BRCA1 as a Therapeutic Target in Sporadic Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

In sporadic epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), the inactivation of BRCA1 through various mechanisms is a relatively common event. BRCA1 protein dysfunction results in the breakdown of various critical pathways in the cell, notably, the DNA damage response and repair pathway. Tumors from patients with BRCA1 germline mutations have an increased sensitivity to DNA damaging chemotherapeutic agents, such as cisplatin, due to defective DNA repair. Thus, inhibiting BRCA1 in sporadic EOC using novel targeted therapies is an attractive strategy for the treatment of advanced or recurrent EOC. Several classes of small molecule inhibitors that affect BRCA1 have now been tested in preclinical and clinical studies suggesting that this is a rational therapeutic approach. The aim of this paper is to provide an understanding of how BRCA1 has evolved into a promising target for the treatment of sporadic disease and to outline the main potential small molecule inhibitors of BRCA1 in EOC

The effect of the histone deacetylase inhibitor M344 on BRCA1 expression in breast and ovarian cancer cells

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The inhibition of Breast Cancer 1 (BRCA1) expression sensitizes breast and ovarian cancer cells to platinum chemotherapy. However, therapeutically relevant agents that target BRCA1 expression have not been identified. Our recent report suggested the potential of the histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, M344, to inhibit BRCA1 expression. In this study, we further evaluated the effect of M344 on BRCA1 mRNA and protein expression, as well as its effect on cisplatin-induced cytotoxicity in various breast (MCF7, T-47D and HCC1937) and ovarian (A2780s, A2780cp and OVCAR-4) cancer cell lines.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>With the addition of M344, the platinum-sensitive breast and ovarian cancer cell lines that displayed relatively high BRCA1 protein levels demonstrated significant potentiation of cisplatin cytotoxicity in association with a reduction of BRCA1 protein. The cisplatin-resistant cell lines, T-47D and A2780s, elicited increased cytotoxicity of cisplatin with M344 and down regulation of BRCA1 protein levels. A2780s cells subjected to combination platinum and M344 treatment, demonstrated increased DNA damage as assessed by the presence of phosphorylated H2A.X foci in comparison to either treatment alone. Using Chromatin Immunoprecipitation, A2780s and MCF7 cells exposed to M344 alone and in combination with cisplatin, did not demonstrate enhanced acetylated Histone 4 at the <it>BRCA1 </it>promoter, suggesting an indirect effect on this promoter.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The enhanced sensitivity of HDAC inhibition to platinum may be mediated through a BRCA1-dependent mechanism in breast and ovarian cancer cells. The findings of this study may be important in the future design of clinical trials involving HDAC inhibitors using BRCA1 as a tumour biomarker.</p

Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma after response to platinum therapy (ARIEL3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Rucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, has anticancer activity in recurrent ovarian carcinoma harbouring a BRCA mutation or high percentage of genome-wide loss of heterozygosity. In this trial we assessed rucaparib versus placebo after response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with high-grade, recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma. Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 87 hospitals and cancer centres across 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma, had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, had achieved complete or partial response to their last platinum-based regimen, had a cancer antigen 125 concentration of less than the upper limit of normal, had a performance status of 0–1, and had adequate organ function. Patients were ineligible if they had symptomatic or untreated central nervous system metastases, had received anticancer therapy 14 days or fewer before starting the study, or had received previous treatment with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. We randomly allocated patients 2:1 to receive oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo in 28 day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six, stratified by homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval after the penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to the most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival evaluated with use of an ordered step-down procedure for three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations (carcinoma associated with deleterious germline or somatic BRCA mutations), patients with homologous recombination deficiencies (BRCA mutant or BRCA wild-type and high loss of heterozygosity), and the intention-to-treat population, assessed at screening and every 12 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01968213; enrolment is complete. Findings: Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, we randomly allocated 564 patients: 375 (66%) to rucaparib and 189 (34%) to placebo. Median progression-free survival in patients with a BRCA-mutant carcinoma was 16·6 months (95% CI 13·4–22·9; 130 [35%] patients) in the rucaparib group versus 5·4 months (3·4–6·7; 66 [35%] patients) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·23 [95% CI 0·16–0·34]; p&lt;0·0001). In patients with a homologous recombination deficient carcinoma (236 [63%] vs 118 [62%]), it was 13·6 months (10·9–16·2) versus 5·4 months (5·1–5·6; 0·32 [0·24–0·42]; p&lt;0·0001). In the intention-to-treat population, it was 10·8 months (8·3–11·4) versus 5·4 months (5·3–5·5; 0·36 [0·30–0·45]; p&lt;0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in the safety population (372 [99%] patients in the rucaparib group vs 189 [100%] in the placebo group) were reported in 209 (56%) patients in the rucaparib group versus 28 (15%) in the placebo group, the most common of which were anaemia or decreased haemoglobin concentration (70 [19%] vs one [1%]) and increased alanine or aspartate aminotransferase concentration (39 [10%] vs none). Interpretation: Across all primary analysis groups, rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer who had achieved a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. ARIEL3 provides further evidence that use of a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the maintenance treatment setting versus placebo could be considered a new standard of care for women with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer following a complete or partial response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy. Funding: Clovis Oncology

EMT transcription factors snail and slug directly contribute to cisplatin resistance in ovarian cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) is a molecular process through which an epithelial cell undergoes transdifferentiation into a mesenchymal phenotype. The role of EMT in embryogenesis is well-characterized and increasing evidence suggests that elements of the transition may be important in other processes, including metastasis and drug resistance in various different cancers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Agilent 4 × 44 K whole human genome arrays and selected reaction monitoring mass spectrometry were used to investigate mRNA and protein expression in A2780 cisplatin sensitive and resistant cell lines. Invasion and migration were assessed using Boyden chamber assays. Gene knockdown of <it>snail </it>and <it>slug </it>was done using targeted siRNA. Clinical relevance of the EMT pathway was assessed in a cohort of primary ovarian tumours using data from Affymetrix GeneChip Human Genome U133 plus 2.0 arrays.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Morphological and phenotypic hallmarks of EMT were identified in the chemoresistant cells. Subsequent gene expression profiling revealed upregulation of EMT-related transcription factors including <it>snail, slug, twist2 </it>and <it>zeb2</it>. Proteomic analysis demonstrated up regulation of Snail and Slug as well as the mesenchymal marker Vimentin, and down regulation of E-cadherin, an epithelial marker. By reducing expression of <it>snail </it>and <it>slug</it>, the mesenchymal phenotype was largely reversed and cells were resensitized to cisplatin. Finally, gene expression data from primary tumours mirrored the finding that an EMT-like pathway is activated in resistant tumours relative to sensitive tumours, suggesting that the involvement of this transition may not be limited to <it>in vitro </it>drug effects.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This work strongly suggests that genes associated with EMT may play a significant role in cisplatin resistance in ovarian cancer, therefore potentially leading to the development of predictive biomarkers of drug response or novel therapeutic strategies for overcoming drug resistance.</p

A phase I study of high-dose rosuvastatin with standard dose erlotinib in patients with advanced solid malignancies

Abstract Background Synergistic cytotoxicity with high-dose statins and erlotinib has been demonstrated in preclinical models across a number of tumour types. In this phase I study, we evaluated the safety and potential anti-tumour activity of escalating doses of rosuvastatin in combination with the standard clinical dose of erlotinib in heavily pretreated patients with advanced solid tumours. Methods This was a single-center, phase I open-label study to determine the safety and recommended phase two dose (RPTD) of rosuvastatin in combination with 150 mg/day standard dose of erlotinib. Using a 3 + 3 study design and 28-day cycle, escalating doses of rosuvastatin from 1 to 8 mg/kg/day ×2 weeks (cycle 1) and 3 weeks (subsequent cycles) given concurrently with erlotinib were evaluated. In order to expand the experience and to gain additional safety and pharmacokinetic data, two expansions cohorts using concurrent or alternating weekly dosing regimens at the RPTD were also evaluated. Results All 24 patients enrolled were evaluable for toxicity, and 22 for response. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of reversible muscle toxicity was seen at the 2 mg/kg/day dose level. Maximal tolerated dose (MTD) was determined to be 1 mg/kg/day. Thirty-three percent of patients developed at least 1≥ grade 2 muscle toxicity (rhabdomyolysis: 1/24, myalgia: 7/24) resulting in one study-related death. Durable stable disease for more than 170 days was seen in 25 % of patients that received concurrent treatment and were evaluable for response (n = 16). Plasma erlotinib levels on study were unaffected by the addition of rosuvastatin. Conclusions The observed disease stabilization rate of 25 % with combination therapy in this heavily pretreated population is encouraging, however, the high levels of muscle toxicities observed limited this combination strategy

A phase I study of high-dose rosuvastatin with standard dose erlotinib in patients with advanced solid malignancies

Abstract Background Synergistic cytotoxicity with high-dose statins and erlotinib has been demonstrated in preclinical models across a number of tumour types. In this phase I study, we evaluated the safety and potential anti-tumour activity of escalating doses of rosuvastatin in combination with the standard clinical dose of erlotinib in heavily pretreated patients with advanced solid tumours. Methods This was a single-center, phase I open-label study to determine the safety and recommended phase two dose (RPTD) of rosuvastatin in combination with 150 mg/day standard dose of erlotinib. Using a 3 + 3 study design and 28-day cycle, escalating doses of rosuvastatin from 1 to 8 mg/kg/day ×2 weeks (cycle 1) and 3 weeks (subsequent cycles) given concurrently with erlotinib were evaluated. In order to expand the experience and to gain additional safety and pharmacokinetic data, two expansions cohorts using concurrent or alternating weekly dosing regimens at the RPTD were also evaluated. Results All 24 patients enrolled were evaluable for toxicity, and 22 for response. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of reversible muscle toxicity was seen at the 2 mg/kg/day dose level. Maximal tolerated dose (MTD) was determined to be 1 mg/kg/day. Thirty-three percent of patients developed at least 1≥ grade 2 muscle toxicity (rhabdomyolysis: 1/24, myalgia: 7/24) resulting in one study-related death. Durable stable disease for more than 170 days was seen in 25 % of patients that received concurrent treatment and were evaluable for response (n = 16). Plasma erlotinib levels on study were unaffected by the addition of rosuvastatin. Conclusions The observed disease stabilization rate of 25 % with combination therapy in this heavily pretreated population is encouraging, however, the high levels of muscle toxicities observed limited this combination strategy