A decade of clinical development of PARP inhibitors in perspective.

Genomic instability is a hallmark of cancer, and often is the result of altered DNA repair capacities in tumour cells. DNA damage repair defects are common in different cancer types; these alterations can also induce tumour-specific vulnerabilities that can be exploited therapeutically. In 2009, a first-in-man clinical trial of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib clinically validated the synthetic lethal interaction between inhibition of PARP1, a key sensor of DNA damage, and BRCA1/BRCA2 deficiency. In this review, we summarize a decade of PARP inhibitor clinical development, a work that has resulted in the registration of several PARP inhibitors in breast (olaparib and talazoparib) and ovarian cancer (olaparib, niraparib and rucaparib, either alone or following platinum chemotherapy as maintenance therapy). Over the past 10 years, our knowledge on the mechanism of action of PARP inhibitor as well as how tumours become resistant has been extended, and we summarise this work here. We also discuss opportunities for expanding the precision medicine approach with PARP inhibitors, identifying a wider population who could benefit from this drug class. This includes developing and validating better predictive biomarkers for patient stratification, mainly based on homologous recombination defects beyond BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations, identifying DNA repair deficient tumours in other cancer types such as prostate or pancreatic cancer, or by designing combination therapies with PARP inhibitors.

RAD51 foci as a functional biomarker of homologous recombination repair and PARP inhibitor resistance in germline BRCA-mutated breast cancer.

Background: BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2)-deficient tumors display impaired homologous recombination repair (HRR) and enhanced sensitivity to DNA damaging agents or to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi). Their efficacy in germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-mutated metastatic breast cancers has been recently confirmed in clinical trials. Numerous mechanisms of PARPi resistance have been described, whose clinical relevance in gBRCA-mutated breast cancer is unknown. This highlights the need to identify functional biomarkers to better predict PARPi sensitivity. Patients and methods: We investigated the in vivo mechanisms of PARPi resistance in gBRCA1 patient-derived tumor xenografts (PDXs) exhibiting differential response to PARPi. Analysis included exome sequencing and immunostaining of DNA damage response proteins to functionally evaluate HRR. Findings were validated in a retrospective sample set from gBRCA1/2-cancer patients treated with PARPi. Results: RAD51 nuclear foci, a surrogate marker of HRR functionality, were the only common feature in PDX and patient samples with primary or acquired PARPi resistance. Consistently, low RAD51 was associated with objective response to PARPi. Evaluation of the RAD51 biomarker in untreated tumors was feasible due to endogenous DNA damage. In PARPi-resistant gBRCA1 PDXs, genetic analysis found no in-frame secondary mutations, but BRCA1 hypomorphic proteins in 60% of the models, TP53BP1-loss in 20% and RAD51-amplification in one sample, none mutually exclusive. Conversely, one of three PARPi-resistant gBRCA2 tumors displayed BRCA2 restoration by exome sequencing. In PDXs, PARPi resistance could be reverted upon combination of a PARPi with an ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) inhibitor. Conclusion: Detection of RAD51 foci in gBRCA tumors correlates with PARPi resistance regardless of the underlying mechanism restoring HRR function. This is a promising biomarker to be used in the clinic to better select patients for PARPi therapy. Our study also supports the clinical development of PARPi combinations such as those with ATM inhibitors.