Charles Kunos1, Wei Deng, Dawn Dawson, Jayanthi S Lea, Kristine M Zanotti, Heidi J Gray, David P Bender, Perry P Guaglianone, Jori S Carter, Kathleen N Moore. 1. *Summa Cancer Institute, Summa Health System, Akron, OH; †NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group Statistics and Data Management Center, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY; ‡Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; §UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; ∥University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH; ¶University of Washington, Seattle, WA; #University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA; **Decatur Memorial Hospital, Cancer Care Specialists of Central Illinois, Decatur, IL; ††Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; and ‡‡Oklahoma University Health Science Center, Oklahoma City, OK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition by veliparib during cytotoxic topotecan administration with filgrastim or pegfilgrastim neutrophil support in women with persistent or recurrent uterine cervix cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This phase I-II trial examined twice-daily oral veliparib (10 mg) given during once-daily intravenous topotecan (0.6 mg/m²) on days 1 to 5 of each treatment cycle. Cycles were repeated every 21 days until disease progression or until toxicity prohibited further therapy. Toxicity and objective response rate were primary endpoints. RESULTS: Twenty-seven women were enrolled. Frequently reported grade 3 or higher treatment-related toxicities were anemia (59%), thrombocytopenia (44%), leukopenia (22%), and neutropenia (19%). There were 2 partial responses (7% [90% confidence interval, 1%-22%]). Four patients had a disease progression date more than 6 months after the start of veliparib-topotecan therapy. Patients with low immunohistochemical expression (0-1+) of PARP-1 in their primary uterine cervix cancer were more likely to have a longer progression-free interval (hazard ratio, 0.25; P = 0.02) and survival (hazard ratio, 0.12; P = 0.005) after veliparib-topotecan therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical activity of a veliparib-topotecan combination was minimal in women with persistent or recurrent uterine cervix cancer. Women whose uterine cervix cancers express PARP-1 at low levels may benefit preferentially from PARP inhibitors combined with cytotoxic therapies, suggesting further study of PARP expression as an integral triage biomarker.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition by veliparib during cytotoxic topotecan administration with filgrastim or pegfilgrastim neutrophil support in women with persistent or recurrent uterine cervix cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This phase I-II trial examined twice-daily oral veliparib (10 mg) given during once-daily intravenous topotecan (0.6 mg/m²) on days 1 to 5 of each treatment cycle. Cycles were repeated every 21 days until disease progression or until toxicity prohibited further therapy. Toxicity and objective response rate were primary endpoints. RESULTS: Twenty-seven women were enrolled. Frequently reported grade 3 or higher treatment-related toxicities were anemia (59%), thrombocytopenia (44%), leukopenia (22%), and neutropenia (19%). There were 2 partial responses (7% [90% confidence interval, 1%-22%]). Four patients had a disease progression date more than 6 months after the start of veliparib-topotecan therapy. Patients with low immunohistochemical expression (0-1+) of PARP-1 in their primary uterine cervix cancer were more likely to have a longer progression-free interval (hazard ratio, 0.25; P = 0.02) and survival (hazard ratio, 0.12; P = 0.005) after veliparib-topotecan therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical activity of a veliparib-topotecan combination was minimal in women with persistent or recurrent uterine cervix cancer. Women whose uterine cervix cancers express PARP-1 at low levels may benefit preferentially from PARP inhibitors combined with cytotoxic therapies, suggesting further study of PARP expression as an integral triage biomarker.
Authors: Bart L Staker; Kathryn Hjerrild; Michael D Feese; Craig A Behnke; Alex B Burgin; Lance Stewart Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-11-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Dana A Löser; Atsushi Shibata; Akiko K Shibata; Lisa J Woodbine; Penny A Jeggo; Anthony J Chalmers Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: J C Amé; V Rolli; V Schreiber; C Niedergang; F Apiou; P Decker; S Muller; T Höger; J Ménissier-de Murcia; G de Murcia Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 1999-06-18 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: M Fernet; V Ponette; E Deniaud-Alexandre; J Ménissier-De Murcia; G De Murcia; N Giocanti; F Megnin-Chanet; V Favaudon Journal: Int J Radiat Biol Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 2.694
Authors: John H Farley; Kimberly W Hickey; Jay W Carlson; G Scott Rose; Edward R Kost; Terry A Harrison Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Charles A Kunos; Tomas Radivoyevitch; John Pink; Song-Mao Chiu; Tammy Stefan; James Jacobberger; Timothy J Kinsella Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2010-09-10 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Matthew M Harkenrider; Merry Jennifer Markham; Don S Dizon; Anuja Jhingran; Ritu Salani; Ramy K Serour; Jean Lynn; Elise C Kohn Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: P H Thaker; R Salani; W E Brady; H A Lankes; D E Cohn; D G Mutch; R S Mannel; K M Bell-McGuinn; P A Di Silvestro; D Jelovac; J S Carter; W Duan; K E Resnick; D S Dizon; C Aghajanian; P M Fracasso Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Jac A Nickoloff; Dennie Jones; Suk-Hee Lee; Elizabeth A Williamson; Robert Hromas Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 11.816