Homologous recombination deficiency is a critical biologic feature of ovarian cancer. This weakness in DNA damage repair relies on functional poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Niraparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, orally available and initially approved for maintenance therapy in women with ovarian cancer by the US FDA in 2017 and by the EMA in 2017 for the same indication. Ovarian cancer represents the most lethal of gynecologic malignancies. The efficacy of niraparib has changed the landscape of ovarian cancer treatment, but overall survival data is still to come. This review summarizes the data regarding niraparib mechanism of action, toxicities, single agent efficacy and novel combinations in ovarian cancer.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest

References

1. U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. US Cancer Statistics Data Visualizations Tool, based on November 2018 submission data (1999–2016). (2019). www.cdc.gv/cancer/dataviz
Google Scholar
2. Erickson BK, Conner MG, Landen CN Jr. The role of the fallopian tube in the origin of ovarian cancer. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 209(5), 409–414 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Boussios S, Abson C, Moschetta M et al. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors: talazoparib in ovarian cancer and beyond. Drugs R. D. 20(2), 55–73 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4. FDA label for olaparib (2020). www.azpicentral.com/lynparza_tb/lynparza_tb.pdf#page=1
Google Scholar
5. FDA approval for rubraca. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/209115s003lbl.pdf
Google Scholar
6. Karihtala P, Moschetta M et al. Veliparib in ovarian cancer: a new synthetically lethal therapeutic approach. Invest. New Drugs 38(1), 181–193 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Gourley C, Balmaña J, Ledermann JA et al. Moving from poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition to targeting dna repair and dna damage response in cancer therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 37(25), 2257–2269 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
8. Friedberg EC. A brief history of the DNA repair field. Cell Res. 18(1), 3–7 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9. Konstantinopoulos PA, Ceccaldi R, Shapiro GI, D'Andrea AD. Homologous recombination deficiency: exploiting the fundamental vulnerability of ovarian cancer. Cancer Discov. 5(11), 1137–1154 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10. Karnak D, Engelke CG, Parsels LA et al. Combined inhibition of Wee1 and PARP1/2 for radiosensitization in pancreatic cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 20(19), 5085–5096 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
11. Patel M, Nowsheen S, Maraboyina S, Xia F. The role of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in the treatment of cancer and methods to overcome resistance: a review. Cell Biosci. 10, 35 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. O'Connor MJ. Targeting the DNA damage response in cancer. Mol. Cell. 60(4), 547–560 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Lord CJ, Ashworth A. The DNA damage response and cancer therapy. Nature 481(7381), 287–294 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14. Lord CJ, Ashworth A. BRCAness revisited. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 16(2), 110–120 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15. Jones P, Altamura S, Boueres J et al. Discovery of 2-{4-[(3S)-piperidin-3-yl]phenyl}-2H-indazole-7-carboxamide (MK-4827): a novel oral poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase (PARP) inhibitor efficacious in BRCA-1 and -2 mutant tumors. J. Med. Chem. 52(22), 7170–7185 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
16. van Andel L, Rosing H, Zhang Z et al. Determination of the absolute oral bioavailability of niraparib by simultaneous administration of a (14)C-microtracer and therapeutic dose in cancer patients. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 81(1), 39–46 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17. Sun K, Mikule K, Wang Z et al. A comparative pharmacokinetic study of PARP inhibitors demonstrates favorable properties for niraparib efficacy in preclinical tumor models. Oncotarget 9(98), 37080–37096 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Lord CJ, Ashworth A. PARP inhibitors: synthetic lethality in the clinic. Science 355(6330), 1152–1158 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
19. Sandhu SK, Schelman WR, Wilding G et al. The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor niraparib (MK4827) in BRCA mutation carriers and patients with sporadic cancer: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial. Lancet Oncol. 14(9), 882–892 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. Zhang ZY. Modeling and impact of organ function on the population pharmacokinetics (PK) of niraparib, a selective poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-1 and-2 inhibitor. Ann. Oncol. 28 (2017).
Google Scholar
21. Wang J. The exposure-response relationship of niraparib in patients with gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut: results from the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial. Ann. Oncol. 9, 28 (2017).
Google Scholar
22. Sachdev JC. Safety, pharmacodynamic, and pharmacokinetic profile of TSR-042, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors. Ann. Oncol. 28, 28 (2017).
Google Scholar
23. Mirza MR, Monk BJ, Herrstedt J et al. Niraparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 375(22), 2154–2164 (2016). • First report of efficacy for Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) maintenance in the platinum sensitive recurrent setting.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Moore KN, Secord AA, Geller MA et al. Niraparib monotherapy for late-line treatment of ovarian cancer (QUADRA): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, Phase II trial. Lancet Oncol. 20(5), 636–648 (2019). • Largest monotherapy trial of PARPi in later lines of therapy demonstrating continued efficacy in a platinum sensitive setting.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
25. González-Martín A, Pothuri B, Vergote I et al. Niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 381(25), 2391–2402 (2019). • Demonstrates the efficacy of PARPi in front line maintenance, regardless of biomarker.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. Fabbro M, Moore KN, Dørum A et al. Efficacy and safety of niraparib as maintenance treatment in older patients (>/=70 years) with recurrent ovarian cancer: results from the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial. Gynecol. Oncol. 152(3), 560–567 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27. FDA label for niraparib. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2020/208447s015s017lbledt.pdf
Google Scholar
28. Berek JS, Matulonis UA, Peen U et al. Safety and dose modification for patients receiving niraparib. Ann. Oncol. 29(8), 1784–1792 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
29. Oza AM, Matulonis UA, Malander S et al. Quality of life in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer treated with niraparib versus placebo (ENGOT-OV16/NOVA): results from a double-blind, Phase III, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 19(8), 1117–1125 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. Pilié PG, Tang C, Mills GB, Yap TA. State-of-the-art strategies for targeting the DNA damage response in cancer. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 16(2), 81–104 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
31. Lu Y, Chu A, Turker MS, Glazer PM. Hypoxia-induced epigenetic regulation and silencing of the BRCA1 promoter. Mol. Cell. Biol. 31(16), 3339–3350 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Scanlon SE, Glazer PM. Hypoxic stress facilitates acute activation and chronic downregulation of fanconi anemia proteins. Mol. Cancer Res. 12(7), 1016–1028 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
33. Bindra RS, Schaffer PJ, Meng A et al. Down-regulation of Rad51 and decreased homologous recombination in hypoxic cancer cells. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24(19), 8504–8518 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Wang Z, Sun K, Xiao Y et al. Niraparib activates interferon signaling and potentiates anti-PD-1 antibody efficacy in tumor models. Sci. Rep. 9(1), 1853 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
35. Sato H, Niimi A, Yasuhara T et al. DNA double-strand break repair pathway regulates PD-L1 expression in cancer cells. Nat Commun. 8(1), 1751 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Jiao S, Xia W, Yamaguchi H et al. PARP inhibitor upregulates PD-L1 expression and enhances cancer-associated immunosuppression. Clin. Cancer Res. 23(14), 3711–3720 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
37. Shen J, Zhao W, Ju Z et al. PARPi triggers the STING-dependent immune response and enhances the therapeutic efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade independent of BRCAness. Cancer Res. 79(2), 311–319 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38. Mirza MR, Birrer MJ, Christensen Rd et al. A Phase I study of bevacizumab in combination with niraparib in patients with platinum-sensitive epithelial ovarian cancer: The ENGOT-OV24/AVANOVA1 trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 34, 5555 (2016).
Google Scholar
39. Mirza MR, Åvall-Lundqvist E, Birrer MJ et al. Niraparib plus bevacizumab versus niraparib alone for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (NSGO-AVANOVA2/ENGOT-ov24): a randomised, Phase II, superiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 20(10), 1409–1419 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
40. Liu JF, Brady M, Matulonis UA et al. A Phase III study comparing single-agent olaparib or the combination of cediranib and olaparib to standard platinum-based chemotherapy in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 38(Suppl. abstr. 6003), (2020).
Google Scholar
41. Konstantinopoulos PA, Waggoner SE, Vidal GA et al. TOPACIO/Keynote-162 (NCT02657889)L a Phase 1/2 study of niraparib+pembrolizumab in patients (pts) with advanced triple-negative breast cancer or recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) – Results from ROC cohort. J. Clin. Oncol. 36(Suppl. 15), 106 (2018).
Google Scholar
42. Bitler BG, Watson ZL, Wheeler LJ, Behbakht K. PARP inhibitors: clinical utility and possibilities of overcoming resistance. Gynecol. Oncol. 147(3), 695–704 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
43. Lin KK, Harrell MI, Oza AM et al. BRCA reversion mutations in circulating tumor DNA predict primary and acquired resistance to the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in high-grade ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Discov. 9(2), 210–219 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
44. Kondrashova O, Topp M, Nesic K et al. Methylation of all BRCA1 copies predicts response to the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in ovarian carcinoma. Nat. Commun. 9(1), 3970 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
45. Moiseeva TN, Qian C, Sugitani N, Osmanbeyoglu HU, Bakkenist CJ. WEE1 kinase inhibitor AZD1775 induces CDK1 kinase-dependent origin firing in unperturbed G1- and S-phase cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116(48), 23891–23893 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
46. Quigley D, Alumkal JJ, Wyatt AW et al. Analysis of circulating cell-free DNA identifies multiclonal heterogeneity of BRCA2 reversion mutations associated with resistance to PARP inhibitors. Cancer Discov. 7(9), 999–1005 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
47. Tapodi A, Debreceni B, Hanto K et al. Pivotal role of Akt activation in mitochondrial protection and cell survival by poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase-1 inhibition in oxidative stress. J. Biol. Chem. 280(42), 35767–35775 (2005).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
48. Konstantinopoulos PA, Barry WT, Birrer M et al. Olaparib and α-specific PI3K inhibitor alpelisib for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer: a dose-escalation and dose-expansion Phase 1b trial. Lancet Oncol. 20(4), 570–580 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar

Vol. 16, No. 33

Metrics

Downloaded 208 times

History

Received 26 May 2020

Accepted 7 August 2020

Published online 3 September 2020

Published in print November 2020

Information

Keywords

Financial & competing interests disclosure

BJ Rimel: Tesaro/GSK (advisory board participant), AstraZeneca (advisory board participant), Clovis (Advisory board participant). Dr Randall reports honoraria from BluPrint Oncology, Physician's Education Resource, Curi Science and Products in Knowledge. Consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Clovis, Novocure, GOG Foundation, Merck, Mersana, and Agenus. She is on a speaker bureau for AstraZeneca, Tesaro and Merck. K Moore reports advisory board participation for AbbVie, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Immunogen, GSK/Tesaro, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Mersana, VBL Therapeutics, Vavotar, Tarveda and Myriad. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Company review disclosure

In addition to the peer-review process, with the author’s consent, the manufacturer of the product discussed in this article was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for factual accuracy. Changes were made by the author at their discretion and based on scientific or editorial merit only. The author maintained full control over the manuscript, including content, wording and conclusions.

PDF download