CDK4/6 inhibitors promote PARP1 degradation and act synergistically with PARP inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer.

Despite the widespread deregulation of CDK4/6 activity in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the clinical trials with CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6is) as a monotherapy have shown poor antitumor activity. However, our preclinical studies have revealed a significant potential for CDK4/6is to collaborate by influencing DNA damage repair pathways during radiotherapy. Given the considerable upregulation of PARP1 expression in NSCLC, we analyzed the efficacy of combined PARP and CDK4/6 inhibition in NSCLC models. Our findings demonstrate that CDK4/6is synergize with PARP inhibitors (PARPis) to inhibit the clonogenic growth of RB-proficient NSCLC models. This synergy is associated with increased accumulation of DNA damage, interrupted cell-cycle checkpoints, and enhanced apoptotic cell death. We showed that CDK4/6is mechanically promote PARP1 protein degradation, leading to decreased availability of DNA repair factors involved in homologous recombination and suppression of DNA repair competency. Furthermore, we showed that PARP trapping is required for this synergy. We then confirmed that combining PARPi and CDK4/6i blocked the growth of NSCLC xenografts in vivo and patient-derived explant models ex vivo. These findings reveal a previously uncharacterized impact of CDK4/6i on PARP1 levels in RB-proficient NSCLC models and the requirement of PARP trapping to render synergy between CDK4/6i and PARPi. Our research suggests that combining CDK4/6i with PARPi could be a promising therapeutic strategy for patients with RB-proficient NSCLC, potentially opening up new and more effective avenues for treatment.

Evaluating physiochemical properties of FDA-approved orally administered drugs.

INTRODUCTION: Analyses of orally administered FDA-approved drugs from 1990 to 1993 enabled the identification of a set of physiochemical properties known as Lipinski's Rule of Five (Ro5). The original Ro5 and extended versions still remain the reference criteria for drug development programs. Since many bioactive compounds do not conform to the Ro5, we validated the relevance of and adherence to these rulesets in a contemporary cohort of FDA-approved drugs. AREAS COVERED: The authors noted that a significant proportion of FDA-approved orally administered parent compounds from 2011 to 2022 deviate from the original Ro5 criteria (~38%) or the Ro5 with extensions (~53%). They then evaluated if a contemporary Ro5 criteria (cRo5) could be devised to better predict oral bioavailability. Furthermore, they discuss many case studies showcasing the need for and benefit of increasing the size of certain compounds and cover several evolving strategies for improving oral bioavailability. EXPERT OPINION: Despite many revisions to the Ro5, the authors find that no single proposed physiochemical rule has universal concordance with absolute oral bioavailability. Innovations in drug delivery and formulation have dramatically expanded the range of physicochemical properties and the chemical diversity for oral administration.

Dynamic differences between DNA damage repair responses in primary tumors and cell lines.

The study of DNA damage repair response (DDR) in prostate cancer is restricted by the limited number of prostate cancer cell lines and lack of surrogates for heterogeneity in clinical samples. Here, we sought to leverage our experience with patient derived explants (PDEs) cultured ex vivo to study dynamics of DDR in primary tumors following application of clinically relevant doses of ionizing radiation (IR) to tumor cells in their native 3-dimensional microenvironment. We compared DDR dynamics between prostate cancer cell lines, PDEs and xenograft derived explants (XDEs) following treatment with IR (2Gy) either alone or in combination with pharmacological modulators of DDR. We have shown that following treatment with 2Gy, DDR can be consistently detected in PDEs from multiple solid tumors, including prostate, kidney, testes, lung and breast, as evidenced by γ-H2AX, 53BP1, phospho-ATM and phospho-DNA-PKcs foci. By examining kinetics of resolution of IR-induced foci, we have shown that DDR in prostate PDEs (complete resolution in 8 h) is much faster than in prostate cancer cell lines (<50% resolution in 8 h). The transcriptional profile of DDR genes following 2Gy IR appears to be distinct between PDEs and cell lines. Pre-treatment with drugs targeting DDR pathways differentially alter the kinetics of DDR in the PDEs and cell lines, as evidenced by altered kinetics of foci resolution. This study highlights the utility of PDEs as a robust model system for short-term evaluation of DDR in primary solid tumors in clinically relevant microenvironment.