Abstract
Background
Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) improved advanced ovarian cancer treatment. Most patients progress during or following PARPi exposure, however, with concerns about sensitivity of subsequent chemotherapy.
Patients and methods
In this international cohort study, we evaluated the efficacy of a subsequent chemotherapy following PARPi exposure in high-grade ovarian carcinoma patients. Endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival and a multivariable Cox model was built to identify factors influencing PFS.
Results
We included 291 patients from four international centers treated between January 2002 and December 2021. The median number of previous chemotherapy was 1 (1.0-7.0), the median duration of PARPi exposure was 6.5 months (0.2-54.3 months). PARPi was used in first line in 14.1% patients. Most progressions occurred under PARPi exposure (89.1%). A BRCA pathogenic variant was identified in 130 patients (44.7%), absent in 157 patients (54.0%), and undocumented in 4 patients (1.4%). Platinum-based CT (PBC) and non-PBC were administered as subsequent treatments in, respectively, 182 patients (62.5%) and 109 patients (37.5%). Multivariable analyses showed that platinum-free interval (PFI) >6 months [adjusted hazards ratio (HR), 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.70] and type of initial surgery (adjusted HR, 1.41; 95% CI 1.07-1.87; interval or closing surgery versus primary surgery) were associated with PFS, independent of BRCA status or line of therapy (≥2 versus 1). In patients with a PFI >6 months, PBC was numerically associated with the best PFS (adjusted HR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.46-1.01).
Conclusion
This is the largest real-world study assessing the efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy in patients progressing during PARPi exposure. The patients have poor outcomes. PBC is the best option in patients progressing on PARPi and eligible for PBC rechallenge (PFI >6 months).
Key words: advanced ovarian cancer, PARPi, platinum-based chemotherapy, BRCA
Highlights
-
•
Patients progressing under poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) have a poor outcome.
-
•
Platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) seems the best option after PARPi and in patients eligible for PBC rechallenge.
-
•
PFI >6 months remains a significant prognostic factor in patients progressing under PARPi.
Introduction
Ovarian cancer is the most fatal gynecological cancer in Europe, affecting 66 693 new patients in Europe in 2020 and causing 44 503 deaths.1 Its prognosis has been significantly improved with the introduction of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) maintenance after platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC),2 considering the synthetic lethality in tumors with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD).3,4 PARPis were initially approved as maintenance in patients with partial or complete response to PBC for platinum-sensitive relapse and continued until intolerance or disease progression.5, 6, 7 PARPis have now been indicated as first-line maintenance with niraparib for 3 years8 and olaparib for 2 years in patients with BRCA1/2-mutated ovarian cancer,9 or olaparib plus bevacizumab in patients with HRD-positive ovarian cancer (PAOLA-1).10 Although progression-free survival (PFS) significantly improved with PARPis, 55%-85% patients will ultimately relapse.11,12 The optimal management for patients progressing following PARPi exposure remains unclear.13 Particularly, for patients progressing during PARPi, cross-resistance mechanisms between PARPi and platinum have raised concerns.14 A retrospective series has reported less benefit from PBC rechallenge.15,16 Considering the rapid increase in this patient population, survival outcomes, prognostic markers, and best subsequent treatment options should be identified in these patients in real life.
Material and methods
Study design
This noninterventional, retrospective, international study was conducted to assess the outcome of ovarian cancer patients treated with chemotherapy after prior PARPi exposure in a maintenance setting. The patients were diagnosed and treated between January 2003 and December 2021, and the data were compiled until the cut-off date (December 2023), death, or date of last contact (if lost to follow-up). All patients treated for high-grade ovarian carcinoma progressing following or during PARPi and who received an immediate subsequent line of chemotherapy were selected in the four participating centers (Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, France; Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, UK; Institut Gustave Roussy, France; The Oncology Institute Prof. Dr Ion Chiricuta, Romania). PARPi could be administered in the first-line or later setting. We collected the demographic and clinical data of patients from their electronic health records. No formal dedicated informed consent was required owing to the use of deidentified data. All patients, however, did not oppose to the reuse of their electronically recorded data. An independent ethics committee (Comité D’Ethique du CHU d’Angers, 2022-135) approved this analysis. The Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest has committed to the French Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés to comply with the Declaration of Helsinki. This project was registered in the public directory maintained by the National Institute for Health Data. This study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guidelines.
Objectives
This study aimed to describe the outcomes of patients treated with chemotherapy following PARPi exposure in the whole population and subgroups, based on BRCA status, platinum-free interval (PFI), and PARPi administration line (≥2 versus 1). The primary endpoint was PFS defined as the time between the starting date of the subsequent line of chemotherapy following PARPi exposure and the date of disease progression or death. The chemotherapies received following progression were classified into PBC and non-PBC (nPBC). Progression was defined according to local practice, involving radiological, clinical, or biological progression. Patients who survived and did not progress during analysis were censored at their last follow-up. Overall survival (OS) was the secondary endpoint and defined as the time between the starting date of subsequent chemotherapy after PARPi (baseline) and the date of death from any cause or last contact (censored data).
Statistical analysis
We described patient characteristics, pathological characteristics, and treatment types (surgery, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy). Qualitative and quantitative variables were presented as number (%), and median (range) and mean ± standard deviation, respectively. Survival outcomes, with a 95% confidence interval (CI), were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log rank test. Univariable and multivariable Cox analyses were carried out to determine the impact of PFI (≤6 or >6 months), BRCA status, line of therapy of PARPi administration (1 or ≥2), and initial surgery timing (primary versus interval/closing versus none) on PFS, based on patients with known values for all of those parameters.
Results
Patients, tumor characteristics, and initial treatments
We included 291 patients from the four centers treated from January 2003 to December 2021. Supplementary Figure S1, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103694 shows the flowchart. Table 1 summarizes the baseline characteristics of patients. Briefly, the median age at the start of the first chemotherapy following PARPi exposure was within 60-70 years. A BRCA pathogenic variant was identified in 130 (44.7%) patients (112 germline/18 somatic), absent in 157 (54.0%) patients, and undocumented in 4 patients (1.4%). The median number of previous lines of chemotherapy was 1 (range, 1-7). PARPi was administered as maintenance treatment of first, second, third, and fourth lines of chemotherapy in 14.1%, 50.9%, 22.3%, and 12.7% of patients, respectively. The median duration of PARPi exposure was 6.5 months (0.2-54.3 months), 6.3 months (0.2-54.3 months), and 10.4 months (2.7-42.7 months) in the whole population, relapse setting, and first-line setting, respectively. Disease progression occurred during PARPi therapy in 89.1% of patients (n = 253), whereas progression occurred after a median PARPi-free interval of 6.4 months (3.0-82.9 months) in 10.9% of patients (n = 31). The delay between PARPi and subsequent chemotherapy was unknown for seven patients.
Table 1.
Characteristics of patients
| Whole population (N = 291) | Platinum-based chemotherapy following PARPi (n = 182) | Non-platinum-based chemotherapy following PARPi (n = 109) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Year of diagnosis | |||
| Median (min-max) | 2015 (2007-2021) | 2015 (2003-2021) | 2015 (2007-2021) |
| Initial performance score, n (%) | |||
| 0 | 87 (36.6) | 46 (31.1) | 41 (45.6) |
| 1 | 85 (35.7) | 52 (35.1) | 33 (36.7) |
| 2 | 55 (23.1) | 43 (29.1) | 12 (13.3) |
| 3 | 11 (4.6) | 7 (4.7) | 4 (4.4) |
| Missing | 53 (-) | 34 (-) | 19 (-) |
| Initial FIGO, n (%) | |||
| I | 4 (1.4) | 1 (0.5) | 3 (2.8) |
| II | 9 (3.1) | 5 (2.7) | 4 (3.7) |
| III | 215 (73.9) | 139 (76.4) | 76 (69.7) |
| IV | 63 (21.6) | 37 (20.3) | 26 (23.9) |
| Histological type, n (%) | |||
| Serous | 272 (93.5) | 170 (93.4) | 102 (93.6) |
| Endometrioid | 5 (1.7) | 2 (1.1) | 3 (2.8) |
| Other carcinoma | 14 (4.8) | 10 (5.5) | 4 (3.7) |
| BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 pathogenic variant, n (%) | |||
| Germline | 112 (38.5) | 85 (46.7) | 27 (24.8) |
| Somatic | 18 (6.2) | 14 (7.7) | 4 (3.7) |
| None | 157 (54.0) | 80 (44.0) | 77 (70.6) |
| Unknown | 4 (1.4) | 3 (1.6) | 1 (0.9) |
| Line of first exposure to PARPi, n (%) | |||
| 1 | 41 (14.1) | 35 (19.2) | 6 (5.5) |
| 2 | 148 (50.9) | 89 (48.9) | 59 (54.1) |
| 3 | 65 (22.3) | 34 (18.7) | 31 (28.4) |
| ≥4 | 37 (12.7) | 24 (13.2) | 13 (11.9) |
| Surgery timing, n (%) | |||
| Initial | 96 (33.4) | 62 (34.8) | 34 (31.2) |
| Interval/closing | 160 (55.7) | 96 (53.9) | 64 (58.7) |
| No surgery | 31 (10.8) | 20 (11.2) | 11 (10.1) |
| Missing | 4 (-) | 4 (-) | 0 (-) |
| Platinum-free interval, n (%) | |||
| ≤6 months | 73 (26.1) | 11 (6.2) | 62 (60.2) |
| 6-12 months | 87 (31.1) | 57 (32.2) | 30 (29.1) |
| >12 months | 120 (42.9) | 109 (61.6) | 11 (10.7) |
| Missing | 11 (-) | 5 (-) | 6 (-) |
| Interval from PARPi exposure, n (%) | |||
| <3 months | 253 (89.1) | 155 (87.6) | 98 (91.6) |
| >3 months | 31 (10.9) | 22 (12.4) | 9 (8.4) |
| Missing | 7 (-) | 5 (-) | 2 (-) |
| Duration of exposure to PARPi (months) | |||
| Mean (SD) | 10.4 (9.7) | 13.8 (10.1) | 4.8 (5.6) |
| Median (min-max) | 6.5 (0.2-54.3) | 10.6 (0.4-54.3) | 3.0 (0.2-39.1) |
| Missing | 7 (-) | 5 (-) | 2 (-) |
FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; PARPi, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor; SD, standard deviation.
Treatments received following PARPi progression
The median interval between the last platinum and the start of chemotherapy (PFI) following PARPi progression was 9.9 months (range: 1.5-90.3 months), with 73 (26%), 87 (31%), and 120 (43%) patients starting the next line of chemotherapy at ≤6, 6 to ≥12, and >12 months, respectively. Subsequently, 182 (62.5%) and 109 (37.5%) patients received PBC and nPBC regimens, respectively. The characteristics of patients are shown in Table 1. The regimen of chemotherapy (PBC or nPBC) was strongly associated with the PFI (P < 0.0001 Fisher’s exact test). PBC was administered mostly in combination (135/182) while nPBC was mostly administered as monochemotherapy (98/109 patients), with the most administered being paclitaxel (n = 38). Chemotherapy regimen details are shown in Supplementary Table S1, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103694.
Outcomes of patients with subsequent chemotherapy in the whole population
With a median follow-up of 25.3 months (95% CI 23.0-31.7 months), 258 patients progressed, and 190 patients died. The median PFS and OS from initiation of chemotherapy following PARP exposure in the entire population were 5.6 months (95% CI 4.8-6.5 months) and 13.6 months (95% CI 12.6-16.4 months), respectively. PFI with a 6 month threshold, chemotherapy regimen (PBC or nPBC) was strongly associated with PFS, whereas there was a trend toward the type of initial surgery and no association with the BRCA status (Figure 1 and Table 2). PFI and type of initial surgery were associated with OS (Figure 2 and Table 2).
Figure 1.
Kaplan–Meier curves for PFS based on chemotherapy received after PARPi (A), BRCA status (B), platinum-free interval (C), and type of initial surgery (D). PARPi, Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor; PFI, platinum-free interval; PFS, progression-free survival.
Table 2.
Survival estimates and comparison for patients in the whole population
| PFS |
OS |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Events/all | Median (95% CI), months | P (log rank) | Events/all | Median (95% CI), months | P (log rank) | |
| Type of chemotherapy following PARPi | ||||||
| PBC | 158/182 | 6.7 (5.7-7.6) | <0.0001 | 113/182 | 14.2 (13.0-19.3) | 0.1322 |
| nPBC | 100/109 | 3.5 (2.8-4.6) | 77/108 | 12.9 (9.9-16.4) | ||
| BRCA status | ||||||
| BRCAm | 118/130 | 5.3 (4.6-6.7) | 0.2937 | 90/130 | 14.3 (12.9-19.4) | 0.3775 |
| BRCAwt | 136/157 | 5.7 (4.6-6.9) | 96/156 | 13.3 (11.1-16.9) | ||
| Platinum-free interval | ||||||
| ≤6 Months | 70/73 | 3.0 (2.7-4.1) | <0.0001 | 58/73 | 11.2 (9.0-14.9) | 0.0008 |
| 6-12 Months | 78/87 | 6.5 (4.7-7.6) | 61/87 | 11.9 (10.9-14.2) | ||
| >12 Months | 103/120 | 6.9 (5.9-8.0) | 67/119 | 19.3 (15.3-25.7) | ||
| Type of initial surgery | ||||||
| Primary | 84/96 | 6.7 (5.1-8.3) | 0.0706 | 54/95 | 17.3 (14.3-25.7) | 0.0006 |
| Interval/closing | 144/160 | 5.0 (4.2-6.0) | 113/160 | 12.9 (11.4-15.5) | ||
| No surgery | 27/31 | 6.0 (4.1-9.9) | 22/31 | 11.4 (8.7-22.7) | ||
1CI, confidence interval; nPBC, non-platinum-based chemotherapy; OS, overall survival; PARPi, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor; PBC, platinum-based chemotherapy; PFS, progression-free survival.
Figure 2.
Kaplan–Meier curves for OS based on chemotherapy received after PARPi (A), BRCA status (B), platinum-free interval (C), and type of initial surgery (D). OS, overall survival; PARPi, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor; PFI, platinum-free interval.
Among patients who received nPBC, those treated with paclitaxel had higher median PFS at 5.7 months (95% CI 4.1-7.9 months) compared with other nPBC regimens at 2.8 months (95% CI 2.6-3.5 months) (P = 0.0017). Outcome in the nPBC and PBC groups according to BRCA status and PFI are shown in Supplementary Figures S2, S3 and Supplementary Table S2, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103694. We conducted then multivariable analyses to identify factors associated with better PFS with chemotherapy after PARPi exposure. PFI interval >6 months was strongly associated with PFS [adjusted HR (95% CI) 0.52 (0.39-0.70), P < 0.001], while interval/closing surgery compared with primary surgery was associated with worse PFS [adjusted HR (95% CI) 1.41 (1.07-1.87)]. Conversely, BRCA status and line of therapy for PARPi administration were not associated with PFS. Of note only 41 patients received PARPi as first-line maintenance therapy (Table 3).
Table 3.
Univariable and multivariable Cox analyses of factors influencing PFS in whole population
| Univariable |
Multivariable |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | Cox P-value | HR (95% CI) | Cox P-value | |
| Whole population (n = 272) | ||||
| PFI >6 months (yes versus no) | 0.53 (0.40-0.70) | <0.0001 | 0.52 (0.39-0.70) | <0.0001 |
| BRCA1/2 status (mutated versus wild-type) | 0.90 (0.70-1.16) | 0.4245 | 1.05 (0.81-1.37) | 0.7102 |
| PARPi line (≥2 versus 1) | 1.21 (0.83-1.77) | 0.3299 | 1.08 (0.73-1.60) | 0.6991 |
| Type of initial surgery (ref: primary) | ||||
| Interval or closing | 1.41 (1.06-1.86) | 0.0169 | 1.41 (1.07-1.87) | 0.0158 |
| None | 1.29 (0.83-2.02) | 0.2598 | 1.29 (0.82-2.02) | 0.2668 |
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; PARPi, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor; PFI, platinum-free interval; PFS, progression-free survival.
Outcomes of patients with subsequent chemotherapy in patients with a PFI > 6 months
As PFI was strongly associated with the PBC delivery, we conducted analyses in the group of patients with a PFI >6 months to identify the prognostic factors associated with PFS. Of 200 patients with a PFI >6 months, 159 and 41 patients received PBC and nPBC, respectively. Patients treated with PBC in this group had a numerically better PFS compared with patients receiving nPBC [adjusted HR (95% CI), 0.68 (0.46-1.01); P < 0.0547] (Table 4). Analyses of the group of patients were not conducted for the group of patients with PFI ≤6 months given the low number of patients receiving PBC in this group of patients.
Table 4.
Univariable and multivariable Cox analyses of factors influencing PFS in patients with a PFI >6 months
| Univariable |
Multivariable |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | Cox P-value | HR (95% CI) | Cox P-value | |
| PFI >6 months (n = 200) | ||||
| PBC (yes versus no) | 0.70 (0.49-1.01) | 0.0558 | 0.68 (0.46-1.01) | 0.0547 |
| BRCA1/2 status (mutated versus wild-type) | 1.01 (0.75-1.37) | 0.9478 | 1.19 (0.86-1.66) | 0.2972 |
| PARPi line (≥2 versus 1) | 1.37 (0.88-2.13) | 0.1621 | 1.33 (0.85-2.09) | 0.2115 |
| Type of initial surgery (ref: primary) | ||||
| Interval or closing | 1.32 (0.96-1.83) | 0.0907 | 1.32 (0.95-1.83) | 0.0953 |
| None | 1.24 (0.73-2.11) | 0.4183 | 1.25 (0.73-2.14) | 0.4096 |
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; PARPi, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor; PFI, platinum-free interval.
Patients receiving PARPi in the adjuvant setting
Among the 41 patients who received PARPi in the adjuvant setting, 35 and 6 received PBC and nPBC, respectively. The median PFS and OS were 5.5 months (4.0-10.3 months) and 20.5 months (14.9-35.8 months), as well as 6.8 months (5.1-10.3 months) and 22.7 months (19.3 months to not reached) among patients treated with PBC, respectively. Because only six patients received nPBC, no estimation was carried out in this subgroup.
Discussion
Patients treated for ovarian cancer progression after PARPi exposure have poor prognosis, with a median PFS and OS of 5.6 and 13.6 months, respectively. Recent series indicated reduced efficacy of chemotherapy after PARPi.15, 16, 17, 18, 19 The survival rates of these patients were consistent with these reports. A major hypothesis for these findings is that progression under PARPi will result in subsequent chemotherapy resistance, particularly PBC.14 Thus, the management of this emerging population is challenging for oncologists.2 We found that the majority of the patients (86%) in our study received PARPi after a platinum-sensitive relapse, when maintenance was continued until progression or intolerance. The low number of patients treated with PARPi in the first-line setting reflects PARPi approvals at the time.20 Notably, 90% of the included patients progressed during PARPi treatment.
Our real-world study revealed that PFI was a strong prognostic factor for PFS in the whole population and patients with a PFI >6 months treated with PBC have the best outcome regardless of the number of lines received before PARPi exposure or BRCA status. If nPBC was proposed, weekly paclitaxel was associated with improved PFS, with a median PFS of 5.8 months (compared with 2.8 months for non-paclitaxel nPBC). Our data indicated that although patients progressing during PARPi had poor prognosis, the most active cytotoxic regimen is PBC, whereas weekly paclitaxel provides the best option among patients not eligible for PBC.
There has been a rational concern that progression following PARPi exposure may reduce subsequent chemotherapy response, particularly platinum-based regimens, as escape from PARPi, and PBC may share common resistance mechanisms.21,22 The restoration of HRD, by reversion mutations restoring a functional BRCA1/2 protein, BRCA hylomorphisms or loss of BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation is the most described.21,23, 24, 25 Although the proportion of BRCA1/2 reversion mutations following platinum administration remains low (8% in the ARIEL4 trial26), they occur more frequently following PARPi (26.6% in a retrospective meta-analysis: 22.6% and 30.7% for BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively).27,28
In a retrospective series of 54 patients, PBC rechallenge after PARPi with PFI >6 months yielded a response rate of up to 25%, and four complete responses were observed in patients with PFI >12 months.16
The OREO trial showed that re-exposure to PARPi after PBC rechallenge in carefully selected patients resulted in a statistically significant improvement in PFS in both BRCAm and BRCAwt cohorts, although the differences were small (PFS, 4.3 versus 2.8 months in the BRCAm cohort and 5.3 versus 2.8 months in the non-BRCAm cohort).24
These findings indicate that mechanisms of resistance to PARPi and PBC do not necessarily overlap. We can suppose that PBC enables PARPi-specific resistance pathways related to replicative fork stabilization, specific efflux transporter activations, and other oncogenic signaling pathways to maintain sensitivity to PBC.3 Regarding paclitaxel results, recent studies indicate reduced BRCA mutation reversion after exposure, explaining its greater efficacy compared with other nPBCs.29,30
Notably, our study focused mainly on patients progressing under PARPi. Post-PARP outcomes were recently described in the first-line PAOLA-1 trial, which reported that patients who progressed on olaparib and bevacizumab had poorer PFS with platinum rechallenge than those progressing following PARP discontinuation.31
Strengths and limitations
The international, multicenter recruitment and the broad inclusion criteria generated the largest real-life cohort of patients treated with chemotherapy after progression on PARPi. The study’s limitations include its retrospective design leading to inclusion bias, including PBC-treated patients with a longer duration of PARPi exposure and being more often BRCA-mutated. These unequal distributions reflect some criteria leading to PBC administration. PFI and BRCA mutational status are independently linked to ovarian cancer prognosis although multivariable analyses limit these biases. The timing of our cohort (before 2021) enriched our population with patients receiving PARPi in late lines, which represents a lesser population currently on PARPi. HRD status was not assessable considering the inclusion period and diversity of countries included in our study.
Conclusion
In the absence of clear guidelines for the treatment of ovarian cancer after PARPi, practitioners choose the chemotherapy regimen. In cases of patients progressing on PARPi with a PFI >6 months, PBC rechallenge is the best option.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Comprehensive Cancer Centers (FCCC) involved in this study for providing the data. Moreover, we thank Camille Morisseau and Laetitia Himpe for the central coordination and their ongoing support.
Funding
None declared.
Disclosure
JSF reports personal fees from Roche Genentech, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Seattle Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, personal fees and nonfinancial support from GSK, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Clovis Oncology, personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Gilead, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), personal fees and nonfinancial support from Pierre Fabre, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Amgen, outside the submitted work. SC reports that 50% of her salary is reimbursed to Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust by IQVIA. PA reports receiving honoraria or consultation fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, Daichi, Pfizer, and Novartis. GH reports research funding from IQVIA and honoraria/consulting fees from GSK and Pfizer. IRC reports receiving grants/research support from MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK, and receiving honoraria or consultation fees from MSD, GSK, and AstraZeneca. PMK reports receiving grants/research support from MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK, receiving honoria or consultation fees from MSD, GSK, and AstraZeneca. HF reports being employed by IQVIA. AL reports personal fees for advisory board membership from Zentalis Pharmaceuticals; personal fees as an invited speaker from GSK and Medscape; personal fees for consultancy from Gerson Lehrman Group; personal fees for a writing engagement from Onko+; institutional fees for advisory board membership from Ability Pharma, Apmonia, AstraZeneca, Blueprint, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Merck Serono, and MSD; institutional fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, and Kephren Publishing; institutional fees for consultancy from Orion and Owkin; institutional fees for steering committee membership for MSD; institutional funding as a PI in clinical trials from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Iovance; MSD and Roche; institutional funding as a chief investigator in clinical trials from AstraZeneca and OSE Immunotherapeutics; institutional research grants as a PI in translational research from Association de Recherche sur les Cancers dont GYnécologiques (ARCAGY)-Groupe d’Investigateurs Nationaux pour les Etudes des Cancers de l’Ovaire, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi; a nonremunerated role as an IDMC member for Clovis Oncology, as an IDMC Chair for Pfizer (proprietary information), and as a member of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup; and nonremunerated academic research projects for LXRepair and Owkin. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Supplementary data
References
- 1.ESMO Death rates from ovarian cancer will fall in the EU and UK in 2022 [Annals of Oncology Press Release] Lugano: ESMO; 2022. 2022 https://www.esmo.org/newsroom/press-releases/death-rates-from-ovarian-cancer-will-fall-in-the-eu-and-uk-in-2022 Available at. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Matulonis U.A. The rapid evolution of PARP inhibitor therapy for advanced ovarian cancer: lessons being learned and new questions emerging from phase 3 trial long-term outcome data. Gynecol Oncol. 2022;167(3):401–403. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.11.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Soberanis Pina P., Lheureux S. Overcoming PARP inhibitor resistance in ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2023;33(3):364–376. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-003698. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Morales J.C., Li L., Fattah F.J., et al. Review of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) mechanisms of action and rationale for targeting in cancer and other diseases. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr. 2014;24(1):15–28. doi: 10.1615/critreveukaryotgeneexpr.2013006875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Poveda A., Floquet A., Ledermann J.A., et al. Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): a final analysis of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(5):620–631. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00073-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Oza AM, Lisyanskaya AS, Fedenko AA, et al. Overall survival results from ARIEL4: a phase 3 study assessing rucaparib vs. chemotherapy in patients with advanced, relapsed ovarian carcinoma and a deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation. Ann Oncol. 33:S235-S282.
- 7.Mirza M.R., Monk B.J., Herrstedt J., et al. Niraparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(22):2154–2164. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Coleman R.L., Oza A.M., Lorusso D., et al. Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma after response to platinum therapy (ARIEL3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;390(10106):1949–1961. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32440-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.González-Martín A., Pothuri B., Vergote I., et al. Niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(25):2391–2402. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910962. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Ray-Coquard I., Pautier P., Pignata S., et al. Olaparib plus bevacizumab as first-line maintenance in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(25):2416–2428. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Mirza M.R., Benigno B., Dørum A., et al. Long-term safety in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer treated with niraparib versus placebo: results from the phase III ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;159(2):442–448. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.DiSilvestro P., Banerjee S., Colombo N., et al. Overall survival with maintenance olaparib at a 7-year follow-up in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation: the SOLO1/GOG 3004 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(3):609–617. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lee J.-Y., Lee Y.-Y., Park J.-Y., et al. Major clinical research advances in gynecologic cancer in 2022: highlight on late-line PARP inhibitor withdrawal in ovarian cancer, the impact of ARIEL-4, and SOLO-3. J Gynecol Oncol. 2023;34(2):e51. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2023.34.e51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Dias M.P., Moser S.C., Ganesan S., Jonkers J. Understanding and overcoming resistance to PARP inhibitors in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2021;18(12):773–791. doi: 10.1038/s41571-021-00532-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Vergote I., Gonzalez-Martin A., Lorusso D., et al. Clinical research in ovarian cancer: consensus recommendations from the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(8):e374–e384. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00139-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Plaja Salarich A., Teruel García I., Pardo Burdalo B., et al. 824P Real-world-data (RWD) on platinum (Pt) outcomes after PARP inhibitors (PARPi) progression in high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) patients (p) Ann Oncol. 2020;31:S622. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Rose P.G., Yao M., Chambers L.M., et al. PARP inhibitors decrease response to subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with BRCA mutated ovarian cancer. Anticancer Drugs. 2021;32(10):1086–1092. doi: 10.1097/CAD.0000000000001219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Frenel J.S., Kim J.W., Aryal N., et al. Efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy for patients with BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer progressing on olaparib versus placebo maintenance: post-hoc analyses of the SOLO2/ENGOT Ov-21 trial. Ann Oncol. 2022;33(10):1021–1028. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.06.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Pujade-Lauraine E., Selle F., Scambia G., et al. LBA33 Maintenance olaparib rechallenge in patients (pts) with ovarian carcinoma (OC) previously treated with a PARP inhibitor (PARPi): Phase IIIb OReO/ENGOT Ov-38 trial. Ann Oncol. 2021;32:S1308–S1309. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.09.3110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Tew W.P., Lacchetti C., Ellis A., et al. PARP inhibitors in the management of ovarian cancer: ASCO Guideline [ASCO guideline] J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(30):3468–3493. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01924. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Ortiz M., Wabel E., Mitchell K., Horibata S. Mechanisms of chemotherapy resistance in ovarian cancer. Cancer Drug Resist. 2022;5(2):304–316. doi: 10.20517/cdr.2021.147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Darabi S., Braxton D.R., Xiu J., et al. BRCA1/2 reversion mutations in patients treated with poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors or platinum agents. Medicina (Kaunas) 2022;58(12):1818. doi: 10.3390/medicina58121818. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Patch A.-M., Christie E.L., Etemadmoghadam D., et al. Whole-genome characterization of chemoresistant ovarian cancer. Nature. 2015;521(7553):489–494. doi: 10.1038/nature14410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Li H., Liu Z.-Y., Wu N., Chen Y.-C., Cheng Q., Wang J. PARP inhibitor resistance: the underlying mechanisms and clinical implications. Mol Cancer. 2020;19(1):107. doi: 10.1186/s12943-020-01227-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Mayor P., Gay L.M., Lele S., Elvin J.A. BRCA1 reversion mutation acquired after treatment identified by liquid biopsy. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2017;21:57–60. doi: 10.1016/j.gore.2017.06.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Kristeleit R., Lisyanskaya A., Fedenko A., et al. Rucaparib versus standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer and a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (ARIEL4): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(4):465–478. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00122-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Tobalina L., Armenia J., Irving E., O’Connor M.J., Forment J.V. A meta-analysis of reversion mutations in BRCA genes identifies signatures of DNA end-joining repair mechanisms driving therapy resistance. Ann Oncol. 2021;32(1):103–112. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.10.470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Lukashchuk N., Armenia J., Tobalina L., et al. BRCA reversion mutations mediated by microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ) as a mechanism of resistance to PARP inhibitors in ovarian and breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(suppl 16) 5559. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Yanaihara N., Yoshino Y., Noguchi D., et al. Paclitaxel sensitizes homologous recombination-proficient ovarian cancer cells to PARP inhibitor via the CDK1/BRCA1 pathway. Gynecol Oncol. 2023;168:83–91. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.11.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Collet L., Hanvic B., Turinetto M., et al. BRCA1/2 alterations and reversion mutations in the area of PARP inhibitors in high grade ovarian cancer: state of the art and forthcoming challenges. Front Oncol. 2024;14 doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1354427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Marth C., Mouret-Reynier M.-A., Lorusso D., et al. #528 Efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy followed by PARP inhibitor maintenance in patients with advanced ovarian cancer in the phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-Ov25 trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2023;33(suppl 3):A21. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.