1. Introduction
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) cancer is an aggressive malignancy. In United States, it is currently the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality [ 1 ]. Most patients have advanced (locally advanced unresectable or metastatic) disease on presentation [ 2 ] and despite advances in development of multiagent cytotoxic regimens [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ], the overall five-year overall survival (OS) is less than 10% [ 1 ]. There is an unmet need to develop new treatment strategies. Personalized, biomarker-based options for patients with advanced PDAC do exist, i.e., pembrolizumab for microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair deficient (d-MMR) [ 8 ] and larotrectinib for tumors with neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase (NTKR) gene fusions [ 9 ], but this accounts for <1% of total patient population.
Approximately 5–10% PDAC cases are hereditary in nature and are associated with germline mutations in BRCA 1 and 2 , ATM, CDKN2A, STK11 (Peutz-Jeghers syndrome) and MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2 , and EPCAM (Lynch syndrome) [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. Approximately 4–7% of patients with PDAC have germline BRCA1 / 2 mutations ( gBRCA1/2 ) [ 14 , 15 ]. Beyond screening and potentially early detection, identification of these mutations has potential therapeutic implications as they confer increased sensitivity to platinum-based chemotherapy and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) [ 16 ]. Specifically, PARPi lead to unrepaired accumulation of single strand DNA breaks (SSBs) that eventually culminate into double strand breaks (DSBs), which, in the presence of BRCA1/2 mutations and resulting deficiency in the homologous recombination (HR) repair mechanism, remain unrepaired, leading to cell death [ 17 ].
In this review, we would discuss the mechanism of action of PARPi, clinical applications in advanced PDAC, resistance mechanisms as well as opportunities for future development of these agents in PDAC.
2. Mechanism of Action of PARP Inhibitors
2.1. Repair Mechanisms in Healthy Cells
DNA damage through exogenous and endogenous stressors is common in normal cells. DNA damage repair (DDR) occurs via four major pathways; nucleotide excision repair (NER), base-excision repair (BER), MMR, HR, and non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) [ 18 ]. SSBs are repaired using the complimentary healthy strand mainly by BER, whereas DSBs repair occurs through HR and NHEJ [ 19 , 20 ]. BER pathway is majorly mediated by a class of 17 enzymes known as PARP [ 18 ]. These enzymes utilize NAD+ as a substrate to polymerize ADP-ribose units (PARylation), releasing nicotinamide as a by-product [ 21 , 22 ]. PARP1 is the important part of the superfamily involved in BER [ 23 ].
PARP1 has three functional domains: a DNA binding domain that facilitate binding to SSBs and DSBs, an automodification domain that accepts ADP-ribose units for poly ADP-ribose formation and a catalytic domain involved in transferring ADP-ribose from NAD+ to protein acceptors [ 20 ]. PARP1 detects the SSBs and binds to the site of damage via zinc finger motif ( Figure 1 A). This leads to activation of its catalytic activity, leading synthesis of poly ADP-ribose, that subsequently recruits various DRR proteins such as XRCC1 [ 24 , 25 ] and reduces the affinity of PARP-1 for DNA, facilitating its release, to allow binding of other DDR proteins [ 26 , 27 ]. Enzymes such as PARG and ARH3 lyse poly(ADP-ribose) from PARP1 for restoration of its function [ 28 , 29 ].
When SSB repair mechanisms are dysfunctional, unrepaired SSBs accumulate at the replication fork (RF) leading to DSBs formation that is repaired by HR and NHEJ ( Figure 1 B). HR is a conservative mechanism that repairs the DNA breaks precisely upon availability of sister chromatid DNA, thereby maintaining the genetic stability [ 19 ]. BRCA1/2 work in conjunction to facilitate DDR via HR. BRCA2 facilitates translocation of DNA repair protein Rad51 to the site of DNA damage [ 30 , 31 ]. BRCA1 works upstream by signaling response to damage, acts as a cell cycle checkpoint regulator and recruits repair enzymes [ 32 ]. Besides its role in SSB repair, PARP1 is also involved in orchestration of HR via recruitment of mitotic recombination 11 (MRE11) and ataxia telangiectasia-mutated (ATM) components needed to restart stalled RFs. When the undamaged sister chromatic DNA is unavailable, DSB repair occurs through a quicker and a less precise mechanism of NHEJ which increases the chances of DNA rearrangements and genetic instability [ 20 , 33 ]. PARP1 has also implications in NHEJ and transcription modulation [ 34 , 35 ].
In the presence of PARP inhibition or deficiency, cells are unable to repair SSBs. Aggregation of unrepaired SSBs stalls the RF, leading to either RF collapse or conversion of SSBs to DSBs [ 36 ]. The HR pathway is activated as a compensatory mechanism, leading to a quick, precise and an effective DDR.
2.2. BRCA Deficiency
BRCA1 (located on 17q21) and 2 (located on 13q12.3) are integral for genome stability by facilitating HR as mentioned above, and have an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance with an incomplete penetration [ 30 ]. There are more than 1600 mutations associated with BRCA1/2 , however, not all of them are considered pathogenic. The majority of the deleterious mutations leading to BRCA deficiency and subsequently HR deficiency (HDR) are insertions, frameshift mutations or nonsense mutations. Different ethnicities have a different prevalence of these mutations (i.e., most Ashkenazi Jews have one of the three founder mutations in either BRCA1 185delAG or 5382insC or BRCA2 6174delT) [ 37 ]. Cells with BRCA1/2 loss-of-function mutations cannot repair DSBs via HR but utilize NHEJ which could lead to accumulation of genetic alterations and ultimately lead to genetic instability or cell death [ 25 ]. Consequently, the presence of these mutations has been associated with increased risk of malignancies, including breast, ovarian and PDAC amongst others [ 38 , 39 ].
2.3. DNA Repair with BRCA-Deficient Cells in the Presence of PARPi
Utilizing PARPi in BRCA mutant malignancies is one of the first clinical applications of the age-old concept of synthetic lethality [ 40 ]. Synthetic lethality was described as a phenomenon in which a combination of two defects leads to cell death, but singularly neither of them has a detrimental effect individually [ 41 ]. As described earlier, in the presence of PARPi the cells are unable to repair SSBs with transformation to DSBs. In BRCA1/2-deficient cells, because of HRD, DSBs are repaired with either NHEJ or alternative-NHEJ, consequently leading to cycle arrest, DNA instability, and lethality ( Figure 1 B) [ 41 ]. Normal cells on the other hand, utilize the functional BRCA protein and are able to repair DSBs, leading to cell survival. Therefore, PARPi are able to spare healthy cells, making them an ideal therapeutic agent in this setting. Besides the catalytic inhibitory properties, PARPi also trap PARP1 on damaged DNA and prevent its release and subsequent recruitment of DNA repair proteins, leading to formation of cytotoxic DNA complexes [ 42 ]. HRD is not limited in gBRCA1/2 . A similar phenotype ( BRCAness ) can result from either somatic BRCA1 / 2 mutations or defects in other DDR genes such as PALB2 , ATM , ATR , and FANC that are involved in HR [ 43 , 44 , 45 ], as well as from epigenetic BRCA silencing via promoter hypermethylation [ 46 ]. Identification of mutations beyond BRCA1/2 might be of importance as these tumors could also exhibit sensitivity to platinum-based regimens and PARPi [ 16 , 47 , 48 ]; however, the HRD score was neither predictive of a response nor survival in advanced PDAC patients treated with platinum-based therapy [ 49 ]. The significance of HRD in PDAC in terms of response to PARPi is an area of active investigation.
2.4. PARPi Pharmacology
PARP-1 is the most abundant enzyme of the PARP family and is involved in posttranslational modification of proteins involved in DNA repair. PARPi contain a carboxamide group that forms hydrogen bonds with serine hydroxyl and glycine backbone of the nicotinamide (NAD+) pocket site of PARP enzymes, mimicking NAD [ 50 ]. The adjacent benzene ring interacts with the tyrosine residue and makes π–π stacking interactions. Both PARP-1 and PARP-2 have identical NAD+ pockets and most PARPi inhibit PARP-1 and 2 enzymes similarly, with minor differences in selectivity [ 51 ]. In the presence of HRD due to BRCA1/2 mutations, the cells are unable to repair the double strand DNA (dsDNA) breaks through HRR and resort to non-conservative methods of DNA repair such as NHEJ, leading to DNA alterations and genomic instability [ 20 ]. In addition, PARPi trap PARP-1 at the site of DNA damage, preventing auto-PARylation and PARP-1 release.
Currently, six different PARPi (olaparib, rucaparib, veliparib, niraparib, talazoparib, and pamiparib) have been in clinical development at different stages. The comparisons in pharmacology are summarized in Table 1 and elaborated in this section. Single agent cytotoxicity is not directly proportional to PARylation inhibition and could be explained by differences in PARP trapping. In general, the IC 50 of PARPi falls in the low nanomolar range. Talazoparib is comparable to olaparib in catalytic activity in vitro (IC 50 : 4 vs. 6 nmol/L, respectively) and five-fold more potent compared to rucaparib (IC 50 : 21 nmol/L), however was ~100 times more potent at trapping PARP and in terms of toxicity [ 42 ]. Talazoparib has superior trapping activity followed by niraparib; veliparib has the least trapping activity [ 42 , 52 ]. The differences in the trapping activity can be explained by differences in molecular structure with talazoparib being the largest and least flexible molecule [ 53 , 54 ]. The clinical and preclinical data with pamiparib is limited as of now. In a xenograft breast cancer model, it was found to be over 10 times more potent than olaparib [ 55 ].
The differences in potency also correlate with their toxicity profiles [ 42 , 68 ]. The most common adverse events (AEs) are gastrointestinal, hematological and constitutional (fatigue). Even though, it is difficult to compare toxicities across different trials with heterogenous patient populations, there are few points worth noting. Rucaparib leads to inhibition of renal transporter proteins involved in secretion of creatinine and can lead to increased creatinine (any grade 15%, grade 3 ≤ 1%) [ 63 ]. Transaminitis is generally self-limiting, highest with rucaparib (any grade 34%, grade 3 = 10%) [ 63 ]. Hematological toxicities are the highest with niraparib (any grade-thrombocytopenia 61%, anemia 50%, neutropenia 30%, grade >/3- thrombocytopenia 34%, anemia 25%, neutropenia 20%) [ 64 ]. Toxicities are more common in the first few cycles of treatment, warranting closer early monitoring.
2.5. Clinical Development of PARPi in PDAC
The clinical evolution of PARPi in PDAC has evolved from being used as monotherapies in refractory disease, to maintenance therapies and in combination with other classes of therapeutics ( Table 2 ). Contrasting the uniformly encouraging efficacy results during early development in ovarian and breast cancer between different PARPi, the reality has been different in PDAC with most patients not deriving or having a very short-term clinical benefit despite enrollment of a molecularly selected population, as we will discuss in this section of this review. Furthermore, the dual mechanism of action and the pharmacologic differences in between different agents makes evaluation of PARPi as a class challenging and does not allow easy incorporation into approved combination strategies in use in PDAC. Specifically, synergy with camptothecins appears to be mainly dependent on the inhibition of PARylation activity while for alkylating agents, the trapping activity is at least as important as PARylation inhibition [ 52 ]. In addition, due to overlapping toxicities with commonly used cytotoxic agents, the ability to use PARPi in combinations at doses that can achieve DNA trapping is limited [ 69 ].
2.6. PARPi as Monotherapy in Advanced Disease
One of the first clinical trials to evaluate the role of PARPi in metastatic PDAC patients was a phase II clinical trial involving olaparib monotherapy in patients with advanced recurrent cancers with gBRCA1/2 mutations [ 56 ]. The PDAC cohort (23 patients) had a mean two prior lines of therapy with 65% having prior platinum-based therapy. Compelling single agent activity was noted with an overall response rate (ORR) of 22% regardless of platinum exposure. Responses were durable with stable disease (SD) >/8 weeks in 35% of patients and its was well tolerated.
The activity of rucaparib as single agent was tested in the RUCAPANC phase II trial involving both somatic BRCA1/2 ( n = 3) or g BRCA1/2 mutant ( n = 16) advanced PDAC patients [ 70 ]. Seventy-nine percent of patients were exposed to platinum and 42% were refractory to platinum. The study did not meet its primary endpoint with ORR of 16% and disease control rate (DCR) of 32%. None of the patients with response had progressed on prior platinum-based therapy and 3 out of the 4 patients with response had only one prior line of therapy.
Veliparib was evaluated in a phase II single arm trial in advanced, pre-treated PDAC patients, with a known g BRCA1/2 or PALB2 mutation, including platinum-resistant disease [ 71 ]. No radiological response was observed; SD was seen in 25% patients at 8 weeks.
First-in-human phase Ib trial ( NCT01286987 ) of talazoparib was conducted in gBRCA1/2 mutant patients in advanced refractory solid tumors including metastatic PDAC (n=13, median prior chemotherapy regimens and prior platinum regimens of 2.5 and 1, respectively). It was well tolerated and had an ORR of 20% and SD in 10% [ 76 ].
Two parallel phase II clinical trials in US and Israel ( NCT02677038 , NCT02511223 ) are testing olaparib in patients with >/1 lines of therapy in metastatic BRCAness PDAC, defined as either DDR deficiency beyond gBRCA1/2 mutation or a family history of BRCA -associated cancers in the absence of DDR deficiency or ATM loss by immunohistochemistry. Preliminary results (45% enrollment) showed efficacy signal only in patients with platinum-sensitive disease [ 72 ].
2.7. PARPi as Maintenance Therapy in Platinum-Sensitive Disease
Based on available evidence, the window of opportunity for benefit from PARPi in BRCA-deficient PDAC appears to be as maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive disease. The randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled phase III POLO trial evaluated the role of maintenance olaparib in patients with g BRCA1/2 mutant metastatic PDAC, with non-progressive disease during first-line treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy for a minimum of 16 weeks [ 66 ]. Longer PFS with olaparib was observed (7.4 months) as compared to 3.8 months with placebo (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.82; p = 0.004) and the study met its primary endpoint. The overall survival (OS) was similar (46% data maturity). The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related AEs with higher with olaparib (40%) compared to placebo (23%) with no deterioration of quality of life.
A single arm phase II study ( NCT03140670 ) is evaluating the role of maintenance rucaparib advanced PDAC patients with either germline or somatic BRCA1/2 or PALB2 mutations, with non-progressive disease after at least 16 weeks of platinum-based regimen [ 73 ]. Early results are encouraging with a median PFS of 9 months and ORR of 37%. Clinical benefit was durable with DCR of 90% patients for at least 8 weeks.
NIRA-PANC is a phase II clinical trial ( NCT03553004 ) assessing the role of maintenance niraparib after >1 line of therapy in metastatic PDAC patients with either germline or somatic HRD. No results have been reported so far [ 77 ].
3. PARPi in Combination with Other Therapies
3.1. PARP in Combination with Chemotherapy
The rationale behind combining PARPi with chemotherapeutic agents has been illustrated in Figure 2 A. Oxaliplatin has been shown to have synergistic antitumor activity with PARPi in vivo. Interestingly the combination prevented oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity [ 78 ]. Several clinical trials are evaluating PARPi with platinum-based therapy. A phase I/II clinical trial ( NCT01489865 ) investigated the combination of veliparib with mFOLFOX6 (folinic acid+ 5-FU+ oxaliplatin) in metastatic, pre-treated PDAC patients [ 75 ]. Patients in phase II ( n = 33) were pre-selected for germline or somatic DDR mutations (69%) or have a family suggestive of a breast or ovarian cancer syndrome (BOCS, 27%) and included both pretreated (18 patients) and untreated (15 patients). The ORR for the whole cohort was 26%. ORR was higher in platinum-naïve (33%) vs. platinum pretreated (7%), patients with BOCS (30%) vs. not (14%), and DDR mutation positive (50%) vs. negative (17%). The ORR for the platinum-naïve, DDR mutation positive, BOCS cohort was 58% highlighting the importance of patient selection. The median PFS and OS for these patients was 8.7 and 11.8 months respectively (all patients, PFS 3.7 months/OS: 8.5 months). The combination was well tolerated with grade >/3 treatment-related AEs of myelosuppression (16%) and nausea, vomiting (6%). Veliparib with oxaliplatin/capecitabine in patients with a known BRCA1 / 2 mutation or BRCA -related advanced malignancies was also found to be safe in a phase I clinical trial ( NCT01233505 ) [ 79 ]. Whether the incorporation of PARPi in a platinum backbone really leads to improved outcomes (vs. using as maintenance) remains to be seen. A phase II trial ( NCT01585805 ) is enrolling BRCA/PALB2 mutated advanced PDAC patients in the front-line setting comparing gemcitabine/cisplatin with and without veliparib, and will help answer this question [ 80 ].
Topoisomerase inhibitors (TIs) stall the RF by stabilizing the DNA complex in unrepaired state, enhancing SSBs [ 81 ]. Studies showed that PARPi can enhance the cytotoxicity of TIs at concentrations lower than the ones necessary for PARP synthesis in HRD cells [ 82 ]. SWOG S1513 ( NCT02890355 ) randomized mPDAC patients to veliparib plus modified FOLFIRI (Folinic acid + 5-FU + Irinotecan) vs. FOLFIRI alone as second-line treatment in a biomarker unselected population [ 74 ]. Nine percent of patients had mutation in HRD gene and 20% had mutations in other DDR genes. Interim analysis showed that the combination arm did not have an OS benefit (5.1 vs. 5.9 months; HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9–2). Similarly, there was no benefit from the addition of veliparib in patients with HRD or non-HRD mutations (OS 7.4 vs. 9.4 months in FOLFIRI alone). The incidence of grade >/3 treatment-related AEs like neutropenia, fatigue, and nausea was higher in the veliparib arm [ 74 ]. A phase I/II trial ( NCT03337087 ) is investigating rupacarib along with liposomal irinotecan, leucovorin, 5-FU in gastrointestinal malignancies including PDAC, with preselection in phase II portion in PDAC cohort for HRD ( BRCA or PALB2 mutated or HRD non BRCA/PALB2 non-mutated). Gemcitabine in combination with PARPi is more cytotoxic against PDAC in vitro compared to gemcitabine alone [ 83 ]. A phase I study ( NCT00515866 ) is exploring the safety of olaparib with gemcitabine in the front-line setting with advanced solid tumors, including advanced PDAC, without any selection for specific mutations [ 84 ].
3.2. PARP in Combination with Radiotherapy
PARPi were found to have radiosensitizing effects in vitro [ 85 ]. Pretreatment with rucaparib followed by gemcitabine and radiation therapy increased cytotoxicity by stalling the cells in G2/M phase leading to apoptosis and cell death. Furthermore, in vitro and in vivo experiments showed that veliparib in combination with radiation led to a better tumor growth inhibition and survival, rather than single-agent activity of either of the two agents [ 86 ]. Veliparib inhibited polymerization of PAR protein with compensatory upregulation of p-ATM and PARP with enhanced DNA damage and apoptosis. The combination of PARPi and radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy is being investigated in two clinical trials. Niraparib is being tested in a phase II proof of concept trial ( NCT03601923 ) in patients with advanced PDAC harboring HRD germline or somatic mutations ( BRCA1 , BRCA2 , PALB2 , CHEK2 , or ATM mutations) in the second line setting, with exclusion of patients with progressive disease on oxaliplatin-based regimens. Palliative radiation therapy to be administered 1 week before the start of niraparib. Veliparib is being evaluated in a phase 1 clinical trial ( NCT01908478 ) in patients with locally advanced unresectable or borderline resectable PDAC in combination with gemcitabine and intensity modulated radiation therapy in the front-line setting with no selection for mutations.
3.3. PARPi in Combination with Immunotherapy
The synergy between PARPi and immunotherapy is likely multifactorial as shown in Figure 2 B. In a high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma model, HRD tumors harbored a higher neoantigen load with an increased tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and PD-1/PD-L1 expression as compared to non HRD tumors ( Figure 2 B, 10) [ 87 ]. Besides the enhanced neoantigen load, S-phase DNA damage induces activation of PD-L1 through stimulator of interferon genes (STING) pathway [ 88 ]. Exposure of double stranded DNA in cytoplasm activates cyclic GMP-AMP synthase (cGAS) and catalyzes production of cyclic-dinucleotide (CDN) ( Figure 2 B, 2–4), which activates STING with subsequent activation of either the NF-κB or the TBK1- IRF3-Type I IFN pathways ( Figure 2 B, 5–8) [ 89 ]. Type I IFN have immunostimulatory effects such as upregulation of MHC and CCR7 leading to enhanced dendritic cell function [ 90 ], increase in T-helper cells chemokines (CXCL9 and CXCL10) [ 88 ] and potentiation of cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte function ( Figure 2 B, 9) [ 91 ]. Furthermore, it suppresses regulatory T-cells (T reg ) cells by downregulating cyclic AMP (cAMP) [ 92 ]. PARPi upregulated PD-L1 expression in an in vivo breast cancer model via GSK3β inactivation. Simultaneous treatment with PD-L1 blockade and olaparib led to enhanced T-cell mediated killing of tumor cells [ 93 ]. Similarly, in a BRCA1-deficient ovarian cancer model, PARPi led to activation of STING pathway and the therapeutic efficacy was improved with PD-1 blockade [ 91 ]. Interestingly, synergistic anti-tumor activity of niraparib and PD-1 blockade was seen in both BRCA-deficient and BRCA-proficient immunocompetent tumor models indicating that this combination may be active regardless of BRCA status. Furthermore, mice in complete remission after treatment rejected implanted tumor cells indicating the generation of memory T-cells [ 94 ]. Preclinical studies have shown that DSBs leads to upregulation of PD-L1 expression through ATM/ATR/Chk-1. Furthermore, treatment with radiotherapy/PARPi in BRCA2-depleted cells leads to enhancement of Chk-1-dependent PD-1 upregulation [ 95 ]. The therapeutic efficacy of PARPi and Chk-1 inhibitors with PD-L1 blockade was seen in a small cell lung cancer carcinoma model through activation of STING pathway [ 96 ]. The data of combination of PARPi with anti-CTLA-4 is limited. Therapeutic efficacy of the combination was seen in a BRCA1-deficient ovarian cancer model [ 97 ].
A large number of clinical trials are exploring the combination of immunotherapy and PARPi across various tumor types. Preliminary data from a phase II study ( NCT02484404 ) in unselected metastatic prostate cancer showed that the combination of olaparib and durvalumab is efficacious (8/17 or 47% patients had PSA responses >50%) and is tolerable [ 98 ]. A phase II (MEDIOLA) trial in relapsed gastric cancer with a 4-week run in of olaparib, followed by combination with durvalumab failed to show efficacy (DCR at 12 weeks was 26%) due to early PD during the run-in period [ 99 ]. Combination of niraparib and pembrolizumab in a phase II trial (TOPACIO/Keynote-162) in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) and recurrent ovarian cancer patients showed that the combination is safe and effective, irrespective of the platinum exposure or BRCA 1/2 or PD-L1 status [ 100 , 101 ]. A phase I study involving a combination of olaparib, durvalumab, and the vascular endothelial factor receptor (VEGFR)-1 inhibitor cediranib in ovarian/endometrial/TNC patients showed that the combination is safe; there was an efficacy signal with DCR of 67% [ 102 ]. The ongoing phase Ib/II trial PARPVAX study ( NCT03404960 ) evaluates niraparib with either nivolumab or ipilimumab as maintenance therapy in patients with advanced, platinum-sensitive PDAC [ 103 ].
3.4. Molecular Targeted Therapy Combinations
Preclinical data has suggested synergism between PARPi and MEK inhibitors in RAS -mutant cells. A study involving PDAC cells showed that the synergy is mediated through multiple mechanisms including increased expression of FOXO3a leading to apoptosis, decrease in HR ability, increased PARP protein, enhanced PARPi induced DNA damage, and increased hypoxia through decreased vascularity [ 104 ]. The combination was effective in cells without BRCA mutations. One of the phase II feasibility studies ( NCT04005690 ) would entail administering olaparib or MEK inhibitor cobimetinib in patients with resectable PDAC in the neoadjuvant setting, with biomarker evaluation before and after therapy. A phase Ib/II study is evaluating talazoparib in combination with avelumab and binimetinib in patients with NRAS/KRAS mutant PDAC and other advanced solid tumors after previous 1–2 lines of therapy.
Preclinical data has shown anti-angiogenic effect of PARPi through inhibition of endothelial cell migration at concentrations lacking cytotoxic effects, suggesting a novel therapeutic implication of PARPi [ 105 ]. A single arm phase II clinical trial ( NCT02498613 ) is exploring the combination of olaparib with the VEGF inhibitor cediranib in patients with advanced solid tumors including advanced PDAC in genetically unselected population. The SMMART trial ( NCT03878524 ) is an open-label biomarker-driven phase Ib trial in patients with PDAC, breast, prostate cancer, and acute myeloid leukemia involving administration of a combination of two drugs from 35 experimental therapeutics, including olaparib based on molecular testing.
4. Resistance Mechanisms
The various mechanisms through which tumor cells acquire resistance to PARPi have been illustrated in Figure 3 . Several studies suggested that acquired BRCA mutations in patients with gBRCA1/2 could lead to restoration of HR and confer resistance of platinum agents and PARPi. An in vitro study by Sakai et al. [ 106 ] demonstrated that intragenic mutations in BRCA2 mutant PDAC and ovarian carcinoma cell lines restore the BRCA2 reading frame leading to both cisplatin and PARPi. Norquist et al. [ 107 ] showed that these secondary reversion mutations were found in 29% of gBRCA1/2 mutant recurrent ovarian carcinomas and were predictive of resistance to platinum containing chemotherapy and PARPi. A UK study [ 108 ] demonstrated olaparib resistance with emergence of a secondary BRCA2 mutation with restoration of its function.
In the absence of BRCA2 reversion mutations, tumor cells can evade lethality by PARPi through protection of RF. Chaudhuri et al. [ 36 ] showed that deficiencies of MLL3/4 in BRCA2 mutant cells inhibits the recruitment of MRE11 to the RF in vitro, thereby preventing the RF degradation. Furthermore, 53BP1 regulates the balance between HRR and NHEJ [ 111 ]. 53BP1 loss downregulates NHEJ and promotes error free HR, thereby conferring resistance of PARPi [ 111 ]. Finally, microRNAs can modulate sensitivity to PARPi. For example, miR-107 and miR-222 downregulate expression of RAD51, thereby impairing DDR by HR and enhancing sensitivity to olaparib [ 112 ]. In addition, miR-622 mediated resistance to PARPi and cisplatin in BRCA1 mutant cells by diverting the repair towards HR pathway and suppressing the NHEJ via Ku complexes [ 113 ].
DDR is dependent on the phase of cell cycle; modulating cell cycle checkpoints can potentially alter the effect of PARPi in tumor cells. Inhibition of CDK12 leads to downregulation of DDR genes [ 114 ] and reverses resistance to PARPi in breast cancer [ 115 ] and multiple myeloma in vitro [ 116 ]. PARPi-induced DNA damage can activate the ATR-mediated G2/M checkpoint facilitating DNA repair which can be reversed by ATR inhibition leading to cell death [ 117 ]. Similarly, Wee1 inhibition can allow unrepaired DNA enter mitosis via the G2/M checkpoint but the results of phase I study with olaparib with Wee1 inhibitor in unselected were disappointing with ORR of only 11% [ 118 ]. MET phosphorylates PARP1 at Tyr907, increases its enzymatic activity thereby reducing the affinity for PARPi and leads to resistance [ 119 ]. PARPi in combination with a MET inhibitor can overcome PARPi resistance in vitro [ 120 ]. The phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) signaling pathway has a role in tumorigenesis through maintenance of HR steady state [ 121 ]. A study in TNBC showed that PI3K inhibition leads to sensitization to PARPi by downregulation of BRCA1/2 , increased poly ADP-ribosylation and DNA damage [ 122 ]. Finally, in BRCA-deficient cells, resistance due to upregulation of genes responsible for p-glycoprotein with subsequent increased efflux of PARPi can develop, which can be counteracted by p-glycoprotein inhibitors [ 123 ]. A next generation PARPi (AZD2461), that is not a substrate for p-glycoprotein is in development and is thought to potentially overcome p-glycoprotein-mediated olaparib resistance [ 124 ].
5. Discussion
Advanced PDAC is one of the most challenging malignancies to treat. PDAC is catching up with the current wave of precision medicine with the goal of improving patient outcomes. Besides two tissue-agnostic therapies (pembrolizumab for MSI-H/d-MMR and larotrectinib for NTRK fusion gene positive tumors), PARPi are an exciting addition to our armamentarium of drugs for patients with pathogenic gBRCA1/2 mutations and olaparib is endorsed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) as appropriate maintenance therapy after at least 4 months of platinum-based therapy provided that there is no interim disease progression [ 125 ]. With the advent of emerging clinical data, there are several questions that remain answered.
Firstly, whether the benefit seen in the gBRCA mutant patients in POLO trial could be extrapolated to tumors with somatic BRCA mutation or in patients with other HRD or DDR mutations remains unclear. The one patient with somatic BRCA2 and the two patients with gPALB2 mutations enrolled in the maintenance rucaparib study so far (24 out of 42 planned patient accrual) attained an objective response indicating that the benefit of PARPi potentially extends beyond gBRCA1/2 [ 73 ]. Data from a large number of clinical trials ( NCT02042378 , NCT02677038 , NCT02511223 , NCT03140670 , NCT02890355 , NCT01489865 ) evaluating the role of PARPi in patients with somatic mutations would provide further clarity regarding the extent and durability of response in this group of patients. The NCCN endorses testing patients for infrequent but potentially actionable somatic alterations including BRCA1/2 mutations [ 125 ]. Whether archival or fresh tissue should be used for somatic mutation screening is unclear. Data from retrospective ovarian cancer tumor sample analysis suggests that BRCA1/2 loss occurs early in the course of the disease [ 126 ] but it is not currently known if this is true in PDAC. Validation of predictive biomarkers beyond gBRCA1/2 mutations, NTKR fusions, and MMR/MSI status is an unmet need in PDAC.
Secondly, the appropriate timing of the use of PARPi in the disease course of PDAC is unclear. As mentioned in the sections earlier, PARPi are being tested both as monotherapy (maintenance and refractory) and in combination with other agents (front-line and subsequent lines of treatment).
In the maintenance setting, olaparib led to PFS benefit in g BRCA1/2 platinum sensitive patients in POLO trial [ 66 ]. However, it is important to note that the preliminary data suggest no OS benefit and it is possible that use of PARPi in subsequent lines of therapy can be as beneficial as in the maintenance setting, but whether this is dependent on platinum sensitivity is unclear. Rucaparib in patients with somatic or germline BRCA1/2 mutations [ 70 ] and olaparib in patients with BRCAness [ 72 ] showed benefit only in platinum-sensitive disease, while with olaparib in patients with gBRCA1/2 , the benefit was seen irrespective of the platinum-exposure [ 56 ]. Unfortunately, the initial report of the POLO study does not mention subsequent use of PARPi in patients treated with placebo. In addition, whether PARPi is superior to 5-FU maintenance as used in the PANOPTIMOX study is unknown [ 127 ]. There is currently no head-to-head comparison between maintenance PARPi and chemotherapy. Also, the appropriate time to switch therapy to PARPi is unclear. In the POLO trial [ 66 ], one-third of patients received platinum-based therapy for more than 6 months. On subgroup analysis for PFS, patients who received platinum-based therapy for >6 months seemed to have a greater benefit (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17–0.72) as compared to 4–6 months (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.43–1.12). Finally, it is unclear if there is any benefit to platinum re-induction after progression on PARPi. Preclinical data reveal cross-resistance between PARPi and platinum chemotherapy [ 128 ] and, in an unselected patient population in the PANOPTIMOX study, reintroduction of FOLFIRINOX (folinic acid + 5-FU + irinotecan + oxaliplatin) upon disease progression led to a marginal benefit of 1.4 months in terms of median PFS [PFS1 (defined as time to first progression of disease) of 5.7 mo, PFS2 (defined as time to disease progression during FOLFIRINOX) of 7.1 mo [ 127 ]. Using an alternative alkylating agent such as mitomycin C, might be preferable to platinum re-induction but only anecdotal evidence exist so far [ 129 ]. Furthermore, there is no data to support switching from one PARPi to another at the time of disease progression.
Is it time to start using PARPi in combination with chemotherapeutic agents, be it in the first or subsequent lines of treatment? Though the mFOLFOX-6 plus veliparib combination was promising, especially in highly selected patients who are platinum-naïve and have DDR mutation and BOCS history, the lack of direct comparison to chemotherapy limits the upfront use of this strategy [ 75 ]. As a cautionary tale, SWOG S1513 showed detrimental effects for the combination, even for the subgroup of patients with DDR mutations [ 74 ]. Both trials showed an increased toxicity profile with the combination arms, indicating that the benefit of the combination (if at all) would potentially come at the cost of an increased toxicity [ 74 , 75 ]. The direct comparison of gemcitabine/cisplatin with and without veliparib in front-line setting in BRCA1/2/PALB2 mutated PDAC will provide further insight [ 80 ]. Several other clinical trials are evaluating PARPi in combination with different chemotherapies in front-line ( NCT01282333 ) or subsequent lines of therapy ( NCT03337087 , NCT01233505 , NCT00515866 ).
Though relatively well tolerated, PARPi do have a toxicity profile that needs to be kept in mind while making therapy decisions and it is important to understand that different PARPi differ in their potencies for catalytic inhibition, PARP binding, and inhibition of PARylation; and hence, have differing toxicity profiles and potentially efficacy and therefore, cannot be assumed that can be used interchangeably. For example, rucaparib leads to elevated creatinine based on inhibition of renal transport proteins and has the highest rate of transaminitis [ 63 ]. On the other hand, niraparib has the highest rate of bone marrow suppression and resultant hematologic toxicities [ 64 ]. In POLO study [ 66 ], the PFS benefit came at the cost of increased incidence of grade 3 AEs. Even though there was no notable deterioration in QoL, it is worth noting that majority (67%) of the patients had excellent performance status (ECOG 0). In the real world, the PFS benefit could come at the cost of increased toxicity profile and QoL deterioration, as majority of PDAC patients do not have preserved performance status.
Beyond early identification of patients with gBRCA1/2 pathogenic mutations, how can we better select patients for PARPi maintenance after platinum therapy? The development of reversion somatic BRCA2 mutations during platinum-based therapy that limits the efficacy of PARPi. Tumor mutational profiling using next generation sequencing after completion of platinum induction can assist in identifying patients with secondary mutations but can be challenging, especially for patients with locally advanced disease and no easily accessible lesions. Identification of acquired resistance mutations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), collected during or after platinum induction, can be helpful. Based on available data, patients with BRCA2 reversion mutations should not be treated with PARPi maintenance; rather, 5-FU maintenance should be selected. For patients with initial benefit on PARPi maintenance, enrollment in trials with novel combinations aiming to bypass resistance, such as ATR or Wee1 inhibitors, should be encouraged.
If maintenance therapy after non-progression on platinum-based therapy remains the right place for PARPi in patients with gBRCA1/2 patients, how can we improve on the results of POLO study? The activation of antitumor immunity with PARPi and the so far documented safety in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors begs for evaluation after initial induction chemotherapy. A study with niraparib with nivolumab/ipilimumab is currently ongoing ( NCT03404960 ) [ 103 ]. Furthermore, PARPi combinations with MEK or VEGFR inhibitors and or radiotherapy can potentially improve outcomes.
6. Conclusions
In conclusion, PARPi are potential therapeutic options in advanced PDAC in select patients with gBRCA1/2 pathogenic mutations and platinum sensitivity. Combining PARPi with other classes of drugs poses the challenge of balancing the therapeutic benefit and potential overlapping toxicities. Besides careful selection of patients and drugs, testing the drugs sequentially rather than in combination could be another strategy to achieve an optimal risk vs. benefit ratio. Future efforts should entail a better understanding of the underlying mechanism of actions, resistance mechanisms, and biomarker development to achieve maximal therapeutic benefit at the cost of minimal side effects. A number of clinical trials are exploring this promising class of drugs in different patient populations.
Author Contributions
M.G.: data curation, original draft preparation, writing-review and editing; R.I.: Writing-review and editing; C.F.: Conceptualization, supervision, project administration, and writing-review and editing.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. Christos Fountzilas has been a consultant for AstraZeneca outside the scope of the submitted work (fees paid to institute).
References
1. Siegel R.L. Miller K.D. Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019 CA Cancer J. Clin. 2019 69 7 34 10.3322/caac.21551 30620402
2. Rawla P. Sunkara T. Gaduputi V. Epidemiology of Pancreatic Cancer: Global Trends, Etiology and Risk Factors World J. Oncol. 2019 10 10 27 10.14740/wjon1166 30834048 PMC6396775
3. Conroy T. Desseigne F. Ychou M. Bouche O. Guimbaud R. Becouarn Y. Adenis A. Raoul J.L. Gourgou-Bourgade S. de la Fouchardiere C. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2011 364 1817 1825 10.1056/NEJMoa1011923 21561347
4. Neuzillet C. Hentic O. Rousseau B. Rebours V. Bengrine-Lefevre L. Bonnetain F. Levy P. Raymond E. Ruszniewski P. Louvet C. FOLFIRI regimen in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma resistant to gemcitabine and platinum-salts World J. Gastroenterol. 2012 18 4533 4541 10.3748/wjg.v18.i33.4533 22969226 PMC3435778
5. Von Hoff D.D. Ervin T. Arena F.P. Chiorean E.G. Infante J. Moore M. Seay T. Tjulandin S.A. Ma W.W. Saleh M.N. Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine N. Engl. J. Med. 2013 369 1691 1703 10.1056/NEJMoa1304369 24131140 PMC4631139
6. Wang-Gillam A. Li C.P. Bodoky G. Dean A. Shan Y.S. Jameson G. Macarulla T. Lee K.H. Cunningham D. Blanc J.F. Nanoliposomal irinotecan with fluorouracil and folinic acid in metastatic pancreatic cancer after previous gemcitabine-based therapy (NAPOLI-1): A global, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet 2016 387 545 557 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00986-1 26615328
7. Yoo C. Hwang J.Y. Kim J.E. Kim T.W. Lee J.S. Park D.H. Lee S.S. Seo D.W. Lee S.K. Kim M.H. A randomised phase II study of modified FOLFIRI.3 vs. modified FOLFOX as second-line therapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer Br. J. Cancer 2009 101 1658 1663 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605374 19826418 PMC2778540
8. Research C for DE and FDA Grants Accelerated Approval to Pembrolizumab for First Tissue/Site Agnostic Indication. FDA 9 2 2019 Available online: http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-pembrolizumab-first-tissuesite-agnostic-indication (accessed on 17 August 2019)
9. Research C for DE and FDA Approves Larotrectinib for Solid Tumors with NTRK Gene Fusions. FDA 9 2 2019 Available online: http://www.fda.gov/drugs/fda-approves-larotrectinib-solid-tumors-ntrk-gene-fusions-0 (accessed on 17 August 2019)
10. Jones S. Hruban R.H. Kamiyama M. Borges M. Zhang X. Parsons D.W. Lin J.C. Palmisano E. Brune K. Jaffee E.M. Exomic sequencing identifies PALB2 as a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene Science 2009 324 e217 10.1126/science.1171202 PMC2684332 19264984
11. McWilliams R.R. Wieben E.D. Rabe K.G. Pedersen K.S. Wu Y. Sicotte H. Petersen G.M. Prevalence of CDKN2A mutations in pancreatic cancer patients: Implications for genetic counseling Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2011 19 472 478 10.1038/ejhg.2010.198 21150883 PMC3060321
12. Su G.H. Hruban R.H. Bansal R.K. Bova G.S. Tang D.J. Shekher M.C. Westerman A.M. Entius M.M. Goggins M. Yeo C.J. Germline and somatic mutations of the STK11/LKB1 Peutz-Jeghers gene in pancreatic and biliary cancers Am. J. Pathol. 1999 154 1835 1840 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)65440-5 10362809 PMC1866632
13. Tersmette A.C. Petersen G.M. Offerhaus G.J. Falatko F.C. Brune K.A. Goggins M. Rozenblum E. Wilentz R.E. Yeo C.J. Cameron J.L. Increased risk of incident pancreatic cancer among first-degree relatives of patients with familial pancreatic cancer Clin. Cancer Res. 2001 7 738 744 11297271
14. Holter S. Borgida A. Dodd A. Grant R. Semotiuk K. Hedley D. Dhani N. Narod S. Akbari M. Moore M. Germline BRCA Mutations in a Large Clinic-Based Cohort of Patients With Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma J. Clin. Oncol. 2015 33 3124 3129 10.1200/JCO.2014.59.7401 25940717
15. Salo-Mullen E.E. O’Reilly E.M. Kelsen D.P. Ashraf A.M. Lowery M.A. Yu K.H. Reidy D.L. Epstein A.S. Lincoln A. Saldia A. Identification of germline genetic mutations in patients with pancreatic cancer Cancer 2015 121 4382 4388 10.1002/cncr.29664 26440929 PMC5193099
16. Waddell N. Pajic M. Patch A.M. Chang D.K. Kassahn K.S. Bailey P. Johns A.L. Miller D. Nones K. Quek K. Whole genomes redefine the mutational landscape of pancreatic cancer Nature 2015 518 495 501 10.1038/nature14169 25719666 PMC4523082
17. Dedes K.J. Wilkerson P.M. Wetterskog D. Weigelt B. Ashworth A. Reis-Filho J.S. Synthetic lethality of PARP inhibition in cancers lacking BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations Cell Cycle 2011 10 1192 1199 10.4161/cc.10.8.15273 21487248 PMC3117132
18. Schreiber V. Dantzer F. Ame J.C. de Murcia G. Poly(ADP-ribose): Novel functions for an old molecule Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2006 7 517 528 10.1038/nrm1963 16829982
19. Moynahan M.E. Jasin M. Mitotic homologous recombination maintains genomic stability and suppresses tumorigenesis Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2010 11 196 207 10.1038/nrm2851 20177395 PMC3261768
20. Radhakrishnan S.K. Jette N. Lees-Miller S.P. Non-homologous end joining: Emerging themes and unanswered questions DNA Repair (Amst.) 2014 17 2 8 10.1016/j.dnarep.2014.01.009 24582502 PMC4084493
21. Durkacz B.W. Omidiji O. Gray D.A. Shall S. (ADP-ribose)n participates in DNA excision repair Nature 1980 283 593 596 10.1038/283593a0 6243744
22. Krishnakumar R. Kraus W.L. The PARP side of the nucleus: Molecular actions, physiological outcomes, and clinical targets Mol. Cell 2010 39 8 24 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.06.017 20603072 PMC2923840
23. Bai P. Biology of Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerases: The Factotums of Cell Maintenance Mol. Cell 2015 58 947 958 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.01.034 26091343
24. El-Khamisy S.F. Masutani M. Suzuki H. Caldecott K.W. A requirement for PARP-1 for the assembly or stability of XRCC1 nuclear foci at sites of oxidative DNA damage Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 31 5526 5533 10.1093/nar/gkg761 14500814 PMC206461
25. Masson M. Niedergang C. Schreiber V. Muller S. Menissier-de Murcia J. de Murcia G. XRCC1 is specifically associated with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase and negatively regulates its activity following DNA damage Mol. Cell Biol. 1998 18 3563 3571 10.1128/MCB.18.6.3563 9584196 PMC108937
26. Ahel D. Horejsi Z. Wiechens N. Polo S.E. Garcia-Wilson E. Ahel I. Flynn H. Skehel M. West S.C. Jackson S.P. Poly(ADP-ribose)-dependent regulation of DNA repair by the chromatin remodeling enzyme ALC1 Science 2009 325 1240 1243 10.1126/science.1177321 19661379 PMC3443743
27. Gagne J.P. Isabelle M. Lo K.S. Bourassa S. Hendzel M.J. Dawson V.L. Dawson T.M. Poirier G.G. Proteome-wide identification of poly(ADP-ribose) binding proteins and poly(ADP-ribose)-associated protein complexes Nucleic Acids Res. 2008 36 6959 6976 10.1093/nar/gkn771 18981049 PMC2602769
28. Oka S. Kato J. Moss J. Identification and characterization of a mammalian 39-kDa poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase J. Biol. Chem. 2006 281 705 713 10.1074/jbc.M510290200 16278211
29. Satoh M.S. Lindahl T. Role of poly(ADP-ribose) formation in DNA repair Nature 1992 356 356 358 10.1038/356356a0 1549180
30. Gudmundsdottir K. Ashworth A. The roles of BRCA1 and BRCA2 and associated proteins in the maintenance of genomic stability Oncogene 2006 25 5864 5874 10.1038/sj.onc.1209874 16998501
31. Lord C.J. Ashworth A. RAD51, BRCA2 and DNA repair: A partial resolution Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2007 14 461 462 10.1038/nsmb0607-461 17549079
32. Venkitaraman A.R. Cancer susceptibility and the functions of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Cell 2002 108 171 182 10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00615-3 11832208
33. Lieber M.R. The mechanism of double-strand DNA break repair by the nonhomologous DNA end-joining pathway Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2010 79 181 211 10.1146/annurev.biochem.052308.093131 20192759 PMC3079308
34. Haince J.F. Kozlov S. Dawson V.L. Dawson T.M. Hendzel M.J. Lavin M.F. Poirier G.G. Ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) signaling network is modulated by a novel poly(ADP-ribose)-dependent pathway in the early response to DNA-damaging agents J. Biol. Chem. 2007 282 16441 16453 10.1074/jbc.M608406200 17428792
35. Haince J.F. McDonald D. Rodrigue A. Dery U. Masson J.Y. Hendzel M.J. Poirier G.G. PARP1-dependent kinetics of recruitment of MRE11 and NBS1 proteins to multiple DNA damage sites J. Biol. Chem. 2008 283 1197 1208 10.1074/jbc.M706734200 18025084
36. Ray Chaudhuri A. Callen E. Ding X. Gogola E. Duarte A.A. Lee J.E. Wong N. Lafarga V. Calvo J.A. Panzarino N.J. Replication fork stability confers chemoresistance in BRCA-deficient cells Nature 2016 535 382 387 10.1038/nature18325 27443740 PMC4959813
37. Ferrone C.R. Levine D.A. Tang L.H. Allen P.J. Jarnagin W. Brennan M.F. Offit K. Robson M.E. BRCA germline mutations in Jewish patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma J. Clin. Oncol. 2009 27 433 438 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.5546 19064968 PMC3657622
38. Friedenson B. BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathways and the risk of cancers other than breast or ovarian Medscape Gen. Med. 2005 7 e60 PMC1681605 16369438
39. Golan T. Kanji Z.S. Epelbaum R. Devaud N. Dagan E. Holter S. Aderka D. Paluch-Shimon S. Kaufman B. Gershoni-Baruch R. Overall survival and clinical characteristics of pancreatic cancer in BRCA mutation carriers Br. J. Cancer 2014 111 1132 1138 10.1038/bjc.2014.418 25072261 PMC4453851
40. Dobzhansky T. Genetics of natural populations; recombination and variability in populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura Genetics 1946 31 269 290 20985721 10.1093/genetics/31.3.269 PMC1209328
41. Ashworth A. A synthetic lethal therapeutic approach: Poly(ADP) ribose polymerase inhibitors for the treatment of cancers deficient in DNA double-strand break repair J. Clin. Oncol. 2008 26 3785 3790 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.0812 18591545
42. Murai J. Huang S.Y. Das B.B. Renaud A. Zhang Y. Doroshow J.H. Ji J. Takeda S. Pommier Y. Trapping of PARP1 and PARP2 by Clinical PARP Inhibitors Cancer Res. 2012 72 5588 5599 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-2753 23118055 PMC3528345
43. D’Andrea A.D. Susceptibility pathways in Fanconi’s anemia and breast cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2010 362 1909 1919 10.1056/NEJMra0809889 20484397 PMC3069698
44. McCabe N. Turner N.C. Lord C.J. Kluzek K. Bialkowska A. Swift S. Giavara S. O’Connor M.J. Tutt A.N. Zdzienicka M.Z. Deficiency in the repair of DNA damage by homologous recombination and sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition Cancer Res. 2006 66 8109 8115 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-0140 16912188
45. Turner N. Tutt A. Ashworth A. Hallmarks of ‘BRCAness’ in sporadic cancers Nat. Rev. Cancer 2004 4 814 819 10.1038/nrc1457 15510162
46. Moschetta M. George A. Kaye S.B. Banerjee S. BRCA somatic mutations and epigenetic BRCA modifications in serous ovarian cancer Ann. Oncol. 2016 27 1449 1455 10.1093/annonc/mdw142 27037296
47. Carnevale J. Ashworth A. Assessing the Significance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations in Pancreatic Cancer J. Clin. Oncol. 2015 33 3080 3081 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.6961 25987697
48. Telli M.L. Timms K.M. Reid J. Hennessy B. Mills G.B. Jensen K.C. Szallasi Z. Barry W.T. Winer E.P. Tung N.M. Homologous Recombination Deficiency (HRD) Score Predicts Response to Platinum-Containing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Clin. Cancer Res. 2016 22 3764 3773 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2477 26957554 PMC6773427
49. Shahda S. Timms K.M. Ibrahim A.A. Reid J.E. Cramer H.M. Radovich M. Ibrahim S. Allen B. O’Neil B.H. Homologous Recombination Deficiency in Patients With Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma and Response to Chemotherapy JCO Precis. Oncol. 2018 2 1 11 10.1200/PO.17.00087 35135100
50. Steffen J. Brody J. Armen R. Pascal J. Structural Implications for Selective Targeting of PARPs Front. Oncol. 2013 3 e301 10.3389/fonc.2013.00301 PMC3868897 24392349
51. Perkins E. Sun D. Nguyen A. Tulac S. Francesco M. Tavana H. Nguyen H. Tugendreich S. Barthmaier P. Couto J. Novel inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase/PARP1 and PARP2 identified using a cell-based screen in yeast Cancer Res. 2001 61 4175 4183 11358842
52. Murai J. Huang S.Y. Renaud A. Zhang Y. Ji J. Takeda S. Morris J. Teicher B. Doroshow J.H. Pommier Y. Stereospecific PARP trapping by BMN 673 and comparison with olaparib and rucaparib Mol. Cancer Ther. 2014 13 e433 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-13-0803 PMC3946062 24356813
53. Pommier Y. O’Connor M.J. de Bono J. Laying a trap to kill cancer cells: PARP inhibitors and their mechanisms of action Sci. Transl. Med. 2016 8 362ps17 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf9246 27797957
54. Shen Y. Rehman F.L. Feng Y. Boshuizen J. Bajrami I. Elliott R. Wang B. Lord C.J. Post L.E. Ashworth A. BMN 673, a novel and highly potent PARP1/2 inhibitor for the treatment of human cancers with DNA repair deficiency Clin. Cancer Res. 2013 19 5003 5015 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1391 23881923 PMC6485449
55. Lickliter J.D. Gan H.K. Meniawy T. Yang J. Wang L. Luo L. Lu N. Millward M. A phase I dose-escalation study of BGB-290, a novel PARP1/2 selective inhibitor in patients with advanced solid tumors J. Clin. Oncol. 2016 34 e17049 10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.e17049
56. Kaufman B. Shapira-Frommer R. Schmutzler R.K. Audeh M.W. Friedlander M. Balmana J. Mitchell G. Fried G. Stemmer S.M. Hubert A. Olaparib monotherapy in patients with advanced cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation J. Clin. Oncol. 2015 33 244 250 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.2728 25366685 PMC6057749
57. Ledermann J. Harter P. Gourley C. Friedlander M. Vergote I. Rustin G. Scott C. Meier W. Shapira-Frommer R. Safra T. Olaparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2012 366 1382 1392 10.1056/NEJMoa1105535 22452356
58. Pujade-Lauraine E. Ledermann J.A. Selle F. Gebski V. Penson R.T. Oza A.M. Korach J. Huzarski T. Poveda A. Pignata S. Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol. 2017 18 1274 1284 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30469-2 28754483
59. Moore K. Colombo N. Scambia G. Kim B.G. Oaknin A. Friedlander M. Lisyanskaya A. Floquet A. Leary A. Sonke G.S. Maintenance Olaparib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2018 379 2495 2505 10.1056/NEJMoa1810858 30345884
60. Robson M. Im S.A. Senkus E. Xu B. Domchek S.M. Masuda N. Delaloge S. Li W. Tung N. Armstrong A. Olaparib for Metastatic Breast Cancer in Patients with a Germline BRCA Mutation N. Engl. J. Med. 2017 377 523 533 10.1056/NEJMoa1706450 28578601
61. Kristeleit R. Shapiro G.I. Burris H.A. Oza A.M. LoRusso P. Patel M.R. Domchek S.M. Balmana J. Drew Y. Chen L.M. A Phase I-II Study of the Oral PARP Inhibitor Rucaparib in Patients with Germline BRCA1/2-Mutated Ovarian Carcinoma or Other Solid Tumors Clin. Cancer Res. 2017 23 4095 4106 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2796 28264872
62. Swisher E.M. Lin K.K. Oza A.M. Scott C.L. Giordano H. Sun J. Konecny G.E. Coleman R.L. Tinker A.V. O’Malley D.M. Rucaparib in relapsed, platinum-sensitive high-grade ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL2 Part 1): An international, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial Lancet Oncol. 2017 18 75 87 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30559-9 27908594
63. Coleman R.L. Oza A.M. Lorusso D. Aghajanian C. Oaknin A. Dean A. Colombo N. Weberpals J.I. Clamp A. Scambia G. Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma after response to platinum therapy (ARIEL3): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial Lancet 2017 390 1949 1961 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32440-6 28916367 PMC5901715
64. Mirza M.R. Monk B.J. Herrstedt J. Oza A.M. Mahner S. Redondo A. Fabbro M. Ledermann J.A. Lorusso D. Vergote I. Niraparib Maintenance Therapy in Platinum-Sensitive, Recurrent Ovarian Cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2016 375 2154 2164 10.1056/NEJMoa1611310 27717299
65. Litton J.K. Rugo H.S. Ettl J. Hurvitz S.A. Goncalves A. Lee K.H. Fehrenbacher L. Yerushalmi R. Mina L.A. Martin M. Talazoparib in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer and a Germline BRCA Mutation N. Engl. J. Med. 2018 379 753 763 10.1056/NEJMoa1802905 30110579 PMC10600918
66. Golan T. Hammel P. Reni M. Van Cutsem E. Macarulla T. Hall M.J. Park J.O. Hochhauser D. Arnold D. Oh D.Y. Maintenance Olaparib for Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2019 381 317 327 10.1056/NEJMoa1903387 31157963 PMC6810605
67. Coleman R.L. Sill M.W. Bell-McGuinn K. Aghajanian C. Gray H.J. Tewari K.S. Rubin S.C. Rutherford T.J. Chan J.K. Chen A. A phase II evaluation of the potent, highly selective PARP inhibitor veliparib in the treatment of persistent or recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer in patients who carry a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation—An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study Gynecol. Oncol. 2015 137 386 391 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.03.042 25818403 PMC4447525
68. LaFargue C.J. Dal Molin G.Z. Sood A.K. Coleman R.L. Exploring and comparing adverse events between PARP inhibitors Lancet Oncol. 2019 20 15 28 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30786-1 PMC7292736 30614472
69. LoRusso P.M. Li J. Burger A. Heilbrun L.K. Sausville E.A. Boerner S.A. Smith D. Pilat M.J. Zhang J. Tolaney S.M. Phase I Safety, Pharmacokinetic, and Pharmacodynamic Study of the Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase (PARP) Inhibitor Veliparib (ABT-888) in Combination with Irinotecan in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors Clin. Cancer Res. 2016 22 3227 3237 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0652 26842236 PMC4930710
70. Shroff R.T. Hendifar A. McWilliams R.R. Geva R. Epelbaum R. Rolfe L. Goble S. Lin K.K. Biankin A.V. Giordano H. Rucaparib Monotherapy in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer and a Known Deleterious BRCA Mutation JCO Precis. Oncol. 2018 2 1 15 10.1200/PO.17.00316 30051098 PMC6057747
71. Lowery M.A. Kelsen D.P. Capanu M. Smith S.C. Lee J.W. Stadler Z.K. Moore M.J. Kindler H.L. Golan T. Segal A. Phase II trial of veliparib in patients with previously treated BRCA-mutated pancreas ductal adenocarcinoma Eur. J. Cancer 2018 89 19 26 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.11.004 29223478 PMC7351022
72. Golan T. Varadhachary G.R. Sela T. Fogelman D.R. Halperin N. Shroff R.T. Halparin S. Xiao L. Aderka D. Maitra A. Phase II study of olaparib for BRCAness phenotype in pancreatic cancer J. Clin. Oncol. 2018 36 e297 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.4_suppl.297
73. Binder K.A.R. Mick R. O’Hara M. Teitelbaum U. Karasic T. Schneider C. O’Dwyer P.J. Carpenter E. Pantel A. Makvandi M. Abstract CT234: A Phase II, single arm study of maintenance rucaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive advanced pancreatic cancer and a pathogenic germline or somatic mutation in BRCA1 , BRCA2 or PALB2 Cancer Res. 2019 79 CT234 10.1158/1538-7445.Am2019-ct234
74. Chiorean E.G. Guthrie K.A. Philip P.A. Swisher E.M. Jalikis F. Pishvaian M.J. Berlin J. Noel M.S. Suga J.M. Garrido-Laguna I. Randomized phase II study of second-line modified FOLFIRI with PARP inhibitor ABT-888 (Veliparib) (NSC-737664) versus FOLFIRI in metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC): SWOG S1513 J. Clin. Oncol. 2019 37 e4014 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.4014 PMC8639715 34580114
75. Pishvaian M.J. Wang H. Parenti S. He A.R. Hwang J.J. Ley L. Difebo H. Smaglo B.G. Kim S.S. Weinberg B.A. Final report of a phase I/II study of veliparib (Vel) in combination with 5-FU and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) in patients (pts) with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPDAC) J. Clin. Oncol. 2019 37 e4015 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.4015
76. De Bono J. Ramanathan R.K. Mina L. Chugh R. Glaspy J. Rafii S. Kaye S. Sachdev J. Heymach J. Smith D.C. Phase I, Dose-Escalation, Two-Part Trial of the PARP Inhibitor Talazoparib in Patients with Advanced Germline BRCA1/2 Mutations and Selected Sporadic Cancers Cancer Discov. 2017 7 620 629 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-1250 28242752 PMC5905335
77. Kasi A. Chalise P. Williamson S.K. Baranda J.C. Sun W. Al-Rajabi R.M.D.T. Saeed A. Kumer S. Schmitt T. Foster C. Niraparib in metastatic pancreatic cancer after previous chemotherapy (NIRA-PANC): A phase 2 trial J. Clin. Oncol. 2019 37 TPS4168 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.TPS4168
78. Melisi D. Ossovskaya V. Zhu C. Rosa R. Ling J. Dougherty P.M. Sherman B.M. Abbruzzese J.L. Chiao P.J. Oral Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase-1 Inhibitor BSI-401 Has Antitumor Activity and Synergizes with Oxaliplatin against Pancreatic Cancer, Preventing Acute Neurotoxicity Clin. Cancer Res. 2009 15 6367 6377 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-0910 19808866 PMC2989607
79. Turk A.A. Deming D.A. Lubner S.J. Mulkerin D. LoConte N.K. Tevaarwerk A. Wisinski K.B. Eickhoff J.C. Liu G. A phase I study of veliparib (Vel) in combination with oxaliplatin (Ox) and capecitabine (Cap) in advanced solid tumors J. Clin. Oncol. 2018 36 e314 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.4_suppl.314
80. O’Reilly E.M. Lowery M.A. Yu K.H. Capanu M. Stadler Z.K. Epstein A.S. Golan T. Segal A. Segal M. Salo-Mullen E.E. Randomized phase II study of gemcitabine (G), cisplatin (C) with or without veliparib (V) (arms A, B) and a phase II single-arm study of single-agent veliparib (arm C) in patients with BRCA or PALB2-mutated pancreas adenocarcinoma (PC) J. Clin. Oncol. 2013 31 TPS4144 10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.tps4144
81. Pfister T.D. Reinhold W.C. Agama K. Gupta S. Khin S.A. Kinders R.J. Parchment R.E. Tomaszewski J.E. Doroshow J.H. Pommier Y. Topoisomerase I levels in the NCI-60 cancer cell line panel determined by validated ELISA and microarray analysis and correlation with indenoisoquinoline sensitivity Mol. Cancer Ther. 2009 8 1878 1884 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0016 19584232 PMC2728499
82. Patel A.G. Flatten K.S. Schneider P.A. Dai N.T. McDonald J.S. Poirier G.G. Kaufmann S.H. Enhanced killing of cancer cells by poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and topoisomerase I inhibitors reflects poisoning of both enzymes J. Biol. Chem. 2012 287 4198 4210 10.1074/jbc.M111.296475 22158865 PMC3281688
83. Jacob D.A. Bahra M. Langrehr J.M. Boas-Knoop S. Stefaniak R. Davis J. Schumacher G. Lippert S. Neumann U.P. Combination therapy of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor 3-aminobenzamide and gemcitabine shows strong antitumor activity in pancreatic cancer cells J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2007 22 738 748 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2006.04496.x 17444865
84. Bendell J. O’Reilly E.M. Middleton M.R. Chau I. Hochster H. Fielding A. Burke W. Burris H. 3rd Phase I study of olaparib plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumours and comparison with gemcitabine alone in patients with locally advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer Ann. Oncol. 2015 26 804 811 10.1093/annonc/mdu581 25573533 PMC8890482
85. Porcelli L. Quatrale A.E. Mantuano P. Leo M.G. Silvestris N. Rolland J.F. Carioggia E. Lioce M. Paradiso A. Azzariti A. Optimize radiochemotherapy in pancreatic cancer: PARP inhibitors a new therapeutic opportunity Mol. Oncol. 2013 7 308 322 10.1016/j.molonc.2012.10.002 23148997 PMC5528465
86. Tuli R. Surmak A.J. Reyes J. Armour M. Hacker-Prietz A. Wong J. DeWeese T.L. Herman J.M. Radiosensitization of Pancreatic Cancer Cells In Vitro and In Vivo through Poly (ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibition with ABT-888 Transl. Oncol. 2014 7 439 445 10.1016/j.tranon.2014.04.003 PMC4145354 24836647
87. Strickland K.C. Howitt B.E. Shukla S.A. Rodig S. Ritterhouse L.L. Liu J.F. Garber J.E. Chowdhury D. Wu C.J. D’Andrea A.D. Association and prognostic significance of BRCA1/2-mutation status with neoantigen load, number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and expression of PD-1/PD-L1 in high grade serous ovarian cancer Oncotarget 2016 7 13587 13598 10.18632/oncotarget.7277 26871470 PMC4924663
88. Parkes E.E. Walker S.M. Taggart L.E. McCabe N. Knight L.A. Wilkinson R. McCloskey K.D. Buckley N.E. Savage K.I. Salto-Tellez M. Activation of STING-Dependent Innate Immune Signaling By S-Phase-Specific DNA Damage in Breast Cancer J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2017 109 djw199 10.1093/jnci/djw199 PMC5441301 27707838
89. Ishikawa H. Ma Z. Barber G.N. STING regulates intracellular DNA-mediated, type I interferon-dependent innate immunity Nature 2009 461 788 792 10.1038/nature08476 19776740 PMC4664154
90. Simmons D.P. Wearsch P.A. Canaday D.H. Meyerson H.J. Liu Y.C. Wang Y. Boom W.H. Harding C.V. Type I IFN drives a distinctive dendritic cell maturation phenotype that allows continued class II MHC synthesis and antigen processing J. Immunol. (Baltim. Md. 1950) 2012 188 3116 3126 10.4049/jimmunol.1101313 PMC3311734 22371391
91. Ding L. Kim H.J. Wang Q. Kearns M. Jiang T. Ohlson C.E. Li B.B. Xie S. Liu J.F. Stover E.H. PARP Inhibition Elicits STING-Dependent Antitumor Immunity in Brca1-Deficient Ovarian Cancer Cell Rep. 2018 25 2972 2980 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.11.054 30540933 PMC6366450
92. Bacher N. Raker V. Hofmann C. Graulich E. Schwenk M. Baumgrass R. Bopp T. Zechner U. Merten L. Becker C. Interferon-alpha suppresses cAMP to disarm human regulatory T cells Cancer Res. 2013 73 5647 5656 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-3788 23878189
93. Jiao S. Xia W. Yamaguchi H. Wei Y. Chen M.K. Hsu J.M. Hsu J.L. Yu W.H. Du Y. Lee H.H. PARP Inhibitor Upregulates PD-L1 Expression and Enhances Cancer-Associated Immunosuppression Clin. Cancer Res. 2017 23 3711 3720 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-3215 28167507 PMC5511572
94. Wang Z. Sun K. Xiao Y. Feng B. Mikule K. Ma X. Feng N. Vellano C.P. Federico L. Marszalek J.R. Niraparib activates interferon signaling and potentiates anti-PD-1 antibody efficacy in tumor models Sci. Rep. 2019 9 e1853 10.1038/s41598-019-38534-6 30755715 PMC6372650
95. Sato H. Niimi A. Yasuhara T. Permata T.B.M. Hagiwara Y. Isono M. Nuryadi E. Sekine R. Oike T. Kakoti S. DNA double-strand break repair pathway regulates PD-L1 expression in cancer cells Nat. Commun. 2017 8 e1751 10.1038/s41467-017-01883-9 29170499 PMC5701012
96. Sen T. Rodriguez B.L. Chen L. Corte C.M.D. Morikawa N. Fujimoto J. Cristea S. Nguyen T. Diao L. Li L. Targeting DNA Damage Response Promotes Antitumor Immunity through STING-Mediated T-cell Activation in Small Cell Lung Cancer Cancer Discov. 2019 9 646 661 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-1020 30777870 PMC6563834
97. Higuchi T. Flies D.B. Marjon N.A. Mantia-Smaldone G. Ronner L. Gimotty P.A. Adams S.F. CTLA-4 Blockade Synergizes Therapeutically with PARP Inhibition in BRCA1-Deficient Ovarian Cancer Cancer Immunol. Res. 2015 3 1257 1268 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-15-0044 26138335 PMC4984269
98. Lee J.-M. Zimmer A.D.S. Lipkowitz S. Annunziata C.M. Ho T.W. Chiou V.L. Minasian L.M. Houston N.D. Ekwede I. Kohn E.C. Phase I study of the PD-L1 inhibitor, durvalumab (MEDI4736; D) in combination with a PARP inhibitor, olaparib (O) or a VEGFR inhibitor, cediranib (C) in women’s cancers ( NCT02484404 ) J. Clin. Oncol. 2016 34 e3015 10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.3015
99. Bang Y.-J. Kaufman B. Geva R. Stemmer S.M. Hong S.-H. Lee J.-S. Domchek S.M. Lanasa M.C. Tang M. Gresty C. An open-label, phase II basket study of olaparib and durvalumab (MEDIOLA): Results in patients with relapsed gastric cancer J. Clin. Oncol. 2019 37 e140 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.4_suppl.140
100. Vinayak S. Tolaney S.M. Schwartzberg L.S. Mita M.M. McCann G.A.-L. Tan A.R. Hendrickson A.E.W. Forero-Torres A. Anders C.K. Wulf G.M. TOPACIO/Keynote-162: Niraparib + pembrolizumab in patients (pts) with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), a phase 2 trial J. Clin. Oncol. 2018 36 e1011 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.1011
101. Konstantinopoulos P.A. Waggoner S. Vidal G.A. Mita M. Moroney J.W. Holloway R. Van Le L. Sachdev J.C. Chapman-Davis E. Colon-Otero G. Single-Arm Phases 1 and 2 Trial of Niraparib in Combination With Pembrolizumab in Patients With Recurrent Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Carcinoma JAMA Oncol. 2019 5 1141 1149 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1048 PMC6567832 31194228
102. Zimmer A.S. Nichols E. Cimino-Mathews A. Peer C. Cao L. Lee M.J. Kohn E.C. Annunziata C.M. Lipkowitz S. Trepel J.B. A phase I study of the PD-L1 inhibitor, durvalumab, in combination with a PARP inhibitor, olaparib, and a VEGFR1-3 inhibitor, cediranib, in recurrent women’s cancers with biomarker analyses J. Immunother. Cancer 2019 7 e197 10.1186/s40425-019-0680-3 PMC6657373 31345267
103. Reiss K.A. Mick R. O’Hara M.H. Teitelbaum U.R. Karasic T.B. Schneider C.J. O’Dwyer P.J. Karlson D. Cowden S. Fuhrer M.J. A randomized phase II trial of niraparib plus either nivolumab or ipilimumab in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer whose cancer has not progressed on platinum-based therapy J. Clin. Oncol. 2019 37 TPS4161 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.TPS4161
104. Sun C. Fang Y. Yin J. Chen J. Ju Z. Zhang D. Chen X. Vellano C.P. Jeong K.J. Ng P.K. Rational combination therapy with PARP and MEK inhibitors capitalizes on therapeutic liabilities in RAS mutant cancers Sci. Transl. Med. 2017 9 eaal5148 10.1126/scitranslmed.aal5148 28566428 PMC5919217
105. Tentori L. Lacal P.M. Muzi A. Dorio A.S. Leonetti C. Scarsella M. Ruffini F. Xu W. Min W. Stoppacciaro A. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition or PARP-1 gene deletion reduces angiogenesis Eur. J. Cancer 2007 43 2124 2133 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.07.010 17714938
106. Sakai W. Swisher E.M. Karlan B.Y. Agarwal M.K. Higgins J. Friedman C. Villegas E. Jacquemont C. Farrugia D.J. Couch F.J. Secondary mutations as a mechanism of cisplatin resistance in BRCA2-mutated cancers Nature 2008 451 1116 1120 10.1038/nature06633 18264087 PMC2577037
107. Norquist B. Wurz K.A. Pennil C.C. Garcia R. Gross J. Sakai W. Karlan B.Y. Taniguchi T. Swisher E.M. Secondary somatic mutations restoring BRCA1/2 predict chemotherapy resistance in hereditary ovarian carcinomas J. Clin. Oncol. 2011 29 3008 3015 10.1200/JCO.2010.34.2980 21709188 PMC3157963
108. Barber L.J. Sandhu S. Chen L. Campbell J. Kozarewa I. Fenwick K. Assiotis I. Rodrigues D.N. Reis Filho J.S. Moreno V. Secondary mutations in BRCA2 associated with clinical resistance to a PARP inhibitor J. Pathol. 2013 229 422 429 10.1002/path.4140 23165508
109. Bunting S.F. Callen E. Wong N. Chen H.T. Polato F. Gunn A. Bothmer A. Feldhahn N. Fernandez-Capetillo O. Cao L. 53BP1 inhibits homologous recombination in Brca1-deficient cells by blocking resection of DNA breaks Cell 2010 141 243 254 10.1016/j.cell.2010.03.012 20362325 PMC2857570
110. Cao L. Xu X. Bunting S.F. Liu J. Wang R.H. Cao L.L. Wu J.J. Peng T.N. Chen J. Nussenzweig A. A selective requirement for 53BP1 in the biological response to genomic instability induced by Brca1 deficiency Mol. Cell 2009 35 534 541 10.1016/j.molcel.2009.06.037 19716796 PMC3392030
111. Oplustilova L. Wolanin K. Mistrik M. Korinkova G. Simkova D. Bouchal J. Lenobel R. Bartkova J. Lau A. O’Connor M.J. Evaluation of candidate biomarkers to predict cancer cell sensitivity or resistance to PARP-1 inhibitor treatment Cell Cycle 2012 11 3837 3850 10.4161/cc.22026 22983061 PMC3495826
112. Neijenhuis S. Bajrami I. Miller R. Lord C.J. Ashworth A. Identification of miRNA modulators to PARP inhibitor response DNA Repair (Amst.) 2013 12 394 402 10.1016/j.dnarep.2013.02.003 23570906
113. Choi Y.E. Meghani K. Brault M.E. Leclerc L. He Y.J. Day T.A. Elias K.M. Drapkin R. Weinstock D.M. Dao F. Platinum and PARP Inhibitor Resistance Due to Overexpression of MicroRNA-622 in BRCA1-Mutant Ovarian Cancer Cell Rep. 2016 14 429 439 10.1016/j.celrep.2015.12.046 26774475 PMC4731274
114. Blazek D. Kohoutek J. Bartholomeeusen K. Johansen E. Hulinkova P. Luo Z. Cimermancic P. Ule J. Peterlin B.M. The Cyclin K/Cdk12 complex maintains genomic stability via regulation of expression of DNA damage response genes Genes Dev. 2011 25 2158 2172 10.1101/gad.16962311 22012619 PMC3205586
115. Johnson S.F. Cruz C. Greifenberg A.K. Dust S. Stover D.G. Chi D. Primack B. Cao S. Bernhardy A.J. Coulson R. CDK12 Inhibition Reverses De Novo and Acquired PARP Inhibitor Resistance in BRCA Wild-Type and Mutated Models of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Cell Rep. 2016 17 2367 2381 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.10.077 27880910 PMC5176643
116. Alagpulinsa D.A. Ayyadevara S. Yaccoby S. Shmookler Reis R.J. A Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor, Dinaciclib, Impairs Homologous Recombination and Sensitizes Multiple Myeloma Cells to PARP Inhibition Mol. Cancer Ther. 2016 15 241 250 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-15-0660 26719576 PMC4747838
117. Lloyd R. Falenta K. Wijnhoven P.W. Chabbert C. Stott J. Yates J. Lau A.Y. Young L.A. Hollingsworth S.J. Abstract 337: The PARP inhibitor olaparib is synergistic with the ATR inhibitor AZD6738 in ATM deficient cancer cells Cancer Res. 2018 78 e337 10.1158/1538-7445.Am2018-337
118. Hamilton E. Falchook G.S. Wang J.S. Fu S. Oza A. Karen S. Imedio E.R. Kumar S. Ottesen L. Mugundu G.M. Abstract CT025: Phase Ib study of adavosertib in combination with olaparib in patients with refractory solid tumors: Dose escalation Cancer Res. 2019 79 CT025 10.1158/1538-7445.Am2019-ct025
119. Du Y. Yamaguchi H. Wei Y. Hsu J.L. Wang H.L. Hsu Y.H. Lin W.C. Yu W.H. Leonard P.G. Lee G.R.t. Blocking c-Met-mediated PARP1 phosphorylation enhances anti-tumor effects of PARP inhibitors Nat. Med. 2016 22 194 201 10.1038/nm.4032 26779812 PMC4754671
120. Han Y. Chen M.K. Wang H.L. Hsu J.L. Li C.W. Chu Y.Y. Liu C.X. Nie L. Chan L.C. Yam C. Synergism of PARP inhibitor fluzoparib (HS10160) and MET inhibitor HS10241 in breast and ovarian cancer cells Am. J. Cancer Res. 2019 9 608 618 30949414 PMC6448061
121. Liu Q. Turner K.M. Alfred Yung W.K. Chen K. Zhang W. Role of AKT signaling in DNA repair and clinical response to cancer therapy Neuro-Oncology 2014 16 1313 1323 10.1093/neuonc/nou058 24811392 PMC4165418
122. Ibrahim Y.H. Garcia-Garcia C. Serra V. He L. Torres-Lockhart K. Prat A. Anton P. Cozar P. Guzman M. Grueso J. PI3K inhibition impairs BRCA1/2 expression and sensitizes BRCA-proficient triple-negative breast cancer to PARP inhibition Cancer Discov. 2012 2 1036 1047 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-11-0348 22915752 PMC5125254
123. Rottenberg S. Jaspers J.E. Kersbergen A. van der Burg E. Nygren A.O. Zander S.A. Derksen P.W. de Bruin M. Zevenhoven J. Lau A. High sensitivity of BRCA1-deficient mammary tumors to the PARP inhibitor AZD2281 alone and in combination with platinum drugs Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008 105 17079 17084 10.1073/pnas.0806092105 18971340 PMC2579381
124. Oplustil O’Connor L. Rulten S.L. Cranston A.N. Odedra R. Brown H. Jaspers J.E. Jones L. Knights C. Evers B. Ting A. The PARP Inhibitor AZD2461 Provides Insights into the Role of PARP3 Inhibition for Both Synthetic Lethality and Tolerability with Chemotherapy in Preclinical Models Cancer Res. 2016 76 6084 6094 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-3240 27550455
125. Tempero M.A. Malafa M.P. Chiorean E.G. Czito B. Scaife C. Narang A.K. Fountzilas C. Wolpin B.M. Al-Hawary M. Asbun H. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 1.2019 J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2019 17 202 210 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0014 30865919
126. Dougherty B.A. Lai Z. Hodgson D.R. Orr M.C.M. Hawryluk M. Sun J. Yelensky R. Spencer S.K. Robertson J.D. Ho T.W. Biological and clinical evidence for somatic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 as predictive markers for olaparib response in high-grade serous ovarian cancers in the maintenance setting Oncotarget 2017 8 43653 43661 10.18632/oncotarget.17613 28525389 PMC5546431
127. Dahan L. Phelip J.M. Malicot K.L. Williet N. Desrame J. Volet J. Petorin C. Malka D. Rebischung C. Aparicio T. FOLFIRINOX until progression, FOLFIRINOX with maintenance treatment, or sequential treatment with gemcitabine and FOLFIRI.3 for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer: A randomized phase II trial (PRODIGE 35-PANOPTIMOX) J. Clin. Oncol. 2018 36 e4000 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.4000
128. Johnson N. Johnson S.F. Yao W. Li Y.C. Choi Y.E. Bernhardy A.J. Wang Y. Capelletti M. Sarosiek K.A. Moreau L.A. Stabilization of mutant BRCA1 protein confers PARP inhibitor and platinum resistance Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013 110 17041 17046 10.1073/pnas.1305170110 24085845 PMC3801063
129. Chalasani P. Kurtin S. Dragovich T. Response to a third-line mitomycin C (MMC)-based chemotherapy in a patient with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma carrying germline BRCA2 mutation Jop 2008 9 305 308 18469443