| Literature DB >> 26082895 |
Jung-Min Lee1, Jane B Trepel1, Peter Choyke1, Liang Cao1, Tristan Sissung1, Nicole Houston1, Minshu Yu1, William D Figg1, Ismail Baris Turkbey1, Seth M Steinberg1, Min-Jung Lee1, S Percy Ivy2, Joyce F Liu3, Ursula A Matulonis3, Elise C Kohn1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Olaparib (O), a polyADPribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, and cediranib (C), a VEGF receptor (VEGFR)1-3 inhibitor together had greater activity than O alone in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (OvCa). The objective of this study is to identify potential lead biomarker candidates for response to O + C in the setting of a multi-institutional phase II study of O with and without C in recurrent platinum-sensitive OvCa.Entities:
Keywords: CEC; IL-8; biomarkers; cediranib; olaparib; ovarian cancer
Year: 2015 PMID: 26082895 PMCID: PMC4450585 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2015.00123
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Treatment schema and correlative studies. Peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC), whole blood DNA, and plasma samples were collected prior to initiation of the study drug(s), and all patients underwent DCE-MRI imaging. Follow-up sampling was done on day 3 of treatment.
Clinical characteristics (.
| Olaparib | Olaparib + cediranib | |
|---|---|---|
| 7 patients | 6 patients | |
| Age: median 53 (range 32–70) | 53 (32–61) | 57 (53–70) |
| Number of prior lines of therapy | 1: 6 patients | 1: 3 patients |
| 2: 1 patients | 2: 2 patients | |
| 3: 1 patients | ||
| Response rate | 57% | 83% |
| Best response | PR: 4 | PR: 5 |
| SD >4 months: 3 | SD >4 months: 1 | |
| PFS*, median | 11.2 months (3.6–16.8) | 13.8 months (7.5–22.2+) |
| Mutated: 4 – or unknown: 3 | Mutated: 3 – or unknown: 3 | |
| Paired correlative studies | ||
| Cytokine | 6 patients | 6 patients |
| PAR incorporation | 6 patients | 5 patients |
| CEC/CEP | 5 patients | 5 patients |
| DCE-MRI | 4 patients | 6 patients |
*.
.
.
.
.
Figure 2Circulating endothelial cells (CEC) and circulating endothelial progenitor cells (CEP). (A) Patients receiving olaparib/cediranib had a larger fold increase in CEC compared to olaparib alone during treatment (p = 0.032). (B) The fold increase in CEC on day 3 was associated with PFS duration in all patients (R2 = 0.77, 95% CI 0.55–0.97, p < 0.001) when reporting values on a patient-by-patient basis. The open dots represent patients whose times at risk were censored on the date of their last contact and were last reported alive and progression-free. This observed pattern may not retain the linear relationship as time passes.
Figure 3Proangiogenic cytokines. (A) Patients on olaparib/cediranib had a greater change in circulating IL-8 concentration with treatment than patients on olaparib alone (p = 0.026). (B) Patients with greater IL-8 change [below the median IL-8 difference (−0.25)] was associated with longer PFS (p = 0.028). The 6-month PFS probability for the six patients with changes above the median was 83.3% (95% CI 43.6–97.0), while for the group with the changes below the median, it was 100% (95% CI 54.1–100). At 12 months, the respective probabilities of PFS were 20.8% (95% CI 3.8–63.6) and 80.0% (95% CI 37.6–96.4).
Figure 4PAR incorporation. Marked reduction in PAR was seen in all patients treated with olaparib-based therapy. Solid line represents patients treated with olaparib/cediranib and dotted line represents patients treated with olaparib alone.
Figure 5DCE-MRI. (A,B) All patients had reduction of Ktrans without statistically significant differences between arms (p = 0.61). Solid line represents patients treated with olaparib/cediranib and dot line represents patients treated with olaparib alone. (C,D) All but one patient had reduction of Kep after treatment without significant difference between arms (p = 0.61). Solid line represents patients treated with olaparib/cediranib and dotted line represents patients treated with olaparib alone.