Search

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

Summary: Background Patients with multiple relapsed/refractory germ cell tumours (GCTs) have an extremely poor prognosis. PARP (poly-ADP-ribose polymerase) is overexpressed in GCTs compared to normal testes, and PARP overexpression is an early event in GCT development. This study aimed to determine the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine, carboplatin and the PARP inhibitor veliparib in patients with multiple relapsed/refractory GCTs. Methods Fifteen patients with multiple relapsed/refractory GCTs were enrolled in this phase II study from October 2016 to October 2020. Gemcitabine was administered at a dose of 800 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; carboplatin at a target AUC of 4 on day 1 every 3 weeks; and veliparib at a dose of 250 mg b.i.d. throughout. The primary end point was 12-month progression-free survival (PFS). Results The median number of treatment cycles was 4 (range 2–8). Twelve-month PFS was achieved in 1 (6.7 %) patient. The median PFS was 3.1 months (95 % CI 2.2–3.9), and the median overall survival was 10.5 months (95 % CI 8.9–11.1). Partial remission was achieved in 4 (26.7 %) patients, and disease stabilization was observed in 5 (33.3 %) patients. A favourable response was achieved in 3 (20.0 %) patients. Treatment was well tolerated; however, 11 (73.3 %) patients experienced grade 3/4 neutropenia, 10 (66.7 %) experienced thrombocytopenia, 5 (33.3 %) anaemia and 2 (13.3 %) febrile neutropenia. Conclusions This study failed to achieve its primary endpoint, and our data suggest limited efficacy of gemcitabine, carboplatin and veliparib for multiple relapsed/refractory GCTs. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02860819, registered August 9, 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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

• Veliparib, a PARP inhibitor, enhances cytotoxicity induced by chemoradiotherapy (CRT) • This phase 1 trial investigated veliparib + CRT in unresectable stage III NSCLC. • Veliparib + CRT was well-tolerated in these patients. • MTD/RP2D was veliparib 240 mg BID + CRT, and 120 mg QD with consolidation CT. • Veliparib + CRT showed antitumor activity with an mPFS of 19.6 months. Veliparib is a potent poly(ADP)-ribose polymerase (PARP) 1 and 2 inhibitor that impedes repair of DNA damage induced by cytotoxic and radiation therapies. This phase 1 study evaluated veliparib in combination with chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients received veliparib orally twice daily (BID) in escalating doses (60–240 mg, Day –3 to 1 day after last dose of radiation) combined with weekly carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] 2 mg/mL/min), paclitaxel (45 mg/m2), and daily radiation therapy (60 Gy in 30 fractions), followed by two cycles of veliparib (120–240 mg BID, Days –2 through 5 of each 21-day cycle), carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL/min, Day 1 of each cycle), and paclitaxel (200 mg/m2, Day 1 of each cycle) consolidation. Endpoints included veliparib maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy. Forty-eight patients were enrolled. The MTD/RP2D of veliparib was 240 mg BID with chemoradiotherapy followed by 120 mg BID with consolidation. The most common any-grade adverse events (AEs) in this cohort for the whole treatment period were nausea (83%), esophagitis (75%), neutropenia (75%), and thrombocytopenia (75%). Dose-proportional pharmacokinetics of veliparib were observed. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 19.6 months (95% CI: 9.7–32.6). Median overall survival was estimated to be 32.6 months (95% CI: 15.0–not reached). In patients treated with the RP2D, mPFS was 19.6 months (95% CI: 3.0–not reached). When combined with standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy and consolidation chemotherapy in patients with stage III NSCLC, veliparib demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and antitumor activity with an mPFS of 19.6 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the phase 3 VELIA/GOG-3005 trial, veliparib added to carboplatin-paclitaxel and continued as maintenance improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to carboplatin-paclitaxel alone in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian carcinoma. Primary analysis of PFS was by investigator (INV) assessment, with a supplemental analysis of PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR). Patients received veliparib or placebo with carboplatin-paclitaxel (6 cycles) and as maintenance (30 additional cycles). The primary analysis compared PFS in the veliparib-throughout arm to the carboplatin-paclitaxel only arm in the BRCA mutation (BRCAm), homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), and intention-to-treat (ITT) populations. Exploratory analyses of PFS in BRCA wildtype (BRCAwt), homologous recombination proficient (HRP), and HRD + BRCAwt populations were also performed. PFS per BICR and overall concordance rates between INV and BICR assessments were analyzed. Hazard ratios for PFS by INV and BICR were consistent in each of the primary analysis and exploratory populations. In the ITT population, median PFS per INV was 23.5 months in the veliparib-throughout arm versus 17.3 months in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.683, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.562–0.831; P < 0.001). Median PFS by BICR was 29.3 months versus 19.2 months (HR 0.687, 95% CI 0.504–0.806). In the ITT population, the overall concordance rates between INV and BICR were 78% and 75% for the veliparib-throughout and control arms, respectively. Hazard ratios for PFS per BICR and per INV were consistent, with no suggestion of investigator bias. These findings support the reliability of PFS by INV in ovarian cancer trials. • Addition of veliparib to chemotherapy and as maintenance improved (INV)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). • Hazard ratios for PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR) were consistent with hazard ratios for PFS per INV. • Analyses of overall concordance between INV and BICR assessments indicated a lack of investigator bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inhibitors (PARPi) of poly(ADP-ribose-)polymerase-1 (PARP1) are used in antitumor therapy; their cytotoxicity correlates with the efficiency of PARP1 trapping in cell chromatin. Previous studies have demonstrated the PARPi-induced trapping of PARP1 on DNA, although details of the mechanism remain controversial. Here, the interactions of PARP1-nucleosome complexes with PARPi, olaparib (Ola), talazoparib (Tala), and veliparib (Veli) were studied. PARPi trap PARP1 on nucleosomes without affecting the structure of PARP1-nucleosome complexes. The efficiency of PARP1 trapping on nucleosomes increases in the order of Tala>Ola>>Veli, recapitulating the relative trapping efficiencies of PARPi in cells, but different from the relative potency of PARPi to inhibit the catalytic activity of PARP1. The efficiency of PARP1 trapping on nucleosomes correlates with the level of inhibition of auto-PARylation, which otherwise promotes the dissociation of PARP1-nucleosome complexes. The trapping efficiencies of Tala and Ola (but not Veli) are additionally modulated by the enhanced PARP1 binding to nucleosomes. The dissociation of PARP1-nucleosome complexes occurs without a loss of histones and leads to the restoration of the intact structure of nucleosomal DNA. The data suggest that the chromatin structure can considerably affect the efficiency of the PARPi action.

Veliparib, a potent PARP inhibitor used against multiple cancerous cells such as metastatic melanoma, breast, non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and prostatic cancer, is required for absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) and environmental toxicology assessments studies. Tritium‐labeled Veliparib was prepared via the tritiodebromination using tritium gas (T2) in two steps. [14C]Veliparib was achieved through an asymmetric synthetic route in seven radioactive steps starting from [14C] (S)‐benzyl 2‐aminopropanoate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-inhibitors (PARPis) showed antitumour activity in BRCA 1/2-mutated cancers, with more heterogeneous outcomes in tumours harbouring mutations that impair other genes involved in the DNA homologous recombination repair (HRR) or wild-type (wt). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to better assess the role of PARPis in the treatment of metastatic solid tumours, with and without BRCA 1/2 mutations. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary end-points were overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). A random-effects model was applied. Twenty-nine studies (8,839 patients) were included. PFS was significantly improved (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51–0.68, p < 0.001), without being affected by BRCA mutational status (p = 0.65). Significant subgroup differences were observed with regard to the tumour site (p = 0.001), line of therapy (p = 0.002), control arm (p < 0.001), type of PARPi (p < 0.001) and trials' phase (p = 0.006). PARPis were associated with ORR (relative risk: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.16–1.56, p < 0.001), with significant subgroup differences observed with regard to treatment line (p = 0.03), control arm (p = 0.04) and PARPis (p < 0.001) and independent of mutational status (p = 0.44), tumour site (p = 0.86) and trials' phase (p = 0.09). OS was significantly improved by PARPis (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.80–0.92, p < 0.001), regardless of mutational status (p = 0.57), tumour site (p = 0.82), treatment line (p = 0.22), control arm (p = 0.21), PARPis (p = 0.30) and trials' phase (p = 0.26). Finally, an exploratory subgroup analysis showed a significant PFS improvement (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.43–0.60, p < 0.001) with PARPis in BRCA -wt/HRR-deficient tumours. Our results confirm the efficacy of already approved PARPi-based treatments in BRCA 1/2-mutant solid tumours, support their role also in BRCA -independent HRR-deficient tumours and suggest a potentially broader efficacy in some wt tumours, perhaps with appropriate therapeutic partners. Prospective studies are warranted. • Twenty-nine trials with BRCA -mutant (mut) or wild-type (wt) cancers were included. • Progression-free survival (PFS) was improved by PARP-inhibitors (is), independent of BRCA. • Response rates were higher with PARPis, irrespective of BRCA status. • Overall survival was improved by PARPis, independent of BRCA mutational status. • PFS was improved by PARPis in cancers with homologous recombination deficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) accounts for about 3% of all cancers in the United States and about 7% of all cancer deaths. Despite the lower prevalence relative to other solid tumors, it is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death in the US. PDAC is highly resistant to chemotherapy as well as radiation therapy. Current standard-of-care chemotherapeutic regimens provide transient disease control but eventually tumors develop chemoresistance. Tumors that are deficient in DNA damage repair mechanisms such as BRCA mutants respond better to platinum-based chemotherapies. However, these tumor cells can utilize the poly adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-ribose polymerase (PARP) as a salvage DNA repair pathway to prolong survival. Hence, in the presence of BRCA mutations, the inhibition of the PARP pathway can lead to tumor cell death. This provides the rationale for using PARP inhibitors in patients with BRCA mutated PDAC. The phase III POLO trial showed a near doubling of progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo in advanced PDAC when a PARP inhibitor, olaparib, was used as maintenance therapy. As a result, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved olaparib as a maintenance treatment for germline BRCA mutated advanced PDAC that has not progressed on platinum-based chemotherapy. The success of olaparib in treating advanced PDAC opened the new field for utilizing PARP inhibitors in patients with DNA damage repair (DDR) gene defects. Currently, many clinical trials with various PARP inhibitors are ongoing either as monotherapy or in combination with other agents. In addition to germline/somatic BRCA mutations, some trials are enrolling patients with defects in other DDR genes such as ATM, PALB2, and CHEK2. With many ongoing PARP inhibitor trials, it is hopeful that the management of PDAC will continuously evolve and eventually lead to improved patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medulloblastoma is the most common malignant childhood brain tumor, and 5-year overall survival rates are as low as 40% depending on molecular subtype, with new therapies critically important. As radiotherapy and chemotherapy act through the induction of DNA damage, the sensitization of cancer cells through the inhibition of DNA damage repair pathways is a potential therapeutic strategy. The poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor veliparib was assessed for its ability to augment the cellular response to radiation-induced DNA damage in human medulloblastoma cells. DNA repair following irradiation was assessed using the alkaline comet assay, with veliparib inhibiting the rate of DNA repair. Veliparib treatment also increased the number of γH2AX foci in cells treated with radiation, and analysis of downstream pathways indicated persistent activation of the DNA damage response pathway. Clonogenicity assays demonstrated that veliparib effectively inhibited the colony-forming capacity of medulloblastoma cells, both as a single agent and in combination with irradiation. These data were then validated in vivo using an orthotopic implant model of medulloblastoma. Mice harboring intracranial D425 medulloblastoma xenografts were treated with vehicle, veliparib, 18 Gy multifractionated craniospinal irradiation (CSI), or veliparib combined with 18 Gy CSI. Animals treated with combination therapy exhibited reduced tumor growth rates concomitant with increased intra-tumoral apoptosis observed by immunohistochemistry. Kaplan–Meier analyses revealed a statistically significant increase in survival with combination therapy compared to CSI alone. In summary, PARP inhibition enhanced radiation-induced cytotoxicity of medulloblastoma cells; thus, veliparib or other brain-penetrant PARP inhibitors are potential radiosensitizing agents for the treatment of medulloblastoma.

Context: Testing for mutations in Breast Cancer Gene 1/2 (BRCA) has emerged as a novel decision-making tool for clinicians. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring pathogenic BRCA mutations can benefit from poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) and platinum treatments, whereas the impact of the mutation on sensitivity to cabazitaxel and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-ligand therapy is currently unknown., Objective: To assess the efficacy of PARPi, platinum, cabazitaxel, and PSMA-ligand therapies in BRCA-positive mCRPC., Evidence Acquisition: Databases were queried in February 2022. We performed data synthesis by using both proportional and individual patient data. For prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (≥50% decrease from baseline [PSA50]) evaluation, we pooled event rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival analyses with individual patient data were performed with the mixed-effect Cox proportional hazard model and single-arm random-effect analysis, providing pooled medians., Evidence Synthesis: We included 23 eligible studies with 901 BRCA-positive mCRPC patients. PSA50 response rates for PARPi and platinum were 69% (CI: 53-82%), and 74% (CI: 49-90%), respectively. Analyses of OS data showed no difference between PARPi and platinum treatments (hazard ratio: 0.86; CI: 0.49-1.52; p = 0.6). The single-arm OS and PFS analyses revealed similarities among different PARPis; pooled PFS and OS medians were 9.7 mo (CI: 8.1-12.5) and 17.4 mo (CI: 12.7-20.1), respectively., Conclusions: Our data revealed that different PARPis were similarly effective in terms of PFS and OS. Moreover, we found that PARPi and platinum therapy were comparable in terms of PSA50 response rate and OS, highlighting that platinum is a valid treatment option for BRCA-positive mCRPC patients. However, prospective interventional studies comparing these agents are essential to provide a higher level of evidence., Patient Summary: In this report, we found that different poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors had similar efficacy, and platinum was a valid treatment option in BRCA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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

Keywords: Pancreatic cancer; PARP inhibitor; pancreatic adenocarcinoma; BRCA mutation; targeted therapy; polyadenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase; DNA damage response; olaparib; veliparib; rucaparib EN Pancreatic cancer PARP inhibitor pancreatic adenocarcinoma BRCA mutation targeted therapy polyadenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase DNA damage response olaparib veliparib rucaparib 913 918 6 11/23/20 20201101 NES 201101 1. In the patients with advanced pancreatic cancer and BRCA1/2 mutation, the tumor response rate was 21.7% (five of 23 patients; 95% CI, 7.5 to 43.7) [[16]]. Ongoing studies are evaluating the role of PARP inhibitors for patients with pancreatic cancer who may not have the germline BRCA1/2 mutation, but share "BRCAness". Phase 1 trial evaluating cisplatin, gemcitabine, and veliparib in 2 patient cohorts: germline BRCA mutation carriers and wild-type BRCA pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. [Extracted from the article]

Objectives: The ECOG‐ACRIN Cancer Research Group trial E2511 recently demonstrated a potential benefit for the addition of veliparib to cisplatin‐etoposide (CE) in patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer (ES‐SCLC) in a phase II randomized controlled trial. Secondary trial endpoints included comparison of the incidence and severity of neurotoxicity, hypothesized to be lower in the veliparib arm, and tolerability of the addition of veliparib to CE. Physician‐rated and patient‐reported neurotoxicity was also compared. Materials and Methods: Patients randomized to veliparib plus CE (n = 64) or placebo plus CE (n = 64) completed the 11‐item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Gynecologic Oncology Group Neurotoxicity (questionnaire pre‐treatment, end of cycle 4 [ie 3 months after randomization] and 3 months post‐treatment [ie 6‐months]). Adherence analysis was based on treatment forms. Results and Conclusion: No significant differences in mean or magnitude of change in neurotoxicity scores were observed between treatment arms at any time point. However, patients in the placebo arm reported worsening neurotoxicity from baseline to 3‐months (M difference = −1.5, P =.045), compared to stable neurotoxicity in the veliparib arm (M difference = −0.2, P =.778). Weakness was the most common treatment‐emergent (>50%) and moderate to severe (>16%) symptom reported, but did not differ between treatment arms. The proportion of adherence to oral therapy in the overall sample was 75%. Three percent of patients reported clinically significant neurotoxicity that was not captured by physician assessment. Neurotoxicity scores were not different between treatment arms. The addition of veliparib to CE appeared tolerable, though weakness should be monitored. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01642251. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. 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. 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. • In four phase III trials in ovarian cancer, front-line PARP inhibition significantly improved progression-free survival. • Differences in trial design, patient selection and primary analysis population influence interpretation of these trials. • PARP inhibitors play a pivotal role in managing newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, affecting subsequent treatment choices. • Priorities include refining testing and identifying therapies for patients benefiting less from PARP inhibition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Purpose: PARP inhibitors are a novel targeted anti-cancer drug and a large number of clinical studies on PARP inhibitors have been accomplished. This updated meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitors in advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods: Medline (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched to identify the eligible trials up to April 2020. ClinicalTrials.gov was also screened for additional unpublished trials. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent investigators, respectively. The hazard ratios (HRs) and its 95% confidence intervals (CI) for time-to-event data of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and the risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CI for dichotomous data of overall response rate (ORR) and occurrence of adverse events (AEs) were calculated by Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0 software. Results: A total of 12 trials with 5,347 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with the control group, PARP inhibitors significantly improved PFS (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.40–0.65; P < 0.00001) and ORR (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11–1.43; P = 0.0003). Specifically, PFS was improved regardless of BRCA genes mutations and homologous-recombination status. However, no difference was observed in OS between the PARP inhibitors group and the control group (95% CI, 0.73–1.01; P = 0.06). PARP inhibitors were associated with a statistically significant higher risk of hematologic events and different PARP inhibitors had different toxicities profiles. Conclusion: PARP inhibitors are an effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Summary: Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) accounts for nearly 90% of all ovarian malignancies. The standard therapeutic strategy includes cytoreductive surgery and neo (adjuvant) platinum-based chemotherapy. Relapse of advanced high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) is related to the development of drug resistance. A defective DNA damage response is a defining hallmark of HGSOC. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors exploit this deficiency through synthetic lethality and have emerged as promising anticancer therapies, especially in breast cancer gene (BRCA1 or BRCA2) mutation carriers. Apart from inducing synthetic lethality, PARP inhibitors have also been shown to trap PARP1 and PARP2 on DNA, leading to PARP-DNA complexes. This "PARP trapping" potentiates synergism between PARP inhibition and both alkylating agents and platinum-based chemotherapy. However, there are remarkable differences in the ability of PARP inhibitors to trap PARP, based on the size and structure of each separate molecule. Since monotherapy with PARP inhibitors is unlikely to induce cancer cell death in BRCA-proficient tumors, the efficacy of PARP inhibitors could be potentially optimized when combined with DNA-damaging agents, or with molecular targeted agents that also impair mechanisms of DNA repair. Olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib have all obtained US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and/or European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval in ovarian cancer in different settings. Veliparib does not yet have an approved label; nevertheless, there are currently promising results available in preclinical and early clinical settings. This comprehensive review summarizes the mechanism of action of veliparib and provides an overview of its early and ongoing clinical investigations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]