Comparing niraparib versus platinum-taxane doublet chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with newly diagnosed homologous recombination-deficient stage III/IV ovarian cancer: study protocol for cohort C of the open-label, phase 2, randomized controlled multicenter OPAL trial.

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

Veliparib­Induced Toxicity in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta­Analysis.

In this study, we investigate the veliparib­induced toxicity in cancer patients. Databases were searched for RCTs treated with veliparib. We found veliparib could increase the risk of hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities. Anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and nausea were the most common toxicities. Patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal tumors tend to have a higher risk of high-grade neutropenia; patients in the first-line setting tend to have a higher risk of high-grade anemia and neutropenia than those in the ≥ second line setting. Patients receiving higher dosage of veliparib tend to have a higher risk of all-grade anemia. Veliparib could also increase the risk of insomnia, myalgia, pneumonia, dyspnea, hyponatremia, and fatigue.

Comparison of Adverse Events Between PARP Inhibitors in Patients with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Nationwide Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) as maintenance treatment for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), a comparative analysis of clinical events of interest (CEIs) of different PARPi is scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the safety of different PARPi in patients with EOC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Through analyzing the Korean National Health Insurance Service from January 2009 to January 2022, this study involved BRCA-mutated, platinum-sensitive patients with EOC treated with olaparib (tablet), niraparib, and olaparib (capsule) as first-line or second-line maintenance treatment. CEIs were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9/10 codes, with additional outcomes being dose modification and persistence. RESULTS: In the first-line maintenance treatment [118 niraparib, 104 olaparib (tablet) patients], no significant differences were noted in CEIs, dose reduction, or 6-month discontinuation rate. For second-line maintenance treatment [303 niraparib, 126 olaparib (tablet), and 675 olaparib (capsule) patients], niraparib was associated with a higher risk of hematologic CEIs, particularly anemia, compared with olaparib (tablet) (0.51 [0.26-0.98] and 0.09 [0.01-0.74], respectively), and higher rate of discontinuation rate at 6 months. Of note, patients over 60 years old showed an increased risk of CEIs with niraparib, as indicated by the hazard ratio divergence in restricted cubic spline plots. CONCLUSIONS: No differences were observed among the PARPi during first-line maintenance treatment. However, in the second-line maintenance treatment, significant differences were observed in the risk of experiencing CEIs, dose alteration possibilities, and discontinuation of PARPi between niraparib and olaparib (tablets). Moreover, our findings suggest that an age of 60 years may be a critical factor in selecting PARPi to reduce CEI incidence.

A Relative Bioavailability, Bioequivalence, and Food Effect Study of Niraparib Tablets in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: The poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor niraparib is indicated as maintenance treatment in patients with certain subtypes of advanced ovarian cancer, and is being investigated in patients with other solid tumors. Niraparib is available in 100-mg capsules with a starting dosage of 200 or 300 mg/d. This study assessed the relative bioavailability (BA) and bioequivalence (BE) between a 1 × 300-mg tablet relative to 3 × 100-mg niraparib capsules. In addition, the food effect (FE) of a high-fat meal on the pharmacokinetic (PK) properties of tablet-formulated niraparib was investigated. METHODS: This was a US-based, 3-stage, open-label, multicenter, single-crossover, randomized-sequence study. Enrolled patients were 18 years and older, with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced solid tumors (metastatic or local) and disease progression despite standard therapy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive niraparib 1 × 300-mg tablet or 3 × 100-mg capsules in the BA and BE stages or 1 × 300-mg tablet in a fasted or fed (high-fat meal) state in the FE stage. Across all study stages, PK parameters were assessed for 7 days after each dose (tablet or capsule) or prandial state (fasted or fed). In the BA stage, patients crossed over to the other treatment after a 7-day washout period, which was extended to 14 days in the BE and FE stages. Tolerability was assessed for patients who received any amount of niraparib. FINDINGS: The BA-, BE-, and FE-evaluable populations comprised 23, 108, and 19 patients, respectively, who completed both treatment periods in each study stage, had sufficient concentration data to accurately estimate PK parameters without niraparib carryover, and did not experience disqualifying events. PK parameters were similar after dosing with tablet or capsule formulations; the 90% CIs of the geometric least square means for Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ were within the 0.80 to 1.25 BE limits. In the FE stage, Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ were 11%, 32%, and 28% higher, respectively, in the fed versus fasted state. The safety population included 29, 168, and 28 patients in the BA, BE, and FE stages, respectively, who received niraparib. No new safety signals were identified. IMPLICATIONS: Niraparib tablets were found to be bioequivalent to capsules. A modest (≤32%) FE was observed with a high-fat meal, but was not considered to be clinically meaningful, given niraparib's PK variability. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT03329001. (Clin Ther. 2024;46:XXX-XXX) © 2024 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.

Successful Management of Ovarian Cancer Progressing on Olaparib by Niraparib Following Cytoreduction: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND: Polyadenosine 5'-diphosphoribose polymerase inhibitors (PARP-Is) are novel, effective agents for treating newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). However, the effect of PARP-I on the progression of recurrent EOC has not yet been determined. In particular, there is limited evidence regarding retreatment with PARP-I for recurrent EOC that has progressed on PARP-I in the short term. CASE REPORT: A 69-year-old woman with a BRCA1 mutated EOC relapsed five months after starting olaparib maintenance following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking surgery. Although the platinum-free interval was within six months, secondary cytoreductive surgery was performed because the tumor was locoregional. Following two cycles of weekly nedaplatin, niraparib induced a complete response, and the patient maintained a progression-free status for 15 months. CONCLUSION: Even with short-term progression on PARP-I, local control combined with different platinum agents and PARP-I can be used to achieve good responses.

Concurrent Olaparib and Radiation Therapy in Older Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma: The Phase 1 Dose-Escalation PARADIGM Trial.

PURPOSE: Patients with glioblastoma who are older or have poor performance status (PS) experience particularly poor clinical outcomes. At the time of study initiation, these patients were treated with short-course radiation therapy (40 Gy in 15 fractions). Olaparib is an oral inhibitor of the DNA repair enzyme poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) that is well tolerated as a single agent but exacerbates acute radiation toxicity in extracranial sites. Preclinical data predicted that PARP inhibitors would enhance radiosensitivity in glioblastoma without exacerbating adverse effects on the normal brain. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Phase 1 of the PARADIGM trial was a 3+3 dose-escalation study testing olaparib in combination with radiation therapy (40 Gy 15 fractions) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma who were unsuitable for radical treatment either because they were aged 70 years or older (World Health Organization PS 0-1) or aged 18 to 69 years with PS 2. The primary outcome was the recommended phase 2 dose of olaparib. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability, overall survival, and progression-free survival. Effects on cognitive function were assessed via the Mini Mental State Examination. RESULTS: Of 16 eligible patients (56.25% male; median age, 71.5 years [range, 44-78]; 75% PS 0-1), 1 dose-limiting toxicity was reported (grade 3 agitation). Maximum tolerated dose was not reached and the recommended phase 2 dose was determined as 200 mg twice daily. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were 10.8 months (80% CI, 7.3-11.4) and 5.5 months (80% CI, 3.9-5.9), respectively. Mini Mental State Examination plots indicated that cognitive function was not adversely affected by the olaparib-radiation therapy combination. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib can be safely combined with hypofractionated brain radiation therapy and is well tolerated in patients unsuitable for radical chemoradiation. These results enabled initiation of a randomized phase 2 study and support future trials of PARP inhibitors in combination with radiation therapy for patients with brain tumors.

PARP Inhibitors in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Existing Evidence.

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) represent an option in selected cases of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of approved (Olaparib, Rucaparib) and investigational (Talazoparib, Niraparib, Veliparib) PARPi in mCRPC patients. Three databases were queried for studies analyzing oncological outcomes and adverse events of mCRPC patients receiving PARPi. Primary outcome was a PSA decline ≥ 50% from baseline. Secondary outcomes were objective response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), radiological PFS, overall survival (OS), conversion of circulating tumor cell count, and time to PSA progression. The number and rate of any grade adverse events (AEs), grade ≥ 3 AEs, and most common grade ≥ 3 AEs were registered. A subanalysis of outcomes per mutation type, prospective trials, and studies adopting combination therapies was performed. Overall, 31 studies were included in this systematic review, 28 of which are available for meta-analysis. The most frequently investigated drug was Olaparib. The most frequent mutation was BRCA2. A PSA decline rate of 43% (95% CI 0.32-0.54) was observed in the overall population. Mean OS was 15.9 (95% CI 12.9-19.0) months. In BRCA2 patients, PSA decline rate was 66% (95% CI 0.57-0.7) and OS 23.4 months (95% CI 22.8-24.1). Half of the patients suffered from grade 3 and 4 AEs (0.50 [95% CI 0.39-0.60]). Most common AEs were hematological, the most frequent being anemia (21.5%). PARP inhibitors represent a viable option for mCRPC patients. Current evidence suggests an increased effectiveness in homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene mutation carriers, especially BRCA2.

Comparison of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) as maintenance therapy for newly-diagnosed and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer with BRCA mutational status: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) treatment for ovarian cancer (OC) are ever-changing. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and overall safety of available PARPi as maintenance therapy for BRCA mutation status in patients with newly diagnosed and platinum-sensitive recurrent (PSR) OC patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Relevant RCTs were systematically retrieved from PubMed and Embase until 31 May 2022. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) based on BRCA mutation status and adverse events (AEs) regardless of mutation were efficacy and safety endpoints. RESULTS: In newly diagnosed BRCAm-OC patients, olaparib (HR: 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25, 0.43) and other PARPis [niraparib (HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.55), rucaparib (HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.76) and veliparib (HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.28, 0.69)] had a statistically significant effect on PFS versus placebo. In BRCAm-PSROC patients, Olaparib exhibited significant benefit (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.54, 0.88) for OS compared to other PARPis. In BRCAwt-PSR OC patients, Olaparib showed a favorable OS benefit than other PARPis (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.57,1.22). Overall, safety profile of all PARPis was acceptable. CONCLUSION: All PARPis showed significant benefit, with olaparib showing greater benefit in newly diagnosed and PSR OC women. REGISTRATION: CRD42021288932.

Niraparib-induced pure red cell aplasia.

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

Efficacy and safety of olaparib, olaparib plus bevacizumab and niraparib maintenance treatment in Japanese patients with platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether maintenance treatment could be safely and effectively performed with olaparib, olaparib plus bevacizumab and niraparib in platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer at multiple institutions in Japan. METHODS: We investigated progression-free survival and adverse events in 117 patients with platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer treated with maintenance therapy. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival of 117 patients was 20.1 months. Patients with germline BRCA pathogenic variants had a significantly better prognosis than the other groups (P < 0.001). Furthermore, in the multivariate analysis, stage IV (P = 0.016) and germline BRCA wild-type (P ≤ 0.001) were significantly associated with worse progression-free survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Regarding adverse events, all three types of maintenance treatment were significantly worse than chemotherapy given before maintenance treatment with respect to renal function (olaparib, P = 0.037; olaparib plus bevacizumab, P < 0.001; and niraparib, P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Maintenance treatment was performed effectively and safely. Renal function deterioration is likely to occur during maintenance treatment, and careful administration is important in platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer.

Development of a simple high-performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet detection method for olaparib in patients with ovarian cancer.

Olaparib is a small-molecule inhibitor of poly(ADP)-ribose polymerase (PARP) used as maintenance therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer and newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer after initial chemotherapy. An exposure-toxicity correlation has been reported between the probability of anemia, a common adverse event associated with olaparib, and the steady-state minimum plasma concentration (Cmin) as well as the predicted maximum plasma concentration (Cmax). On the other hand, olaparib exhibits high interpatient variability with regard to the area under the concentration-time curve, Cmax, and Cmin. Therefore, we developed a simple and sensitive assay based on high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet light (HPLC-UV) for the therapeutic drug monitoring of olaparib. The analysis was performed on an octadecylsilyl column with a mobile phase consisting of 0.5% KH2PO4 (pH 4.5) and acetonitrile (71:29, v/v), at a flow rate of 0.8 mL/min. Olaparib and an internal standard (imatinib) were well separated from the co-extracted material, with retention times of 13.6 and 11.5 min, respectively. The calibration curve for olaparib showed linearity over the concentration range of 0.10-10.0 µg/mL (r2 = 0.9998). The intra- and inter- day validation coefficients ranged from 1.79 to 4.13% and 1.37 to 3.55%, respectively. Measurement accuracy ranged from - 6.07 to 3.26%, with a recovery rate of more than 91.06%. The developed method was then applied to evaluate the plasma olaparib concentrations in patients with ovarian cancer. Our findings demonstrate that HPLC-UV is an economical, simple, and sensitive method for clinical application and holds promise for the effective drug monitoring of olaparib during ovarian cancer treatment.

Health care services utilization in patients with ovarian cancer receiving PARP inhibitor maintenance treatment in a US community oncology setting.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe healthcare resource use (HCRU) in addition to treatment patterns and discontinuations, in patients with ovarian cancer (OC) initiating PARP inhibitor (PARPi) maintenance treatment in a US community oncology setting. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients with OC initiating PARPi monotherapy maintenance during 01/01/2017 to 06/30/2019 (followed until 12/31/2019). Patients aged ≥18 years at first diagnosis of OC with ≥2 visits within The US Oncology Network were included. Structured and chart review data as well as claims data were used to describe treatment patterns and HCRU. RESULTS: Of the 162 charts reviewed, the median age of patients was 66 years and 80% had stage III or IV disease at diagnosis. In the niraparib, rucaparib and olaparib groups, proportions of patients experiencing dose interruptions were 51%, 50%, and 28%, and discontinuations due to toxicity were 37%, 17% and 15%, respectively. Within the first 6 months, mean numbers of total claims were 43.5, 56.4, and 36.0 in the niraparib, rucaparib, and olaparib groups, and laboratory claims were 13.9, 19.4, and 15.6, respectively. Proportions of patients with hospitalizations (niraparib 40%, rucaparib 32%, olaparib 19%; p = 0.03), also differed as did emergency department visits (niraparib 37%, rucaparib 23%, olaparib 16%; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Despite patients initiating niraparib having higher rates of dose management events and toxicity-related discontinuations, outpatient and laboratory utilization were similar across all three PARPi. Adequate monitoring of these medications, with differing toxicities, should be emphasized to potentially decrease dose reductions and toxicities.

Hematological Toxicity of PARP Inhibitors in Metastatic Prostate Cancer Patients with Mutations of BRCA or HRR Genes: A Systematic Review and Safety Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: PARP inhibitors (PARPis) are effective treatment options for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as single agents or in combination with androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA). However, a clinically relevant adverse effect of these agents is hematological toxicity, a typical class adverse event (AE), which can lead to treatment modifications and discontinuations. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to analyze the risk of hematological AEs, including anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia secondary to PARPi treatments in mCRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) meeting abstracts for clinical trials concerning the use of PARPis, both as single agents and in combination, in patients with mCRPC. The search deadline was 30 June, 2023. We analyzed the pooled incidence of all grades of and ≥ G3 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. We subsequently calculated risk ratios (RRs) for all grades of and ≥ G3 AEs of PARPis versus non-PARPis from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). RESULTS: Eleven phase 2/3 trials with olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib administered as single agents or combined with ARTA were selected. Anemia was the most common all grades (38.6%) and ≥ G3 AE (24.9%). In the analysis of relative risk, six RCTs were included. The administration of PARPis significantly increased the risk of developing all grades of anemia (RR = 2.44), neutropenia (RR = 3.15), and thrombocytopenia (RR = 4.66) compared with non-PARPis. Similarly, a significant increase in the risk of ≥ G3 anemia (RR = 5.73) and thrombocytopenia (RR = 5.44), and a not significant increased risk of neutropenia (RR = 3.41), were detected. CONCLUSIONS: In mCRPC, PARPis increase the risk of hematological toxicity compared with other treatments, both as single agents or combined with ARTA (high-quality evidence). Clinicians should be aware of this risk and the correct management, especially with the expected increased PARPis use in mCRPC.

Olaparib plus Durvalumab, with or without Bevacizumab, as Treatment in PARP Inhibitor-Naïve Platinum-Sensitive Relapsed Ovarian Cancer: A Phase II Multi-Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Early results from the phase II MEDIOLA study (NCT02734004) in germline BRCA1- and/or BRCA2-mutated (gBRCAm) platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) showed promising efficacy and safety with olaparib plus durvalumab. We report efficacy and safety of olaparib plus durvalumab in an expansion cohort of women with gBRCAm PSROC (gBRCAm expansion doublet cohort) and two cohorts with non-gBRCAm PSROC, one of which also received bevacizumab (non-gBRCAm doublet and triplet cohorts). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter study, PARP inhibitor-naïve patients received olaparib plus durvalumab treatment until disease progression; the non-gBRCAm triplet cohort also received bevacizumab. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR; gBRCAm expansion doublet cohort), disease control rate (DCR) at 24 weeks (non-gBRCAm cohorts), and safety (all cohorts). RESULTS: The full analysis and safety analysis sets comprised 51, 32, and 31 patients in the gBRCAm expansion doublet, non-gBRCAm doublet, and non-gBRCAm triplet cohorts, respectively. ORR was 92.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 81.1-97.8] in the gBRCAm expansion doublet cohort (primary endpoint); DCR at 24 weeks was 28.1% (90% CI, 15.5-43.9) in the non-gBRCAm doublet cohort (primary endpoint) and 74.2% (90% CI, 58.2-86.5) in the non-gBRCAm triplet cohort (primary endpoint). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were reported in 47.1%, 65.6%, and 61.3% of patients in the gBRCAm expansion doublet, non-gBRCAm doublet, and non-gBRCAm triplet cohorts, respectively, most commonly anemia. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib plus durvalumab continued to show notable clinical activity in women with gBRCAm PSROC. Olaparib plus durvalumab with bevacizumab demonstrated encouraging clinical activity in women with non-gBRCAm PSROC. No new safety signals were identified.

Olaparib maintenance versus placebo in platinum-sensitive non-small cell lung cancer: the Phase 2 randomized PIPSeN trial.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-sensitivity is a phenotypic biomarker of Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) sensitivity in histotypes where PARPi are approved. Approximately one-third of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) are platinum-sensitive. The double-blind, randomized phase II PIPSeN (NCT02679963) study evaluated olaparib, a PARPi, as maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Chemonaïve patients with ECOG performance status of 0-1, platinum-sensitive, EGFR- and ALK-wild-type, stage IIIB-IV NSCLC were randomized (R) to receive either olaparib (O) maintenance or a placebo (P). The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) from R. Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS) and safety. With an anticipated hazard ratio of 0.65, 144 patients were required to be randomized, and approximately 500 patients enrolled. RESULTS: The trial was prematurely terminated because anti-PD(L)1 therapy was approved during the trial recruitment. A total of 182 patients were enrolled, with 60 patients randomized: 33 and 27 in the O and P arms, respectively. Patient and tumor characteristics were well-balanced between arms, except for alcohol intake (33% vs 11% in the O and P arms, respectively, p = 0.043). The median PFS was 2.9 and 2.0 months in the O and P arms, respectively (logrank p = 0.99). The median OS was 9.4 and 9.5 months in the O and P arms, respectively (p = 0.28). Grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 15 and 8 patients in O and P arms, with no new safety concerns. CONCLUSION: PIPSeN was terminated early after enrollment of only 50% of the pre-planned population, thus being statistically underpowered. Olaparib maintenance did neither improve median PFS nor OS in this patient population.

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy containing anti-angiogenic drugs, immunotherapy, or PARP inhibitors for ovarian cancer.

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy. The standard treatment involves chemotherapy with platinum-paclitaxel following cytoreductive surgery. For patients battling widespread and aggressive tumor spread, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval debulking surgery emerges as an encouraging alternative. However, the effectiveness of this strategy is often limited by advanced-stage diagnosis and high likelihood of recurrence. The high mortality rate necessitates the exploration of targeted therapies. Present results signal promising efficacy and acceptable toxicities of anti-angiogenic drugs, immunotherapy, or PARP inhibitors used in chemotherapy. However, the potential integration of these drugs into NACT raises questions about response rates, surgical outcomes, and adverse events. This review delves into the findings from all published articles and ongoing studies, aiming to summarize the clinical use of anti-angiogenic drugs, immunotherapy, or PARP inhibitors in NACT, highlight the positive and negative aspects, and outline future perspectives.

Effects of food and ethnicity on the pharmacokinetics of venadaparib, a next-generation PARP inhibitor, in healthy Korean, Caucasian, and Chinese male subjects.

AIM: Venadaparib is a next-generation poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor under development for treating gastric cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of food and ethnicity on the pharmacokinetics (PKs) and safety of venadaparib after a single oral administration in healthy Korean, Caucasian, and Chinese male subjects. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, single-dose, two-sequence, two-period, and crossover study, Korean and Caucasian subjects received venadaparib 80 mg in each period (fasted or fed state) with a seven-day washout. In an open-label, single-dose study, Chinese subjects received venadaparib 80 mg only in the fasted state. Serial blood samples were collected up to 72 h post-dosing. RESULTS: Twelve subjects from each ethnic group completed the study. The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) of the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last measurable time point (AUClast) of venadaparib for the fed to fasted state were 0.82 (0.7457-0.9094) and 1.02 (0.9088-1.1339) in Koreans, and 0.77 (0.6871-0.8609) and 0.96 (0.9017-1.0186) in Caucasians, respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed in Cmax (P-value = 0.45) or AUClast (P-value = 0.30) among the three ethnic groups. A single venadaparib dose was well-tolerated. CONCLUSION: The overall systemic exposure of venadaparib was not affected by the high-fat meal, despite delayed absorption with a decreased Cmax in the fed state. The PK profiles were comparable among the Korean, Caucasian, and Chinese subjects. A single venadaparib 80 mg dose was safe and well-tolerated in both fasted and fed states.

NRG-GY012: Randomized phase 2 study comparing olaparib, cediranib, and the combination of cediranib/olaparib in women with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic endometrial cancer.

PURPOSE: This paper reports the efficacy of the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib alone and in combination with the antiangiogenesis agent cediranib compared with cediranib alone in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. METHODS: This was open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial (NCT03660826). Eligible patients had recurrent endometrial cancer, received at least one (<3) prior lines of chemotherapy, and were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), stratified by histology (serous vs. other) to receive cediranib alone (reference arm), olaparib, or olaparib and cediranib for 28-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Homologous repair deficiency was explored using the BROCA-GO sequencing panel. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were enrolled and all were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Median age was 66 (range, 41-86) years and 47 (39.2%) had serous histology. Median progression-free survival for cediranib was 3.8 months compared with 2.0 months for olaparib (hazard ratio, 1.45 [95% CI, 0.91-2.3] p = .935) and 5.5 months for olaparib/cediranib (hazard ratio, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.43-1.14] p = .064). Four patients receiving the combination had a durable response lasting more than 20 months. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were hypertension in the cediranib (36%) and olaparib/cediranib (33%) arms, fatigue (20.5% olaparib/cediranib), and diarrhea (17.9% cediranib). The BROCA-GO panel results were not associated with response. CONCLUSION: The combination of cediranib and olaparib demonstrated modest clinical efficacy; however, the primary end point of the study was not met. The combination was safe without unexpected toxicity.

Poly (ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Context: Several recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported on the survival benefits of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) compared to standard-of-care (SOC) treatment (enzalutamide, abiraterone, or docetaxel) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, there is a limited integrated analysis of high-quality evidence comparing the efficacy and safety of PARPi and SOC treatments in this context. Objective: This study aims to comprehensively analyze the survival benefits and adverse events associated with PARPi and SOC treatments through a head-to-head meta-analysis in mCRPC. Evidence acquisition: A systematic review search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Clinical trials, and the Central Cochrane Registry in July 2023. RCTs were assessed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The systematic review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023441034). Evidence synthesis: A total of 8 studies, encompassing 2341 cases in the PARPi treatment arm and 1810 cases in the controlled arm, were included in the qualitative synthesis. The hazard ratio (HR) for radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.61-0.90) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80-0.99), respectively, in the intention-to-treatment patients. For subgroup analysis, HRs for rPFS and OS in the BRCA-mutated subgroup were 0.39 (95% CI, 0.28-0.55) and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.38-0.99), while in the HRR-mutated subgroup, HR for rPFS was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.48-0.69) and for OS was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.64-0.93). The odds ratio (OR) for all grades of adverse events (AEs) and AEs with severity of at least grade 3 were 3.86 (95% CI, 2.53-5.90) and 2.30 (95% CI, 1.63-3.26), respectively. Conclusions: PARP inhibitors demonstrate greater effectiveness than SOC treatments in HRR/BRCA-positive patients with mCRPC. Further research is required to explore ways to reduce adverse event rates and investigate the efficacy of HRR/BRCA-negative patients.

Combining Novel Hormonal Therapies with a Poly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Emerging Evidence.

Preclinical and clinical studies have suggested potential synergies of combining poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and novel hormonal therapies (NHT) for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We systematically searched PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov and ASCO-GU annual meeting abstracts up to March 2023 to identify potential phase III trials reporting the use of combining PARP inhibitors with NHT in the first-line setting for mCRPC. A total of four phase III trials met the criteria for subsequent review. Emerging data suggested that the radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was significantly longer in the PARP inhibitor combined with NHT group versus the placebo plus NHT group for the first-line setting of biomarker-unselected mCRPC patients, especially for patients with homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutation (HRR m), and with the greatest benefit for BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCA1/2 m) populations. Final overall survival (OS) data of the PROpel trial indicated a significant improvement in median OS for mCRPC patients with HRR m and BRCA1/2 m receiving olaparib + abiraterone. Prior taxane-based chemotherapy might not influence the efficacy of the combination. Compared with the current standard-of-care therapies, combining NHT with PARP inhibitors could achieve a significant survival benefit in the first-line setting for mCRPC patients with HRR and BRCA1/2 mutations.