-
International Journal of Molecular... Jul 2022Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy in the United States. Some patients affected by ovarian cancers often present genome instability with one or... (Review)
Review
Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy in the United States. Some patients affected by ovarian cancers often present genome instability with one or more of the defects in DNA repair pathways, particularly in homologous recombination (HR), which is strictly linked to mutations in breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 (BRCA 1) or breast cancer susceptibility gene 2 (BRCA 2). The treatment of ovarian cancer remains a challenge, and the majority of patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancers experience relapse and require additional treatment despite initial therapy, including optimal cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and platinum-based chemotherapy. Targeted therapy at DNA repair genes has become a unique strategy to combat homologous recombination-deficient (HRD) cancers in recent years. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), a family of proteins, plays an important role in DNA damage repair, genome stability, and apoptosis of cancer cells, especially in HRD cancers. PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have been reported to be highly effective and low-toxicity drugs that will tremendously benefit patients with HRD (i.e., BRCA 1/2 mutated) epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) by blocking the DNA repair pathways and inducing apoptosis of cancer cells. PARP inhibitors compete with NAD at the catalytic domain (CAT) of PARP to block PARP catalytic activity and the formation of PAR polymers. These effects compromise the cellular ability to overcome DNA SSB damage. The process of HR, an essential error-free pathway to repair DNA DSBs during cell replication, will be blocked in the condition of BRCA 1/2 mutations. The PARP-associated HR pathway can also be partially interrupted by using PARP inhibitors. Grossly, PARP inhibitors have demonstrated some therapeutic benefits in many randomized phase II and III trials when combined with the standard CRS for advanced EOCs. However, similar to other chemotherapy agents, PARP inhibitors have different clinical indications and toxicity profiles and also face drug resistance, which has become a major challenge. In high-grade epithelial ovarian cancers, the cancer cells under hypoxia- or drug-induced stress have the capacity to become polyploidy giant cancer cells (PGCCs), which can survive the attack of chemotherapeutic agents and start endoreplication. These stem-like, self-renewing PGCCs generate mutations to alter the expression/function of kinases, p53, and stem cell markers, and diploid daughter cells can exhibit drug resistance and facilitate tumor growth and metastasis. In this review, we discuss the underlying molecular mechanisms of PARP inhibitors and the results from the clinical studies that investigated the effects of the FDA-approved PARP inhibitors olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib. We also review the current research progress on PARP inhibitors, their safety, and their combined usage with antiangiogenic agents. Nevertheless, many unknown aspects of PARP inhibitors, including detailed mechanisms of actions, along with the effectiveness and safety of the treatment of EOCs, warrant further investigation.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Female; Genes, BRCA2; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35897700
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23158125 -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Dec 2020Homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD) is a frequent feature of high-grade serous ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal carcinoma (HGSC) and is associated...
BACKGROUND
Homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD) is a frequent feature of high-grade serous ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal carcinoma (HGSC) and is associated with sensitivity to PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapy. HRD testing provides an opportunity to optimise PARPi use in HGSC but methodologies are diverse and clinical application remains controversial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
To define best practice for HRD testing in HGSC the ESMO Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group launched a collaborative project that incorporated a systematic review approach. The main aims were to (i) define the term 'HRD test'; (ii) provide an overview of the biological rationale and the level of evidence supporting currently available HRD tests; (iii) provide recommendations on the clinical utility of HRD tests in clinical management of HGSC.
RESULTS
A broad range of repair genes, genomic scars, mutational signatures and functional assays are associated with a history of HRD. Currently, the clinical validity of HRD tests in ovarian cancer is best assessed, not in terms of biological HRD status per se, but in terms of PARPi benefit. Clinical trials evidence supports the use of BRCA mutation testing and two commercially available assays that also incorporate genomic instability for identifying subgroups of HGSCs that derive different magnitudes of benefit from PARPi therapy, albeit with some variation by clinical scenario. These tests can be used to inform treatment selection and scheduling but their use is limited by a failure to consistently identify a subgroup of patients who derive no benefit from PARPis in most studies. Existing tests lack negative predictive value and inadequately address the complex and dynamic nature of the HRD phenotype.
CONCLUSIONS
Currently available HRD tests are useful for predicting likely magnitude of benefit from PARPis but better biomarkers are urgently needed to better identify current homologous recombination proficiency status and stratify HGSC management.
Topics: Biomarkers; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Female; Homologous Recombination; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors
PubMed: 33004253
DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.08.2102 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer in women world-wide. Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the most common; three-quarters of women present when disease has... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer in women world-wide. Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the most common; three-quarters of women present when disease has spread outside the pelvis (stage III or IV). Treatment consists of a combination of surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. Although initial responses to chemotherapy are good, most women with advanced disease will relapse. PARP (poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase) inhibitors (PARPi), are a type of anticancer treatment that works by preventing cancer cells from repairing DNA damage, especially in those with breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) variants. PARPi offer a different mechanism of anticancer treatment from conventional chemotherapy.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and risks of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase) inhibitors (PARPi) for the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).
SEARCH METHODS
We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central 2020, Issue 10), Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trial Register, MEDLINE (1990 to October 2020), Embase (1990 to October 2020), ongoing trials on www.controlled-trials.com/rct, www.clinicaltrials.gov, www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials, the National Research Register (NRR), FDA database and pharmaceutical industry biomedical literature.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials that randomised women with EOC to PARPi with no treatment, or PARPi versus conventional chemotherapy, or PARPi together with conventional chemotherapy versus conventional chemotherapy alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology. Two review authors independently assessed whether studies met the inclusion criteria. We contacted investigators for additional data. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QoL) and rate of adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 studies (6109 participants); four (3070 participants) with newly-diagnosed, advanced EOC and 11 (3039 participants) with recurrent EOC. The studies varied in types of comparisons and evaluated PARPi. Eight studies were judged as at low risk of bias in most of the domains. Quality of life data were generally poorly reported. Below we present six key comparisons. The majority of participants had BRCA mutations, either in their tumour (sBRCAmut) and/or germline (gBRCAmut), or homologous recombination deficiencies (HRD) in their tumours. Newly diagnosed EOC Overall, four studies evaluated the effect of PARPi in newly-diagnosed, advanced EOC. Two compared PARPi with chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone. OS data were not reported. The combination of PARPi with chemotherapy may have little to no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) (two studies, 1564 participants; hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI 0).49 to 1.38; very low-certainty evidence)(no evidence of disease progression at 12 months' 63% with PARPi versus 69% for placebo). PARPi with chemotherapy likely increases any severe adverse event (SevAE) (grade 3 or higher) slightly (45%) compared with chemotherapy alone (51%) (two studies, 1549 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.13, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.20; high-certainty evidence). PARPi combined with chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone likely results in little to no difference in the QoL (one study; 744 participants, MD 1.56 95% CI -0.42 to 3.54; moderate-certainty evidence). Two studies compared PARPi monotherapy with placebo as maintenance after first-line chemotherapy in newly diagnosed EOC. PARPi probably results in little to no difference in OS (two studies, 1124 participants; HR 0.81, 95%CI 0.59 to 1.13; moderate-certainty evidence) (alive at 12 months 68% with PARPi versus 62% for placebo). However, PARPi may increase PFS (two studies, 1124 participants; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.92; low-certainty evidence) (no evidence of disease progression at 12 months' 55% with PARPi versus 24% for placebo). There may be an increase in the risk of experiencing any SevAE (grade 3 or higher) with PARPi (54%) compared with placebo (19%)(two studies, 1118 participants, RR 2.87, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.99; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. There is probably a slight reduction in QoL with PARPi, although this may not be clinically significant (one study, 362 participants; MD -3.00, 95%CI -4.48 to -1.52; moderate-certainty evidence). Recurrent, platinum-sensitive EOC Overall, 10 studies evaluated the effect of PARPi in recurrent platinum-sensitive EOC. Three studies compared PARPi monotherapy with chemotherapy alone. PARPi may result in little to no difference in OS (two studies, 331 participants; HR 0.95, 95%CI 0.62 to 1.47; low-certainty evidence) (percentage alive at 36 months 18% with PARPi versus 17% for placebo). Evidence is very uncertain about the effect of PARPi on PFS (three studies, 739 participants; HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.56 to 1.38; very low-certainty evidence)(no evidence of disease progression at 12 months 26% with PARPi versus 22% for placebo). There may be little to no difference in rates of any SevAE (grade 3 or higher) with PARPi (50%) than chemotherapy alone (47%) (one study, 254 participants; RR 1.06, 95%CI 0.80 to 1.39; low-certainty evidence). Four studies compared PARPi monotherapy as maintenance with placebo. PARPi may result in little to no difference in OS (two studies, 560 participants; HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.65 to 1.20; moderate-certainty evidence)(percentage alive at 36 months 21% with PARPi versus 17% for placebo). However, evidence suggests that PARPi as maintenance therapy results in a large PFS (four studies, 1677 participants; HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.42; high-certainty evidence)(no evidence of disease progression at 12 months 37% with PARPi versus 5.5% for placebo). PARPi maintenance therapy may result in a large increase in any SevAE (51%) (grade 3 or higher) than placebo (19%)(four studies, 1665 participants, RR 2.62, 95%CI 1.85 to 3.72; low-certainty evidence). PARPi compared with chemotherapy may result in little or no change in QoL (one study, 229 participants, MD 1.20, 95%CI -1.75 to 4.16; low-certainty evidence). Recurrent, platinum-resistant EOC Two studies compared PARPi with chemotherapy. The certainty of evidence in both studies was graded as very low. Overall, there was minimal information on the QoL and adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
PARPi maintenance treatment after chemotherapy may improve PFS in women with newly-diagnosed and recurrent platinum-sensitive EOC; there may be little to no effect on OS, although OS data are immature. Overall, this is likely at the expense of an increase in SevAE. It is disappointing that data on quality of life outcomes are relatively sparse. More research is needed to determine whether PARPi have a role to play in platinum-resistant disease.
Topics: Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Ovarian Neoplasms; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerases
PubMed: 35170751
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007929.pub4 -
Journal of Periodontology Dec 2022The use of biologics may be indicated for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and reconstruction (ARR), and implant site development (ISD). The present systematic review...
BACKGROUND
The use of biologics may be indicated for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and reconstruction (ARR), and implant site development (ISD). The present systematic review aimed to analyze the effect of autologous blood-derived products (ABPs), enamel matrix derivative (EMD), recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB (rhPDGF-BB), and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2), on the outcomes of ARP/ARR and ISD therapy (i.e., alveolar ridge augmentation [ARA] and maxillary sinus floor augmentation [MSFA]).
METHODS
An electronic search for eligible articles published from January 2000 to October 2021 was conducted. Randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of ABPs, EMD, rhBMP-2, and rhPDGF-BB for ARP/ARR and ISD were included according to pre-established eligibility criteria. Data on linear and volumetric dimensional changes, histomorphometric findings, and a variety of secondary outcomes (i.e., clinical, implant-related, digital imaging, safety, and patient-reported outcome measures [PROMs]) were extracted and critically analyzed. Risk of bias assessment of the selected investigations was also conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 39 articles were included and analyzed qualitatively. Due to the high level of heterogeneity across studies, quantitative analyses were not feasible. Most studies in the topic of ARP/ARR revealed that the use of biologics rendered similar results compared with conventional protocols. However, when juxtaposed to unassisted healing or socket filling using collagen sponges, the application of biologics did contribute to attenuate post-extraction alveolar ridge atrophy in most investigations. Additionally, histomorphometric outcomes were positively influenced by the application of biologics. The use of biologics in ARA interventions did not yield superior clinical or radiographic outcomes compared with control therapies. Nevertheless, ABPs enhanced new bone formation and reduced the likelihood of early wound dehiscence. The use of biologics in MSFA interventions did not translate into superior clinical or radiographic outcomes. It was observed, though, that the use of some biologics may promote bone formation during earlier stages of healing. Only four clinical investigations evaluated PROMs and reported a modest beneficial impact of the use of biologics on pain and swelling. No severe adverse events in association with the use of the biologics evaluated in this systematic review were noted.
CONCLUSIONS
Outcomes of therapy after post-extraction ARP/ARR and ARA in edentulous ridges were comparable among different therapeutic modalities evaluated in this systematic review. Nevertheless, the use of biologics (i.e., PRF, EMD, rhPDGF-BB, and rhBMP-2) in combination with a bone graft material generally results into superior histomorphometric outcomes and faster wound healing compared with control groups.
Topics: Humans; Tooth Socket; Sinus Floor Augmentation; Biological Products; Becaplermin; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Alveolar Process; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 35841608
DOI: 10.1002/JPER.22-0069 -
Scientific Reports Mar 2022DNA repair phenotype can be measured in blood and may be a potential biomarker of cancer risk. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
DNA repair phenotype can be measured in blood and may be a potential biomarker of cancer risk. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies of DNA repair phenotype and cancer through March 2021. We used random-effects models to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) of cancer risk for those with the lowest DNA repair capacity compared with those with the highest capacity. We included 55 case-control studies that evaluated 12 different cancers using 10 different DNA repair assays. The pooled OR of cancer risk (all cancer types combined) was 2.92 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.49, 3.43) for the lowest DNA repair. Lower DNA repair was associated with all studied cancer types, and pooled ORs (95% CI) ranged from 2.02 (1.43, 2.85) for skin cancer to 7.60 (3.26, 17.72) for liver cancer. All assays, except the homologous recombination repair assay, showed statistically significant associations with cancer. The effect size ranged from 1.90 (1.00, 3.60) for the etoposide-induced double-strand break assay to 5.06 (3.67, 6.99) for the γ-H2AX assay. The consistency and strength of the associations support the use of these phenotypic biomarkers; however large-scale prospective studies will be important for understanding their use related to age and screening initiation.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; DNA Repair; Humans; Phenotype; Prospective Studies; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 35233009
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-07256-7 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Dec 2011Leg ulcers usually occur secondary to venous reflux or obstruction, but 20% of people with leg ulcers have arterial disease, with or without venous disorders. Between... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Leg ulcers usually occur secondary to venous reflux or obstruction, but 20% of people with leg ulcers have arterial disease, with or without venous disorders. Between 1.5 and 3.0/1000 people have active leg ulcers. Prevalence increases with age to about 20/1000 in people aged over 80 years.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of standard treatments, adjuvant treatments, and organisational interventions for venous leg ulcers? What are the effects of advice about self-help interventions in people receiving usual care for venous leg ulcers? What are the effects of interventions to prevent recurrence of venous leg ulcers? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 101 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: compression bandages and stockings, cultured allogenic (single or bilayer) skin replacement, debriding agents, dressings (cellulose, collagen, film, foam, hyaluronic acid-derived, semi-occlusive alginate), hydrocolloid (occlusive) dressings in the presence of compression, intermittent pneumatic compression, intravenous prostaglandin E1, larval therapy, laser treatment (low-level), leg ulcer clinics, multilayer elastic system, multilayer elastomeric (or non-elastomeric) high-compression regimens or bandages, oral treatments (aspirin, flavonoids, pentoxifylline, rutosides, stanozolol, sulodexide, thromboxane alpha(2) antagonists, zinc), peri-ulcer injection of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, self-help (advice to elevate leg, to keep leg active, to modify diet, to stop smoking, to reduce weight), short-stretch bandages, single-layer non-elastic system, skin grafting, superficial vein surgery, systemic mesoglycan, therapeutic ultrasound, and topical treatments (antimicrobial agents, autologous platelet lysate, calcitonin gene-related peptide plus vasoactive intestinal polypeptide, freeze-dried keratinocyte lysate, mesoglycan, negative pressure, recombinant keratinocyte growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor).
Topics: Bandages; Debridement; Humans; Leg Ulcer; Low-Level Light Therapy; Occlusive Dressings; Ultrasonic Therapy; Varicose Ulcer; Wound Healing
PubMed: 22189344
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Sep 2008Leg ulcers usually occur secondary to venous reflux or obstruction, but 20% of people with leg ulcers have arterial disease, with or without venous disorders. Between... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Leg ulcers usually occur secondary to venous reflux or obstruction, but 20% of people with leg ulcers have arterial disease, with or without venous disorders. Between 1.5 and 3.0/1000 people have active leg ulcers. Prevalence increases with age to about 20/1000 in people aged over 80 years.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of standard treatments, adjuvant treatments, and organisational interventions for venous leg ulcers? What are the effects of interventions to prevent recurrence of venous leg ulcers? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 2007 (BMJ Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 80 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: compression bandages and stockings, cultured allogenic (single or bilayer) skin replacement, debriding agents, dressings (cellulose, collagen, film, foam, hyaluronic acid-derived, semi-occlusive alginate), hydrocolloid (occlusive) dressings in the presence of compression, intermittent pneumatic compression, intravenous prostaglandin E1, larval therapy, laser treatment (low-level), leg ulcer clinics, multilayer elastic system, multilayer elastomeric (or non-elastomeric) high-compression regimens or bandages, oral treatments (aspirin, flavonoids, pentoxifylline, rutosides, stanozolol, sulodexide, thromboxane alpha(2) antagonists, zinc), peri-ulcer injection of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, short-stretch bandages, single-layer non-elastic system, skin grafting, superficial vein surgery, systemic mesoglycan, therapeutic ultrasound, self-help (advice to elevate leg, advice to keep leg active, advice to modify diet, advice to stop smoking, advice to reduce weight), and topical treatments (antimicrobial agents, autologous platelet lysate, calcitonin gene-related peptide plus vasoactive intestinal polypeptide, freeze-dried keratinocyte lysate, mesoglycan, negative-pressure recombinant keratinocyte growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor).
Topics: Bandages; Debridement; Humans; Leg Ulcer; Occlusive Dressings; Ultrasonic Therapy; Varicose Ulcer; Wound Healing
PubMed: 19445798
DOI: No ID Found -
Biology of Reproduction Sep 2015Oocyte aging has a significant impact on reproductive outcomes both quantitatively and qualitatively. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying the age-related... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Oocyte aging has a significant impact on reproductive outcomes both quantitatively and qualitatively. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying the age-related decline in reproductive success have not been fully addressed. BRCA is known to be involved in homologous DNA recombination and plays an essential role in double-strand DNA break repair. Given the growing body of laboratory and clinical evidence, we performed a systematic review on the current understanding of the role of DNA repair in human reproduction. We find that BRCA mutations negatively affect ovarian reserve based on convincing evidence from in vitro and in vivo results and prospective studies. Because decline in the function of the intact gene occurs at an earlier age, women with BRCA1 mutations exhibit accelerated ovarian aging, unlike those with BRCA2 mutations. However, because of the still robust function of the intact allele in younger women and because of the masking of most severe cases by prophylactic oophorectomy or cancer, it is less likely one would see an effect of BRCA mutations on fertility until later in reproductive age. The impact of BRCA2 mutations on reproductive function may be less visible because of the delayed decline in the function of normal BRCA2 allele. BRCA1 function and ataxia-telangiectasia-mutated (ATM)-mediated DNA repair may also be important in the pathogenesis of age-induced increase in aneuploidy. BRCA1 is required for meiotic spindle assembly, and cohesion function between sister chromatids is also regulated by ATM family member proteins. Taken together, these findings strongly suggest the implication of BRCA and DNA repair malfunction in ovarian aging.
Topics: Animals; BRCA1 Protein; BRCA2 Protein; DNA Repair; Female; Fertility; Genes, BRCA2; Humans; Infertility; Mice; Ovary
PubMed: 26224004
DOI: 10.1095/biolreprod.115.132290 -
Pharmacological Research Oct 2023The addition of PARP inhibitors to chemotherapy has been assessed in > 80 clinical trials across multiple malignancies, on the premise that PARP inhibitors will...
PURPOSE
The addition of PARP inhibitors to chemotherapy has been assessed in > 80 clinical trials across multiple malignancies, on the premise that PARP inhibitors will increase chemotherapy effectiveness regardless of whether cancers have underlying disruption of DNA repair pathways. Consequently, the majority of combination therapy trials have been performed on patients without biomarker selection, despite the use of homologous recombination deficiency to dictate use of PARP inhibitors in the maintenance setting. An unresolved question is whether biomarkers are needed to identify patients who respond to combination PARP inhibitors and chemotherapy.
METHODS
A systematic literature review identified studies using PARP inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, where the study included a biomarker of DNA repair function (BRCA1, BRCA2, homologous recombination deficiency test, ATM, ERCC1, SLFN11). Hazard ratios (HR) were pooled in a meta-analysis using generic inverse-variance, and fixed or random effects modelling. Subgroup analyses were conducted on biomarker selection and type of malignancy.
RESULTS
Nine studies comprising 2547 patients met the inclusion criteria. Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly better in patients with a DNA repair biomarker (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.48-0.68, p < 0.00001), but there was no benefit in patients who lacked a biomarker (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.82-1.08, p = 0.38). Subgroup analysis showed that BRCA status and SLFN11 biomarkers could predict benefit, and biomarker-driven benefit occurred in ovarian, breast and small cell lung cancers. The addition of PARP inhibitors to chemotherapy was associated with increased grade 3/4 side effects, and particularly neutropenia.
CONCLUSIONS
Combination therapy only improves PFS in patients with identifiable DNA repair biomarkers. This indicates that PARP inhibitors do not sensitise patients to chemotherapy treatment, except where their cancer has a homologous recombination defect, or an alternative biomarker of altered DNA repair. While effective in patients with DNA repair biomarkers, there is a risk of high-grade haematological side-effects with the use of combination therapy. Thus, the benefit in PFS from combination therapy must be weighed against potential adverse effects, as individual arms of treatment can also confer benefit.
PubMed: 37717683
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2023.106927 -
Cancers Nov 2023Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) can arise from germline or somatic pathogenic variants as well as other genomic damage and epigenetic alterations in the HR... (Review)
Review
Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) can arise from germline or somatic pathogenic variants as well as other genomic damage and epigenetic alterations in the HR repair pathway. Patients with tumors presenting with an HRD phenotype can show sensitivity to Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis). Several promising tests to detect HRD have been developed based on different HRD definitions, biomarkers, and algorithms. However, no consensus on a gold standard HRD test has been established. In this systematic review, a comprehensive list of tests for the detection of HRD was identified and compared regarding HRD definition, biomarkers, and algorithms. PubMed's Medline and Elsevier's Embase were systematically searched, resulting in 27 eligible articles meeting the inclusion criteria. The primary challenge when comparing HRD tests lies in the lack of a consensus definition of HRD, as the HRD definition influences the proportion of samples being classified as HRD and impacts the classification performance. This systematic review provides an overview of available HRD tests that can inspire other researchers in searching for a gold standard HRD definition and highlights the importance of the factors that should be considered when choosing an HRD definition and tests for future planning of clinical trials and studies.
PubMed: 38067337
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15235633