Association of PARP inhibitor treatment on the prevalence and progression of clonal hematopoiesis in patients with advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are approved for the treatment of some men with advanced prostate cancer. Rare but serious side effects include myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The impact of PARP inhibitors on clonal hematopoiesis (CH), a potential precursor lesion associated with MDS and AML, is incompletely understood in prostate cancer. We hypothesized that PARP inhibitors would increase CH prevalence and abundance. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled participants with advanced prostate cancer treated with PARP inhibitors. The presence of CH was assessed from leukocytes using an ultra-deep error-corrected dual unique molecular identifiers sequencing method targeting 49 genes most commonly mutated in CH and myeloid malignancies. Variant allele frequencies (VAF) of ≥0.5% were considered clinically significant. Blood samples were collected before and after PARP inhibitor treatment. RESULTS: Ten men were enrolled; mean age of 67 years. Six patients had Gleason 7 disease, and four had Gleason ≥8 disease at diagnosis. Nine had localized disease at diagnosis, and eight had prior treatment with radiation. The mean time between pre- and post-treatment blood samples was 11 months (range 2.6-31 months). Six patients (60%) had CH identified prior to PARP inhibitor treatment, three with multiple clones. Of 11 CH clones identified in follow-up, 5 (45%) appeared or increased after treatment. DNMT3A, TET2, and PPM1D were the most common CH alterations observed. The largest post-treatment increase involved the PPM1D gene. CONCLUSION: CH alterations are frequently found after treatment with PARP inhibitors in patients with prostate cancer and this may be one mechanism by which PARP inhibitors lead to increased risk of MDS/AML.

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.

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.

Olaparib for childhood tumors harboring defects in DNA damage repair genes: arm H of the NCI-COG Pediatric MATCH trial.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute-Children's Oncology Group Pediatric Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) precision oncology platform trial enrolled children aged 1-21 years with treatment-refractory solid tumors and predefined actionable genetic alterations. Patients with tumors harboring alterations in DNA damage repair (DDR) genes were assigned to receive olaparib. METHODS: Tumor and blood samples were submitted for centralized molecular testing. Tumor and germline sequencing were conducted in parallel. Olaparib was given twice daily for 28-day cycles starting at a dose 30% lower than the adult recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The primary endpoint was the objective response. RESULTS: Eighteen patients matched (1.5% of those screened) based on the presence of a deleterious gene alteration in BRCA1/2, RAD51C/D, or ATM detected by tumor sequencing without germline subtraction or analysis of loss of heterozygosity (LOH). Eleven (61%) harbored a germline mutation, with only one exhibiting LOH. Six patients enrolled and received the olaparib starting dose of 135 mg/m2/dose. Two participants were fully evaluable; 4 were inevaluable because <85% of the prescribed dose was administered during cycle 1. There were no dose-limiting toxicities or responses. Minimal hematologic toxicity was observed. CONCLUSION: Most DDR gene alterations detected in Pediatric MATCH were germline, monoallelic, and unlikely to confer homologous recombination deficiency predicting sensitivity to olaparib monotherapy. The study closed due to poor accrual. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03233204. IRB approved: initial July 24, 2017.

Adjuvant Olaparib for Patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-Mutated Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors target cancers with defects in homologous recombination repair by synthetic lethality. New therapies are needed to reduce recurrence in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation-associated early breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial involving patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and high-risk clinicopathological factors who had received local treatment and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to 1 year of oral olaparib or placebo. The primary end point was invasive disease-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 1836 patients underwent randomization. At a prespecified event-driven interim analysis with a median follow-up of 2.5 years, the 3-year invasive disease-free survival was 85.9% in the olaparib group and 77.1% in the placebo group (difference, 8.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.5 to 13.0; hazard ratio for invasive disease or death, 0.58; 99.5% CI, 0.41 to 0.82; P<0.001). The 3-year distant disease-free survival was 87.5% in the olaparib group and 80.4% in the placebo group (difference, 7.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.0 to 11.1; hazard ratio for distant disease or death, 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.39 to 0.83; P<0.001). Olaparib was associated with fewer deaths than placebo (59 and 86, respectively) (hazard ratio, 0.68; 99% CI, 0.44 to 1.05; P = 0.02); however, the between-group difference was not significant at an interim-analysis boundary of a P value of less than 0.01. Safety data were consistent with known side effects of olaparib, with no excess serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with high-risk, HER2-negative early breast cancer and germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, adjuvant olaparib after completion of local treatment and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer survival free of invasive or distant disease than was placebo. Olaparib had limited effects on global patient-reported quality of life. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca; OlympiA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02032823.).

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.

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.

The efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitors in mCRPC with HRR mutation in second-line treatment: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Poly (ADP- ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) has been increasingly adopted for metastatic castration-resistance prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD). However, it is unclear which PARPi is optimal in mCRPC patients with HRD in 2nd -line setting. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review of trials regarding PARPi- based therapies on mCRPC in 2nd -line setting and performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was assessed as primary outcome. PSA response and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed according to specific genetic mutation. RESULTS: Four RCTs comprised of 1024 patients (763 harbored homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutations) were identified for quantitative analysis. Regarding rPFS, olaparib monotherapy, rucaparib and cediranib plus olaparib showed significant improvement compared with ARAT. Olaparib plus cediranib had the highest surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) scores (87.5%) for rPFS, followed by rucaparib, olaparib and olaparib plus abiraterone acetate prednisone. For patients with BRCA 1/2 mutations, olaparib associated with the highest probability (98.1%) of improved rPFS. For patients with BRCA-2 mutations, olaparib and olaparib plus cediranib had similar efficacy. However, neither olaparib nor rucaparib showed significant superior effectiveness to androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapy (ARAT) in patients with ATM mutations. For safety, olaparib showed significantly lower ≥ 3 AE rate compared with cediranib plus olaparib (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.51, 0.97), while olaparib plus cediranib was associated with the highest risk of all-grade AE. CONCLUSION: PARPi-based therapy showed considerable efficacy for mCRPC patients with HRD in 2nd -line setting. However, patients should be treated accordingly based on their genetic background as well as the efficacy and safety of the selected regimen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42023454079.

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.

Real world data of niraparib in platinum sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer: A multicenter experience of the MITO group.

OBJECTIVE: PARP (poly adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors are approved as maintenance therapy in platinum sensitive ovarian cancer (OC), in first line and in the recurrent setting, regardless of BRCA mutational status. Real-world data after the introduction of these agents are needed to evaluate whether the benefit observed in phase III randomized clinical trials can be translated into clinical practice. The aim of our study was to provide real-life data on efficacy and safety of niraparib administered as maintenance in platinum sensitive relapsed OC patients (PSROC). METHODS: This retrospective/prospective observational study included relapsed OC patients that received niraparib as maintenance, at the time of platinum sensitive recurrence within the Italian expanded-access program. Clinical data at the time of diagnosis and at the time of recurrence were collected and analyzed. Median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated as the time from start of niraparib treatment to subsequent radiologically confirmed relapse and death or last contact, respectively. RESULTS: Among 304 eligible patients, 260 (85%) had BRCA wild-type tumor and 36. (11.9%) were BRCA mutated. Median PFS was 9.1 months (95% CI: 6.9-11.2) and 10.3 months (95% CI: 7.0-13.5) in the BRCAwt and BRCAmut cohorts, respectively. Furthermore, median OS was 41.7 months (95% CI: 31.6-41.9) and 34.6 months (95% CI: N.E.) in the BRCAwt and BRCAmut cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSION: Data from this large real-life dataset suggested that maintenance with niraparib in the real-life setting of platinum sensitive OC recurrence is effective and well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of niraparib in patients aged 65 years and older with advanced ovarian cancer: Results from the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of age on the efficacy and safety of niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study (NCT02655016). Patients in the intent-to-treat population were categorized according to age at baseline (<65 years vs ≥65 years), and progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were evaluated for each age subgroup (clinical cutoff date, May 17, 2019). Safety findings were also evaluated according to a fixed starting dose (FSD) or an individualized starting dose (ISD). RESULTS: Of 733 randomized patients, 289 (39.4%) were ≥65 years (190 niraparib, 99 placebo) at baseline. Median PFS (niraparib vs placebo) and hazard ratios (95% CI) were similar in patients aged <65 years (13.9 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.61 [0.47-0.81]) and ≥65 years (13.7 vs 8.1 months; HR, 0.53 [0.39-0.74]). The incidences of any-grade and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar across age subgroups; in the niraparib arm, TEAEs leading to dose discontinuation occurred in 7.8% of patients <65 years and 18.4% of patients ≥65 years. ISD use lowered the incidence of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia events in niraparib-treated patients compared with the FSD (<65 years: 42.8% vs 18.0%; ≥65 years 57.0% vs 26.1%). HRQOL was comparable across age subgroups. CONCLUSION: Niraparib efficacy, safety, and HRQOL were generally comparable across age subgroups, although patients ≥65 years had a higher rate of discontinuations due to TEAEs. ISD use reduced grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia events regardless of age.

Myeloid neoplasms in individuals with breast and ovarian cancer and the association with deleterious germline variants.

Historically, the increased incidence of myeloid neoplasms observed in individuals with breast and ovarian cancer has been attributed exclusively to prior exposure to cancer-directed therapies. However, as the association between deleterious germline variants and the development of hematopoietic malignancies (HMs) becomes better established, we propose the increased incidence of myeloid neoplasms in those with breast and ovarian cancer may be at least partially related to underlying germline cancer predisposition alleles. Deleterious germline variants in BRCA1/2, ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, and other related genes prevent normal homologous recombination DNA repair of double-strand breaks, leading to reliance on less effective repair mechanisms. This results in a high lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancer, and likely also increases the risk of subsequent therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (t-MNs). These deleterious germline variants likely increase the risk for de novo HMs as well, as evidenced by the increased incidence of HMs observed in those with deleterious germline BRCA1/2 variants even in the absence of prior cancer-directed therapy. Thus, the association between poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and other solid tumor directed therapies and the development of t-MNs may be confounded by the presence of deleterious germline variants which inherently increase the risk of both de novo and t-MNs, and additional data regarding the direct toxic effects of these drugs on bone marrow function are needed.

Health-related quality of life in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer treated with niraparib vs placebo: Results from the phase 3 randomized PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with ovarian cancer (OC) who received niraparib as first-line maintenance therapy. METHODS: PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed advanced OC who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomized (2:1) to niraparib or placebo once daily in 28-day cycles until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or death. HRQoL was assessed as a prespecified secondary end point using patient-reported responses to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EORTC QLQ Ovarian Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-OV28), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI), and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. Assessments were collected at baseline and every 8 weeks (±7 days) for 56 weeks, beginning on cycle 1/day 1, then every 12 weeks (±7 days) thereafter while the patient received study treatment. RESULTS: Among trial participants (niraparib, n = 487; placebo, n = 246), PRO adherence exceeded 80% for all instruments across all cycles. Patients reported no decline over time in HRQoL measured via EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL and FOSI overall scores. Scores for abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms (EORTC QLQ-OV28) and nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, and constipation (EORTC QLQ-C30) were higher (worse symptoms) in niraparib-treated patients than placebo-treated patients; except for constipation, these differences resolved over time. Patients did not self-report any worsening from baseline of fatigue, headache, insomnia, or abdominal pain on questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some early, largely transient increases in gastrointestinal symptoms, patients with OC treated with niraparib first-line maintenance therapy reported no worsening in overall HRQoL.

Financial Toxicity of Withdrawn Poly (Adenosine Diphosphate Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor Indications for Ovarian Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to quantify exposure to and financial impacts of poly (adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) treatments for eventually withdrawn ovarian cancer indications. METHODS: We identified in Optum's deidentified Clinformatics® Data Mart database 1695 patients with ovarian cancer diagnoses who received olaparib, rucaparib, or niraparib between January 2015 and September 2021. We describe PARPi use and out-of-pocket, total healthcare, and PARPi spending among patients with ovarian cancer with 3 or more previous lines of therapy. RESULTS: Of the 1695 patients who received PARPi, 254 were estimated to have been heavily pretreated and exposed to eventually withdrawn indications. Cumulative total medical and pharmacy costs for these patients were $53 392 184; PARPi costs accounted for 34%. Median PARPi cost per patient was $43 347. Cumulative out-of-pocket costs totaled $533 281. CONCLUSIONS: Potential patient harm, including financial toxicity, might have been mitigated through more stringent drug approval requirements.

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.

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.

[The efficacy and safety of anlotinib combined with niraparib in treating patients with platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer].

Objectives: To investigate the efficacy and safety of anlotinib combined with niraparib in treating patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Methods: Thirty-five patients with pathological confirmed platinum-resistant ovarian cancer who experienced progression after receiving at least two lines of standard treatment were eligible. All of them were treated with anlotinib combined with niraparib between September 2019 and October 2021. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The second endpoints included overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and safety. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Log-rank test, and influence factor analysis was performed using Cox proportional risk regression models. Results: The best overall response showed that partial response was observed in 14 patients, stable disease was noted within 13 patients, and progressive disease was found in 8 patients. Therefore, the ORR and DCR of these 35 patients were 40.0% (95% CI:22.9%-57.1%) and 77.1% (95% CI:62.9%-91.4%), respectively. The median follow-up duration was 18.9 months (6.9-32.2). The median PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI:5.35-7.66). Multivariate Cox regression analysis for PFS indicated that age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, and BRCA mutation status were independent factors influencing PFS (P＜0.05). Additionally, the PFS in patients with BRCA mutation who have never received PARP inhibitor treatment was significantly longer than that in patients without BRCA mutation who have been exposed to prior PARPi treatment (15.0 vs 6.0 month, P=0.029). The most common treatment-related adverse reactions were fatigue (85.7%), hematologic toxic (85.7%) and hypertension (74.3%). There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusion: Anlotinib combined with niraparib shows a promising efficacy and tolerable safety in platinum-resistant ROC patients.

Cisplatin with veliparib or placebo in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer and BRCA mutation-associated breast cancer (S1416): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are effective in germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation-associated metastatic breast cancer. However, studies evaluating PARP inhibitors plus platinum-based chemotherapy in germline BRCA1/2-wildtype triple-negative breast cancer are scarce. A large proportion of germline BRCA1/2-wildtype triple-negative breast cancer shows homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), resulting in a BRCA-like phenotype that might render sensitivity to PARP inhibitors. The S1416 trial assessed the efficacy of cisplatin combined with the PARP inhibitor veliparib in three predefined groups of metastatic breast cancer: germline BRCA1/2-mutated, BRCA-like, and non-BRCA-like. METHODS: S1416 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial conducted at 154 community and academic clinical sites across the USA. Eligible patients aged 18 years or older had metastatic or recurrent triple-negative breast cancer or germline BRCA1/2-associated metastatic or recurrent breast cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had received up to one line of chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via the National Clinical Trials Network open interactive system with dynamic balancing on number of previous cytotoxic regimens for metastatic disease to receive intravenous cisplatin (75 mg/m2, day 1) combined with either veliparib or matching placebo (300 mg orally twice a day, days 1-14) on a 21-day cycle. Investigators, patients, and the sponsors were masked to treatment assignment; the study statisticians were unmasked. Central testing after ran domisation classified patients as having mutated or wildtype germline BRCA1/2. A biomarker panel established a priori was used to classify patients with wildtype germline BRCA1/2 into BRCA-like and non-BRCA-like phenotype groups, with BRCA-like status based on at least one of the biomarkers: genomic instability score (≥42), somatic BRCA1/2 mutations, BRCA1 promoter methylation, or non-BRCA1/2 homologous recombination repair germline mutations. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed separately for the three predefined biomarker groups with a prespecified α value for each analysis. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat and included all eligible patients. Safety analyses of toxicities attributed to treatment included all patients who received at least one dose of veliparib or placebo. The study is ongoing and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02595905. FINDINGS: Between July 7, 2016, and June 15, 2019, 335 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. 320 patients (n=162 to cisplatin plus veliparib, all women; and n=158 to cisplatin plus placebo, 157 women and one man) were eligible for efficacy evaluation. 247 patients were classified into the three biomarker groups: germline BRCA1/2-mutated (n=37), BRCA-like (n=101), and non-BRCA-like (n=109). 73 patients could not be classified due to missing biomarker information. Median follow-up was 11·1 months (IQR 5·6-20·8). In the germline BRCA1/2-mutated group, median progression-free survival was 6·2 months (95% CI 2·3-9·2) in the cisplatin plus veliparib group and 6·4 months (4·3-8·2) in the cisplatin plus placebo group (HR 0·79 [95% CI 0·38-1·67]; log-rank p=0·54). In the BRCA-like group, median progression-free survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 4·3-7·8) in the cisplatin plus veliparib group versus 4·2 months (2·3-5·0) in the cisplatin plus placebo group (HR 0·57 [95% CI 0·37-0·88]; p=0·010). In the non-BRCA-like group, median progression-free survival was 4·0 months (95% CI 2·5-4·7) in the cisplatin plus veliparib group versus 3·0 months (2·2-4·4) in the cisplatin plus placebo group (HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·60-1·33]; p=0·57). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events attributed to treatment were neutropenia (71 [46%] of 155 patients in the cisplatin plus veliparib group vs 29 [20%] of 147 in the cisplatin plus placebo group), leukopenia (42 [27%] vs 11 [7%]), anaemia (35 [23%] vs 12 [8%]), and thrombocytopenia (29 [19%] vs four [3%]). Serious adverse events attributed to treatment occurred in 48 (31%) patients in the cisplatin plus veliparib group and 53 (36%) patients in the cisplatin plus placebo group. Treatment-related adverse events led to death in one patient in the cisplatin plus veliparib group (sepsis) and one patient in the cisplatin plus placebo group (acute kidney injury due to cisplatin plus heart failure from previous doxorubicin exposure). INTERPRETATION: The addition of veliparib to cisplatin significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with BRCA-like metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, but not in patients with non-BRCA-like metastatic breast cancer. PARP inhibitors combined with platinum-based chemotherapy should be explored further in BRCA-like triple-negative breast cancer. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute and National Institute of General Medical Sciences (US National Institutes of Health); AbbVie; Myriad Genetics; the Biomarker, Imaging, and Quality of Life Studies Funding Program (awarded by the National Cancer Institute); and The University of Kansas Cancer Center.

A phase 1 dose-escalation study of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor senaparib in Australian patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Senaparib is a novel, selective poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1/2 inhibitor with strong antitumor activity in preclinical studies. This first-in-human, phase 1, dose-escalation study examined the safety and preliminary efficacy of senaparib in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled from three centers in Australia, using a conventional 3 + 3 design. Dose-escalation cohorts continued until the maximum tolerated dose or a recommended phase 2 dose was determined. Patients received one dose of oral senaparib and, if no dose-limiting toxicity occurred within 7 days, they received senaparib once daily in 3-week cycles. The primary end points were safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were enrolled at 10 dose levels ranging from 2 to 150 mg. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in any cohort. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were grade 1-2 (91%). Seven patients (17.9%) reported hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in eight patients (20.5%), and the most frequent was nausea (7.7%). Two deaths were reported after the end of study treatment, one of which was considered a complication from senaparib-related bone marrow failure. Pharmacokinetic analysis indicated that senaparib the accumulation index was 1.06-1.67, and absorption saturation was 80-150 mg daily. In 22 patients with evaluable disease, the overall response rate was 13.6%, and the disease control rate was 81.8%. The overall response rate was 33.3% for the BRCA mutation-positive subgroup and 6.3% for the nonmutated subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Senaparib was well tolerated in Australian patients with advanced solid tumors, with encouraging signals of antitumor activity. The recommended phase 2 dose for senaparib was determined to be 100 mg daily. GOV ID: NCT03507543.

Neoadjuvant Talazoparib in Patients With Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation-Positive, Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Results of a Phase II Study.

BACKGROUND: The undetermined efficacy of the current standard-of-care neoadjuvant treatment, anthracycline/platinum-based chemotherapy, in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and germline BRCA mutations emphasizes the need for biomarker-targeted treatment, such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, in this setting. This phase II, single-arm, open-label study evaluated the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant talazoparib in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated early-stage TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated early-stage TNBC received talazoparib 1 mg once daily for 24 weeks (0.75 mg for moderate renal impairment) followed by surgery. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR) by independent central review (ICR). Secondary endpoints included residual cancer burden (RCB) by ICR. Safety and tolerability of talazoparib and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Of 61 patients, 48 received ≥80% talazoparib doses, underwent surgery, and were assessed for pCR or progressed before pCR assessment and considered nonresponders. pCR rate was 45.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.0%-60.6%) and 49.2% (95% CI, 36.7%-61.6%) in the evaluable and intent-to-treat (ITT) population, respectively. RCB 0/I rate was 45.8% (95% CI, 29.4%-63.2%) and 50.8% (95% CI, 35.5%-66.0%) in the evaluable and ITT population, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were reported in 58 (95.1%) patients. Most common grade 3 and 4 TRAEs were anemia (39.3%) and neutropenia (9.8%). There was no clinically meaningful detriment in quality of life. No deaths occurred during the reporting period; 2 deaths due to progressive disease occurred during long-term follow-up (>400 days after first dose). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant talazoparib monotherapy was active despite pCR rates not meeting the prespecified threshold; these rates were comparable to those observed with combination anthracycline- and taxane-based chemotherapy regimens. Talazoparib was generally well tolerated. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03499353.