with HRD in 2nd -line setting., Method: We conducted a systematic review of trials regarding PARPi- based therapies on mCRPC in 2nd -line setting and performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was assessed as primary outcome. PSA response and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed according to specific genetic mutation., Results: Four RCTs comprised of 1024 patients (763 harbored homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutations) were identified for quantitative analysis. Regarding rPFS, olaparib monotherapy, rucaparib and cediranib plus olaparib showed significant improvement compared with ARAT. Olaparib plus cediranib had the highest surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) scores (87.5%) for rPFS, followed by rucaparib, olaparib and olaparib plus abiraterone acetate prednisone. For patients with BRCA 1/2 mutations, olaparib associated with the highest probability (98.1%) of improved rPFS. For patients with BRCA-2 mutations, olaparib and olaparib plus cediranib had similar efficacy. However, neither olaparib nor rucaparib showed significant superior effectiveness to androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapy (ARAT) in patients with ATM mutations. For safety, olaparib showed significantly lower ≥ 3 AE rate compared with cediranib plus olaparib (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.51, 0.97), while olaparib plus cediranib was associated with the highest risk of all-grade AE., Conclusion: PARPi-based therapy showed considerable efficacy for mCRPC patients with HRD in 2nd -line setting. However, patients should be treated accordingly based on their genetic background as well as the efficacy and safety of the selected regimen., Trial Registration: CRD42023454079., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors as maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy have improved progression-free survival in women with advanced ovarian cancer; however, not all PARP inhibitors can provide benefit for a biomarker-unselected population. Senaparib is a PARP inhibitor that demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with solid tumors, including ovarian cancer, in phase 1 studies. The multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 trial FLAMES randomized (2:1) 404 females with advanced ovarian cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III-IV) and response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy to senaparib 100 mg (n = 271) or placebo (n = 133) orally once daily for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review. At the prespecified interim analysis, the median progression-free survival was not reached with senaparib and was 13.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.58; P < 0.0001). The benefit with senaparib over placebo was consistent in the subgroups defined by BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation or homologous recombination status. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 179 (66%) and 27 (20%) patients, respectively. Senaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with advanced ovarian cancer after response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, irrespective of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status and with consistent benefits observed between homologous recombination subgroups, and was well tolerated. These results support senaparib as a maintenance treatment for patients with advanced ovarian cancer after a response to first-line chemotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04169997 ., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.)

Background: This phase 1b study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03695380) evaluated regimens combining PARP and MEK inhibition, with or without PD-L1 inhibition, for BRCA wild-type, platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC)., Methods: Patients with PSROC who had received one or two prior treatment lines were treated with 28-day cycles of cobimetinib 60 mg daily (days 1-21) plus niraparib 200 mg daily (days 1-28) with or without atezolizumab 840 mg (days 1 and 15). Stage 1 assessed safety before expansion to stage 2, which randomized patients who had BRCA wild-type PSROC to receive either doublet or triplet therapy, stratified by genome-wide loss of heterozygosity status (<16% vs. ≥16%; FoundationOne CDx assay) and platinum-free interval (≥6 to <12 vs. ≥12 months). Coprimary end points were safety and the investigator-determined objective response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Potential associations between genetic parameters and efficacy were explored, and biomarker profiles of super-responders (complete response or those with progression-free survival [PFS] >15 months) and progressors (disease progression as the best response) were characterized., Results: The ORR in patients who had BRCA wild-type PSROC was 35% (95% confidence interval, 20%-53%) with the doublet regimen (n = 37) and 27% (95% confidence interval, 14%-44%) with the triplet regimen (n = 37), and the median PFS was 6.0 and 7.4 months, respectively. Post-hoc analyses indicated more favorable ORR and PFS in the homologous recombination-deficiency-signature (HRDsig)-positive subgroup than in the HRDsig-negative subgroup. Tolerability was consistent with the known profiles of individual agents. NF1 and MKNK1 mutations were associated with sustained benefit from the doublet and triplet regimens, respectively., Conclusions: Chemotherapy-free doublet and triplet therapy demonstrated encouraging activity, including among patients who had BRCA wild-type, HRDsig-positive or HRDsig-negative PSROC harboring NF1 or MKNK1 mutations., (© 2024 F. Hoffmann‐La Roche. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved talazoparib with enzalutamide for first-line treatment of patients with homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)., Patients and Methods: The approval was based on the HRR gene-mutated (HRRm) population of TALAPRO-2, a randomized, double-blind trial that randomly assigned 1,035 patients with mCRPC to receive enzalutamide with either talazoparib or placebo. Two cohorts enrolled sequentially: an all-comer population (Cohort 1), followed by an HRRm-only population (Cohort 2). The independent primary end points were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) per blinded independent central review (BICR) in Cohort 1 (all-comers) and in the combined HRRm population (all HRRm patients from Cohorts 1 and 2). Overall survival (OS) was a key secondary end point., Results: A statistically significant improvement in rPFS by BICR was demonstrated in both the all-comers cohort and the combined HRRm population, with hazard ratio (HR) of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.78; P < .0001) and 0.45 (95% CI, 0.33 to 0.61; P < .0001), respectively. In an exploratory analysis of the 155 patients with BRCA -mutated ( BRCA m) mCRPC, rPFS HR was 0.20 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.36). In the non-HRRm/unknown stratum of Cohort 1 (n = 636), the rPFS HR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.89). OS was immature., Conclusion: Despite a statistically significant rPFS improvement in the all-comer cohort, FDA did not consider the magnitude of rPFS clinically meaningful in the context of the broad indication, combination treatment, and safety profile. Approval was therefore limited to patients with HRRm mCRPC, for whom there was a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in rPFS and favorable OS results. This represents the first approval for the first-line treatment of patients with HRRm mCRPC.

PARTNER is a prospective, phase II-III, randomized controlled clinical trial that recruited patients with triple-negative breast cancer 1,2 , who were germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 wild type 3 . Here we report the results of the trial. Patients (n = 559) were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive neoadjuvant carboplatin-paclitaxel with or without 150 mg olaparib twice daily, on days 3 to 14, of each of four cycles (gap schedule olaparib, research arm) followed by three cycles of anthracycline-based chemotherapy before surgery. The primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR) 4 , and secondary end points included event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) 5 . pCR was achieved in 51% of patients in the research arm and 52% in the control arm (P = 0.753). Estimated EFS at 36 months in the research and control arms was 80% and 79% (log-rank P > 0.9), respectively; OS was 90% and 87.2% (log-rank P = 0.8), respectively. In patients with pCR, estimated EFS at 36 months was 90%, and in those with non-pCR it was 70% (log-rank P < 0.001), and OS was 96% and 83% (log-rank P < 0.001), respectively. Neoadjuvant olaparib did not improve pCR rates, EFS or OS when added to carboplatin-paclitaxel and anthracycline-based chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer who were germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 wild type. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03150576 ., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Chemotherapy and targeted drugs-induced senescent ovarian cancer cells that accumulate in peritoneal adipose tissue contribute significantly to chronic inflammation, disrupt homeostasis, and may fuel various aspects of cancer progression. However, the pro-senescence effects of chemotherapy and targeted drugs on adipose derived stem cells (ADSCs) within peritoneal adipose tissue remain poorly understood. In this study, we show that the first-line chemotherapy and targeted drugs can induce the cellular senescence of ADSCs in vitro and increase the aging of peritoneal adipose tissue in vivo. These treatments significantly promoted the dysregulation of glucose and lipid metabolism, including insulin resistance and liver lipid accumulation. Our study shows that dasatinib and quercetin, as senolytics, effectively restore glucose homeostasis in mice with ovarian cancer and significantly reduce adipose tissue aging. Importantly, combining these drugs with Carboplatin or Olaparib results in a marked decrease in both peritoneal and adipose tissue metastasis of ovarian cancer cells. Mechanistically, we revealed that there is crosstalk between ovarian cancer cells and senescent ADSCs. The crosstalk increases inflammatory cytokines and chemokines production in ADSCs and notably upregulates chemokine receptors on cancer cells. Collectively, these data indicate that senescent ADSCs induced by chemotherapy and targeted therapy drugs impair adipose tissue function. However, the senolytic drugs dasatinib and quercetin, can significantly ameliorate organ aging and damage induced by these treatments. Notably, dasatinib and quercetin combined with Carboplatin or Olaparib reduced the peritoneal and adipose tissue metastasis of ovarian cancer, ultimately benefiting the mice undergoing chemotherapy and targeted therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflict of interests that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The PAOLA-1 trial confirmed that adding olaparib to bevacizumab significantly increased clinical benefit following response to platinum-based chemotherapy in homologous recombination deficiency-positive ovarian cancer. The objective of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone as maintenance treatment for patients with homologous recombination deficiency-positive advanced ovarian cancer from the Spanish National Health System perspective., Methods: A lifetime partitioned survival model with four health states (progression-free, post-progression 1, post-progression 2, and death) and monthly cycles was developed. Long-term survival, defined as 60 months, was included as a landmark to extrapolate progression-free survival from PAOLA-1. Weibull distribution was selected as the most accurate survival model for progression-free survival extrapolation. Time to second progression and overall survival were extrapolated using parametric survival models. Mortality was obtained from the overall survival and adjusted by Spanish women mortality rates. Health state utilities and utility decrements for adverse events were included. An expert panel validated data and assumptions. Direct costs (in 2021 euros (€)) were obtained from local sources and included drug acquisition and administration, subsequent therapies, monitoring costs, adverse events, and palliative care. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: Compared with bevacizumab alone, olaparib plus bevacizumab increased QALYs and life-years by 2.39 and 2.77, respectively, at an incremental cost of €58 295.31, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €24 371/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that olaparib plus bevacizumab had a 49.5% and 90.3% probability of being cost-effective versus bevacizumab alone at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25 000 and €60 000 per QALY gained, respectively., Conclusion: For patients with homologous recombination deficiency-positive advanced ovarian cancer, olaparib plus bevacizumab is a cost-effective maintenance therapy compared with bevacizumab alone in Spain., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SC is an employee of AstraZeneca. CG and SA are employees of Outcomes’10, an independent consultancy that received fees from AstraZeneca for medical writing. Authors LM, ACCL, PVB, AC, and JAPF report personal fees from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

What Is This Summary About?: This summary describes the results from the TALAPRO-2 research study (also known as a clinical trial). The TALAPRO-2 study tested the combination of two medicines called talazoparib plus enzalutamide. This combination of medicines was used as the first treatment for adult patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The combination of talazoparib plus enzalutamide was compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide., What Is Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer?: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is a type of cancer that starts in the prostate and has spread to other parts of the body. Castration-resistant means that the cancer continues to grow even when testosterone levels in the blood are reduced to very low levels. Taking medicines to lower testosterone levels in the blood is a standard treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer., What Are the Aims of the Talapro-2 Trial?: TALAPRO-2 looked at if combining talazoparib plus enzalutamide would increase the length of time patients lived before their cancer got worse or they died compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide. Researchers looked at how treatment affected the size and number of tumors and the length of time before patients needed to change to a new cancer medicine. Researchers also looked at any side effects patients had during the study., What Are the Key Takeaways?: A total of 805 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer took part in the study. Compared with patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide, the group of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had a 37% reduced risk of their cancer getting worse or dying. Some patients had tumors that at the start of the study could be measured with scans. Sixty-two percent of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had their tumors decrease or shrink to the point that they could no longer be seen on scans versus 44% of patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide. Patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide were more likely to have a longer time before they needed to change to a new cancer medicine. The most common side effects of talazoparib plus enzalutamide were low levels of red blood cells (66% of patients) and neutrophils (36% of patients), and excessive tiredness or exhaustion (34% of patients). Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03395197 (TALAPRO-2) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Purpose: In patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed (PSR) ovarian cancer, olaparib maintenance monotherapy significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo. However, evidence in the Asian population is lacking. This is the first study to evaluate olaparib efficacy and tolerability exclusively in Asian patients with PSR ovarian cancer., Patients and Methods: Considering the limited placebo effect and significant clinical benefit of olaparib in previous trials, and the rapid approval of olaparib in China, this phase III study was designed as an open-label, single-arm trial. Patients with high-grade epithelial PSR ovarian cancer were enrolled from country-wide clinical centers across China and Malaysia. Patients received oral olaparib (300 mg) twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was median PFS (mPFS). Primary analysis of PFS using the Kaplan-Meier method was performed when data reached 60% maturity (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03534453)., Results: Between 2018 and 2020, 225 patients were enrolled, and 224 received olaparib; 35.7% had received ≥3 lines of chemotherapy, 35.3% had achieved complete response to their last line of platinum-based chemotherapy, and 41.1% had a platinum-free interval ≤12 months. At primary data cut-off (December 25, 2020), overall mPFS was 16.1 months; mPFS was 21.2 and 11.0 months in BRCA-mutated and wild-type BRCA subgroups, respectively. Adverse events (AE) occurred in 99.1% of patients (grade ≥3, 48.7%); 9.4% discontinued therapy due to treatment-related AEs., Conclusions: Olaparib maintenance therapy was highly effective and well tolerated in Asian patients with PSR ovarian cancer, regardless of BRCA status. This study highlights the promising efficacy of olaparib in this Asian population. See related commentary by Nicum and Blagden, p. 2201., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Introduction: Despite improvement in progression-free survival with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) as maintenance therapy for ovarian cancer, many patients will eventually progress on therapy. Oligoprogression is uniquely suited to considerations of local consolidation therapy in this setting, but not commonly used in ovarian cancer. In this study we evaluated the proportion of patients on PARPi maintenance who developed limited sites of disease, the location of progression, and their natural history., Methods: From January 2006 to December 2020, natural language processing software (DEEP6AI) was used to identify 58 patients with ovarian cancer treated with PARPi maintenance after complete or partial response after surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy at our institution. Patients were assessed for presence and location of recurrence based on radiologic findings., Results: The median patient age was 65 (IQR 57-71) years. Patients had a median of two lines of chemotherapy prior to starting PARPi. With a median follow-up of 48 (range 12-149) months, 32 (55%) patients had a recurrence on maintenance olaparib and 11 (34%) patients developed oligoprogression (≤3 sites). For the 11 patients with oligoprogression, three patients developed recurrence in one site, five in two sites, and three in three sites. The sites of oligoprogression were pelvic/periaortic nodal (27%), peritoneal (27%), liver (27%), lung/mediastinal (14%), and brain (5%). The median progression-free survival for the entire cohort was 6.0 months (95% CI 4.2 to 7.8); median overall survival was not met. There were no significant differences in overall survival (p=0.81) or progression-free survival (p=0.95) between patients with and without oligoprogression., Conclusions: One-third of patients on PARPi maintenance experienced oligoprogression defined as limited to ≤3 sites. These patients may benefit from local consolidation therapy. A larger dataset is needed to validate these findings to assess if trials investigating local therapy for these patients is of value., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a heterogeneous cancer with high mortality, is resistant to single targeted therapy; thus, combination therapy based on synthetic lethality is a promising therapeutic strategy for HCC. Poly (adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) is the most recognized target for synthetic lethality; however, the therapeutic effect of PARP1 inhibition on HCC is disappointing. Therefore, exploring new synthetic lethal partners for the efficient manipulation of HCC is urgently required. In this study, we identified Src and PARP1 as novel synthetic lethal partners, and the combination therapy produced significant anti-tumor effects without causing obvious side effects. Mechanistically, Src interacted with PARP1 and phosphorylated PARP1 at the Y992 residue, which further mediated resistance to PARP1 inhibition. Overall, this study revealed that Src-mediated PARP1 phosphorylation induced HCC resistance to PARP1 inhibitors and indicated a therapeutic window of the Y992 phosphorylation of PARP1 for HCC patients. Moreover, synthetic lethal therapy by co-targeting PARP1 and Src have the potential to broaden the strategies for HCC and might benefit HCC patients with high Src activation and resistance to PARP1 inhibitors alone., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have activity in homologous recombination (HR) repair-deficient, high-grade serous ovarian cancers (HGSOC). However, even responsive tumors develop PARPi resistance, highlighting the need to delay or prevent the appearance of PARPi resistance. Here, we showed that the ALK kinase inhibitor ceritinib synergizes with PARPis by inhibiting complex I of the mitochondrial electron transport chain, which increases production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and subsequent induction of oxidative DNA damage that is repaired in a PARP-dependent manner. In addition, combined treatment with ceritinib and PARPi synergized in HGSOC cell lines irrespective of HR status, and a combination of ceritinib with the PARPi olaparib induced tumor regression more effectively than olaparib alone in HGSOC patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models. Notably, the ceritinib and olaparib combination was most effective in PDX models with preexisting PARPi sensitivity and was well tolerated. These findings unveil suppression of mitochondrial respiration, accumulation of ROS, and subsequent induction of DNA damage as novel effects of ceritinib. They also suggest that the ceritinib and PARPi combination warrants further investigation as a means to enhance PARPi activity in HGSOC, particularly in tumors with preexisting HR defects. SIGNIFICANCE: The kinase inhibitor ceritinib synergizes with PARPi to induce tumor regression in ovarian cancer models, suggesting that ceritinib combined with PARPi may be an effective strategy for treating ovarian cancer., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Talazoparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase enzyme inhibitor. This open-label, non-randomized, phase 1 study of talazoparib investigated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor activity in Japanese patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors, regardless of mutations in DNA damage repair-related genes, who are resistant to/ineligible for standard therapies., Methods: Patients received talazoparib dosed orally at 0.75 or 1 mg once daily using a modified 3 + 3 dose-escalation scheme. Primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicities during the first cycle of talazoparib., Results: Nine patients (median age 62.0 years) were included: 3 and 6 patients at the 0.75 and 1.0 mg once-daily dose levels, respectively. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported. The most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events (≥2 patients) were anemia, stomatitis, maculopapular rash, platelet count decreased, neutrophil count decreased, and alanine aminotransferase increased. Three patients had grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (anemia, brain metastases [1 patient each], and neutrophil and white blood cell count decreased [same patient]). Two patients temporarily discontinued treatment due to a treatment-emergent adverse event, and 1 patient required a dose reduction for neutrophil count decreased (all at 1 mg once daily). Talazoparib exposure (C max and AUC) after single and multiple dosing was slightly higher proportionally with talazoparib 1 mg than talazoparib 0.75 mg. The overall disease control rate was 44.4%, including 2 patients with stable disease. The recommended phase 2 dose of talazoparib was established as 1 mg once daily., Conclusions: Single-agent talazoparib was well tolerated and had preliminary antitumor activity in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03343054 (November 17, 2017)., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells are sensitive to PARP1 inhibitors in vitro. The combination of Olaparib and radiotherapy for TNBC is currently evaluated in the Phase I RADIOPARP trial. RADIOPARP is a monocentric prospective open-label Phase I dose-escalation trial evaluating the combination of breast radiotherapy and Olaparib in TNBC patients with inflammatory, locoregionally advanced or metastatic disease, or with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Olaparib was orally given at increasing dose levels (50, 100, 150 or 200 mg twice a day [BID]); radiotherapy consisted of 50 Gy to the breast or chest wall with or without lymph node irradiation. Twenty-four TNBC patients were enrolled between September 2017 and November 2019. Olaparib was escalated to 200 mg BID without dose-limiting toxicities. At 1-year follow-up, no treatment-related grade ≥3 toxicity was observed. One patient (4.2%) had persistent grade 2 adverse events (breast pain, fibrosis and deformity). There was no cardiac, pulmonary or digestive toxicity related to treatment. The 1-year follow-up report of the RADIOPARP Phase I trial, evaluating Olaparib associated with breast radiotherapy in TNBC patients, consequently demonstrated an excellent toxicity profile of this combination with few low-grade adverse events., (© 2021 UICC.)

Background: ARID1A (AT-rich interactive domain containing protein 1A) loss-of-function mutations have been reported in gynecological cancers, including rarer subtypes such as clear cell carcinoma. Preclinical studies indicate that ARID1A mutant cancers display sensitivity to ATR inhibition while tumors without ARID1A mutations may be sensitive to Ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3 related (ATR) inhibitors in combination with poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors., Primary Objective: To determine whether the ATR inhibitor, ceralasertib, has clinical activity as a single agent and in combination with the PARP inhibitor, olaparib, in patients with ARID1A 'loss' and 'no loss' clear cell carcinomas and other relapsed gynecological cancers., Study Hypothesis: ARID1A deficient clear cell carcinoma of the ovary or endometrium is sensitive to ATR inhibition, while the combination of ATR and PARP inhibition has activity in other gynecological tumors, irrespective of ARID1A status., Trial Design: ATARI (ENGOT/GYN1/NCRI) is a multicenter, international, proof-of-concept, phase II, parallel cohort trial assessing ceralasertib activity as a single agent and in combination with olaparib in ARID1A stratified gynecological cancers. Patients with relapsed ovarian/endometrial clear cell carcinoma with ARID1A loss will receive ceralasertib monotherapy (cohort 1A). Relapsed ovarian/endometrial clear cell carcinoma patients with no ARID1A loss (cohort 2) or patients with other histological subtypes (endometrioid, carcinosarcoma, cervical) (cohort 3) will receive combination therapy (olaparib/ceralasertib). Treatment will continue until disease progression., Major Inclusion/exclusion Criteria: Patients with histologically confirmed recurrent clear cell (ovarian, endometrial, or endometriosis related), endometrioid (ovarian, endometrial, or endometriosis related), cervical (adenocarcinomas or squamous), or carcinosarcomas (ovarian or endometrial) are eligible. Patients progressing after ≥1 prior platinum with evidence of measurable (RECIST v1.1) radiological disease progression since last systemic anticancer therapy and prior to trial entry are eligible. Previous ATR or PARP inhibitor treatment is not permissible., Primary Endpoint: Best overall objective response rate (RECIST v1.1)., Sample Size: A minimum of 40 and a maximum of 116., Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting Results: Accrual is anticipated to be complete by the second quarter of 2022, with reporting of results by the fourth quarter of 2022. Overall accrual targets and reporting timelines are dependent on individual cohort progression to stage 2., Trial Registration Number: NCT0405269., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SB, NP, CT, AL, SL, and JB report that their institutional departments have received grants from AstraZeneca for costs or consumables to support the research relating to this manuscript. SB reports grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, and GSK outside of this manuscript, and non-financial support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Epsilogen, GSKm Genmab, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD, Merck Serono, Oncxerna, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro, Clovis, and Takeda outside of this manuscript. AL reports grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis, MSD, Biocad, Ability, Merck Serono, Seattle Genetics, GSK, and Zentalis, outside of this manuscript. SL reports grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, Refeneron, Merck, Repare, Eisai, and Movocure outside of this manuscript. CJL reports grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Merck KGaA, Artios, Suncona, Sun Pharma, Gerson Lehrman Group, Vertex, Tano, 3rd Rock, Ono Pharma, and Abingworth outside of this manuscript. CJL also reports stock in Tango, Ovibio, and is a named inventor on patents describing the use of DNA repair inhibitors. JB reports grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Puma Biotechnology, Clovis Oncology, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Roche, and Eli Lilley, outside of this manuscript., (© IGCS and ESGO 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: In the absence of randomised head-to-head trials, we conducted a population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (PA-ITC) of phase III trial data to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of maintenance olaparib and bevacizumab alone and in combination in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation (BRCAm)., Methods: An unanchored PA-ITC was performed on investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) data. Individual patient data from SOLO1 (olaparib versus placebo) and from BRCA-mutated patients in PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 (olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab) were pooled. Each arm of PAOLA-1 was weighted so that key baseline patient characteristics were similar to the SOLO1 cohort. Analyses were performed in patients with complete baseline data. Weighted Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the comparative efficacy of different maintenance therapy strategies, supplemented by weighted Kaplan-Meier analyses., Results: Data from SOLO1 patients (olaparib, n = 254; placebo, n = 126) were compared with data from BRCA-mutated PAOLA-1 patients (olaparib plus bevacizumab, n = 151; placebo plus bevacizumab, n = 71). Adding bevacizumab to olaparib was associated with a numerical improvement in PFS compared with olaparib alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-1.09). Statistically significant improvements in PFS were seen with olaparib alone versus placebo plus bevacizumab (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.30-0.75), olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo (0.23; 0.14-0.34), and placebo plus bevacizumab versus placebo (0.65; 0.43-0.95)., Conclusions: Results of this hypothesis-generating PA-ITC analysis support the use of maintenance olaparib alone or with bevacizumab in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCAm., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Ignace Vergote: reports consulting fees, paid to his institution, from Advaxis, Eisai, MSD Belgium, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Oncoinvent and Sotio; consulting fees, paid to his institution, and travel support from Roche, Genmab, PharmaMar, Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Tesaro and Immunogen; grant support, paid to his institution, from Amgen, Stichting tegen Kanker and Roche; research support from Oncoinvent and Genmab; and travel support from Takeda Oncology. Isabelle Ray-Coquard: reports consulting fees, grant and travel support from AstraZeneca and Roche, consulting fees and travel support from GlaxoSmithKline, consulting fees from Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Mersana Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceutical, Amgen and Chugai Pharmaceutical, grant support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and consulting fees and grant support from Merck Sharp & Dohme. Daniel M. Anderson: reports nothing to disclose. Guilherme Cantuaria: reports nothing to disclose. Nicoletta Colombo: reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, Tesaro, GSK, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Amgen, Novartis, Biocad and Immunogen. Claire Garnier-Tixidre: reports personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Lilly and non-financial support from MSD and Pfizer. Lucy Gilbert: reports consulting fees from GSK, Merck, Eisai, Astra Zeneca and Alkermes, and grant support from Alkermes, Immunogen, AstraZeneca, Esperas Pharma Inc, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Marsan Therapeutics, Roche, Tesaro, Pfizer and Karyopharm Therapeutics. Philipp Harter: reports consulting fees and grant support from AstraZeneca, Roche, Tesaro, and GlaxoSmithKline, consulting fees from Sotio, Zai Lab, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Clovis Oncology and Immunogen, and grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Medac, Genmab, the European Union, Deutsche Krebshilfe and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Robert Hettle: reports full-time employment with AstraZeneca and AstraZeneca stock ownership. Domenica Lorusso: reports consultancy fees from Amgen and PharmaMar; advisory board fees and speaker fees from AstraZeneca; advisory board fees, speaker fees and grant support for academic trials (institutional) from GSK and MSD; speaker fees, grants (institutional) and financial support for trial co-ordination (institutional) from Clovis Oncology; and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Roche and the Gynecological Cancer InterGroup. Johanna Mäenpää: reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, MSD and Orion Pharma; and consulting fees and travel support from Roche and Tesaro/GSK. Christian Marth: reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, Tesaro, GSK, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Amgen, Novartis, Seagen and Biocad. Koji Matsumoto: reports institutional fees for clinical trials from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Eisai, Lilly, ICON, MSD and ONO and personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Kyowa-Kirin, Lilly and Pfizer. Mario Ouwens: reports full-time employment with AstraZeneca and AstraZeneca stock ownership. Andrés Poveda: reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and personal fees from PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis Oncology and Tesaro. Francesco Raspagliesi: reports grants and travel support from Astra Zeneca, MSD, Clovis, Pharmamar, Roche and GSK. Kirsty Rhodes: reports full-time employment with AstraZeneca and AstraZeneca stock ownership. María Jesus Rubio Pérez: reports nothing to disclose. Ronnie Shapira-Frommer: reports advisory board fees from MSD, VBL Therapeutics, Eisai and Clovis Oncology, research grant from MSD; and speaker honoraria from MSD, BMS, Novartis, Roche, Medison, Neopharm and AstraZeneca. Ayumi Shikama: reports nothing to disclose. Magdalena Sikorska: reports nothing to disclose. Kathleen Moore: reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Aravive, Eisai, GSK/Tesaro, Genentech/Roche, Immunogen, Merck, Myriad, Mersana, VBL Therapeutics, Vavotar and Tarveda, outside the submitted work. Paul DiSilvestro: reports personal fees from AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Platinum-resistant, high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) has limited treatment options. Preclinical data suggest that poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related kinase inhibitors (ATRi) are synergistic. CAPRI (NCT03462342) is an investigator-initiated study of olaparib plus ceralasertib in recurrent HGSOC. Herein, we present results from the platinum-resistant cohort., Methods: A Simon 2-stage design was utilized. Platinum-resistant HGSOC patients received ceralasertib 160 mg orally daily, days 1-7 and olaparib 300 mg orally twice daily, days 1-28 of a 28-day cycle until toxicity or progression. Primary endpoints were toxicity and efficacy including objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST. Secondary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The null hypothesis (≤5% ORR) would be rejected if there were ≥ 1 responses in 12 patients., Results: Fourteen PARPi-naïve patients were evaluable for toxicity; 12 were evaluable for response. Three had BRCA1 mutations (1 germline, 2 somatic). Adverse events possibly related to treatment were primarily grade (G) 1/2. G3 toxicities included nausea (14.3%), fatigue (7.1%), anorexia (7.1%), and anemia (7.1%). No objective responses occurred. Best response was stable disease in 9 patients and progressive disease in three. Five patients had a ≥ 20% to <30% reduction in disease burden, including 3 with BRCA1 mutations. Three of 11 patients (27%; 2 with BRCA1 mutations) evaluable by Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup criteria had >50% CA-125 decline, including 2 with CA-125 normalization. Median PFS was 4.2 months overall (90% CI:3.5-8.2) and 8.2 months (3.6 months-not determined) for patients with BRCA1 mutations., Conclusions: Olaparib plus ceralasertib is well-tolerated. No objective responses occurred, though a signal of activity was seen particularly in disease associated with BRCA1. Further evaluation of this combination should include alternate dosing strategies in genomically-selected populations., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest F.S. serves on a scientific advisory board and has received funding for clinical trials from AstraZeneca; R.D. reports personal fees from Repare Therapeutics, advisory role at VOC Health; D.T. reports other from Quantitative Radiology Solutions LLC; E.D. and S. S. are employees and stockholders at AstraZeneca; L.M. reports personal fees from Elucida Oncology, Inc., Sutro Biopharma, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, other from Agenus, Inc.; P.S. reports grants from AstraZeneca; R.B. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Genentech/Roche, Myriad, Agenus, Regeneron, Janssen, Merck, Morphotek, VBL Therapeutics; S.D. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca; S.G. reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and GSK, personal fees from: Immunogen, Sermonix, Elavar Therapeutics, grants from: Abbvie, Pfizer, Rigel, Iovance, Tesaro, Genentech/Roche, PharmaMar., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Diffuse midline gliomas (DMGs), which are malignant, fast-growing and entail a poor prognosis, are a rare subtype of glial tumor. DMGs harboring H3 K27-mutation are a novel entity with a poorer prognosis than the H3 wildtype and are categorized as a grade IV glioma. Histone-mutated DMGs characterized by a midline location occur more commonly in children and less frequently in adults. Considering the DMG treatment is limited, there is an urgent need for effective therapeutic strategies. Olaparib is a poly-adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase inhibitor, which has been reported to inhibit glioma in preclinical and clinical trials. Olaparib plus bevacizumab has been successfully used in ovarian cancer. However, the application of olaparib in DMGs has not been reported yet. Herein, we firstly reported that an adult DMG patient benefited from olaparib combined with bevacizumab and achieved complete remission. The duration of response and overall survival was 8 months and 16 months respectively. This report provides a promising treatment option for patients with DMG., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: We evaluated study outcomes in patients enrolled in Asian regions in the phase III EMBRACA trial of talazoparib vs. chemotherapy., Materials and Methods: Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative germline BRCA1/2-mutated advanced breast cancer who received prior chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to talazoparib 1 mg/day or chemotherapy (physician's choice). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per independent central review in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. This post-hoc analysis evaluated efficacy/safety endpoints in the ITT population of patients enrolled in Asian regions., Results: Thirty-three patients were enrolled at Asian sites (talazoparib, n=23; chemotherapy, n=10). Baseline characteristics were generally comparable with the overall EMBRACA population. In Asian patients, median PFS was 9.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0 to 15.2) for talazoparib and 7.1 months (95% CI, 1.2 to not reached) for chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.22 to 2.44]). Objective response rate was numerically higher for talazoparib vs. chemotherapy (62.5% [95% CI, 35.4 to 84.8] vs. 25.0% [95% CI, 3.2 to 65.1]). Median overall survival was 20.7 months (95% CI, 9.4 to 40.1) versus 21.2 months (95% CI, 2.7 to 35.0) (HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.49 to 4.05]). In Asian patients, fewer grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), grade 3/4 SAEs, and AEs resulting in dose reduction/discontinuation occurred with talazoparib than chemotherapy; for talazoparib, the frequency of these events was lower in Asian patients versus overall EMBRACA population., Conclusion: In this subgroup analysis, talazoparib numerically improved efficacy versus chemotherapy and was generally well tolerated in Asian patients, with fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AE (TEAEs), SAEs, and TEAEs leading to dose modification vs. the overall EMBRACA population.

MYCN drives aggressive behavior and refractoriness to chemotherapy, in several tumors. Since MYCN inactivation in clinical settings is not achievable, alternative vulnerabilities of MYCN-driven tumors need to be explored to identify more effective and less toxic therapies. We previously demonstrated that PARP inhibitors enhance MYCN-induced replication stress and promote mitotic catastrophe, counteracted by CHK1. Here, we showed that PARP and CHK1 inhibitors synergized to induce death in neuroblastoma cells and in primary cultures of SHH-dependent medulloblastoma, their combination being more effective in MYCN amplified and MYCN overexpressing cells compared to MYCN non-amplified cells. Although the MYCN amplified IMR-32 cell line carrying the p.Val2716Ala ATM mutation showed the highest sensitivity to the drug combination, this was not related to ATM status, as indicated by CRISPR/Cas9-based correction of the mutation. Suboptimal doses of the CHK1 inhibitor MK-8776 plus the PARP inhibitor olaparib led to a MYCN-dependent accumulation of DNA damage and cell death in vitro and significantly reduced the growth of four in vivo models of MYCN-driven tumors, without major toxicities. Our data highlight the combination of PARP and CHK1 inhibitors as a new potential chemo-free strategy to treat MYCN-driven tumors, which might be promptly translated into clinical trials., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have emerged as promising therapy in cancers with homologous recombination repair deficiency. However, efficacy is limited by both intrinsic and acquired resistance. The Olaparib Combinations basket trial explored olaparib alone and in combination with other homologous recombination-directed targeted therapies. Here, we report the results of the arm in which olaparib was combined with the orally bioavailable ataxia telangiectasia and RAD3-related inhibitor ceralasertib in patients with relapsed or refractory cancers harboring DNA damage response and repair alterations, including patients with BRCA -mutated PARP inhibitor-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC)., Patients and Methods: Germline and somatic mutations had to be deleterious by COSMIC or ClinVar for eligibility. Olaparib was administered at 300 mg twice daily and ceralasertib at 160 mg daily on days 1-7 in 28-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicities. Primary end points were confirmed complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) rates and clinical benefit rate (CBR; CR + PR + stable disease [SD] at 16 weeks)., Results: Twenty-five patients were enrolled, with median four prior therapies. Five patients required dose reductions for myelosuppression. Overall response rate was 8.3% and CBR was 62.5% among the entire cohort. Two of five patients with tumor harboring ATM mutation achieved CR or SD ongoing at 24+ months, respectively (CBR 40%). Of seven patients with PARP inhibitor-resistant HGSOC, one achieved PR (-90%) and five had SD ranging 16-72 weeks (CBR 86%)., Conclusion: Olaparib with ceralasertib demonstrated preliminary activity in ATM -mutated tumors and in PARP inhibitor-resistant BRCA1/2 -mutated HGSOC. These data warrant additional studies to further confirm activity in these settings., Competing Interests: Joseph Eder Honoraria: Roche Molecular Diagnostics Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech No other potential conflicts of interest were reported. Joseph Eder Honoraria: Roche Molecular Diagnostics Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech No other potential conflicts of interest were reported., (© 2021 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Despite Auger electrons being highly appealing due to their short-range and high linear energy transfer to surrounding tissues, the progress in the field has been limited due to the challenge in delivering a therapeutic dose within the close proximity of cancer cell's DNA. Here, we demonstrate that the PARP inhibitor 123 I-MAPi is a viable agent for the systemic administration and treatment of p53 mutant cancers. Significantly, minimal off-site toxicity was observed in mice administered with up to 74 MBq of 127 I-PARPi. Taken together, these results lay the foundation for future clinical evaluation and broader preclinical investigations. By harnessing the scaffold of the PARP inhibitor Olaparib, we were able to deliver therapeutic levels of Auger radiation to the site of human colorectal cancer xenograft tumors after systemic administration. In-depth toxicity studies analyzed blood chemistry levels and markers associated with specific organ toxicity. Finally, p53 +/+ and p53 -/- human colorectal cancer cell lines were evaluated for the ability of 123 I-MAPi to induce tumor growth delay. Toxicity studies demonstrate that both 123 I-MAPi and its stable isotopologue, 127 I-PARPi, have no significant off-site toxicity when administered systemically. Analysis following 123 I-MAPi treatment confirmed its ability to induce DNA damage at the site of xenograft tumors when administered systemically. Finally, we demonstrate that 123 I-MAPi generates a therapeutic response in p53 -/- , but not p53 +/+ , subcutaneous xenograft tumors in mouse models. Taken together, these results represent the first example of a PARP Auger theranostic agent capable of delivering a therapeutic dose to xenograft human colorectal cancer tumors upon systemic administration without causing significant toxicity to surrounding mouse organs. Moreover, it suggests that a PARP Auger theranostic can act as a targeted therapeutic for cancers with mutated p53 pathways. This landmark goal paves the way for clinical evaluation of 123 I-MAPi for pan cancer therapeutics.

We analyzed the efficacy and mechanistic interactions of PARP inhibition (PARPi; olaparib) and CDK4/6 inhibition (CDK4/6i; palbociclib or abemaciclib) combination therapy in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) models. We demonstrated that combined olaparib and palbociblib or abemaciclib treatment resulted in synergistic suppression of the p-Rb1-E2F1 signaling axis at the transcriptional and posttranslational levels, leading to disruption of cell-cycle progression and inhibition of E2F1 gene targets, including genes involved in DDR signaling/damage repair, antiapoptotic BCL-2 family members ( BCL-2 and MCL-1 ), CDK1 , and neuroendocrine differentiation (NED) markers in vitro and in vivo In addition, olaparib + palbociclib or olaparib + abemaciclib combination treatment resulted in significantly greater growth inhibition and apoptosis than either single agent alone. We further showed that PARPi and CDK4/6i combination treatment-induced CDK1 inhibition suppressed p-S70-BCL-2 and increased caspase cleavage, while CDK1 overexpression effectively prevented the downregulation of p-S70-BCL-2 and largely rescued the combination treatment-induced cytotoxicity. Our study defines a novel combination treatment strategy for CRPC and NEPC and demonstrates that combination PARPi and CDK4/6i synergistically promotes suppression of the p-Rb1-E2F1 axis and E2F1 target genes, including CDK1 and NED proteins, leading to growth inhibition and increased apoptosis in vitro and in vivo Taken together, our results provide a molecular rationale for PARPi and CDK4/6i combination therapy and reveal mechanism-based clinical trial opportunities for men with NEPC., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1) plays a central role in the response to replication stress through modulation of cell-cycle checkpoints and homologous recombination (HR) repair. In BRCA-deficient cancers with de novo or acquired PARP inhibitor resistance, the addition of the CHK1 inhibitor prexasertib to the PARP inhibitor olaparib compromises replication fork stability, as well as HR proficiency, allowing for sensitization to PARP inhibition., Patients and Methods: This study followed a 3+3 design with a 7-day lead-in of olaparib alone, followed by 28-day cycles with prexasertib administered on days 1 and 15 in combination with an attenuated dose of olaparib on days 1-5 and 15-19. Pharmacokinetic blood samples were collected after olaparib alone and following combination therapy. Patients enrolled to the expansion phase of the study underwent paired tumor biopsies for pharmacodynamic (PD) assessments., Results: Twenty-nine patients were treated. DLTs included grade 3 neutropenia and grade 3 febrile neutropenia. The MTD/recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was prexasertib at 70 mg/m 2 i.v. with olaparib at 100 mg by mouth twice daily. Most common treatment-related adverse events included leukopenia (83%), neutropenia (86%), thrombocytopenia (66%), and anemia (72%). Four of 18 patients with BRCA1 -mutant, PARP inhibitor-resistant, high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) achieved partial responses. Paired tumor biopsies demonstrated reduction in RAD51 foci and increased expression of γ-H2AX, pKAP1, and pRPA after combination exposure., Conclusions: Prexasertib combined with olaparib has preliminary clinical activity in BRCA -mutant patients with HGSOC who have previously progressed on a PARP inhibitor. PD analyses show that prexasertib compromises HR with evidence of induction of DNA damage and replication stress., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)