Combinatorial Efficacy of Olaparib with Radiation and ATR Inhibitor Requires PARP1 Protein in Homologous Recombination-Proficient Pancreatic Cancer.

PARP inhibitor monotherapy (olaparib) was recently FDA approved for the treatment of BRCA1/2-mutant, homologous recombination (HR) repair-deficient pancreatic cancer. Most pancreatic cancers, however, are HR proficient and thus resistant to PARP inhibitor monotherapy. We tested the hypothesis that combined therapy with radiation and ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) inhibitor (AZD6738) would extend the therapeutic indication of olaparib to HR-proficient pancreatic cancers. We show that olaparib combined with AZD6738 significantly reduced radiation survival relative to either agent alone, regardless of HR status. Whereas catalytic inhibition of PARP with low concentrations of olaparib radiosensitized HR-deficient models, maximal sensitization in HR-proficient models required concentrations of olaparib that induce formation of PARP1-DNA complexes. Furthermore, CRISPR-Cas9-mediated PARP1 deletion failed to recapitulate the effects of olaparib on radiosensitivity and negated the combinatorial efficacy of olaparib and AZD6738 on radiosensitization, suggesting that PARP1-DNA complexes, rather than PARP catalytic inhibition, were responsible for radiosensitization. Mechanistically, therapeutic concentrations of olaparib in combination with radiation and AZD6738 increased DNA double-strand breaks. DNA fiber combing revealed that high concentrations of olaparib did not stall replication forks but instead accelerated replication fork progression in association with an ATR-mediated replication stress response that was antagonized by AZD6738. Finally, in HR-proficient tumor xenografts, the combination of olaparib, radiation, and AZD6738 significantly delayed tumor growth compared with all other treatments. These findings suggest that PARP1-DNA complexes are required for the therapeutic activity of olaparib combined with radiation and ATR inhibitor in HR-proficient pancreatic cancer and support the clinical development of this combination for tumors intrinsically resistant to PARP inhibitors.

Gemcitabine sensitization by checkpoint kinase 1 inhibition correlates with inhibition of a Rad51 DNA damage response in pancreatic cancer cells.

The protein kinase checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1) has been implicated as a key regulator of cell cycle progression and DNA repair, and inhibitors of Chk1 (e.g., UCN-01 and EXEL-9844) potentiate the cytotoxic actions of chemotherapeutic drugs in tumor cells. We have examined the ability of PD-321852, a small-molecule Chk1 inhibitor, to potentiate gemcitabine-induced clonogenic death in a panel of pancreatic cancer cell lines and evaluated the relationship between endpoints associated with Chk1 inhibition and chemosensitization. Gemcitabine chemosensitization by minimally toxic concentrations of PD-321852 ranged from minimal (<3-fold change in survival) in Panc1 cells to >30-fold in MiaPaCa2 cells. PD-321852 inhibited Chk1 in all cell lines as evidenced by stabilization of Cdc25A; in combination with gemcitabine, a synergistic loss of Chk1 protein was observed in the more sensitized cell lines. Gemcitabine chemosensitization, however, did not correlate with abrogation of the S-M or G2-M checkpoint; PD-321852 did not induce premature mitotic entry in gemcitabine-treated BxPC3 or M-Panc96 cells, which were sensitized to gemcitabine 6.2- and 4.6-fold, respectively. In the more sensitized cells lines, PD-321852 not only inhibited gemcitabine-induced Rad51 focus formation and the recovery from gemcitabine-induced replication stress, as evidenced by persistence of gamma-H2AX, but also depleted these cells of Rad51 protein. Our data suggest the inhibition of this Chk1-mediated Rad51 response to gemcitabine-induced replication stress is an important factor in determining gemcitabine chemosensitization by Chk1 inhibition in pancreatic cancer cells.

The contribution of DNA replication stress marked by high-intensity, pan-nuclear γH2AX staining to chemosensitization by CHK1 and WEE1 inhibitors.

Small molecule inhibitors of the checkpoint proteins CHK1 and WEE1 are currently in clinical development in combination with the antimetabolite gemcitabine. It is unclear, however, if there is a therapeutic advantage to CHK1 vs. WEE1 inhibition for chemosensitization. The goals of this study were to directly compare the relative efficacies of the CHK1 inhibitor MK8776 and the WEE1 inhibitor AZD1775 to sensitize pancreatic cancer cell lines to gemcitabine and to identify pharmacodynamic biomarkers predictive of chemosensitization. Cells treated with gemcitabine and either MK8776 or AZD1775 were first assessed for clonogenic survival. With the exception of the homologous recombination-defective Capan1 cells, which were relatively insensitive to MK8776, we found that these cell lines were similarly sensitized to gemcitabine by CHK1 or WEE1 inhibition. The abilities of either the CDK1/2 inhibitor roscovitine or exogenous nucleosides to prevent MK8776 or AZD1775-mediated chemosensitization, however, were both inhibitor-dependent and variable among cell lines. Given the importance of DNA replication stress to gemcitabine chemosensitization, we next assessed high-intensity, pan-nuclear γH2AX staining as a pharmacodynamic marker for sensitization. In contrast to total γH2AX, aberrant mitotic entry or sub-G1 DNA content, high-intensity γH2AX staining correlated with chemosensitization by either MK8776 or AZD1775 (R2 0.83 - 0.53). In summary, we found that MK8776 and AZD1775 sensitize to gemcitabine with similar efficacy. Furthermore, our results suggest that the effects of CHK1 and WEE1 inhibition on gemcitabine-mediated replication stress best predict chemosensitization and support the use of high-intensity or pan-nuclear γH2AX staining as a marker for therapeutic response.

Dissociation of gemcitabine chemosensitization by CHK1 inhibition from cell cycle checkpoint abrogation and aberrant mitotic entry.

In order to determine the relative contribution of checkpoint abrogation and subsequent aberrant mitotic entry to gemcitabine chemosensitization by CHK1 inhibition, we established a model utilizing the CDK inhibitors roscovitine or purvalanol A to re-establish cell cycle arrest and prevent aberrant mitotic entry in pancreatic cancer cells treated with gemcitabine and the CHK inhibitor AZD7762. In this study, we report that the extent of aberrant mitotic entry, as determined by flow cytometry for the mitotic marker phospho-Histone H3 (Ser10), did not reflect the relative sensitivities of pancreatic cancer cell lines to gemcitabine chemosensitization by AZD7762. In addition, re-establishing gemcitabine-induced cell cycle arrest either pharmacologically, with roscovitine or purvalanol A, or genetically, with cyclin B1 siRNA, did not inhibit chemosensitization uniformly across the cell lines. Furthermore, we found that AZD7762 augmented high-intensity γH2AX signaling in gemcitabine-treated cells, suggesting the presence of replication stress when CHK1 is inhibited. Finally, the ability of roscovitine to prevent chemosensitization correlated with its ability to inhibit AZD7762-induced high-intensity γH2AX, but not aberrant pHH3, suggesting that the effects of AZD7762 on DNA replication or repair rather than aberrant mitotic entry determine gemcitabine chemosensitization in pancreatic cancer cells.

Sensitization of pancreatic cancer to chemoradiation by the Chk1 inhibitor MK8776.

PURPOSE: The combination of radiation with chemotherapy is the most effective therapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer. To improve upon this regimen, we combined the selective Checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1) inhibitor MK8776 with gemcitabine-based chemoradiation in preclinical pancreatic cancer models. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We tested the ability of MK8776 to sensitize to gemcitabine-radiation in homologous recombination repair (HRR)-proficient and -deficient pancreatic cancer cells and assessed Rad51 focus formation. In vivo, we investigated the efficacy, tumor cell selectivity, and pharmacodynamic biomarkers of sensitization by MK8776. RESULTS: We found that MK8776 significantly sensitized HRR-proficient (AsPC-1, MiaPaCa-2, BxPC-3) but not -deficient (Capan-1) pancreatic cancer cells to gemcitabine-radiation and inhibited Rad51 focus formation in HRR-proficient cells. In vivo, MiaPaCa-2 xenografts were significantly sensitized to gemcitabine-radiation by MK8776 without significant weight loss or observable toxicity in the small intestine, the dose-limiting organ for chemoradiation therapy in pancreatic cancer. We also assessed pChk1 (S345), a pharmacodynamic biomarker of DNA damage in response to Chk1 inhibition in both tumor and small intestine and found that MK8776 combined with gemcitabine or gemcitabine-radiation produced a significantly greater increase in pChk1 (S345) in tumor relative to small intestine, suggesting greater DNA damage in tumor than in normal tissue. Furthermore, we demonstrated the utility of an ex vivo platform for assessment of pharmacodynamic biomarkers of Chk1 inhibition in pancreatic cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Together, our results suggest that MK8776 selectively sensitizes HRR-proficient pancreatic cancer cells and xenografts to gemcitabine-radiation and support the clinical investigation of MK8776 in combination with gemcitabine-radiation in locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Assessment of chk1 phosphorylation as a pharmacodynamic biomarker of chk1 inhibition.

PURPOSE: Chk1 inhibitors, such as AZD7762, are in clinical development in combination with cytotoxic agents for the treatment of solid tumors, including pancreatic cancers. To maximize the likelihood of their clinical success, it is essential to optimize drug scheduling as well as pharmacodynamic biomarkers in preclinical models. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We tested multiple schedules of administration of gemcitabine and AZD7762 on the survival of pancreatic cancer cells. Potential pharmacodynamic biomarkers including pChk1, pChk2, pHistone H3, and caspase-3 were evaluated in vitro, followed by assessment of promising candidate biomarkers in vivo. We then went on to determine the contributions of PP2A and DNA damage to the mechanism(s) of induction of the identified biomarker, pS345 Chk1. RESULTS: AZD7762 given during and after or after gemcitabine administration produced maximum chemosensitization. In vivo, AZD7762 significantly inhibited the growth of pancreatic tumor xenografts in response to gemcitabine. Of the biomarkers assessed, pS345 Chk1 was most consistently increased in response to gemcitabine and AZD7762 in tumors and normal tissues (hair follicles). pS345 Chk1 induction in response to gemcitabine and AZD7762 occurred in the presence of PP2A inhibition and in association with elevated γH2AX, suggesting that DNA damage is an underlying mechanism. CONCLUSIONS: AZD7762 sensitizes pancreatic cancer cells and tumors to gemcitabine in association with induction of pS345 Chk1. Together these data support the clinical investigation of AZD7762 with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer under a dosing schedule in which gemcitabine is administered concurrent with or before AZD7762 and in conjunction with skin biopsies to measure pS345 Chk1.