An In-Depth Review of Niraparib in Ovarian Cancer: Mechanism of Action, Clinical Efficacy and Future Directions.

Niraparib is an oral, potent, highly selective poly-ADP ribose polymerase 1 (PARP1) and PARP2 inhibitor. In most developed countries, it is approved as a maintenance treatment for epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer in patients with complete or partial response to platinum-based therapy. These approvals are based on results of randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, particularly the NOVA trial and more recently the PRIMA trial. In this comprehensive review, we delve into the scientific basis of PARP inhibition, discussing both preclinical and clinical data which have led to the current approval status of niraparib. We also discuss ongoing trials and biological rationale of combination treatments involving niraparib, with particular focus on antiangiogenic drugs, immune checkpoint inhibitors and cyclic GMP-AMP synthase stimulator of interferon genes (cGAS/STING) pathway. In addition, we reflect on potential strategies and challenges of utilising current biomarkers for treatment selection of patients to ensure maximal benefit.

Neutropenic sepsis rates in patients receiving bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin chemotherapy using olanzapine and reduced doses of dexamethasone compared to a standard antiemetic regimen.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the use of a steroid-sparing antiemetic protocol (substituting dexamethasone with olanzapine) affects the incidence of neutropenia and associated hospital admissions in patients receiving bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin (BEP) chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Records from 108 patients who received BEP at St Bartholomew's Hospital, London were divided into two groups according to antiemetic regimen. Group 1 (treated 2008-2013) were treated with a steroid-containing antiemetic protocol and group 2 (treated 2014-2017) were treated according to a steroid-sparing protocol, i.e. using olanzapine. Outcomes included incidence of neutropenia at nadir blood count, severity of neutropenia, hospital admissions attributable to febrile neutropenia (FN) and baseline risk factors associated with FN. Statistical analyses were performed using two-sided chi-squared tests. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were balanced with regard to age, gender, histology, and proportion of patients with International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group poor-risk disease. The incidence of neutropenia of any grade (group 1, 96.2%; group 2, 98.1%) was similar, although group 2 had more patients with severe neutropenia than group 2 (77.7% vs 88.8%). There was a significant difference in FN incidence (group 1, 22%; group 2 7.5%; P = 0.030). Most cases of FN occurred in cycle 1. Two baseline characteristics were over-represented in patients who developed FN: female sex and age ≥50 years. CONCLUSION: By comparing two cohorts who received prophylactic antibiotics, our audit suggests that rates of FN-related admissions were lower in the cohort of patients in whom we employed a steroid-sparing antiemetic protocol.