Iniparib administered weekly or twice-weekly in combination with gemcitabine/carboplatin in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: a phase II randomized open-label study with pharmacokinetics.

PURPOSE: Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a phenotypic breast cancer subgroup with a very poor prognosis, despite standard treatments. Combined twice-weekly iniparib and gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC+tw-iniparib) showed benefit over gemcitabine/carboplatin in a randomized phase II trial, and a phase III was initiated comparing these regimens. The present phase II study was initiated to compare GC+tw-iniparib with a more practical once-weekly schedule (GC+w-iniparib) in TNBC. METHODS: Metastatic TNBC patients were randomized to receive iniparib weekly (11.2 mg/kg on days 1 and 8) or twice-weekly (5.6 mg/kg on days 1, 4, 8, and 11) with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and carboplatin (area under the curve 2 on days 1 and 8), every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). Pharmacokinetics of iniparib and its two metabolites were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients were randomized, 82 GC+w-iniparib and 81 GC+tw-iniparib. Demographic and baseline characteristics were well balanced. ORR was 34.1% (95% CI 23.9-44.4%) vs. 29.6% (95% CI 19.7-39.6%) and median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% CI 4.2-5.7) vs. 4.3 months (95% CI 3.0-5.8) for GC+w-iniparib and GC+tw-iniparib, respectively. Safety was similar across treatment arms in terms of event severity and type. Iniparib plasma concentrations and exposure were two-fold higher with w-iniparib compared to tw-iniparib. Iniparib and its metabolites were cleared rapidly with a terminal half-life of < 1 h, without accumulation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a doubled maximum concentration with weekly iniparib, no detectable differences in safety or efficacy were observed between the weekly and twice-weekly administration schedules in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier NCT01045304.

Investigational chemotherapy and novel pharmacokinetic mechanisms for the treatment of breast cancer brain metastases.

In women, breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosis and second most common cause of cancer death. More than half of breast cancer patients will develop metastases to the bone, liver, lung, or brain. Breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM) confers a poor prognosis, as current therapeutic options of surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy rarely significantly extend life and are considered palliative. Within the realm of chemotherapy, the last decade has seen an explosion of novel chemotherapeutics involving targeting agents and unique dosage forms. We provide a historical overview of BCBM chemotherapy, review the mechanisms of new agents such as poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors, cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors, phosphatidyl inositol 3-kinaseinhibitors, estrogen pathway antagonists for hormone-receptor positive BCBM; tyrosine kinase inhibitors, antibodies, and conjugates for HER2+ BCBM; repurposed cytotoxic chemotherapy for triple negative BCBM; and the utilization of these new agents and formulations in ongoing clinical trials. The mechanisms of novel dosage formulations such as nanoparticles, liposomes, pegylation, the concepts of enhanced permeation and retention, and drugs utilizing these concepts involved in clinical trials are also discussed. These new treatments provide a promising outlook in the treatment of BCBM.

SOLTI NeoPARP: a phase II randomized study of two schedules of iniparib plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer.

Iniparib is an investigational agent with antitumor activity of controversial mechanism of action. Two previous trials in advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in combination with gemcitabine and carboplatin showed some evidence of efficacy that was not confirmed. This phase II randomized neoadjuvant study was designed to explore its activity and tolerability with weekly paclitaxel (PTX) as neoadjuvant treatment in TNBC patients. 141 patients with Stage II-IIIA TNBC were randomly assigned to receive PTX (80 mg/m(2), d1; n = 47) alone or in combination with iniparib, either once-weekly (PWI) (11.2 mg/kg, d1; n = 46) or twice-weekly (PTI) (5.6 mg/kg, d1, 4; n = 48) for 12 weeks. Primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR) in the breast. pCR rate was similar among the three arms (21, 22, and 19 % for PTX, PWI, and PTI, respectively). Secondary efficacy endpoints were comparable: pCR in breast and axilla (21, 17, and 19 %); best overall response in the breast (60, 61, and 63 %); and breast conservation rate (53, 54, and 50 %). Slightly more patients in the PTI arm presented grade 3/4 neutropenia (4, 0, and 10 %). Grade 1/2 (28, 22, and 29 %), but no grade 3/4 neuropathy, was observed. There were no differences in serious adverse events and treatment-emergent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation among the three arms. Addition of iniparib to weekly PTX did not add relevant antitumor activity or toxicity. These results do not support further evaluation of the combination of iniparib at these doses plus paclitaxel in early TNBC.

A phase II randomized study evaluating the addition of iniparib to gemcitabine plus cisplatin as first-line therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Iniparib is a novel anticancer agent initially considered a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, but subsequently shown to act via non-selective protein modification through cysteine adducts. This randomized phase II study investigated the addition of iniparib to gemcitabine-cisplatin in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed stage IV NSCLC were randomized 2 : 1 to receive gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2), days 1/8) and cisplatin (75 mg/m(2), day 1) with [gemcitabine/cisplatin/iniparib (GCI)] or without [gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC)] iniparib (5.6 mg/kg, days 1/4/8/11) every 3 weeks for six cycles. The primary end point was the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. The study was not designed for formal efficacy comparison, the control arm being to benchmark results against the literature. RESULTS: One hundred and nineteen patients were randomized (39 GC and 80 GCI). More GCI patients were male (80% GCI and 67% GC) and had PS 0 (61% GCI and 49% GC). The ORR was 25.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.0%-42.1%] with GC versus 20.0% (95% CI 11.9%-30.4%) with GCI, which did not allow rejection of the null hypothesis (ORR with GCI ≤20%; P = 0.545). Median PFS was 4.3 (95% CI 2.8-5.6) months with GC and 5.7 (95% CI 4.6-6.6) months with GCI (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.56-1.40). Median OS was 8.5 (95% CI 5.5 to not reached) months with GC, and 12.0 (95% CI 8.9-17.1) months with GCI (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.48-1.27). More GCI patients received second-line treatment (51% GC and 68% GCI). Toxicity was similar in the two arms. Grade 3-4 toxicities included asthenia (28% GC and 8% GCI), nausea (3% GC and 14% GCI), and decreased appetite (10% in each). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of iniparib to GC did not improve ORR over GC alone. The GCI safety profile was comparable to GC alone. Imbalances in PS and gender distribution may have impacted study results regarding PFS and OS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier NCT01086254.

ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors for treating non-small cell lung cancer: new additions to the pharmacotherapeutic armamentarium.

INTRODUCTION: Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are already part of the armamentarium of drugs available against ovarian and breast cancer. There is less data available on the efficacy of these drugs in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). AREAS COVERED: The authors have analyzed the preclinical studies that justified the use of PARPi in NSCLC. They then evaluate the in vivo efficacy of the combination of these drugs with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy. EXPERT OPINION: Data from clinical trials available to date have discouraged the use of PARPi in association with chemotherapy or radiotherapy in NSCLC. The knowledge available to date opens the door to the use of PARPi in association with immunotherapy. In fact, the activity of these drugs would not be based only on direct cytotoxic action, but also on the modification of the intra-tumor microenvironment, in particular by increasing the expression of PD-L1 on tumor cells. This action might potentially enhance available treatments with a modest increase in toxicity.

Discontinued in 2013: oncology drugs.

Introduction: Attrition in clinical development is widely recognised as a key factor negatively impacting overall R&D efficiency. Gaining an understanding of the reasons for candidate failure may lead to improvements in success rates and return on R&D investment. Areas covered: This report provides an analysis of reasons for discontinuation of development of 40 drugs dropped from the global oncology pipeline in 2013 - the largest number of terminations reported since this annual analysis began in 2005. The article also provides discussion on the observations in the context of contemporary views of anticancer drug development. Expert opinion: Twelve drugs (30% of the 2013 discontinuations) failed in Phase III development. None of the pivotal trials investigating these agents incorporated molecular biomarkers for patient stratification. The largest number of drug terminations (20 out of 40) occurred in Phase I development with reasons for termination commonly reported as strategic or undisclosed. Raising the bar in terms of requirements for progression from preclinical development, including the identification of robust pharmacodynamic biomarkers and biomarkers potentially predictive of clinical benefit may lead to an increase in success rates in clinical development and of overall R&D efficiency.

Comparative antiproliferative effects of iniparib and olaparib on a panel of triple-negative and non-triple-negative breast cancer cell lines.

PARP inhibitors, both as monotherapy and in combination with cytotoxic drugs, are currently undergoing clinical trials in several different cancer types. In this investigation, we compared the antiproliferative activity of two PARP/putative PARP inhibitors, i.e., olaparib and iniparib, in a panel of 14 breast cancer cell lines (seven tripe-negative and seven non-triple-negative). In almost all cell lines investigated, olaparib was a more potent inhibitor of cell growth than iniparib. Inhibition by both drugs was cell line-dependent and independent of the molecular subtype status of the cells, i.e., whether cells were triple-negative or non-triple negative. Although the primary target of PARP inhibitors is PARP1, no significant association was found between baseline levels of PARP1 activity and inhibition with either agent. Similarly, no significant correlation was evident between sensitivity and levels of CDK1, BRCA1 or miR-182. Combined addition of olaparib and either the CDK1 inhibitor, RO-3306 or a pan HER inhibitor (neratinib, afatinib) resulted in superior growth inhibition to that obtained with olaparib alone. We conclude that olaparib, in contrast to iniparib, is a strong inhibitor of breast cancer cell growth and may have efficacy in breast cancer irrespective of its molecular subtype, i.e., whether HER2-positive, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive or triple-negative. Olaparib, in combination with a selective CDK1 inhibitor or a pan HER inhibitor, is a potential new approach for treating breast cancer.

PARP inhibitors are not all equal.

To many investigators PARP1 is simply a substrate for caspase 3, and whose cleavage is thought indicative of apoptosis. However, in reality PARP1 plays a major role in the biology of the cell cycle and DNA repair. (1)(,) (2) PARP1 binds to damaged DNA where it becomes enzymatically activated and ADP ribosylates itself and other proteins. PARP facilitates DNA repair complex formation, e.g., with BRCA1/2, and the activation of the cell cycle regulatory enzymes ATM and ATR. (2) PARP inhibitors as a single agent have only shown any degree of efficacy in breast and ovarian cancer patients who lack BRCA1/2 function. (3)(,) (4) The present studies examined PARP1 inhibitor biology in a range of triple negative and non-triple negative breast cancer cell lines.