Explore the vast range of titles available.

Up to 30% of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have deleterious mutations in genes involved in homologous recombination repair of DNA damage. The use of the PARP inhibitor olaparib in such patients was associated with longer progression-free survival and a longer time to pain progression than control therapy.

Patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to receive daily niraparib, a PARP inhibitor, or placebo as maintenance therapy after having had a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the niraparib group than in the placebo group, with some increase in the frequency of myelosuppression and nausea.

Among patients who had mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 and were at high risk for disease progression, those who were assigned to a year of olaparib adjuvant therapy had 3-year invasive disease–free survival of 86%, as compared with 77% among those who were assigned to placebo. Few patients stopped olaparib owing to side effects.

When used as maintenance therapy, the PARP inhibitor olaparib provided a significant progression-free survival benefit in women with ovarian cancer who had a response to primary chemotherapy, particularly in those whose tumors were deficient in homologous recombination (e.g., BRCA -mutated tumors). Hematologic toxic effects were observed.

Among patients with breast cancer and germline mutations in the BRCA DNA repair pathway genes, the poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) inhibitor talazoparib provided a significant benefit over standard chemotherapy with respect to progression-free survival.

Using an adaptive trial design to minimize the exposure of patients to inactive agents and to detect more active regimens sooner, investigators found that adding veliparib and carboplatin to standard therapy improved outcome in triple-negative breast cancer. Breast cancer is genetically and clinically heterogeneous, which makes it challenging to identify effective patient-specific therapies. Although mortality due to breast cancer in the United States has decreased, more than 40,000 women in the United States still die from this disease each year. 1 Further decreases in mortality will require therapeutic options that target biologic properties of tumors and can be delivered early enough in the disease course to make a clinical difference. The neoadjuvant approach facilitates the evaluation of an individual patient's response to treatment and holds promise for the development of experimental therapies for disease while it is still . . .

Among patients with metastatic breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation, daily treatment with the PARP inhibitor olaparib was associated with longer progression-free survival than standard single-agent chemotherapy.

The addition of veliparib, a PARP inhibitor, to induction chemotherapy and maintenance therapy in women with advanced ovarian cancer significantly improved progression-free survival over induction chemotherapy alone without maintenance therapy. The improvement was especially notable in patients with mutated BRCA or homologous-recombination defects.

Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors as maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy have improved progression-free survival in women with advanced ovarian cancer; however, not all PARP inhibitors can provide benefit for a biomarker-unselected population. Senaparib is a PARP inhibitor that demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with solid tumors, including ovarian cancer, in phase 1 studies. The multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 trial FLAMES randomized (2:1) 404 females with advanced ovarian cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III–IV) and response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy to senaparib 100 mg ( n  = 271) or placebo ( n  = 133) orally once daily for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review. At the prespecified interim analysis, the median progression-free survival was not reached with senaparib and was 13.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.32–0.58; P  < 0.0001). The benefit with senaparib over placebo was consistent in the subgroups defined by BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation or homologous recombination status. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 179 (66%) and 27 (20%) patients, respectively. Senaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with advanced ovarian cancer after response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, irrespective of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status and with consistent benefits observed between homologous recombination subgroups, and was well tolerated. These results support senaparib as a maintenance treatment for patients with advanced ovarian cancer after a response to first-line chemotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04169997 . In a prespecified interim analysis of the multicenter, randomized, phase 3 FLAMES trial, maintenance therapy with a PARP inhibitor in patients with ovarian cancer showed prolonged progression-free survival compared with placebo in all subgroups defined by BRCA or homologous recombination status.

Establishing alternatives to lifelong chemotherapy for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer has been proposed to address chemotherapy resistance and cumulative toxicity. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have shown efficacy in this setting, and concurrent immune checkpoint blockade could offer synergistic tumour control. The aim of this study was to test the safety and antitumour activity of maintenance with PARP inhibition combined with immune checkpoint blockade in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who had a stable response to platinum-based chemotherapy. We conducted an open-label, randomised, phase 1b/2 study of niraparib plus anti-PD-1 (nivolumab) or anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) therapy for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer whose cancer had not progressed after at least 16 weeks of platinum-based therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via permuted block randomisation (block sizes 2 and 4) to niraparib 200 mg orally per day plus either nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks (later changed to 480 mg intravenously every 4 weeks based on manufacturer update) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses. The primary endpoints were safety and progression-free survival at 6 months. Treatment groups were not compared for activity, which was assessed in each group against a clinically meaningful progression-free survival at 6 months of 44% (null hypothesis). Superiority of a treatment regimen could be declared if 6-month progression-free survival was 60%, and inferiority if 6-month progression-free survival was 27%. All patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and had at least one post-treatment assessment of response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 were included in the efficacy population. The safety population consisted of all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03404960, and enrolment is completed and follow-up is ongoing. 91 patients were enrolled between Feb 7, 2018, and Oct 5, 2021 and were randomly assigned to niraparib plus nivolumab (n=46) or niraparib plus ipilimumab (n=45). Of these patients, 84 were evaluable for the progression-free survival endpoint (niraparib plus nivolumab=44; niraparib plus ipilimumab=40). Median follow-up was 23·0 months (IQR 15·0–31·5). 6-month progression-free survival was 20·6% (95% CI 8·3–32·9; p=0·0002 vs the null hypothesis of 44%) in the niraparib plus nivolumab group; and 59·6% (44·3–74·9; p=0·045) in the niraparib plus ipilimumab group. Ten (22%) of 46 patients in the niraparib plus nivolumab group and 23 (50%) of 45 patients in the niraparib plus ipilimumab group had a grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the niraparib plus nivolumab group were hypertension (in four [8%] patients), anaemia (two [4%]), and thrombocytopenia (two [4%]) whereas in the niraparib plus ipilimumab group these were fatigue (in six [14%]), anaemia (five [11%]), and hypertension (four [9%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. The primary endpoint of 6-month progression-free survival was met in the niraparib plus ipilimumab maintenance group, whereas niraparib plus nivolumab yielded inferior progression-free survival. These findings highlight the potential for non-cytotoxic maintenance therapies in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, the Basser Center Young Leadership Council, The Konner Foundation, The Pearl and Philip Basser Innovation Research Award, the Anonymous Foundation, and the US National Institutes of Health.