DNA repair biomarkers to guide usage of combined PARP inhibitors and chemotherapy: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

PURPOSE: The addition of PARP inhibitors to chemotherapy has been assessed in > 80 clinical trials across multiple malignancies, on the premise that PARP inhibitors will increase chemotherapy effectiveness regardless of whether cancers have underlying disruption of DNA repair pathways. Consequently, the majority of combination therapy trials have been performed on patients without biomarker selection, despite the use of homologous recombination deficiency to dictate use of PARP inhibitors in the maintenance setting. An unresolved question is whether biomarkers are needed to identify patients who respond to combination PARP inhibitors and chemotherapy. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified studies using PARP inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, where the study included a biomarker of DNA repair function (BRCA1, BRCA2, homologous recombination deficiency test, ATM, ERCC1, SLFN11). Hazard ratios (HR) were pooled in a meta-analysis using generic inverse-variance, and fixed or random effects modelling. Subgroup analyses were conducted on biomarker selection and type of malignancy. RESULTS: Nine studies comprising 2547 patients met the inclusion criteria. Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly better in patients with a DNA repair biomarker (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.48-0.68, p < 0.00001), but there was no benefit in patients who lacked a biomarker (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.82-1.08, p = 0.38). Subgroup analysis showed that BRCA status and SLFN11 biomarkers could predict benefit, and biomarker-driven benefit occurred in ovarian, breast and small cell lung cancers. The addition of PARP inhibitors to chemotherapy was associated with increased grade 3/4 side effects, and particularly neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy only improves PFS in patients with identifiable DNA repair biomarkers. This indicates that PARP inhibitors do not sensitise patients to chemotherapy treatment, except where their cancer has a homologous recombination defect, or an alternative biomarker of altered DNA repair. While effective in patients with DNA repair biomarkers, there is a risk of high-grade haematological side-effects with the use of combination therapy. Thus, the benefit in PFS from combination therapy must be weighed against potential adverse effects, as individual arms of treatment can also confer benefit.

High cyclin E1 protein, but not gene amplification, is prognostic for basal-like breast cancer.

Basal-like breast cancer (BLBC) has a greater overlap in molecular features with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) than with other breast cancer subtypes. Similarities include BRCA1 mutation, high frequency of TP53 mutation, and amplification of CCNE1 (encoding the cyclin E1 protein) in 6-34% of cases, and these features can be used to group patients for targeted therapies in clinical trials. In HGSOC, we previously reported two subsets with high levels of cyclin E1: those in which CCNE1 is amplified, have intact homologous recombination (HR), and very poor prognosis; and a CCNE1 non-amplified subset, with more prevalent HR defects. Here, we investigate whether similar subsets are identifiable in BLBC that may allow alignment of patient grouping in clinical trials of agents targeting cyclin E1 overexpression. We examined cyclin E1 protein and CCNE1 amplification in a cohort of 76 BLBCs and validated the findings in additional breast cancer datasets. Compared to HGSOC, CCNE1 amplified BLBC had a lower level of amplification (3.5 versus 5.2 copies) and lower relative cyclin E1 protein, a lack of correlation of amplification with expression, and no association with polyploidy. BLBC with elevated cyclin E1 protein also had prevalent HR defects, and high-level expression of the cyclin E1 deubiquitinase ubiquitin-specific protease 28 (USP28). Using a meta-analysis across multiple studies, we determined that cyclin E1 protein overexpression but not amplification is prognostic in BLBC, while both cyclin E1 overexpression and amplification are prognostic in HGSOC. Overall CCNE1 gene amplification is not equivalent between BLBC and HGSOC. However, high cyclin E1 protein expression can co-occur with HR defects in both BLBC and HGSOC, and is associated with poor prognosis in BLBC.

Synergistic targeting of BRCA1 mutated breast cancers with PARP and CDK2 inhibition.

Basal-like breast cancers (BLBC) are aggressive breast cancers that respond poorly to targeted therapies and chemotherapies. In order to define therapeutically targetable subsets of BLBC we examined two markers: cyclin E1 and BRCA1 loss. In high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) these markers are mutually exclusive, and define therapeutic subsets. We tested the same hypothesis for BLBC. Using a BLBC cohort enriched for BRCA1 loss, we identified convergence between BRCA1 loss and high cyclin E1 protein expression, in contrast to HGSOC in which CCNE1 amplification drives increased cyclin E1. In cell lines, BRCA1 loss was associated with stabilized cyclin E1 during the cell cycle, and BRCA1 siRNA led to increased cyclin E1 in association with reduced phospho-cyclin E1 T62. Mutation of cyclin E1 T62 to alanine increased cyclin E1 stability. We showed that tumors with high cyclin E1/BRCA1 mutation in the BLBC cohort also had decreased phospho-T62, supporting this hypothesis. Since cyclin E1/CDK2 protects cells from DNA damage and cyclin E1 is elevated in BRCA1 mutant cancers, we hypothesized that CDK2 inhibition would sensitize these cancers to PARP inhibition. CDK2 inhibition induced DNA damage and synergized with PARP inhibitors to reduce cell viability in cell lines with homologous recombination deficiency, including BRCA1 mutated cell lines. Treatment of BRCA1 mutant BLBC patient-derived xenograft models with combination PARP and CDK2 inhibition led to tumor regression and increased survival. We conclude that BRCA1 status and high cyclin E1 have potential as predictive biomarkers to dictate the therapeutic use of combination CDK inhibitors/PARP inhibitors in BLBC.