Poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) have shown promising activity in patients with BRCA1/2 mutation-associated (BRCA1/2^MUT+) ovarian and breast cancers. Accumulating evidence suggests that PARPi may have a wider application in the treatment of sporadic high-grade serous ovarian cancer, and cancers defective in DNA repair pathways, such as prostate, endometrial, and pancreatic cancers. Several PARPis are currently in phase 1/2 clinical investigation, with registration trials now being designed. Olaparib, one of the most studied PARPis, has demonstrated activity in BRCA1/2^MUT+ and BRCA-like sporadic ovarian and breast cancers, and looks promising in prostate and pancreatic cancers. Understanding more about the molecular abnormalities involved in BRCA-like tumors, exploring novel therapeutic trial strategies and drug combinations, and defining potential predictive biomarkers, is critical to rapidly advancing the field of PARPi therapy and improve clinical outcomes.

Purpose: Data suggest that DNA damage by poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition and/or reduced vascular endothelial growth factor signaling by vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibition may complement antitumor activity of immune checkpoint blockade. We hypothesize the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, durvalumab, olaparib, or cediranib combinations are tolerable and active in recurrent women’s cancers. Patients and Methods: This phase I study tested durvalumab doublets in parallel 3 + 3 dose escalations. Durvalumab was administered at 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 1,500 mg every 4 weeks with either olaparib tablets twice daily or cediranib on two schedules. The primary end point was the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Response rate and pharmacokinetic analysis were secondary end points. Results: Between June 2015 and May 2016, 26 women were enrolled. The RP2D was durvalumab 1,500 mg every 4 weeks with olaparib 300 mg twice a day, or cediranib 20 mg, 5 days on/2 days off. No dose-limiting toxicity was recorded with durvalumab plus olaparib. The cediranib intermittent schedule (n = 6) was examined because of recurrent grade 2 and non–dose-limiting toxicity grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs) on the daily schedule (n = 8). Treatment-emergent AEs included hypertension (two of eight), diarrhea (two of eight), pulmonary embolism (two of eight), pulmonary hypertension (one of eight), and lymphopenia (one of eight). Durvalumab plus intermittent cediranib grade 3 and 4 AEs were hypertension (one of six) and fatigue (one of six). Exposure to durvalumab increased cediranib area under the curve and maximum plasma concentration on the daily, but not intermittent, schedules. Two partial responses (≥15 months and ≥ 11 months) and eight stable diseases ≥ 4 months (median, 8 months [4 to 14.5 months]) were seen in patients who received durvalumab plus olaparib, yielding an 83% disease control rate. Six partial responses (≥ 5 to ≥ 8 months) and three stable diseases ≥ 4 months (4 to ≥ 8 months) were seen in 12 evaluable patients who received durvalumab plus cediranib, for a 50% response rate and a 75% disease control rate. Response to therapy was independent of PD-L1 expression. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first reported anti–PD-L1 plus olaparib or cediranib combination therapy. The RP2Ds of durvalumab plus olaparib and durvalumab plus intermittent cediranib are tolerable and active. Phase II studies with biomarker evaluation are ongoing.

Purpose: Preclinical studies suggest PARP inhibition (PARPi) induces immunostimulatory micromilieu in ovarian cancer thus complementing activity of immune checkpoint blockade. We conducted a phase II trial of PARPi olaparib and anti–PD-L1 durvalumab and collected paired fresh core biopsies and blood samples to test this hypothesis. Patients and Methods: In a single-center, proof-of-concept phase II study, we enrolled women aged ≥18 with recurrent ovarian cancer. All patients were immune checkpoint inhibitor–naïve and had measurable disease per RECISTv1.1, ECOG performance status 0–2, and adequate organ and marrow function. Patients received olaparib 300 mg twice daily and durvalumab 1,500 mg intravenously every 4 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives were safety and progression-free survival (PFS). Translational objectives included biomarker evaluation for relationships with clinical response and immunomodulatory effects by treatment. Results: Thirty-five patients with ovarian cancer [median, four prior therapies (IQR, 2–5.5), predominantly platinum-resistant (86%), BRCA wild-type (77%)] received at least one full cycle of treatment. ORR was 14% [5/35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 4.8%–30.3%]. Disease control rate (PR+SD) was 71% (25/35; 95% CI, 53.7%–85.4%). Treatment enhanced IFNγ and CXCL9/CXCL10 expression, systemic IFNγ/TNFα production, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, indicating an immunostimulatory environment. Increased IFNγ production was associated with improved PFS [HR, 0.37 (95% CI, 0.16–0.87), P = 0.023], while elevated VEGFR3 levels were associated with worse PFS (HR, 3.22 (95% CI, 1.23–8.40), P = 0.017]. Conclusions: The PARPi and anti–PD-L1 combination showed modest clinical activity in recurrent ovarian cancer. Our correlative study results suggest immunomodulatory effects by olaparib/durvalumab in patients and indicate that VEGF/VEGFR pathway blockade would be necessary for improved efficacy of the combination.

Olaparib has single-agent activity against breast/ovarian cancer (BrCa/OvCa) in germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers (gBRCAm). We hypothesized addition of olaparib to carboplatin can be administered safely and yield preliminary clinical activity. Eligible patients had measurable or evaluable disease, gBRCAm, and good end-organ function. A 3 + 3 dose escalation tested daily oral capsule olaparib (100 or 200mg every 12 hours; dose level1 or 2) with carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) on day 8 (AUC3 day 8), then every 21 days. For dose levels 3 to 6, patients were given olaparib days 1 to 7 at 200 and 400 mg every 12 hours, with carboplatin AUC3 to 5 on day 1 or 2 every 21 days; a maximum of eight combination cycles were permitted, after which daily maintenance of olaparib 400mg every12 hours continued until progression. Dose-limiting toxicity was defined in the first two cycles. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were collected for polymorphism analysis and polyADP-ribose incorporation. Paired tumor biopsies (before/after cycle 1) were obtained for biomarker proteomics and apoptosis endpoints. Forty-five women (37 OvCa/8 BrCa) were treated. Dose-limiting toxicity was not reached on the intermittent schedule. Expansion proceeded with olaparib 400mg every 12 hours on days 1 to 7/carboplatin AUC5. Grade 3/4 adverse events included neutropenia (42.2%), thrombocytopenia (20.0%), and anemia (15.6%). Responses included 1 complete response (1 BrCa; 23 months) and 21 partial responses (50.0%; 15 OvCa; 6 BrCa; median = 16 [4 to >45] in OvCa and 10 [6 to >40] months in BrCa). Proteomic analysis suggests high pretreatment pS209-eIF4E and FOXO3a correlated with duration of response (two-sided P < .001; Pearson’s R² = 0.94). Olaparib capsules 400mg every 12 hours on days 1 to 7/carboplatin AUC5 is safe and has activity in gBRCAm BrCa/OvCa patients. Exploratory translational studies indicate pretreatment tissue FOXO3a expression may be predictive for response to therapy, requiring prospective validation.

Insights from basic science dissecting carcinogenesis in the fallopian tube and ovary have led to a deeper understanding of the origin, molecular characteristics, and types of ovarian cancers. This logically then has led to the development of novel approaches to treat ovarian cancer. Increasingly, novel agents are being developed to target the different growth pathways. The identification of molecular markers associated with different histopathologies has resulted in newer clinical trial designs to capture both clinical and translational endpoints. Unique molecular characteristics in DNA damage and repair pathways and unique cell surface markers have driven new drug development, yielding promise for both patients with platinum‐sensitive and platinum‐resistant ovarian cancers. Specific examples described include the histology‐selective mutations, such as ARID1A in clear cell and endometrioid ovarian cancers; the rationale for using cell cycle checkpoint inhibitors when there already is a p53‐mediated loss of cell cycle checkpoint regulation or combinations of agents that will both induce neoantigen formation and unleash immune modulators; and techniques to enhance the therapeutic delivery of known agents. A systematic and thoughtful approach to combining agents in clinical trials is needed so that irrespective of the trial outcomes, the results inform both clinical and translational endpoints.