Search

Considering the current and future therapeutic options that are or will be available in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer, this document reports on the insights from two multi-regional expert meetings aimed at investigating possible problems of access to the treatment pathway involving the BRCA (BReast CAncer) test. The experts stated that the update of the AIOM guidelines (diagnostic and therapeutic innovations) will require a correction of clinicians’ behaviors and a partial reorganization of the current Integrated Care Pathways (ICPs). From this point of view, the update of the AIOM GLs could supply to Regions and, above all, to all cancer networks a valid rationale for starting a process of harmonization of ICPs aimed at guaranteeing the rapid access to treatments by improving the quality of the service provided by the National Health Service (SSN). To ensure to breast cancer patients a rapid access to the latest approved treatments, experts believe that it will be necessary to update the access pathway to genetic tests. This could lead to an increase in the use of genetic tests, creating one of the main organizational and economic challenge that regions and cancer networks will have to face.

Current common treatments for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) typically belong to one of three major categories: next-generation anti-androgen therapies (NGAT) including enzalutamide, abiraterone acetate, apalutamide, and darolutamide; taxane therapy represented by docetaxel; and PARP inhibitors (PARPi) like olaparib. Although these treatments have shown efficacy and have improved outcomes for many patients, some do not survive due to the emergence of therapeutic resistance. The clinical landscape is further complicated by limited knowledge about how the sequence of treatments impacts the development of therapeutic cross-resistance in CRPC. We have developed multiple CRPC models of acquired therapeutic resistance cell sublines from C4-2B cells. These include C4-2B MDVR, C4-2B AbiR, C4-2B ApaR, C4-2B DaroR, TaxR, and 2B-olapR, which are resistant to enzalutamide, abiraterone, apalutamide, darolutamide, docetaxel, and olaparib, respectively. These models are instrumental for analyzing gene expression and assessing responses to various treatments. Our findings reveal distinct cross-resistance characteristics among NGAT-resistant cell sublines. Specifically, resistance to enzalutamide induces resistance to abiraterone and vice versa, while maintaining sensitivity to taxanes and olaparib. Conversely, cells with acquired resistance to docetaxel exhibit cross-resistance to both cabazitaxel and olaparib but retain sensitivity to NGATs like enzalutamide and abiraterone. OlapR cells, significantly resistant to olaparib compared to parental cells, are still responsive to NGATs and docetaxel. Moreover, OlapR models display cross-resistance to other clinically relevant PARP inhibitors, including rucaparib, niraparib, and talazoparib. RNA-sequencing analyses have revealed a complex network of altered gene expressions that influence signaling pathways, energy metabolism, and apoptotic signaling, pivotal to cancers evolution and progression. The data indicate that resis

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

Background: In the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 primary analysis, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab demonstrated a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer patients in clinical response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, irrespective of surgical status. Prespecified, exploratory analyses by molecular biomarker status showed substantial benefit in patients with a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (BRCAm) or homologous recombination deficiency (HRD; BRCAm and/or genomic instability). We report the prespecified final overall survival (OS) analysis, including analyses by HRD status. Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to olaparib (300 mg twice daily; up to 24 months) plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks; 15 months total) or placebo plus bevacizumab. Analysis of OS, a key secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing, was planned for ∼60% maturity or 3 years after the primary analysis. Results: After median follow-up of 61.7 and 61.9 months in the olaparib and placebo arms, respectively, median OS was 56.5 versus 51.6 months in the intention-to-treat population [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.12; P = 0.4118]. Subsequent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy was received by 105 (19.6%) olaparib patients versus 123 (45.7%) placebo patients. In the HRD-positive population, OS was longer with olaparib plus bevacizumab (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.85; 5-year OS rate, 65.5% versus 48.4%); at 5 years, updated PFS also showed a higher proportion of olaparib plus bevacizumab patients without relapse (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32-0.54; 5-year PFS rate, 46.1% versus 19.2%). Myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, aplastic anemia, and new primary malignancy incidence remained low and balanced between arms. Conclusions: Olaparib plus bevacizumab provided clinically meaningful OS improvement for first-line patients with HRD-positive ovarian cancer. These prespecified expl

PURPOSE In SOLO1/GOG 3004 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01844986), maintenance therapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib provided a sustained progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation. We report overall survival (OS) after a 7-year follow-up, a clinically relevant time point and the longest follow-up for any poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the first-line setting. METHODS This double-blind phase III trial randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in clinical response to platinum-based chemotherapy to maintenance olaparib (n = 260) or placebo (n = 131) for up to 2 years. A prespecified descriptive analysis of OS, a secondary end point, was conducted after a 7-year follow-up. RESULTS The median duration of treatment was 24.6 months with olaparib and 13.9 months with placebo, and the median follow-up was 88.9 and 87.4 months, respectively. The hazard ratio for OS was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.76; P = .0004 [P < .0001 required to declare statistical significance]). At 7 years, 67.0% of olaparib patients versus 46.5% of placebo patients were alive, and 45.3% versus 20.6%, respectively, were alive and had not received a first subsequent treatment (Kaplan-Meier estimates). The incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia remained low, and new primary malignancies remained balanced between treatment groups. CONCLUSION Results indicate a clinically meaningful, albeit not statistically significant according to prespecified criteria, improvement in OS with maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation and support the use of maintenance olaparib to achieve long-term remission in this setting; the potential for cure may also be enhanced. No new safety signals were observed during long-term follow-up.

Background: The open-label, single-arm, multicenter ORZORA trial (NCT02476968) evaluated the efficacy and safety of maintenance olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSR OC) who had tumor BRCA mutations (BRCAm) of germline (g) or somatic (s) origin or non-BRCA homologous recombination repair mutations (HRRm) and were in response to their most recent platinum-based chemotherapy after ≥2 lines of treatment. Methods: Patients received maintenance olaparib capsules (400 mg twice daily) until disease progression. Prospective central testing at screening determined tumor BRCAm status and subsequent testing determined gBRCAm or sBRCAm status. Patients with predefined non-BRCA HRRm were assigned to an exploratory cohort. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1) in BRCAm and sBRCAm cohorts. Secondary endpoints included health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and tolerability. Results: 177 patients received olaparib. At the primary data cut-off (17 April 2020), the median follow-up for PFS in the BRCAm cohort was 22.3 months. The median PFS (95% CI) in BRCAm, sBRCAm, gBRCAm and non-BRCA HRRm cohorts was 18.0 (14.3-22.1), 16.6 (12.4-22.2), 19.3 (14.3-27.6) and 16.4 (10.9-19.3) months, respectively. Most patients with BRCAm reported improvements (21.8%) or no change (68.7%) in HRQoL and the safety profile was as expected. Conclusions: Maintenance olaparib had similar clinical activity in PSR OC patients with sBRCAm and those with any BRCAm. Activity was also observed in patients with a non-BRCA HRRm. ORZORA further supports use of maintenance olaparib in all patients with BRCA-mutated, including sBRCA-mutated, PSR OC.

Background: The phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 study (NCT02477644) showed that addition of olaparib to bevacizumab maintenance improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. We evaluated maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab in older patients in PAOLA-1. Methods: Baseline clinical and molecular data, and PFS, were compared between older (aged ≥65 years) and younger patients (<65 years). Factors associated with olaparib efficacy, and safety in age subgroups, were also assessed. Results: Of 806 randomised patients, 292 (36.2%) were ≥65 years. A lower proportion of older versus younger patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (61.0% versus 76.2%) and upfront surgery (42.0% versus 55.7%). Older patients were less likely to have a BRCA1/2 mutation (17.1% versus 36.7%) or homologous recombination deficiency-positive status (34.1% versus 55.7%). After median follow-up of 22.1 months, median PFS was 21.6 months with olaparib versus 16.6 months with placebo in the older population (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41–0.75), comparable with the younger population (median 22.9 versus 16.9 months; HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49–0.77). PFS benefits were observed in patients with a BRCA mutation or homologous recombination deficiency-positive tumours. Incidence of olaparib-related grade ≥3 adverse events in older patients was comparable with that of younger patients (36.8% versus 31.7%) although hypertension and anaemia were more common in older patients. No treatment-related deaths occurred in older patients receiving olaparib. Conclusion: Older patients enrolled in PAOLA-1 achieved similar PFS benefits compared with younger patients, with a similar safety profile.

Background: In the phase III PAOLA-1 study, the addition of maintenance olaparib to bevacizumab in patients with newly diagnosed high-grade ovarian cancer (HGOC) resulted in prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), particularly for homologous recombination deficiency-positive tumors, including those with a BRCA mutation (BRCAm). The magnitude of benefit from olaparib and bevacizumab according to the location of mutation in BRCA1/BRCA2 remains to be explored. Patients and methods: Patients with advanced-stage HGOC responding after platinum-based chemotherapy + bevacizumab received maintenance therapy bevacizumab (15 mg/kg q3w for 15 months) + either olaparib (300 mg b.i.d. for 24 months) or placebo. PFS was analyzed in the subgroup of patients with BRCA1m/BRCA2m according to mutation location in the functional domains of BRCA1 [Really Interesting Gene (RING), DNA-binding domain (DBD), or C-terminal domain of BRCA1 (BRCT)] and BRCA2 [RAD51-binding domain (RAD51-BD); DBD]. Results: From 806 randomized patients, 159 harbored BRCA1m (19.7%) and 74 BRCA2m (9.2%). BRCA1m in RING, DBD, and BRCT domains was detected in 18, 40, and 33 patients, and BRCA2m in RAD51-BD and DBD in 36 and 13 patients, respectively. After a median follow-up of 25.5 months, benefit from maintenance olaparib + bevacizumab was observed irrespective of location of BRCAm. The benefit was particularly high for those with BRCA1m located in the DBD, with 24-month PFS estimated to be 89% and 15% [olaparib + bevacizumab versus placebo + bevacizumab hazard ratio = 0.08 (95% confidence interval 0.02-0.28); interaction P = 0.03]. In BRCA2m patients, 24-month PFS rates for those with mutations located in the DBD were 90% and 100% (olaparib + bevacizumab versus placebo + bevacizumab), respectively. Conclusions: Advanced-stage BRCA-mutated HGOC patients reported PFS benefit from maintenance olaparib and bevacizumab regardless of mutation location. The benefit is particularly high for patients with mutations

Background: In the phase III PAOLA-1 study, the addition of maintenance olaparib to bevacizumab in patients with newly diagnosed high-grade ovarian cancer (HGOC) resulted in prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), particularly for homologous recombination deficiency-positive tumors, including those with a BRCA mutation (BRCAm). The magnitude of benefit from olaparib and bevacizumab according to the location of mutation in BRCA1/BRCA2 remains to be explored. Patients and methods: Patients with advanced-stage HGOC responding after platinum-based chemotherapy + bevacizumab received maintenance therapy bevacizumab (15 mg/kg q3w for 15 months) + either olaparib (300 mg b.i.d. for 24 months) or placebo. PFS was analyzed in the subgroup of patients with BRCA1m/BRCA2m according to mutation location in the functional domains of BRCA1 [Really Interesting Gene (RING), DNA-binding domain (DBD), or C-terminal domain of BRCA1 (BRCT)] and BRCA2 [RAD51-binding domain (RAD51-BD); DBD]. Results: From 806 randomized patients, 159 harbored BRCA1m (19.7%) and 74 BRCA2m (9.2%). BRCA1m in RING, DBD, and BRCT domains was detected in 18, 40, and 33 patients, and BRCA2m in RAD51-BD and DBD in 36 and 13 patients, respectively. After a median follow-up of 25.5 months, benefit from maintenance olaparib + bevacizumab was observed irrespective of location of BRCAm. The benefit was particularly high for those with BRCA1m located in the DBD, with 24-month PFS estimated to be 89% and 15% [olaparib + bevacizumab versus placebo + bevacizumab hazard ratio = 0.08 (95% confidence interval 0.02-0.28); interaction P = 0.03]. In BRCA2m patients, 24-month PFS rates for those with mutations located in the DBD were 90% and 100% (olaparib + bevacizumab versus placebo + bevacizumab), respectively. Conclusions: Advanced-stage BRCA-mutated HGOC patients reported PFS benefit from maintenance olaparib and bevacizumab regardless of mutation location. The benefit is particularly high for patients with mutations

PURPOSEIn SOLO1/GOG 3004 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01844986), maintenance therapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib provided a sustained progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation. We report overall survival (OS) after a 7-year follow-up, a clinically relevant time point and the longest follow-up for any poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the first-line setting.METHODSThis double-blind phase III trial randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in clinical response to platinum-based chemotherapy to maintenance olaparib (n = 260) or placebo (n = 131) for up to 2 years. A prespecified descriptive analysis of OS, a secondary end point, was conducted after a 7-year follow-up.RESULTSThe median duration of treatment was 24.6 months with olaparib and 13.9 months with placebo, and the median follow-up was 88.9 and 87.4 months, respectively. The hazard ratio for OS was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.76; P =.0004 [P <.0001 required to declare statistical significance]). At 7 years, 67.0% of olaparib patients versus 46.5% of placebo patients were alive, and 45.3% versus 20.6%, respectively, were alive and had not received a first subsequent treatment (Kaplan-Meier estimates). The incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia remained low, and new primary malignancies remained balanced between treatment groups.CONCLUSIONResults indicate a clinically meaningful, albeit not statistically significant according to prespecified criteria, improvement in OS with maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation and support the use of maintenance olaparib to achieve long-term remission in this setting; the potential for cure may also be enhanced. No new safety signals were observed during long-term follow-up.

Chapter 1 describes treatment with poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in patients with advanced cancer. In chapter 1.1 several treatment options for patients with triple negative breast cancer are discussed, with a focus on treatment with PARP inhibitors. We discuss the patient selection, biomarkers, use of combination therapy and pharmacodynamics (PD) assays. In chapter 1.2 the results of a phase I dose escalation study with olaparib and carboplatin are discussed. In total, 24 patients were included. The maximum tolerable dose was olaparib 75 mg bidaily (BID) in combination with carboplatin target area under the curve (AUC) 5. The toxicity profile showed mainly hematological toxicity and gastro-intestinal side effects. In this study, one patient was included with advanced breast cancer who was treated successfully with olaparib and carboplatin. Despite an ongoing systemic response, she developed brain metastases during the maintenance treatment with olaparib. In chapter 1.3 this case has been described, followed by a review of the literature. In chapter 2 the Wee1 protein and the inhibition of Wee1 as anticancer treatment has been discussed. In a review in chapter 2.1 the cell cycle, the role of Wee1 and Wee1 inhibition as target for anti-cancer therapy are being discussed. AZD1775 is a small molecule inhibitor of Wee1 kinase. In chapter 2.2 an interim analysis with the Wee1 inhibitor AZD1775 in combination with carboplatin is discussed. Patients with advanced ovarian cancer who are refractory or resistant to platinum containing therapy are being treated with carboplatin and AZD1775. Patients received carboplatin with a target AUC 5 mg/ml.min in combination with AZD1775 225 mg bidaily during 2.5 days in a 21 day cycle. The interim analysis showed comparable toxicity with mainly hematological toxicity,nausea, vomiting and fatigue. In chapter 2.3 the results are presented of a phase II study combining the Wee1 inhibitor adavosertib with chemotherapy in pati

Genomic instability (GI) is a transversal phenomenon in oncology, constituting a hallmark of cancer. In gynecological malignancies, the predictive value of GI has been described and is mainly caused by alterations in the homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes, such as BRCA1/2. The POLA clinical trial constitutes an ideal substrate used to study the correlation between GI and response to combined therapy of lurbinectedin plus olaparib in solid tumors. In this context, we developed an approach based on next-generation sequencing, capable of shedding information about Copy Number Variations (CNV) as a surrogate of GI and genotyping of homologous recombination repair genes. Additionally, some algorithms used to extract GI parameters were tested and benchmarked, selecting the most informative mutational and GI features as potential predictive biomarkers for the drug combination explored in the POLA trial. We hypothesized that the combination of olaparib and lurbinectedin maximizes DNA damage, thus increasing its efficacy. The POLA phase 1 trial established the recommended phase 2 dose of lurbinectedin as being 1.5 mg (day 1) and that of olaparib as being 250 mg/12 h (days 1-5) for a 21-day cycle. In phase 2, we explore the efficacy of the combination in terms of clinical response and its correlation with mutations in the HRR genes and the genomic instability (GI) parameters. Results: A total of 73 patients with high-grade ovarian (n = 46), endometrial (n = 26), and triple-negative breast cancer (n = 1) were treated with lurbinectedin and olaparib. Most patients (62%) received ≥3 lines of prior therapy. The overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 9.6% and 72.6%, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.54 months (95% CI 3.0-5.2). Twelve (16.4%) patients were considered long-term responders (LTR), with a median PFS of 13.3 months. No clinical benefit was observed for cases with HRR gene mutation. In ovarian LTRs, although

In Oncology, chemoresistance is often responsible for therapeutic failure. In this work where we used human cancer models, we investigated whether precise metabolic changes could account for chemoresistance. Not only in cisplatin-resistant ovarian cancer but also in temozolomide-resistant glioblastoma, we evidenced highly oxidative chemoresistant phenotypes depending on mitophagy. Consequently, inhibiting either mitophagy by more largely blocking autophagy or cell respiration by targeting Complex I in the electron transport chain with olaparib allowed to resensitize cancer cells to cisplatin and/or to temozolomide. We propose that these two approaches used in combination therapies with selected forms of chemotherapy would be attractive for countering cancer chemoresistance., (BIFA - Sciences biomédicales et pharmaceutiques) -- UCL, 2022

Ovarian cancer is the deadliest gynecologic cancer, with a 5-year survival rate of 30%, when the disease has spread throughout the peritoneal cavity. We investigated the efficacy to delay disease progression by the DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK) inhibitor AZD7648, administered in combination with two of the therapeutic options for patient management: either pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) or the PARP inhibitor olaparib. Patient-derived ovarian cancer xenografts (OC-PDX) were transplanted subcutaneously to evaluate the effect of treatment on tumor growth, or orthotopically in the peritoneal cavity to evaluate the effect on metastatic spread. AZD7648 was administered orally in combination with PLD (dosed intravenously) or with olaparib (orally). To prove the inhibition of DNA-PK in the tumors, we measured pDNA-PKcs, pRPA32, and g H2AX, biomarkers of DNA-PK activity. AZD7648 enhanced the therapeutic efficacy of PLD in all the OC-PDXs tested, regardless of their BRCA status or sensitivity to cisplatin or PLD. The treatment caused disease stabilization, which persisted despite therapy discontinuation for tumors growing subcutaneously, and significantly impaired the abdominal metastatic dissemination, prolonging the lifespan of mice implanted orthotopically. AZD7648 potentiated the efficacy of olaparib in BRCA-deficient OC-PDXs but did not sensitize BRCA-proficient OC-PDXs to olaparib, despite an equivalent inhibition of DNA-PK, suggesting the need of a preexisting olaparib activity to benefit from the addition of AZD7648. This work suggests that AZD7648, an inhibitor of DNA-PK, dosed in combination with PLD or olaparib is an exciting therapeutic option that could benefit patients with ovarian cancer and should be explored in clinical trials.

Background: PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 (NCT02477644) demonstrated a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer. We report the pre -specified main second progression-free survival (PFS2) analysis for PAOLA-1.Methods: This randomised, double-blind, phase III trial was conducted in 11 countries. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer and were in response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Patients were rando-mised 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo for up to 24 months; all patients received bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks) for up to 15 months. Primary PFS end-point was re-ported previously. Time from randomisation to second disease progression or death was a key secondary end-point included in the hierarchical-testing procedure.Results: After a median follow-up of 35.5 months and 36.5 months, respectively, median PFS2 was 36.5 months (olaparib plus bevacizumab) and 32.6 months (placebo plus bevacizumab), hazard ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-0.95; P = 0.0125. Median time to second subsequent therapy or death was 38.2 months (olaparib plus bevacizumab) and 31.5 months (placebo plus bevacizumab), hazard ratio 0.78; 95% CI 0.64-0.95; P = 0.0115. Seventy-two (27%) patients in the placebo plus bevacizumab group received a poly(ADP-ribose) polymer-ase inhibitor as first subsequent therapy. No new safety signals were observed for olaparib plus bevacizumab.Conclusion: In newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer, maintenance olaparib plus bevaci-zumab provided continued benefit beyond first progression, with a significant PFS2 improve-ment and a time to second subsequent therapy or death delay versus placebo plus bevacizumab. 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by

Objective: The phase IIIb OPINION trial (NCT03402841) investigated olaparib maintenance monotherapy in patients without a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm) who had platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) and had received ≥2 previous lines of platinum-based chemotherapy. Methods: In this single-arm, open-label, international study, patients who had responded to platinum-based chemotherapy received maintenance olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) (modified RECIST version 1.1). A key secondary endpoint was PFS by homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and somatic BRCAm (sBRCAm) status. The primary analysis of PFS was planned for 18 months after the last patient received their first dose. Results: Two hundred and seventy-nine patients were enrolled and received olaparib. At data cutoff (October 2, 2020), 210 PFS events had occurred (75.3% maturity) and median PFS was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.6–10.9) in the overall population. At 12 and 18 months, 38.5% and 24.3% of patients were progression-free, respectively. In the predefined biomarker subgroups, median PFS was 16.4, 11.1, 9.7, and 7.3 months in sBRCAm, HRD-positive including sBRCAm, HRD-positive excluding sBRCAm, and HRD-negative patients, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were nausea (48.4%) and fatigue/asthenia (44.1%). TEAEs led to dose interruption, dose reduction, and treatment discontinuation in 47.0%, 22.6%, and 7.5% of patients, respectively. Conclusion: Maintenance olaparib demonstrated clinical benefit in patients without a gBRCAm, and across all subgroups, compared with historical placebo controls. There were no new safety signals.

Background: PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 (NCT02477644) demonstrated a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer. We report the prespecified main second progression-free survival (PFS2) analysis for PAOLA-1. Methods: This randomised, double-blind, phase III trial was conducted in 11 countries. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer and were in response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Patients were randomised 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo for up to 24 months; all patients received bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks) for up to 15 months. Primary PFS end-point was reported previously. Time from randomisation to second disease progression or death was a key secondary end-point included in the hierarchical-testing procedure. Results: After a median follow-up of 35.5 months and 36.5 months, respectively, median PFS2 was 36.5 months (olaparib plus bevacizumab) and 32.6 months (placebo plus bevacizumab), hazard ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64–0.95; P = 0.0125. Median time to second subsequent therapy or death was 38.2 months (olaparib plus bevacizumab) and 31.5 months (placebo plus bevacizumab), hazard ratio 0.78; 95% CI 0.64–0.95; P = 0.0115. Seventy-two (27%) patients in the placebo plus bevacizumab group received a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor as first subsequent therapy. No new safety signals were observed for olaparib plus bevacizumab. Conclusion: In newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab provided continued benefit beyond first progression, with a significant PFS2 improvement and a time to second subsequent therapy or death delay versus placebo plus bevacizumab.

BRCA1/2 protein-deficient or mutated cancers comprise a group of aggressive malignancies. Although PARPis have shown considerably efficacy in their treatment, the widespread use of these agents in clinical practice is restricted by various factors, including the development of acquired resistance due to the presence of compensatory pathways. BETis can completely disrupt the HR pathway by repressing the expression of BRCA1 and could be aimed at generation combination regimes to overcome PARPi resistance and enhance PARPi efficacy. Due to the poor pharmacokinetic profile and short half-life, the first-in-class BETi JQ1 was loaded into newly developed nanocarrier formulations to improve the effectivity of olaparib for the treatment of BRCAness cancers. First, polylactide polymeric nanoparticles were generated by double emulsion. Moreover, liposomes were prepared by ethanol injection and evaporation solvent method. JQ1-loaded drug delivery systems display optimal hydrodynamic radii between 60 and 120 nm, with a very low polydispersity index (PdI), and encapsulation efficiencies of 92 and 16% for lipid- and polymeric-based formulations, respectively. Formulations show high stability and sustained release. We confirmed that all assayed JQ1 formulations improved antiproliferative activity compared to the free JQ1 in models of ovarian and breast cancers. In addition, synergistic interaction between JQ1 and JQ1-loaded nanocarriers and olaparib evidenced the ability of encapsulated JQ1 to enhance antitumoral activity of PARPis

Background: Olaparib has significantly improved outcome and patient-centered endpoints in BRCA1/2-mutated patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (PSOC). Specific information on efficacy and safety of olaparib for older patients appears of special interest. Methods: 295 patients from the SOLO2 trial randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo were categorized according to age-cutoff at 65 years. Efficacy, tolerability, and quality of life (QoL) of olaparib relative to placebo within in each age group was analyzed. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar in patients ≥65 years (N = 62;21.0%) compared to patients <65 years (N = 233;78.9%). No significant difference in the magnitude of progression-free survival (PFS) benefit from olaparib for older patients (N = 40, hazard ratio [HR]≥65 0.43, 95%-confidence interval [CI] 0.24–0.81) as compared with younger patients (N = 155, HR<65 0.31 (95%-CI 0.22–0.43) was seen (interaction P = 0.33). The overall survival (OS)benefit seen in younger patients in the olaparib arm was not observed in older patients. Older and younger patients had comparable safety profiles and QoL scores although higher discontinuation rates for toxicity, and higher frequency of AML/MDS were noted in the older subset. TWiST analysis revealed clinically meaningful duration of good QoL on olaparib for both age groups (≥65: 13.5 vs <65: 18.4 months, P = 0.05). Conclusions: Results of this large phase III cohort of BRCA1/2-mutated PSOC patients treated with olaparib underline impressive efficacy of olaparib maintenance irrespective of age. Although toxicity and tolerability did not raise significant concerns, some caution, close monitoring, and follow-up needs to be exercised for older patients given higher discontinuation rates, frequency of AML/MDS, and no clear effects on OS.

Background: Olaparib has significantly improved outcome and patient-centered endpoints in BRCA1/2-mutated patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (PSOC). Specific information on efficacy and safety of olaparib for older patients appears of special interest. Methods: 295 patients from the SOLO2 trial randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo were categorized according to age-cutoff at 65 years. Efficacy, tolerability, and quality of life (QoL) of olaparib relative to placebo within in each age group was analyzed. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar in patients ≥65 years (N = 62;21.0%) compared to patients <65 years (N = 233;78.9%). No significant difference in the magnitude of progression-free survival (PFS) benefit from olaparib for older patients (N = 40, hazard ratio [HR]≥65 0.43, 95%-confidence interval [CI] 0.24–0.81) as compared with younger patients (N = 155, HR<65 0.31 (95%-CI 0.22–0.43) was seen (interaction P = 0.33). The overall survival (OS)benefit seen in younger patients in the olaparib arm was not observed in older patients. Older and younger patients had comparable safety profiles and QoL scores although higher discontinuation rates for toxicity, and higher frequency of AML/MDS were noted in the older subset. TWiST analysis revealed clinically meaningful duration of good QoL on olaparib for both age groups (≥65: 13.5 vs <65: 18.4 months, P = 0.05). Conclusions: Results of this large phase III cohort of BRCA1/2-mutated PSOC patients treated with olaparib underline impressive efficacy of olaparib maintenance irrespective of age. Although toxicity and tolerability did not raise significant concerns, some caution, close monitoring, and follow-up needs to be exercised for older patients given higher discontinuation rates, frequency of AML/MDS, and no clear effects on OS.

Background: Previous findings showed that cediranib-olaparib increased PFS in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer compared to olaparib alone. Methods: BAROCCO trial randomized 123 patients: 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly up to 24 weeks (control), olaparib 300 mg tablets twice daily together with 20 mg cediranib daily (continuous schedule) or with 20 mg cediranib 5 days/week (intermittent schedule) until progression. The primary objective was the PFS comparison between each experimental arm and the control (alpha one-sided 5%; power 80%; HR 0.5). Results: The median platinum-free interval was 1.9 months, 60% of patients had been pretreated with 3 or more chemotherapy lines. Median PFS for paclitaxel, the continuous, and the intermittent schedules were 3.1, 5.6, and 3.8 months. The HR for PFS in the continuous arm vs control was 0.76 (90% CI: 0.50–1.14, p = 0.265). The HR for PFS in the intermittent arm vs control was 1.03 (90% CI: 0.68–1.55, p = 0.904). Treatment was discontinued due to adverse events in 15%, 20%, and 5% of patients in the control, continuous and intermittent arms. Grade ≥ 3 anemia and diarrhea and hypertension of any grade occurred only in the experimental arms, and peripheral neuropathies and alopecia only in the control arm. Five serious adverse drug reactions occurred and two were fatal: one in the control and one in the continuous arm. Conclusions: The combination of cediranib-olaparib was not superior to chemotherapy in terms of PFS in heavily pretreated platinum-resistant ovarian cancer patients. However, this oral doublet, is active and may offer a non-chemotherapy option in this difficult to treat population. Clinical trial identification: IRFMN-OVA-7289, EudraCT: 2016–003964-38, NCT03314740.

The AP-1 member Fra-1 is overexpressed in TNBC and plays crucial roles in tumor progression and treatment resistance. In a previous large-scale screen, we identified PARP1 to be among 118 proteins that interact with endogenous chromatin-bound Fra-1 in TNBC cells. PARP1 inhibitor (olaparib) is currently in clinical use for treatment of BRCA-mutated TNBC breast cancer. Here, we demonstrate that the Fra-1-PARP1 interaction impacts the efficacy of olaparib treatment. We show that PARP1 interacts with and downregulates Fra-1, thereby reducing AP-1 transcriptional activity. Olaparib treatment, or silencing of PARP1, consequently, increases Fra-1 levels and enhances its transcriptional activity. Increased Fra-1 can have adverse effect, including treatment resistance. We also found that a large fraction of PARP1-regulated genes was dependent on Fra-1. We show that by inhibiting Fra-1/AP-1, non-BRCA-mutated TNBC cells can become sensitized to olaparib treatment. We identify that high PARP1 expression is indicative of a poor clinical outcome in breast cancer patients overall (P = 0.01), but not for HER-2 positive patients. In conclusion, by exploring the functionality of the Fra-1 and PARP1 interaction, we propose that targeting Fra-1 could serve as a combinatory therapeutic approach to improve olaparib treatment outcome for TNBC patients., QC 20210430

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a deadly disease with limited treatment options. Selinexor is a selective inhibitor of nuclear export that binds covalently to exportin 1 thereby reactivating tumor suppressor proteins and downregulating expression of oncogenes and DNA damage repair (DDR) proteins. Olaparib is a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with breast cancer harboring BRCA mutations. We examined the effects of co-treatment with selinexor and olaparib in TNBC cell lines. BRCA1 wildtype (BRCA1-wt) and BRCA1 mutant (BRCA1-mut) TNBC cell lines were treated with selinexor and/or olaparib and effects on cell viability and cell cycle were evaluated. The effects of treatment were also evaluated in mouse xenograft models generated with BRCA1-wt and BRCA1-mut TNBC cell lines. Treatment with selinexor inhibited cell proliferation and survival of all TNBC cell lines tested in vitro. This effect was enhanced following treatment of the cells with the combination of selinexor and olaparib, which showed synergistic effects on tumor growth inhibition in MDA-MB-468-derived (BRCA1-wt) and MDA-MB-436-derived (BRCA1-mut) xenografts. As co-treatment with selinexor and olaparib exhibits anti-tumor activity regardless of BRCA1 mutation status, the clinical implications of the combination warrant further investigation.

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.

Objectives: In the phase III SOLO1 trial (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation who were in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analyzed the timing, duration and grade of the most common hematologic and non-hematologic adverse events in SOLO1. Methods: Eligible patients were randomized to olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily (N = 260) or placebo (N = 131), with a 2-year treatment cap in most patients. Safety outcomes were analyzed in detail in randomized patients who received at least one dose of study drug (olaparib, n = 260; placebo, n = 130). Results: Median time to first onset of the most common hematologic (anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematologic (nausea, fatigue/asthenia, vomiting) adverse events was <3 months in olaparib-treated patients. The first event of anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting lasted a median of <2 months and the first event of fatigue/asthenia lasted a median of 3.48 months in the olaparib group. These adverse events were manageable with supportive treatment and/or olaparib dose modification in most patients, with few patients requiring discontinuation of olaparib. Of 162 patients still receiving olaparib at month 24, 64.2% were receiving the recommended starting dose of olaparib 300 mg twice daily. Conclusions: Maintenance olaparib had a predictable and manageable adverse event profile in the newly diagnosed setting with no new safety signals identified. Adverse events usually occurred early, were largely manageable and led to discontinuation in a minority of patients.

An liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assay was developed for the combined analysis of the five poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors niraparib, olaparib, rucaparib talazoparib and veliparib. A simple and fast sample pre-treatment method was used by protein precipitating of plasma samples with acetonitrile and dilution of the supernatant with formic acid (0.1% v/v in water). This was followed by chromatographic separation on a reversed-phase UPLC BEH C18 column and detection with a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer operating in the positive mode. A simplified validation procedure specifically designed for bioanalytical methods for clinical therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) purposes, was applied. This included assessment of the calibration model, accuracy and precision, lower limit of quantification (LLOQ), specificity and selectivity, carry-over and stability. The validated range was 30-3000 ng/mL for niraparib, 100-10,000 ng/mL for olaparib, 50-5000 ng/mL for rucaparib, 0.5-50 ng/mL for talazoparib and 50-5000 for veliparib. All results were within the criteria of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance and European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidelines on method validation. The assay has been successfully implemented in our laboratory.

Background The PARP inhibitor olaparib has shown acceptable toxicity at doses of up to 400 mg twice daily (bid; capsule formulation) with encouraging signs of antitumor activity. Based on its mode of action, olaparib may sensitize tumor cells to DNA-damaging agents. This Phase I trial (NCT00516724) evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and preliminary efficacy of olaparib combined with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel. Methods Patients with advanced solid tumors received olaparib (capsule bid) plus carboplatin (Part A), carboplatin and paclitaxel (Part B), or paclitaxel (Part C). In each part of the study, different drug doses were given to define the most appropriate dose/drug combination to use in further studies. Safety assessments included evaluation of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; cycle 1 only), adverse events (AEs) and physical examinations. PK assessments of olaparib, carboplatin and paclitaxel were performed. Tumor responses (RECIST) were assessed every two cycles. Results Fifty-seven patients received treatment. DLTs were reported in two patients (both receiving olaparib 100 mg bid and carboplatin AUC 4; Part A, cohort 2): grade 1 thrombocytopenia with grade 2 neutropenia lasting for 16 days, and grade 2 neutropenia lasting for 7 days. Non-hematologic AEs were predominantly grade 1-2 and included fatigue (70%) and nausea (40%). Bone marrow suppression, mainly neutropenia (51%) and thrombocytopenia (25%), frequently led to dose modifications. Conclusions Olaparib in combination with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel resulted in increased hematologic toxicities, making it challenging to establish a dosing regimen that could be tolerated for multiple cycles without dose modifications.

Background In the first part of this extensive phase I study (NCT00516724), continuous olaparib twice daily (bid) with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel resulted in myelosuppression and dose modifications. Here, we report the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of intermittent olaparib dosing combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel. Methods Patients with advanced solid tumors (part D) and enriched for ovarian and breast cancer (part E) received olaparib (capsule and tablet formulations) using intermittent schedules (2 to 10 days of a 21-day cycle) combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel. Safety assessments included evaluation of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; cycle 1 only), adverse events (AEs), and physical examinations. Pharmacokinetic assessments of olaparib capsule and tablet combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel were performed. Tumor responses (RECIST) were assessed every 2 cycles. Results In total, 132 heavily pre-treated patients were included. One DLT of grade 3 elevated alanine aminotransferase lasting for 8 days was reported (olaparib tablet 100 mg bid days 3-12, carboplatin area under the curve 4 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2). The most common hematological AEs were neutropenia (47%) and thrombocytopenia (39%), which frequently led to dose modifications. Non-hematological AEs were predominantly grade 1-2, including alopecia (89%) and fatigue (84%). Overall objective response rate was 46%. Conclusions Discontinuous dosing of olaparib resulted in significant myelosuppression leading to dose interruptions and/or delays. Anti-tumor activity was encouraging in patients enriched with BRCA-mutated breast and ovarian cancer. The most appropriate olaparib tablet dose for use in further studies evaluating olaparib in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel is 50 mg bid (days 1-5).

El cáncer es una de las enfermedades que, a día de hoy, más afectan a la población. A pesar de los tratamientos novedosos que se disponen actualmente, sigue siendo una enfermedad con una gran mortalidad. El cáncer es provocado por mutaciones en el ADN y cuando se producen estos errores, intervienen proteínas que se encargan de reparar los daños sufridos. La enzima poli (ADP-ribosa) polimerasa-1 (PARP1) actúa uniéndose al ADN y reparando daños mediante la reparación por escisión de bases. Por su parte, las proteínas BRCA 1/2 tienen un papel fundamental en la recombinación homóloga, reparando daños en dobles cadenas de ADN. En las células que se encuentre mutado el gen BRCA, si inhibimos la PARP1, se crea un efecto de letalidad sintética, que elimina las células cancerosas, incapaces de regenerar el daño en su ADN. Los inhibidores de PARP han sido ampliamente estudiados y se han realizado numerosos ensayos clínicos en pacientes con cáncer, principalmente de mama y de ovario, ya que son los más afectados por mutaciones BRCA. En estos estudios se ha demostrado su eficacia y su buen perfil de seguridad, tanto en monoterapia como en combinación con otros agentes quimioterapéuticos. Estos resultados han llevado a la aprobación de olaparib, rucaparib, talazoparib y niraparib para distintas indicaciones, destacando los dos tipos de cáncer ya mencionados, con y sin mutaciones BRCA 1/2. Veliparib, a pesar de sus buenos resultados en ensayos clínicos, aún no ha sido autorizado. Por su parte, iniparib no ha tenido la misma suerte y obtuvo resultados poco significativos.

Disseminated superficial actinic porokeratosis (DSAP) is an uncommon skin condition that can be inherited or may occur sporadically with multiple red-brown, thin plaques in a photodistribution. The condition more often affects middle-aged women and is often recalcitrant to therapy. In rare literature reports, systemic medications can trigger exacerbation or promote inflammation in pre-existing lesions of DSAP. We present a novel case of chemotherapy-associated DSAP inflammation in a 66-year-old woman after triple therapy with durvalumab (PD-L1 inhibitor), olaparib (PARP inhibitor) and paclitaxel, showing similarities to primary lichen planus-like eruption from immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Disseminated superficial actinic porokeratosis (DSAP) is an uncommon skin condition that can be inherited or may occur sporadically with multiple red-brown, thin plaques in a photodistribution. The condition more often affects middle-aged women and is often recalcitrant to therapy. In rare literature reports, systemic medications can trigger exacerbation or promote inflammation in pre-existing lesions of DSAP. We present a novel case of chemotherapy-associated DSAP inflammation in a 66-year-old woman after triple therapy with durvalumab (PD-L1 inhibitor), olaparib (PARP inhibitor) and paclitaxel, showing similarities to primary lichen planus-like eruption from immune checkpoint inhibitors.

The clinical landscape concerning advanced prostate cancer is rapidly changing and reaching beyond androgen deprivation therapy and androgen receptor targeted therapies. Taxane chemotherapy is a critical tool in the management of advanced prostate cancer. Additionally, novel drug classes such as PARP inhibitors are being investigated. Despite tremendous progress, resistance to therapy remains as a major impediment to further improvement. Resistance mechanisms appear diverse and are not fully known or understood. This review will highlight recent advances in research regarding mechanisms of resistance to both taxanes (such as increased drug efflux capacity) and PARP inhibitors (such as reversion mutations which restore DNA-repair proficiency). Understanding resistance to therapy promises to remove barriers blocking progress toward improved patient outcomes.

Olaparib is the first poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor approved as maintenance therapy of recurrent ovarian cancer (OC) patients with a BRCA mutation. To achieve the maximum clinical benefit, adherence to olaparib must be persistent. However, in clinical practice, this is challenged by the frequent suboptimal management of toxicities. In view of the expanding use of olaparib also in Italy, physicians must learn how to adequately and promptly manage drug toxicities not to unnecessarily interrupt or reduce the dose. The experts agreed that nausea,vomiting, anemia, and fatigue are the most frequent events experienced by OC patients on olaparib, and that these toxicities usually develop early during treatment, are mainly of grade 1–2 and transient and can be managed with simple non-pharmacological interventions. By sharing their real-world experiences, the panel prepared, for each toxicity, an algorithm organized by grade and besides the procedures indicated in the local label, included supportive care interventions based also on nutritional and lifestyle modifications and psycho-oncology consultation. Moreover, in view of the tablet entry into the Italian market, the full and reduced dosages of capsules and tablets were compared. This practical guidance is intended to be a tool to support especially less-experienced physicians in the management of these complex patients, with the aim to help preventing the worsening of patients’ conditions and the unnecessary interruption/reduction of olaparib dosage, which may jeopardize treatment efficacy.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and net monetary benefit of olaparib maintenance therapy compared with no maintenance therapy after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in newly diagnosed advanced BRCA1/2-mutated ovarian cancer from the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Methods: We developed a lifetime Markov model in which a cohort of patients with newly diagnosed advanced BRCA1/2-mutated ovarian cancer was assigned to receive either olaparib maintenance therapy or active surveillance (Italian standard of care) after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy to compare cost-effectiveness and net monetary benefit of the 2 strategies. Data on clinical outcomes were obtained from related clinical trial literature and extrapolated using parametric survival analyses. Data on costs were derived from Italian official sources and relevant real-world studies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) were computed and compared against an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of €16,372 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. We used deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to assess how uncertainty affects results; we also performed scenario analyses to compare results under different pricing settings. Findings: In the base-case scenario, during a 50-year time horizon, the total costs for patients treated with olaparib therapy and active surveillance were €124,359 and €97,043, respectively, and QALYs gained were 7.29 and 4.88, respectively, with an ICER of €9,515 per life-year gained, an ICUR of €11,345 per QALY gained, and an INMB of €12,104. In scenario analyses, considering maximum selling prices for all other drugs, ICUR decreased to €11,311 per QALY and €7,498 per QALY when a 10% and 20% discount, respectively, was applied to the olaparib official price, and the I

Objectives: Olaparib is approved as maintenance therapy in patients with BRCA mutated platinum sensitive (PS) recurrent ovarian cancer (OC) after response to last platinum based therapy. Few data are available regarding the use out of the registration trials and on response to further treatments after progression. Materials ad methods: In this non interventional, retrospective study, patients treated with olaparib in 13 centers, according to the label, have been collected and analyzed. Primary objectives of the study are to describe effectiveness and safety of olaparib in a real world setting with a focus on post progression treatments and response. Results: 234 patients were analyzed. All patients were BRCA mutated and most of them had germline mutations. Around 50% of the patients received olaparib after 3 or more lines of platinum based chemotherapy achieving a radiologic complete (CR) or partial response. 12.4% patients with stable disease were also included. Median PFS was 14.7 months (95% CI:12.6–18), with statistically longer PFS in patients with normal serum Ca125 at baseline, a CR after last platinum based therapy and that received olaparib after second platinum based therapy. Median OS was not reached. Most frequent G3-G4 toxicity was anaemia (6%) with dose discontinuation and dose reduction in 11 (4.7%) and 49 (20.9%) of cases, respectively. Among 66 patients receiving further treatment after olaparib progression and evaluable for response, ORR was 22.2, 11.1% and 9.5% in patients with Platinum Free interval (PFI) of more than 12 months, between 6 and 12 months and less than 6 months, respectively. Conclusions: Olaparib is effective and safe in real world setting. Data on post-progression treatments seem to suggest cross resistance with chemotherapy and need to be confirmed in larger studies because of the potential importance in clinical practice decisions.

Olaparib is the first poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor approved as maintenance therapy of recurrent ovarian cancer (OC) patients with a BRCA mutation. To achieve the maximum clinical benefit, adherence to olaparib must be persistent. However, in clinical practice, this is challenged by the frequent suboptimal management of toxicities. In view of the expanding use of olaparib also in Italy, physicians must learn how to adequately and promptly manage drug toxicities not to unnecessarily interrupt or reduce the dose. The experts agreed that nausea,vomiting, anemia, and fatigue are the most frequent events experienced by OC patients on olaparib, and that these toxicities usually develop early during treatment, are mainly of grade 1–2 and transient and can be managed with simple non-pharmacological interventions. By sharing their real-world experiences, the panel prepared, for each toxicity, an algorithm organized by grade and besides the procedures indicated in the local label, included supportive care interventions based also on nutritional and lifestyle modifications and psycho-oncology consultation. Moreover, in view of the tablet entry into the Italian market, the full and reduced dosages of capsules and tablets were compared. This practical guidance is intended to be a tool to support especially less-experienced physicians in the management of these complex patients, with the aim to help preventing the worsening of patients’ conditions and the unnecessary interruption/reduction of olaparib dosage, which may jeopardize treatment efficacy.

Background: In recurrent ovarian cancer, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-inhibiting agents have transformed the treatment of platinum-sensitive disease. New data support use of PARP inhibitors earlier in the treatment algorithm. Design: We review results from recent phase III trials evaluating PARP inhibitors as treatment and/or maintenance therapy for patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. We discuss the efficacy and safety of these agents in the all-comer and biomarker-selected populations studied in clinical trials, and compare the strengths and limitations of the various trial designs. We also consider priorities for future research, with a particular focus on patient selection and future regimens for populations with high unmet need. Results: Four phase III trials (SOLO-1, PAOLA-1/ENGOT-OV25, PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26 and VELIA/GOG-3005) demonstrated remarkable improvements in progression-free survival with PARP inhibitor therapy (olaparib, niraparib or veliparib) for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. Differences in trial design (treatment and/or maintenance setting; single agent or combination; bevacizumab or no bevacizumab), patient selection (surgical outcome, biomarker eligibility, prognosis) and primary analysis population (intention-to-treat, BRCA mutated or homologous recombination deficiency positive) affect the conclusions that can be drawn from these trials. Overall survival data are pending and there is limited experience regarding long-term safety. Conclusions: PARP inhibitors play a pivotal role in the management of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, which will affect subsequent treatment choices. Refinement of testing for patient selection and identification of regimens to treat populations that appear to benefit less from PARP inhibitors are a priority.

Olaparib is currently approved in maintenance treatment of advanced ovarian cancer after response to first-line chemotherapy for breast related cancer antigens (BRCA) mutated patients. The use of this agent is based on data from SOLO1 study that observed a decreased risk of disease progression or death and a median progression-free survival about 36 months longer in case of therapy with olaparib. However, this trial recruited only patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer. The aim of this review is to retrace the available data in order to clarify the potential efficacy and feasibility of olaparib administration in newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer also in early stages.

Background: Limited evidence exists to support CA-125 as a valid surrogate biomarker for progression in patients with ovarian cancer on maintenance PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapy. We aimed to assess the concordance between CA-125 and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) criteria for progression in patients with BRCA mutations on maintenance PARPi or placebo. Methods: We extracted data on progression as defined by Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup CA-125, investigator- and independent central-assessed RECIST from the SOLO2/ENGOT-ov21(NCT01874353) trial. We excluded those with progression other than by RECIST, progression on date of randomisation, and no repeat CA-125 beyond baseline. We evaluated the concordance between CA-125 progression and RECIST progression, and assessed the negative (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV). Results: Of 295 randomised patients, 275 (184 olaparib, 91 placebo) were included. 171 patients had investigator-assessed RECIST progression. Of 80 patients with CA-125 progression, 77 had concordant RECIST progression (PPV 96%, 95% confidence interval 90–99%). Of 195 patients without CA-125 progression, 94 had RECIST progression (NPV 52%, 45–59%). Within treatment arms, PPV was similar (olaparib: 95% [84–99%], placebo: 97% [87–100%]) but NPV was lower in patients on placebo (olaparib: 60% [52–68%], placebo: 30% [20–44%]). Of 94 patients with RECIST but without CA-125 progression, 64 (68%) had CA-125 that remained within normal range. We observed similar findings using independent-assessed RECIST. Conclusions: Almost half the patients without CA-125 progression had RECIST progression, and most of these had CA-125 within the normal range. Regular computed tomography imaging should be considered as part of surveillance in patients treated with or without maintenance olaparib rather than relying on CA-125 alone.

PURPOSE A phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00628251) showed activity of olaparib capsules versus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with germline BRCA-mutated platinum-resistant or partially platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. We conducted a phase III trial (SOLO3) of olaparib tablets versus nonplatinum chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer who had received at least 2 prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this randomized, open-label trial, patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to olaparib 300 mg twice a day or physician’s choice single-agent nonplatinum chemotherapy (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, paclitaxel, gemcitabine, or topotecan). The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) in the measurable disease analysis set assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). The key secondary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by BICR in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS Of 266 randomly assigned patients, 178 were assigned to olaparib and 88 to chemotherapy. In patients with measurable disease (olaparib, n = 151; chemotherapy, n = 72), the BICR-assessed ORR was significantly higher with olaparib than with chemotherapy (72.2% v 51.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.53 [95% CI, 1.40 to 4.58]; P = .002). In the subgroup who had received 2 prior lines of treatment, the ORR was 84.6% with olaparib and 61.5% with chemotherapy (OR, 3.44 [95% CI, 1.42 to 8.54]). BICR-assessed PFS also significantly favored olaparib versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.91]; P = .013; median, 13.4 v 9.2 months). Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profiles of olaparib and chemotherapy. CONCLUSION Olaparib resulted in statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in ORR and PFS compared with nonplatinum chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian c

In highly metastatic tumors, vasculogenic mimicry (VM) involves the acquisition by tumor cells of endothelial-like traits. Poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are currently used against tumors displaying BRCA1/2-dependent deficient homologous recombination, and they may have antimetastatic activity. Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are emerging as key species-specific regulators of cellular and disease processes. To evaluate the impact of olaparib treatment in the context of non-coding RNA, we have analyzed the expression of lncRNA after performing unbiased whole-transcriptome profiling of human uveal melanoma cells cultured to form VM. RNAseq revealed that the non-coding transcriptomic landscape differed between olaparib-treated and non-treated cells: olaparib significantly modulated the expression of 20 lncRNAs, 11 lncRNAs being upregulated, and 9 downregulated. We subjected the data to different bioinformatics tools and analysis in public databases. We found that copy-number variation alterations in some olaparib-modulated lncRNAs had a statistically significant correlation with alterations in some key tumor suppressor genes. Furthermore, the lncRNAs that were modulated by olaparib appeared to be regulated by common transcription factors: ETS1 had high-score binding sites in the promoters of all olaparib upregulated lncRNAs, while MZF1, RHOXF1 and NR2C2 had high-score binding sites in the promoters of all olaparib downregulated lncRNAs. Finally, we predicted that olaparib-modulated lncRNAs could further regulate several transcription factors and their subsequent target genes in melanoma, suggesting that olaparib may trigger a major shift in gene expression mediated by the regulation lncRNA. Globally, olaparib changed the lncRNA expression landscape during VM affecting angiogenesis-related genes.

[Resumen]: El cáncer de ovario es una enfermedad de alta incidencia entre las mujeres postmenopáusicas (entre 50 y 75 años), que presenta una tasa de supervivencia del 60% a edades menores de 65 y de un 31% en edades superiores a ésta. Uno de los medicamentos empleados para dicha enfermedad es Olaparib. Aunque este fármaco es efectivo como tratamiento de mantenimiento, su unión a PARP bloquea la reparación del material genético. La presencia de Olaparib junto con la proteína HMGB2 pone en evidencia que ésta podría tener varias dianas celulares en relación con su función de reparación del ADN. En este trabajo se ha estudiado mediante RT-qPCR la variación de la expresión de HMGB2 además de otros dos genes como son COMMD1 y MIEM1 en dos líneas celulares diferentes (SKOV-3 y PEO1) tras un tratamiento con Olaparib y con respecto a un control, observándose una diferencia significativa en el gen HMGB2 en la línea celular SKOV-3, lo que abre puertas a la realización de nuevos estudios para apoyar estos resultados., [Resumo]: O cancro de ovario é unha enfermidade de alta incidencia entre as mulleres postmenopáusicas (entre 50 e 75 anos), que presenta unha taxa de supervivencia do 60% a idades menores de 65 e dun 31% en idades superiores. Un dos medicamentos empregados para dita enfermidade é Olaparib. Aínda que este fármaco é efectivo como tratamento de mantemento, a súa unión a PARP bloquea a reparación do material xenético. A presenza de Olaparib xunto coa proteína HMGB2 pon en evidencia que esta podería ter varias dianas celulares en relación coa súa función de reparación do ADN. No presente traballo, estudouse mediante RT-qPCR a variación da expresión de HMBG2 ademais de outros dous xenes como son COMMD1 e MIEM1 en dúas liñas celulares diferentes (SKOV-3 e PEO1) tras o tratamento con Olaparib e respecto a un control, observándose unha diferenza significativo no xene HMGB2 na liña celular SKOV-3, o que abre portas á realización de novos estudos para apoiar estes resultados., [Abstract]: Ovarian cancer is a high-incidence disease among postmenopausal women (between 50 and 75 years), which has a survival rate of 60% at ages under 65 and 31% at ages higher than it. One of the medicines used for this disease is Olaparib. Although this drug is effective as a maintenance treatment, its binding to PARP blocks the repair of genetic material. The presence of Olaparib along with the HMGB2 protein shows that it could have several cellular targets in relation to its DNA repair function. In this work, the variation of the expression of HMGB2 has been studied using RT-qPCR in addition to two other genes such as COMMD1 and MIEM1 in two different cell lines (SKOV-3 and PEO1) after treatment with Olaparib and with respect to a control, observing a significant difference in the HMGB2 gene in the SKOV-3 cell line, which opens doors to the completion of new studies to support these results.

BACKGROUND: Poly (ADP-ribose) Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are promising novel radiosensitisers. Pre-clinical models have demonstrated potent and tumour-specific radiosensitisation by PARP inhibitors. Olaparib is a PARP inhibitor with a favourable safety profile in comparison to clinically used radiosensitisers including cisplatin when used as single agent. However, data on safety, tolerability and efficacy of olaparib in combination with radiotherapy are limited.METHODS: Olaparib is dose escalated in combination with radical (chemo-)radiotherapy regimens for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast cancer and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) in three parallel single institution phase 1 trials. All trials investigate a combination treatment of olaparib and radiotherapy, the NSCLC trial also investigates a triple combination of olaparib, radiotherapy and concurrent low dose cisplatin. The primary objective is to identify the maximum tolerated dose of olaparib in these combination treatments, defined as the dose closest to but not exceeding a 15% probability of dose limiting toxicity. Each trial has a separate dose limiting toxicity definition, taking into account incidence, duration and severity of expected toxicities without olaparib. Dose escalation is performed using a time-to-event continual reassessment method (TITE-CRM). TITE-CRM enables the incorporation of late onset toxicity until one year after treatment in the dose limiting toxicity definition while maintaining an acceptable trial duration. Olaparib treatment starts two days before radiotherapy and continues during weekends until two days after radiotherapy. Olaparib will also be given two weeks and one week before radiotherapy in the breast cancer trial and HNSCC trial respectively to allow for translational research. Toxicity is scored using common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 4.03. Blood samples, and tumour biopsies in the breast cancer trial, are coll

Breast cancer is a common disease partially caused by genetic risk factors. Germline pathogenic variants in DNA repair genes BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, and CHEK2 are associated with breast cancer risk. FANCM, which encodes for a DNA translocase, has been proposed as a breast cancer predisposition gene, with greater effects for the ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtypes. We tested the three recurrent protein-truncating variants FANCM:p.Arg658*, p.Gln1701*, and p.Arg1931* for association with breast cancer risk in 67,112 cases, 53,766 controls, and 26,662 carriers of pathogenic variants of BRCA1 or BRCA2. These three variants were also studied functionally by measuring survival and chromosome fragility in FANCM-/- patient-derived immortalized fibroblasts treated with diepoxybutane or olaparib. We observed that FANCM:p.Arg658* was associated with increased risk of ER-negative disease and TNBC (OR = 2.44, P = 0.034 and OR = 3.79; P = 0.009, respectively). In a country-restricted analysis, we confirmed the associations detected for FANCM:p.Arg658* and found that also FANCM:p.Arg1931* was associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk (OR = 1.96; P = 0.006). The functional results indicated that all three variants were deleterious affecting cell survival and chromosome stability with FANCM:p.Arg658* causing more severe phenotypes. In conclusion, we confirmed that the two rare FANCM deleterious variants p.Arg658* and p.Arg1931* are risk factors for ER-negative and TNBC subtypes. Overall our data suggest that the effect of truncating variants on breast cancer risk may depend on their position in the gene. Cell sensitivity to olaparib exposure, identifies a possible therapeutic option to treat FANCM-associated tumors.Copyright © 2019, The Author(s).

Breast cancer is a common disease partially caused by genetic risk factors. Germline pathogenic variants in DNA repair genes BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, and CHEK2 are associated with breast cancer risk. FANCM, which encodes for a DNA translocase, has been proposed as a breast cancer predisposition gene, with greater effects for the ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtypes. We tested the three recurrent protein-truncating variants FANCM:p.Arg658*, p.Gln1701*, and p.Arg1931* for association with breast cancer risk in 67,112 cases, 53,766 controls, and 26,662 carriers of pathogenic variants of BRCA1 or BRCA2. These three variants were also studied functionally by measuring survival and chromosome fragility in FANCM-/- patient-derived immortalized fibroblasts treated with diepoxybutane or olaparib. We observed that FANCM:p.Arg658* was associated with increased risk of ER-negative disease and TNBC (OR = 2.44, P = 0.034 and OR = 3.79; P = 0.009, respectively). In a country-restricted analysis, we confirmed the associations detected for FANCM:p.Arg658* and found that also FANCM:p.Arg1931* was associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk (OR = 1.96; P = 0.006). The functional results indicated that all three variants were deleterious affecting cell survival and chromosome stability with FANCM:p.Arg658* causing more severe phenotypes. In conclusion, we confirmed that the two rare FANCM deleterious variants p.Arg658* and p.Arg1931* are risk factors for ER-negative and TNBC subtypes. Overall our data suggest that the effect of truncating variants on breast cancer risk may depend on their position in the gene. Cell sensitivity to olaparib exposure, identifies a possible therapeutic option to treat FANCM-associated tumors.Copyright © 2019, The Author(s).

Although improvements in radiation therapy were made over the years, radioresistance is still a major challenge. Cancer cells are often deficient for DNA repair response, a feature that is currently exploited as a new anti-cancer strategy. In this context, combination of inhibitors targeting complementary pathways is of interest to sensitize cells to radiation. In this work, we used PARP (Olaparib) and RAD51 (B02) inhibitors to radiosensitize cancer cells to proton and X-ray radiation. More particularly, Olaparib and B02 were used at concentration leading to limited cytotoxic (alone or in combination) but increasing cell death when the cells were irradiated. We showed that, although at limited concentration, Olaparib and B02 were able to radiosensitize different cancer cell lines, i.e. lung and pancreatic cancer cells. Antagonistic, additive or synergistic effects were observed and correlated to cell proliferation rate. The inhibitors enhanced persistent DNA damage, delayed apoptosis, prolonged cell cycle arrest and senescence upon irradiation. These results demonstrated that radiation-induced synthetic lethality might widen the therapeutic window, hence extending the use of PARP inhibitors to patients without BRCAness.

The aim of this paper is to compare the cost for managing severe haematological toxicities (HTs: anaemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) in patients with pretreated, relapsed BRCA-mutant positive (+) ovarian cancer (OC) receiving second-line therapy with olaparib or niraparib. As reported for treatment groups of randomized controlled trials, the incidence of anaemia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia for olaparib (niraparib) was 0.071, 0.432 and 0.062 (0.253, 0.196 and 0.338), respectively. A one-year decision-tree cost-minimization analysis and a three-year budget impact analysis (BIA) were performed from the viewpoint of the Italian National Health Service (INHS). Health care resources funded by the INHS were identified and quantified based on the literature and expert opinion; they were costed via published sources and expressed in 2018 euro (€) amounts on a per-patient basis. One-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA) and scenario analysis tested the robustness of the base case findings. Our results show that the costs for managing anaemia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia with olaparib (niraparib) are €440.63, €1032.76 and €171.01 (€1568.82, €468.90 and €936.06), respectively. The overall cost for HT management reaches €1644.41 and €2973.78 for olaparib and niraparib, respectively. Overall savings in favour of olaparib is €1329.37. BIA shows that olaparib can save the INHS €2.322m over a three-year timespan. Sensitivity analyses confirm the robustness of the baseline findings. Despite some limitations in our study, the results of the cost-minimization analysis show that olaparib is a safe and cost-saving health care programme for the INHS for the management of HTs in patients receiving second-line therapy for BRCA+ OC.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib has shown significant clinical benefit as maintenance therapy in women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a BRCA mutation. The effect of combining maintenance olaparib and bevacizumab in patients regardless of BRCA mutation status is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, international phase 3 trial. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer and were having a response after first-line platinum-taxane chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Patients were eligible regardless of surgical outcome or BRCA mutation status. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo for up to 24 months; all the patients received bevacizumab at a dose of 15 mg per kilogram of body weight every 3 weeks for up to 15 months in total. The primary end point was the time from randomization until investigator-assessed disease progression or death. RESULTS: Of the 806 patients who underwent randomization, 537 were assigned to receive olaparib and 269 to receive placebo. After a median follow-up of 22.9 months, the median progression-free survival was 22.1 months with olaparib plus bevacizumab and 16.6 months with placebo plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.72; P<0.001). The hazard ratio (olaparib group vs. placebo group) for disease progression or death was 0.33 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.45) in patients with tumors positive for homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD), including tumors that had BRCA mutations (median progression-free survival, 37.2 vs. 17.7 months), and 0.43 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.66) in patients with HRD-positive tumors that did not have BRCA mutations (median progression-free survival, 28.1 vs. 16.6 months). Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profiles of olaparib and bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced ovarian cancer receiving first-li