Targeting the ataxia telangiectasia and RAD3-related (ATR) enzyme represents a promising anticancer strategy for tumors with DNA damage response (DDR) defects and replication stress, including inactivation of ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) signaling. We report the dose-escalation portion of the phase I first-in-human trial of oral ATR inhibitor BAY 1895344 intermittently dosed 5 to 80 mg twice daily in 21 patients with advanced solid tumors. The MTD was 40 mg twice daily 3 days on/4 days off. Most common adverse events were manageable and reversible hematologic toxicities. Partial responses were achieved in 4 patients and stable disease in 8 patients. Median duration of response was 315.5 days. Responders had ATM protein loss and/or deleterious ATM mutations and received doses ≥40 mg twice daily. Overall, BAY 1895344 is well tolerated, with antitumor activity against cancers with certain DDR defects, including ATM loss. An expansion phase continues in patients with DDR deficiency. Significance: Oral BAY 1895344 was tolerable, with antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with various advanced solid tumors, particularly those with ATM deleterious mutations and/or loss of ATM protein; pharmacodynamic results supported a mechanism of action of increased DNA damage. Further study is warranted in this patient population. See related commentary by Italiano, p. 14. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1

Targeting the DNA damage response (DDR) is a new therapeutic approach in cancer that shows great promise for tumour selectivity. Key components of the DDR are the ataxia telangiectasia mutated and Rad3 related (ATR) and checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1) kinases. This review article describes the role of ATR and its major downstream target, CHK1, in the DDR and why cancer cells are particularly reliant on the ATR-CHK1 pathway, providing the rationale for targeting these kinases, and validation of this hypothesis by genetic manipulation. The recent development of specific inhibitors and preclinical data using these inhibitors not only as chemosensitisers and radiosensitisers but also as single agents to exploit specific pathologies of tumour cells is described. These potent and specific inhibitors have now entered clinical trial and early results are presented.

Preclinical studies have demonstrated synergy between PARP and PI3K/AKT pathway inhibitors in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2)–deficient and BRCA1/2-proficient tumors. We conducted an investigator-initiated phase I trial utilizing a prospective intrapatient dose- escalation design to assess two schedules of capivasertib (AKT inhibitor) with olaparib (PARP inhibitor) in 64 patients with advanced solid tumors. Dose expansions enrolled germline BRCA1/2-mutant tumors, or BRCA1/2 wild-type cancers harboring somatic DNA damage response (DDR) or PI3K–AKT pathway alterations. The combination was well tolerated. Recommended phase II doses for the two schedules were: olaparib 300 mg twice a day with either capivasertib 400 mg twice a day 4 days on, 3 days off, or capivasertib 640 mg twice a day 2 days on, 5 days off. Pharmacokinetics were dose proportional. Pharmacodynamic studies confirmed phosphorylated (p) GSK3β suppression, increased pERK, and decreased BRCA1 expression. Twenty-five (44.6%) of 56 evaluable patients achieved clinical benefit (RECIST complete response/partial response or stable disease ≥ 4 months), including patients with tumors harboring germline BRCA1/2 mutations and BRCA1/2 wild-type cancers with or without DDR and PI3K–AKT pathway alterations. Significance: In the first trial to combine PARP and AKT inhibitors, a prospective intrapatient dose- escalation design demonstrated safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic activity and assessed predictive biomarkers of response/resistance. Antitumor activity was observed in patients harboring tumors with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and BRCA1/2 wild-type cancers with or without somatic DDR and/or PI3K–AKT pathway alterations. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1426

Purpose: Tissue factor (TF) is a potential target in cervical cancer, as it is frequently highly expressed and associated with poor prognosis. Tisotumab vedotin, a first-in-class investigational antibody–drug conjugate targeting TF, has demonstrated encouraging activity in solid tumors. Here we report data from the cervical cancer cohort of innovaTV 201 phase I/II study (NCT02001623).Patients and Methods: Patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer received tisotumab vedotin 2.0 mg/kg every 3 weeks until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. Secondary objectives included antitumor activity.Results: Of the 55 patients, 51% had received ≥2 prior lines of treatment in the recurrent or metastatic setting; 67% had prior bevacizumab + doublet chemotherapy. Fifty-one percent of patients had squamous cell carcinoma. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were anemia (11%), fatigue (9%), and vomiting (7%). No grade 5 treatment-related AEs occurred. Investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR) was 24% [95% confidence interval (CI): 13%−37%]. Median duration of response (DOR) was 4.2 months (range: 1.0+−9.7); four patients responded for >8 months. The 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 29% (95% CI: 17%−43%). Independent review outcomes were comparable, with confirmed ORR of 22% (95% CI: 12%−35%), median DOR of 6.0 months (range: 1.0+−9.7), and 6-month PFS rate of 40% (95% CI: 24%−55%). Tissue factor expression was confirmed in most patients; no significant association with response was observed.Conclusions: Tisotumab vedotin demonstrated a manageable safety profile and encouraging antitumor activity in patients with previously treated recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.

Background: Rucaparib is an orally available potent selective small-molecule inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) 1 and 2. Rucaparib induces synthetic lethality in cancer cells defective in the homologous recombination repair pathway including BRCA-1/2. We investigated the efficacy and safety of single-agent rucaparib in germline (g) BRCA mutation carriers with advanced breast and ovarian cancers. Methods: Phase II, open-label, multicentre trial of rucaparib in proven BRCA-1/2 mutation carriers with advanced breast and or ovarian cancer, WHO PS 0–1 and normal organ function. Intravenous (i.v.) and subsequently oral rucaparib were assessed, using a range of dosing schedules, to determine the safety, tolerability, dose-limiting toxic effects and pharmacodynamic (PD) and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles. Results: Rucaparib was well tolerated in patients up to doses of 480 mg per day and is a potent inhibitor of PARP, with sustained inhibition ⩾24 h after single doses. The i.v. rucaparib (intermittent dosing schedule) resulted in an objective response rate (ORR) of only 2% but with 41% (18 out of 44) patients achieved stable disease for ⩾12 weeks and 3 patients maintaining disease stabilisation for >52 weeks. The ORR for oral rucaparib (across all six dose levels) was 15%. In the oral cohorts, 81% (22 out of 27) of the patients had ovarian cancer and 12 out of 13, who were dosed continuously, achieved RECIST complete response/partial response (CR/PR) or stable disease (SD) ⩾12 weeks, with a median duration of response of 179 days (range 84–567 days). Conclusions: Rucaparib is well tolerated and results in high levels of PARP inhibition in surrogate tissues even at the lowest dose levels. Rucaparib is active in gBRCA-mutant ovarian cancer and this activity correlates with platinum-free interval. The key lessons learned from this study is that continuous rucaparib dosing is required for optimal response, the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for continuous oral scheduling has not been established and requires further exploration and, thirdly, the use of a PD biomarker to evaluate dose–response has its limitations.