PARPi after PARPi in epithelial ovarian cancer

The objective of this study was to describe the treatment experience of patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer who are retreated with an inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose)-polymerase (PARPi). We conducted a multi-institutional, retrospective review of ovarian cancer patients who received ≥2 li...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: K.G. Essel, K. Behbakht, T. Lai, L. Hand, E. Evans, J. Dvorak, K. Ding, G. Konecny, K.N. Moore
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2021-02-01
Series:Gynecologic Oncology Reports
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352578921000047
Description
Summary:The objective of this study was to describe the treatment experience of patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer who are retreated with an inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose)-polymerase (PARPi). We conducted a multi-institutional, retrospective review of ovarian cancer patients who received ≥2 lines of therapy containing a PARPi. Demographic, clinical, and pathological data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Twenty-two patients were identified. For initial PARPi (PARPi1), 12 patients (54.5%) received veliparib, 7 (31.8%) olaparib and 3 (13.6%) rucaparib resulting in 10 patients who had no evidence of disease at the completion of therapy (NED), 3 partial responses (PR), 4 stable disease (SD), and 3 progressive disease (PD). (All 10 CRs involved veliparib given in conjunction with cytotoxic chemotherapy). PARPi1 was used as maintenance in 2 patients. PARPi1 was discontinued because planned number of cycles was reached (n = 10), progression (n = 8), toxicity (n = 2), other (n = 2). For second PARPi (PARPi2), 10 patients (45.4%) received niraparib, 6 (27.3%) olaparib, and 6 (27.3%) rucaparib resulting in 3 PR, 13 SD, and 3 PD. PARPi2 was used as maintenance in 3 patients. The 3 patients who experienced a PR to PARPi2 had a BRCA mutation and were NED following PARPi1. PARPi2 was discontinued because of progression (n = 13), toxicity (n = 6), other (n = 2). One patient currently remains on PARPi2. Toxicity after PARPi1 was not associated with toxicity from PARPi2 (p > 0.05). With 3 approved PARPi for different indications including frontline and recurrence, the opportunity to reuse PARPi has increased. Characterizing those who should be re-challenged is an important initiative moving forward.
ISSN:2352-5789