-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Meta-analysis of safety of Olaparib in the treatment of different indications. The databases of PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP were...
Meta-analysis of safety of Olaparib in the treatment of different indications. The databases of PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP were searched by computer to collect the research on the indications and the incidence of adverse reactions caused by Olaparib for different cancer types. The search time was from the establishment of the database to May 2022. After two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data and evaluated the bias risk included in the study, we used RevMan 5.4 software for meta-analysis. A total of 14 studies were included, with a total sample size of 5119 cases. By meta-analysis, the adverse reactions of Olaparib in the treatment of pancreatic cancer, breast cancer and ovarian cancer were compared. In adverse reactions of any grade, the results showed that fatigue (RR = 1.58, 95% CI [1.20-2.07], = 0.001) was the most serious in the treatment of pancreatic cancer with Olaparib. Anemia (RR = 2.94, 95% CI [1.97-4.39], < 0.00001), neutropenia (RR = 1.37, 95% CI [0.80-2.33], = 0.25), nausea (RR = 1.93, 95% CI [1.61-2.32], < 0.00001) and vomiting (RR = 1.96, 95% CI [1.59-2.41], < 0.00001) were the most severe in ovarian cancer. In adverse reactions of grade 3 or above, fatigue (RR = 3.44, 95% CI [1.48-7.98], = 0.004) and vomiting (RR = 1.09, 95% CI [0.42-2.81], = 0.86) were the most serious adverse reactions in the treatment of breast cancer with Olaparib. Anemia (RR = 9.74, 95% CI [2.75-34.47], = 0.0004), neutropenia (RR = 1.33, 95% CI [0.87-2.02], = 0.19) and nausea (RR = 2.94, 95% CI [1.18-7.32], = 0.02) were the most severe in ovarian cancer. In addition, the incidence of decreased white blood cell count and hepatotoxicity in the treatment of breast cancer, and the incidence of decreased platelet count, constipation and abdominal pain in the treatment of ovarian cancer were higher than those in pancreatic cancer. Current evidence showed that the risk of adverse reactions of Olaparib in the treatment of different indications is different, and specific analysis and treatment should be carried out for different cancer types. Due to the limitation of the quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusions need to be verified by more high-quality studies.
PubMed: 35910367
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.968163 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of olaparib in the treatment of recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of olaparib in the treatment of recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.
METHODS
The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, CNKI, VIP Database, Wanfang Science and Technology Database were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of olaparib in the treatment of recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer from the establishment of each database to January 2022. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of the literature, extracted the data, and cross-checked the methodological quality. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software.
RESULTS
A total of 7 RCTs were included, including 2406 patients, There were 1497 patients in treatment groups and 909 patients in the control group. Meta-analysis results showed that in terms of effectiveness, the overall survival time of patients in the olaparib group [HR=1.24, 95%CI(1.06, 1.45), P=0.006]; in terms of safety, for all grades of adverse events (including nausea, fatigue, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and headache), [HR=1.54, 95%CI(1.38, 1.71), P=0.0002], for grade 3 or higher adverse events (including nausea, fatigue, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and headache), [HR=2.13, 95%CI(1.61, 2.81), P=0.003], there were significant differences compared with the control group, suggesting that the risk of adverse reactions in the experimental group was higher than that in the control group. Subgroup analysis showed that only abdominal pain, headache and vomiting were not statistically significant, and other adverse reactions were statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
Based on the existing clinical evidence, olaparib in the treatment of recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer has a longer overall survival than the control group. It is an ideal regimen, but the incidence of adverse reactions is high.
PubMed: 35299755
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.858826 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Dec 2023Preclinical and clinical studies have suggested potential synergies of combining poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and novel hormonal therapies (NHT) for... (Review)
Review
Preclinical and clinical studies have suggested potential synergies of combining poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and novel hormonal therapies (NHT) for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We systematically searched PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov and ASCO-GU annual meeting abstracts up to March 2023 to identify potential phase III trials reporting the use of combining PARP inhibitors with NHT in the first-line setting for mCRPC. A total of four phase III trials met the criteria for subsequent review. Emerging data suggested that the radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was significantly longer in the PARP inhibitor combined with NHT group versus the placebo plus NHT group for the first-line setting of biomarker-unselected mCRPC patients, especially for patients with homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutation (HRR m), and with the greatest benefit for BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCA1/2 m) populations. Final overall survival (OS) data of the PROpel trial indicated a significant improvement in median OS for mCRPC patients with HRR m and BRCA1/2 m receiving olaparib + abiraterone. Prior taxane-based chemotherapy might not influence the efficacy of the combination. Compared with the current standard-of-care therapies, combining NHT with PARP inhibitors could achieve a significant survival benefit in the first-line setting for mCRPC patients with HRR and BRCA1/2 mutations.
Topics: Male; Humans; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; BRCA1 Protein; Ribose; BRCA2 Protein; Antineoplastic Agents
PubMed: 38132385
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30120751 -
BMC Cancer Jan 2023To analyze the incidence and risk of hypertension associated with poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in cancer patients and provide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the incidence and risk of hypertension associated with poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in cancer patients and provide reference for clinicians.
METHODS
We used R software to conduct a meta-analysis of phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCT) on PARP inhibitors for cancer treatment published in PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from inception to July 29th, 2022.
RESULTS
We included 32 RCTs with 10,654 participants for this meta-analysis. For total PARP inhibitors, the incidence and risk ratio of all-grade hypertension were 12% and 1.22 (95% CI: 0.91-1.65, P = 0.19, I = 81%), and the incidence and risk ratio of grade 3-4 hypertension were 4% and 1.24 (95% CI: 0.74-2.08, P = 0.42, I = 68%). Compared with the control group, the niraparib group, olaparib 800 mg/day group, and olaparib plus cediranib group increased the risk of any grade and grade 3-4 hypertension, while the veliparib group and rucaparib group did not increase the risk of any grade and grade 3-4 hypertension, and olaparib 200 mg-600 mg/day group (exclude olaparib plus cediranib regime) reduced the risk of any grade and grade 3-4 hypertension.
CONCLUSION
Olaparib 200-600 mg/day (excluding olaparib plus cediranib regimen) may be the most suitable PARP inhibitor for cancer patients with high risk of hypertension, followed by veliparib and rucaparib. Niraparib, olaparib 800 mg/day and olaparib combined with cediranib may increase the risk of developing hypertension in cancer patients, clinicians should strengthen the monitoring of blood pressure in cancer patients and give medication in severe cases.
Topics: Humans; Antineoplastic Agents; Hypertension; Incidence; Phthalazines; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Neoplasms
PubMed: 36717798
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-10571-5 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of different poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in patients with ovarian cancer through a network...
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of different poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in patients with ovarian cancer through a network meta-analysis to support clinical treatment choices.
METHODS
The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Chongqing VIP (CQVIP), and Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM) were searched with a cutoff date of 14 January 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov was also checked for supplementary data. Phase II or III randomized controlled trials that compared a PARP inhibitor with a placebo in patients with relapsed or newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer were included. The hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival and overall survival and odds ratios (ORs) for grade 3 or higher adverse events were analyzed. The network meta-analysis was conducted in a Bayesian framework based on the Markov Chain Monte Carlo model in the R gemtc package (version 4.0.3).
RESULTS
Eight eligible articles reporting six trials with a total of 2,801 patients were incorporated in this network meta-analysis. Three trials compared olaparib with placebo. Two trials compared niraparib with placebo. One trial compared rucaparib with placebo. The network meta-analysis failed to show significant differences in progression-free survival among the three PARP inhibitors: HR of 0.64, 95% confidence interval of 0.3 to 1.42 for olaparib versus niraparib, and olaparib versus rucaparib (0.86; 0.33 to 2.33). The comparison between niraparib and rucaparib also did not express a statistical difference (1.34; 0.47 to 3.72). Subgroup analysis bybreast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) status showed no obvious difference in progression-free survival among the three PARP inhibitors regardless of BRCA mutation status. Olaparib had fewer grade 3 or higher adverse events than niraparib (OR, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.13 to 0.55) and rucaparib (0.34; 0.14 to 0.86). However, the analysis failed to show a significant difference between niraparib and rucaparib (1.27; 0.49 to 3.27).
CONCLUSION
Current evidence indicates that there is no significant difference observed in efficacy among olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib. However, olaparib might have fewer grade 3 or higher adverse events.
PubMed: 35756600
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.815265 -
World Journal of Oncology Dec 2023The emergence of olaparib, a poly (adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC),...
BACKGROUND
The emergence of olaparib, a poly (adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), created a measurable clinical question on whether the agent positively influences the treatment outcomes and acceptable safety factors. The objective was to elaborate on the efficacy and safety of olaparib-added regimens in treating mCRPC patients as compared to the established guideline.
METHODS
The literature search was performed on several scientific databases, e.g., PubMed, Cochrane, and ScienceDirect, by applying the Boolean Term method. Statistical and risk of bias (RoB) analyses were calculated through RevMan 5.4.1. to investigate our outcomes, i.e., progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with the reported adverse effects (AEs). These outcomes were presented in hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio (RR).
RESULTS
Three trials consisting of 1,325 individuals with comparable baseline characteristics were investigated. The meta-analysis showed that introducing olaparib into the regimens significantly improved the PFS (HR 0.59 (0.48 - 0.73); P < 0.05), which disclosed even better outcomes among mutated homologous recombinant repair (HRR) and ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) gene (HR 0.43 (0.30 - 0.62); P < 0.05) in 95% confidence interval (CI). Furthermore, similar outcomes were observed in OS analysis (HR 0.81 (0.67 - 0.99); P < 0.05), despite olaparib group disclosed higher AEs rate with insignificant difference in mortality rate.
CONCLUSION
The efficacy and safety of olaparib-added regimens in mCRPC patients need to be explored more extensively in trials because they are beneficial, particularly among -mutated individuals.
PubMed: 38022404
DOI: 10.14740/wjon1685 -
Journal of Ovarian Research Feb 2024Ovarian cancer is the eighth leading cause of cancer-related death among women, characterized by late diagnosis and a high relapse rate. In randomized controlled trials,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ovarian cancer is the eighth leading cause of cancer-related death among women, characterized by late diagnosis and a high relapse rate. In randomized controlled trials, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitors (PARPi) in treating advanced ovarian cancer.
METHODS
This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021283150), included all phase II and phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of PARPi on ovarian cancer until the 13th of April, 2022. The main outcomes were progression- free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs). Pooled hazard ratios (HRs), and risk ratios (RRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The random-effects model was applied in all analyses.
RESULTS
In the meta-analysis, 16 eligible RCTs were included, with a total of 5,815 patients. In recurrent ovarian cancer, PARPi maintenance therapy showed a significant PFS benefit over placebo in the total population (HR 0.34, CI 0.29-0.40), BRCA mutant (HR 0.24, CI 0.18-0.31), germline BRCA mutant (HR 0.23, CI 0.18-0.30), and BRCA wild-type cases (HR 0.50, CI 0.39-0.65). PARPi monotherapy also improved PFS (HR 0.62, CI 0.51-0.76) compared with chemotherapy in BRCAm patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. The use of PARPi maintenance therapy resulted in an improvement in PFS over placebo in newly-diagnosed cancers in the overall population (HR 0.46, CI 0.30-0.71) and the BRCAm population (HR 0.36, CI 0.29-0.44). Although the risk of severe AEs was increased by PARPi therapy compared to placebo in most settings investigated, these side effects were controllable with dose modification, and treatment discontinuation was required in the minority of cases.
CONCLUSIONS
PARPis are an effective therapeutic option for newly-diagnosed and recurrent ovarian cancer. Despite a minor increase in the frequency of serious adverse effects, they are generally well tolerated.
Topics: Humans; Female; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Antineoplastic Agents; Ovarian Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial
PubMed: 38409030
DOI: 10.1186/s13048-024-01362-y -
European Urology Oncology Oct 2020The goal of precision oncology is to use the underlying genomic characteristics of the patient and the cancer to select the optimal treatment at a given time. The recent...
CONTEXT
The goal of precision oncology is to use the underlying genomic characteristics of the patient and the cancer to select the optimal treatment at a given time. The recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and rucaparib for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer heralds the onset of precision medicine for this disease.
OBJECTIVE
To discuss the emerging role that PARP inhibitors may play as a personalised future treatment option in patients with prostate cancer, with a focus on patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) whose tumour cells harbour mutations resulting from deficient homologous recombination repair (HRR).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
To identify publications relevant to this review, a systematic literature search of PubMed was conducted for articles and proceedings of relevant major congresses, published between January 2010 and March 2020, reporting the use of PARP inhibitors in the treatment of cancers.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 168 publications were identified, and 18 of these met the criteria for subsequent review. In addition, 15 phase 2 or on-going phase 3 (mCRPC) studies evaluating PARP inhibitors as monotherapy or in combination, which had not yet reported data, were identified through ClinicalTrials.gov. Emerging data suggest that the greatest efficacy with single-agent PARP inhibitors is seen in mCRPC patients with germline or somatic BRCA1/2 alterations (especially BRCA2 or biallelic mutations), with potential efficacy also observed in men with PALB2 and FANCA mutations.
CONCLUSIONS
PARP inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy in mCRPC, and similar to ovarian and breast cancers, the greatest effect is observed in patients with HRR deficiency. The PARP inhibitors olaparib and rucaparib are now FDA approved for mCRPC patients with HRR mutations and BRCA1/2 mutations, respectively. Furthermore, when PARP inhibition is combined with novel hormonal therapies, a treatment benefit may be observed regardless of the HRR deficiency status. Gaps in the knowledge and understanding around PARP inhibitor use in prostate cancer, including the most appropriate diagnostic testing method for identifying an HRR mutation, remain to be resolved.
PATIENT SUMMARY
The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and rucaparib are now approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Here, we reviewed the literature and proceedings from meeting presentations and published papers relevant to the use of PARP inhibitors in the treatment of prostate cancer. Testing methods for detecting homologous recombination repair gene mutations, as diagnostic tools to help identify patients most likely to benefit from PARP inhibitor treatment, are also discussed.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Indoles; Male; Phthalazines; Piperazines; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant
PubMed: 32814685
DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.07.005 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Jan 2024Carboplatin is still the cornerstone of the first-line treatment in advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer (aEOC) management and the clinical response to platinum-derived... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Carboplatin is still the cornerstone of the first-line treatment in advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer (aEOC) management and the clinical response to platinum-derived agents remains the major predictor of long-term outcomes.
PATIENT AND METHODS
We aimed to identify the best treatment of the aEOC in terms of efficacy and safety, considering all treatment phases. A systematic literature search has been done to compare all treatments in aEOC population. Randomized trials with available survival and safety data published in the 2011-2022 timeframe were enclosed. Only trials reporting the BRCA or HRD (Homologous Recombination Deficiency) status were considered.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
A ranking of treatment schedules on the progression-free survival (PFS) endpoint was performed. The random-effect model was used to elaborate and extract data. The Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) by Bayesian model was performed by STATA v17. Data on PFS were extracted in terms of Hazard ratio with relative confidence intervals.
RESULTS
This NMA involved 18 trials for a total of 9105 patients. Within 12 treatment groups, we performed 3 different sensitivity analyses including "all comers" Intention to Treat (ITT) population, BRCA-mutated (BRCAm), and HRD subgroups, respectively. Considering the SUCRA-reported cumulative PFS probabilities, we showed that in the ITT population, the inferred best treatment was niraparib plus bevacizumab with a SUCRA of 96.7. In the BRCAm subgroup, the best SUCRA was for olaparib plus chemotherapy (96,9). The HRD population showed an inferred best treatment for niraparib plus bevacizumab (SUCRA 98,4). Moreover, we reported a cumulative summary of PARPi toxicity, in which different 3-4 grade toxicity profiles were observed, despite the PARPi "class effect" in terms of efficacy.
CONCLUSIONS
Considering all aEOC subgroups, the best therapeutical option was identified as PARPi plus chemotherapy and/or antiangiogenetic agents, suggesting the relevance of combinatory approaches based on molecular profile. This work underlines the potential value of "chemo-free" regimens to prolong the platinum-free interval (PFI).
Topics: Humans; Female; Bevacizumab; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Ovarian Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial
PubMed: 38065404
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2023.104229 -
BMC Cancer Jun 2024Poly (ADP- ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) has been increasingly adopted for metastatic castration-resistance prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with homologous... (Meta-Analysis)
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.
Topics: Humans; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Bayes Theorem; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Mutation; Male; Phthalazines; Network Meta-Analysis; Piperazines; BRCA2 Protein; Recombinational DNA Repair; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Progression-Free Survival; Indoles; BRCA1 Protein; Treatment Outcome; Quinazolines
PubMed: 38851712
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12388-2