-
Oncotarget Feb 2016Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are a class of small-molecule drugs suppressing PARP enzymes activity, inducing the death of cells deficient in homologous... (Review)
Review
Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are a class of small-molecule drugs suppressing PARP enzymes activity, inducing the death of cells deficient in homologous recombination repair (HRR). HRR deficiency is common in tumor cells with BRCA gene mutation. Since their first clinical trial in 2003, PARP inhibitors have shown benefit in the treatment of HRR-deficient tumors. Recently, several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have been conducted to investigate the potential benefit of administration of PARP inhibitors in cancer patients. However, the results remain controversial. To evaluate the efficiency and safety of PARP inhibitors in patients with cancer, we performed a comprehensive meta-analysis of RCTs. According to our study, PARP inhibitors could clearly improve progression-free survival (PFS), especially in patients with BRCA mutation. However, our study showed no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between the PARP inhibitors and controls, even in the BRCA mutation group. Little toxicity was reported in the rate of treatment correlated adverse events (AEs) in PARP inhibitor group compared with controls. In conclusion, PARP inhibitors do well in improving PFS with little toxicity, especially in patients with BRCA deficiency.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Neoplasms; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerases; Safety
PubMed: 26399274
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.5367 -
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 -
Targeted Oncology Jan 2024PARP inhibitors (PARPis) are effective treatment options for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as single agents or in combination... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
PARP inhibitors (PARPis) are effective treatment options for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as single agents or in combination with androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA). However, a clinically relevant adverse effect of these agents is hematological toxicity, a typical class adverse event (AE), which can lead to treatment modifications and discontinuations.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to analyze the risk of hematological AEs, including anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia secondary to PARPi treatments in mCRPC.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) meeting abstracts for clinical trials concerning the use of PARPis, both as single agents and in combination, in patients with mCRPC. The search deadline was 30 June, 2023. We analyzed the pooled incidence of all grades of and ≥ G3 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. We subsequently calculated risk ratios (RRs) for all grades of and ≥ G3 AEs of PARPis versus non-PARPis from randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
RESULTS
Eleven phase 2/3 trials with olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib administered as single agents or combined with ARTA were selected. Anemia was the most common all grades (38.6%) and ≥ G3 AE (24.9%). In the analysis of relative risk, six RCTs were included. The administration of PARPis significantly increased the risk of developing all grades of anemia (RR = 2.44), neutropenia (RR = 3.15), and thrombocytopenia (RR = 4.66) compared with non-PARPis. Similarly, a significant increase in the risk of ≥ G3 anemia (RR = 5.73) and thrombocytopenia (RR = 5.44), and a not significant increased risk of neutropenia (RR = 3.41), were detected.
CONCLUSIONS
In mCRPC, PARPis increase the risk of hematological toxicity compared with other treatments, both as single agents or combined with ARTA (high-quality evidence). Clinicians should be aware of this risk and the correct management, especially with the expected increased PARPis use in mCRPC.
Topics: Male; Humans; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Anemia; Mutation; Neutropenia; Thrombocytopenia
PubMed: 37993604
DOI: 10.1007/s11523-023-01016-x -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023Studies using novel antiandrogens (NAA) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have shown overall survival benefit. As patients develop... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Studies using novel antiandrogens (NAA) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have shown overall survival benefit. As patients develop resistance to NAA therapy, the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) olaparib in combination with NAA may become a promising therapy. However the overall benefit of olaparib monotherapy or combination therapy still needs to be evaluated. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and toxicity between olaparib, olaparib combined with abiraterone and NAA.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) University Meeting abstracts for randomized controlled trials reporting olaparib and NAA from 2010 up to March, 2023. Network meta-analysis using Stata 16.0 and R 4.4.2, hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to assess the results.
RESULTS
Four trials reported olaparib, olaparib plus abiraterone and apalutamide plus abiraterone. radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was significantly lower in patients on apalutamide plus abiraterone compared to olaparib (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.06-1.93). rPFS was similar for olaparib plus abiraterone and olaparib (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.99-1.84); likewise, olaparib plus abiraterone and apalutamide plus abiraterone were similar (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.83-1.35). In addition, there was no significant difference between the three interventions for OS. But olaparib has the highest probability of being a preferred treatment for improving rPFS and OS.
CONCLUSION
rPFS was in favor of olaparib compared with apalutamide plus abiraterone. But there were no difference between olaparib plus abiraterone and either olaparib or apalutamide plus abiraterone. Apalutamide plus abiraterone might be the most preferred intervention in cases where AEs are involved.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://inplasy.com, identifier INPLASY2023100072.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Androgen Antagonists; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Antineoplastic Agents
PubMed: 38027160
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1225033 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022Lung cancer patients with brain and leptomeningeal metastases usually have poor prognosis. For those patients with EGFR mutations, osimertinib, a third-generation...
Lung cancer patients with brain and leptomeningeal metastases usually have poor prognosis. For those patients with EGFR mutations, osimertinib, a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is the first choice of treatment. However, drug resistance to osimertinib frequently occurs; and to date, the available follow-up treatment strategies have limited efficacy. In this case study, we report that treatments with olaparib, a Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, combined with dacomitinib, a second-generation EGFR TKI, benefited a lung cancer patient with osimertinib-resistant brain and leptomeningeal metastases. This 55-year-old male patient was found to have a pL858R mutation on EGFR exon 21 combined with TP53 and ERBB2 mutations after developing drug resistance to osimertinib treatment. Based on the genetic testing results, he was treated with olaparib and dacomitinib, and obtained 6 months of progression-free survival (PFS) and 13 months of overall survival (OS) after the diagnosis of leptomeningeal metastasis. This case report represents the first study applying PARP inhibitor in combination with dacomitinib in the treatment of leptomeningeal metastases after osimertinib resistance.
PubMed: 35494030
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.877279 -
Cancer Metastasis Reviews Sep 2016The optimal second- and third-line chemotherapy and targeted therapy for patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer is still a matter of debate. Therefore, a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The optimal second- and third-line chemotherapy and targeted therapy for patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer is still a matter of debate. Therefore, a literature search was carried out in Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and oncology conferences until January 2016 for randomized controlled trials that compared second- or third-line therapy. We included 28 studies with 4810 patients. Second-line, single-agent taxane/irinotecan showed increased survival compared to best supportive care (BSC) (hazard ratio 0.65, 95 % confidence interval 0.53-0.79). Median survival gain ranged from 1.4 to 2.7 months among individual studies. Taxane- and irinotecan-based regimens showed equal survival benefit. Doublet chemotherapy taxane/irinotecan plus platinum and fluoropyrimidine was not different in survival, but showed increased toxicity vs. taxane/irinotecan monotherapy. Compared to BSC, second-line ramucirumab and second- or third-line everolimus and regorafenib showed limited median survival gain ranging from 1.1 to 1.4 months, and progression-free survival gain, ranging from 0.3 to 1.6 months. Third- or later-line apatinib showed increased survival benefit over BSC (HR 0.50, 0.32-0.79). Median survival gain ranged from 1.8 to 2.3 months. Compared to taxane-alone, survival was superior for second-line ramucirumab plus taxane (HR 0.81, 0.68-0.96), and olaparib plus taxane (HR 0.56, 0.35-0.87), with median survival gains of 2.2 and 4.8 months respectively. Targeted agents, either in monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy showed increased toxicity compared to BSC and chemotherapy-alone. This review indicates that, given the survival benefit in a phase III study setting, ramucirumab plus taxane is the preferred second-line treatment. Taxane or irinotecan monotherapy are alternatives, although the absolute survival benefit was limited. In third-line setting, apatinib monotherapy is preferred.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Combined Modality Therapy; Esophageal Neoplasms; Humans; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Neoplasm Staging; Proportional Hazards Models; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retreatment; Stomach Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27417221
DOI: 10.1007/s10555-016-9632-2 -
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 -
Cancer Control : Journal of the Moffitt... 2022Evidence shows that gene mutation is a significant proportion of genetic factors associated with prostate cancer. The DNA damage response (DDR) is a signal cascade...
OBJECTIVE
Evidence shows that gene mutation is a significant proportion of genetic factors associated with prostate cancer. The DNA damage response (DDR) is a signal cascade network that aims to maintain genomic integrity in cells. This comprehensive study was performed to determine the link between different DNA damage response gene mutations and prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Papers published up to February 1, 2022 were retrieved. The DDR gene mutations associated with prostate cancer were identified by referring to relevant research and review articles. Data of prostate cancer patients from multiple PCa cohorts were obtained from cBioPortal. The OR or HR and 95% CIs were calculated using both fixed-effects models (FEMs) and random-effects models (REMs).
RESULTS
Seventy-four studies were included in this research, and the frequency of 13 DDR genes was examined. Through the analysis of 33 articles that focused on the risk estimates of DDR genes between normal people and PCa patients, DDR genes were found to be more common in prostate cancer patients (OR = 3.6293 95% CI [2.4992; 5.2705]). Also, patients in the mutated group had a worse OS and DFS outcome than those in the unmutated group ( < .05). Of the 13 DDR genes, the frequency of 9 DDR genes in prostate cancer was less than 1%, and despite differences in race, was the potential gene with the highest frequency (REM Frequency = .0400, 95% CI .0324 - .0541). The findings suggest that mutations in genes such as and in PCa patients may increase the sensitivity of Olaparib, a PARP inhibitor.
CONCLUSION
These results demonstrate that mutation in any DDR pathway results in a poor prognosis for PCa patients. Furthermore, mutations in and or the expression of and other genes significantly influence Olaparib sensitivity, which may be underlying therapeutic targets in the future.
Topics: Humans; Male; DNA Damage; DNA Repair; Mutation; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Prognosis; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 36283420
DOI: 10.1177/10732748221129451 -
European Journal of Cancer (Oxford,... May 2021Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-inhibitors (PARPis) showed antitumour activity in BRCA1/2-mutated cancers, with more heterogeneous outcomes in tumours harbouring... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-inhibitors (PARPis) showed antitumour activity in BRCA1/2-mutated cancers, with more heterogeneous outcomes in tumours harbouring mutations that impair other genes involved in the DNA homologous recombination repair (HRR) or wild-type (wt).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to better assess the role of PARPis in the treatment of metastatic solid tumours, with and without BRCA1/2 mutations. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary end-points were overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). A random-effects model was applied.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine studies (8,839 patients) were included. PFS was significantly improved (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-0.68, p < 0.001), without being affected by BRCA mutational status (p = 0.65). Significant subgroup differences were observed with regard to the tumour site (p = 0.001), line of therapy (p = 0.002), control arm (p < 0.001), type of PARPi (p < 0.001) and trials' phase (p = 0.006). PARPis were associated with ORR (relative risk: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.16-1.56, p < 0.001), with significant subgroup differences observed with regard to treatment line (p = 0.03), control arm (p = 0.04) and PARPis (p < 0.001) and independent of mutational status (p = 0.44), tumour site (p = 0.86) and trials' phase (p = 0.09). OS was significantly improved by PARPis (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.80-0.92, p < 0.001), regardless of mutational status (p = 0.57), tumour site (p = 0.82), treatment line (p = 0.22), control arm (p = 0.21), PARPis (p = 0.30) and trials' phase (p = 0.26). Finally, an exploratory subgroup analysis showed a significant PFS improvement (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.43-0.60, p < 0.001) with PARPis in BRCA-wt/HRR-deficient tumours.
CONCLUSION
Our results confirm the efficacy of already approved PARPi-based treatments in BRCA1/2-mutant solid tumours, support their role also in BRCA-independent HRR-deficient tumours and suggest a potentially broader efficacy in some wt tumours, perhaps with appropriate therapeutic partners. Prospective studies are warranted.
Topics: BRCA1 Protein; BRCA2 Protein; Humans; Mutation; Neoplasms; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Progression-Free Survival; Recombinational DNA Repair; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 33862496
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.02.035 -
International Urology and Nephrology Apr 2023Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second largest male tumor in the world and one of the most common malignant tumors in the urinary system. In recent years, the incidence... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second largest male tumor in the world and one of the most common malignant tumors in the urinary system. In recent years, the incidence rate of PCa in China has been increasing year by year. Meanwhile, refractory hormone resistance and adverse drug reactions of advanced PCa cause serious harm to patients.
OBJECTIVE
The present study aims to systematically review the recent advances in molecularly targeted drugs for prostate cancer and to use the retrieval and analysis of the literature library to summarize the adverse effects of different drugs so as to maximize the treatment benefits of targeted therapies.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We performed a systematic literature search of the Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases up to March 2022 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords such as (prostate cancer) AND (molecular target drugs) AND (side effect) were used. No language restrictions were set on the search process, and all these results were processed independently by two authors. Consensus was reached through discussion once met with any disagreements. The primary endpoint was differential features between different molecular targeted drugs. Secondary endpoints were side effects of different drugs on the body and corresponding prognostic values.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess the study quality in terms of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, the completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other biases. We retrieved 332 articles, of which 49 met the criteria for inclusion. Included studies show that prostatic tumor cells, tumor neovascularization and immune checkpoints are the main means for targeted therapy. Common drugs include 177 Lu-PSMA, Olaparib, Rucaparib, Bevacizumab, Pazopanib, Sorafenib, Cabozantinib, Aflibercept, Ipilimumab, Atezolizumab, Avelumab, Durvalumab. A series of publicly available data suitable for further analysis of side effects. An over-representation analysis of these datasets revealed reasonable dosage and usage is the key to controlling the side effects of targeted drugs. Important information such as the publication year, the first author, location and outcome observation of adverse effects was extracted from the original article. If the study data has some insufficient data, contacting the corresponding authors is necessary. All the studies included prospective nonrandomized and randomized research. Retrospective reviews were also screened according to the relevant to the purpose of this study. Meeting abstracts as well as letters to the editor and editorials were excluded.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Data analysis was based on Cochrane's risk of bias tools to obtain the quality assessment. The included randomized studies used RoB2 and non-randomized ones corresponded to ROBINS-I. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were used to determine relative risk (RR) and side effects between groups. The eggers' test was used to check the publication bias from variable information in the included studies. All p < 0.05 were considered to be significant, and 95% was set as the confidence interval.
CONCLUSIONS
With the approval of a variety of targeted drugs, targeted therapy will be widely used in the treatment of advanced or metastatic prostate cancer. Despite the existence of adverse reactions related to targeted drug treatment, it is still meaningful to adjust the drug dosage or treatment cycle to reduce the occurrence of adverse reactions, improving the treatment benefits of patients.
Topics: Humans; Male; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostate
PubMed: 36719528
DOI: 10.1007/s11255-023-03487-3