Phase II Trial of Veliparib and Temozolomide in Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients With and Without BRCA1/2mutations

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-268461/v1

PDF

Research Article

Phase II Trial of Veliparib and Temozolomide in Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients With and Without BRCA1/2mutations

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-268461/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 20 Aug, 2021

Read the published version in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Purpose: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of poly-(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) 1 and 2 inhibitor veliparib and temozolomide in metastatic breast cancer patients with and without germline BRCA1/2 mutations.

Methods: In this single-arm phase II trial, patients with metastatic breast cancer received veliparib 30 to 40 mg twice daily on days 1 to 7 with concurrent temozolomide 150 mg/m² on days 1 to 5 of a 28-day cycle. The primary cohort was unselected for BRCA mutation status, and an expansion cohort enrolled only BRCA1/2 carriers. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in each cohort. Secondary endpoints included progression free survival (PFS), clinical benefit rate (CBR), and evaluation of safety and tolerability.

Results: In the primary cohort of 41 unselected patients, which included 9 BRCA mutation carriers, the ORR was 10% and clinical benefit rate at 4 months (CBR) was 27%. In the expansion cohort of 21 BRCA1/2 carriers, the ORR was 14% and CBR was 43%. Among all 30 BRCA1/2 carriers, the ORR was 23% versus 0% among non-carriers. In the subset of BRCA1/2 carriers, the ORR was 32% among platinum-naïve patients versus 9% among platinum-exposed patients. The median PFS was 3.3 months among BRCA1/2 carriers compared to 1.8 months among non-carriers (HR: 0.48, p = 0.006). A longer median PFS of 6.2 months was observed among BRCA1/2 carriers who had no prior platinum therapy. The most common grade 3 and 4 toxicities were thrombocytopenia (32%) and neutropenia (21%) that generally improved with dose modifications.

Conclusion: Veliparib and temozolomide demonstrated clinical activity in platinum-naïve BRCA-associated metastatic breast cancer with manageable toxicity at doses of veliparib well below the single agent active dose. Although the study did not meet its primary endpoint in unselected nor BRCA-associated breast cancer, this regimen was further evaluated in the BROCADE 2 study.

Trial registration: NCT01009788 (ClinicalTrials.gov), November 9, 2009

Cancer Biology

breast cancer

BRCA mutations

PARP inhibitor

alkylating agent

veliparib

temozolomide

BRCA 1/2 deficient breast cancers account for 5–10% of all breast cancers and about 20–25% of hereditary breast cancers [1–3]. Women with germline BRCA1/2 mutations have a cumulative risk for developing breast cancer ranging from 49–57% by age 70 [4]. Poly-(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors promote synthetic lethality in BRCA-mutant cells [5, 6]. PARP enzymes are responsible for the repair of single stranded DNA breaks through base excision repair (BER). The inhibition of PARP causes single-strand DNA breaks to be converted into double-strand DNA breaks, which are repaired by the homologous recombination (HR) pathway. BRCA1 and BRCA2 play important roles in HR double-strand break repair, and this pathway is defective in BRCA-mutant cells [5]. Additionally, PARP inhibitors can trap PARP enzymes at damaged DNA sites by forming DNA-PARP inhibitor complexes, which can cause DNA damage and cell death [7]. In the presence of BRCA deficiency, PARP inhibition sensitizes tumor cells to DNA-damaging chemotherapies, such as platinum compounds, topoisomerase inhibitors, and alkylating agents [5].

Clinical studies in breast cancer have demonstrated that certain single-agent PARP inhibitors have substantial antitumor activity in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. This has led to the approval of olaparib and talazoparib for germline BRCA-mutated, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer [6, 8, 9]. Combination regimens of PARP inhibitors with chemotherapy agents, targeted therapies, antibody drug conjugates, checkpoint inhibitors, and other therapies are currently being explored. The optimal combination agent for PARP inhibitors in breast cancer remains unknown [10–14]. Early studies reported PARP inhibition potentiates the activity of temozolomide (TMZ), an orally administered alkylating agent, which has the advantage of crossing the blood-brain barrier (BBB) [15–19]. Veliparib, an investigational oral PARP-1 and PARP-2 inhibitor, also efficiently crosses the BBB [20]. Single-agent TMZ demonstrated no significant clinical activity in metastatic breast cancer [21, 22]. However, in preclinical studies, veliparib potentiated the activity of TMZ, demonstrating anti-tumor activity in in vivo models of breast cancer, including tumors resistant to TMZ monotherapy [23]. In clinical settings, this combination has demonstrated activity in relapsed small cell lung cancer, metastatic colorectal cancer, and acute myeloid leukemia and may represent a promising treatment option for metastatic breast cancer [24–26].

In this phase II trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of veliparib and TMZ in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The initial cohort of 41patients included all subtypes of MBC, and an expansion cohort of 21 patients included only patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated MBC.

Patients

The initial study population included patients with all subtypes of metastatic breast cancer treated with at least one prior line of chemotherapy for metastatic disease. The expansion cohort enrolled patients with metastatic breast cancer and a known deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation, without limitation on prior treatment. Other eligibility criteria included measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 [27], normal organ and marrow function, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of ≤ 2. Both cohorts allowed for previously treated stable brain metastases. Key exclusion criteria included treatment with chemotherapy, biological therapy, targeted therapy, or radiotherapy within 2 weeks, or anti-cancer hormonal therapy within 24 hours before starting the study treatment.

Study Design and Treatment

This open-label single-arm phase II study was conducted at Massachusetts General Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

The study treatment consisted of veliparib on days 1 through 7 with concurrent TMZ on days 1 through 5 of a 28-day cycle. The study initially dosed veliparib at 40 mg oral twice daily and later reduced veliparib to 30 mg twice daily for all patients after one patient experienced grade 4 thrombocytopenia during the first cycle of treatment. The expansion cohort dosed veliparib at 30 mg twice daily for all patients. All patients in both cohorts received TMZ 150 mg/m² oral once daily, which was increased to 200 mg/m² in cycle 2 as tolerated.

Patients received study treatment until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, withdrawal of consent, or loss to follow-up. Treatment could be interrupted for grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxicities for up to 21 days, after which the study drugs were stopped if the toxicity was still not resolved. Only one dose reduction was allowed for veliparib before discontinuation of study treatment, and the TMZ dose could not be reduced below 75 mg/m² daily.

Study Endpoints and Assessment

The primary endpoint of the study was objective response rate (ORR) based on tumor assessment every 8 weeks according to RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 4 months, progression free survival (PFS), and adverse event rate. CBR at 4 months was defined as the percentage of patients who had CR, PR, or SD for greater than 16 weeks of follow up. Adverse events were assessed according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).

Statistical Analysis

A target ORR of 20% was considered to be of clinical benefit for this combination regimen in the primary cohort based on the fact that TMZ showed no single-agent activity in breast cancer at that time. A sample size of 41 was estimated to have 93% power to detect a response rate of 20% compared to a null response rate of 5% at a one-sided significance level of 0.05. If at least 8 of 41 patients (20%) had response (CR/PR), this combination therapy would warrant further investigation. Based on the initial finding that 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers achieved a partial response in the primary cohort, a target ORR response rate of 45% was selected for the expansion cohort, with a null response rate of 15% deemed to be of little clinical interest. The enrollment of 20 patients provided 87% power to identify the combination as worthy of further investigation if the true response rate was 45% at a one-sided significance level of 0.025. If at least 7 of 20 patients had response (CR/PR) at the end, this combination therapy would warrant further investigation.

Efficacy analyses were assessed in all patients, who received at least one cycle of study drugs. ORR and CBR at 4 months were reported as point estimates with 90% confidence intervals. PFS, defined as the time from enrollment until disease progression or death, was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. In subgroup analyses stratified by BRCA1/2 mutation status and prior platinum therapy, ORR and median PFS (mPFS) were compared by the Fisher’s exact test and log rank test, respectively. Safety data were evaluated for all patients who received at least one dose of either study drug.

Patient Characteristics

Of 63 patients with metastatic breast cancer were enrolled in this study, 62 patients received study drug and were included in the analysis. The primary cohort included 41 patients unselected for BRCA1/2 mutations or breast cancer subtype, and the expansion cohort included 21 patients who all had BRCA1/2 deleterious mutations.

Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of patients in these two cohorts. Most patients had an ECOG score of less than 2 and one patient in the primary cohort was male. The primary cohort included TNBC (54%), HR+ (37 %), and HER2+ (10%) patients, while the expansion cohort included predominantly HR + patients (57%). Nine of 41 (22%) patients in the initial cohort had BRCA1/2 mutations compared to all subjects in the expansion cohort. The most common metastatic sites were lymph nodes in the primary cohort and bone lesions in the expansion cohort. The median number of prior chemotherapeutic, hormonal, or HER2 directed regimens was 3 (range, 1–9) in the primary cohort and 2 (range, 0–9) in the expansion cohort. A total of 14 patients (34%) in the primary cohort and eight patients (38%) in the expansion cohort had received prior platinum therapy for metastatic disease.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics
Characteristics	Primary Cohort (n = 41)	Expansion Cohort (n = 21)	Total (n = 62)
Median age, yr (range)	50 (31–68)	46 (29–81)	48 (29–81)
Female sex, no. (%)	40 (98)	21 (100)	61 (98)
ECOG Performance Status, no. (%)
0	21 (51)	11 (52)	32 (52)
1	17 (42)	9 (43)	26 (42)
2	3 (7)	0 (0)	3 (5)
Subtypes, no. (%)
TNBC	22 (54)	8 (38)	30 (48)
HR + HER2-	15 (37)	12 (57)	27 (44)
HER2+	4 (10)	1 (5)	5 (8)
BRCA mutation status, no. (%)
BRCA1	3 (7)	9 (43)	12 (19)
BRCA2	6 (15)	12 (57)	18 (29)
Sites of disease, no. (%)
Bone	26 (63)	15 (71)	41 (66)
Lung	23 (56)	10 (48)	33 (53)
Liver	20 (49)	12 (57)	32 (52)
CNS	7 (17)	6 (29)	13 (21)
Lymph nodes	29 (71)	9 (43)	38 (61)
Prior lines therapies for metastatic diseases, median (range)	3 (1–9)	2 (0–9)	3 (0–9)
Prior platinum treatment, no. (%)	14 (34)	8 (38)	22 (36)

Response to Treatment

Of 62 patients who received treatment, 10 patients had no follow-up imaging due to rapid clinical progression (7 in the primary cohort and 2 in the expansion cohort) or early death (one subject in the expansion cohort). Thirty-four patients in the primary cohort and 18 patients in the expansion cohort were evaluable for response (Table 2).

Table 2

**Best objective response to treatment** ^a
Response, n (%)	Primary Cohort (n = 41)	Expansion Cohort (n = 21)	Total (n = 62)
CR	1 (2)	0	1 (2)
PR	3 (7)	3 (14)	6 (8)
SD	13 (32)	10 (48)	23 (37)
PD	17 (41)	5 (24)	22 (35)
NE	7 (17)^b	3 (14)^c	10 (16)
ORR	4 (9)	3 (14)	7 (11)
CBR at 4 mo	11 (27)	9 (43)	20 (32)
^a This table shows the number of patients with each response (%) in the primary cohort, the expansion cohort and the total study population; the denominators used in all calculations consisted of the total numbers of patients in each group; The subgroup analyses by status of BRCA1/2 mutation and the prior platinum treatment are presented in Table 3;
^b 7 patients had no follow-up imaging due to rapid clinical progression; one of these patients had a BRCA2 mutation;
^c Patients had no follow-up imaging due to rapid clinical progression (n = 2) or early death (n = 1);
Abbreviations: CR, Complete response; PR, Partial response; SD, Stable disease; PD, Progressive disease; NE, Non-evaluable; ORR, objective response rate; CBR at 4 mo, Clinical benefit rate at 4 months

In the combined overall population of 62 patients, the ORR (CR + PR) was 12% (7/62) and the CBR at 4 months was 32% (20/62); the primary cohort had a 10% (4/41) ORR and 27% (11/41) CBR at 4 months, while the BRCA1/2 expansion cohort had a 14% (3/21) ORR and 43% (9/21) CBR at 4 months. The waterfall plots demonstrated the best overall response of evaluable patients in each cohort (Supplemental Fig. 1). In the primary cohort (n = 34 evaluable, Supplemental Fig. 1A), all four patients who achieved CR or PR had BRCA1/2 mutations. Thirteen patients in this cohort, including one who had an unconfirmed partial response, demonstrated stable disease according to RECIST 1.1 criteria. Seventeen patients had PD, including eight with stable target lesions but with non-target progression or new lesions elsewhere. In the BRCA1/2-positive expansion cohort (n = 18 evaluable, Supplemental Fig. 1B), three patients achieved PR, an additional 10 patients had SD, and five patients had PD, including one patient who achieved SD in target lesions but had new lesions. Combining both cohorts, all seven patients who had achieved a response (CR or PR) were BRCA1/2 carriers, including five patients with BRCA2 mutations and two patients with BRCA1 mutations (Fig. 1). There were no responses in patients without BRCA1/2 mutations (Figs. 1 and 2).

In an exploratory subgroup analysis stratified by prior platinum treatment (Table 3), the ORR was 15% (6/40) among platinum-naïve patients versus 5% (1/22) among platinum-exposed patients. The CBR at 4 months was 38% (15/40) in the platinum-naïve group compared to 23% (5/22) in the platinum-exposed group.

Table 3

Subgroup responses to treatment by *BRCA1/2* mutation status and prior platinum treatment
Response n (%)	BRCA1/2 mutation		Prior platinum treatment		BRCA mutation		No BRCA mutation
	Yes (n = 30)	No (n = 32)	Yes (n = 22)	No (n = 40)	Prior platinum Tx (Yes, n = 11)	Prior platinum Tx (No, n = 19)	Prior platinum Tx (Yes, n = 11)	Prior platinum Tx (No, n = 21)
CR	1 (3)	0	0	1 (3)	0	1 (5)	0	0
PR	6 (20)	0	1(5)	5 (13)	1 (9)	5 (26)	0	0
SD	12 (40)	11 (34)	5 (23)	18 (45)	3 (27)	9 (47)	2 (18)	9 (43)
PD	7 (23)	15 (47)	11 (50)	11 (28)	4 (36)	3 (16)	7 (64)	8 (38)
NE	4 (13)	6 (19)	5 (23)	5 (13)	3(27)	1 (5)	2 (18)	4 (19)
ORR	7 (23)	0	1 (5)	6 (15)	1 (9)	6 (32)*	0	0
CBR at 4 mo	14 (47)	6 (19)	5 (23)	15 (38)	3(27)	11 (58)*	2 (18)	4 (19)
* P < 0.01 comparing this group to all other groups by the Fisher’s Exact test
Abbreviations: CR, Complete response; PR, Partial response; SD, Stable disease; PD, Progressive disease; NE, Non-evaluable; ORR, objective response rate; CBR at 4 mo, Clinical benefit rate at 4 months

In the subgroup analysis based on BRCA1/2 mutation status (Table 3 and Fig. 1), the ORR was 23% (7/30) among BRCA1/2 carriers compared to 0% (0/32) among non-carriers. Of these seven patients, six had no previous platinum treatment (Fig. 2) and one had prior platinum exposure but did not have documented progression on platinum therapy. The CBR at 4 months was 47% (14/30) for BRCA1/2 carriers versus 19% (6/32) for non-carriers. Furthermore, platinum-naïve patients with BRCA1/2 mutations had an ORR of 32% (6/19) and a 4-month CBR of 58% (11/19), while platinum-exposed patients with BRCA1/2 mutations had an ORR of 9% (1/11) and a 4-month CBR of 27% (3/11; Table 3 and Fig. 2).

Comparing the different subtypes of metastatic breast cancer (Supplemental Table 1), the ORRs were 19% (5/27), 17% (1/6), and 3% (1/29) for HR+, HER2 + and TNBC, respectively, while the 4-month CBR rates were 41% (11/27), 50% (3/6), and 21% (6/29) for HR+, HER2 + and TNBC, respectively.

Survival analysis

The median PFS was 2.1 months (90% CI, 1.8 to 3.0 mo) in the overall population (Fig. 3A), and 1.8 months and 3 months in the primary and expansion cohorts, respectively (Supplemental Fig. 2). The median PFS among BRCA1/2 carriers was 3.3 months (90% CI, 2.3 to 6.2 mo) compared to 1.8 months (90% CI, 1.6 to 2.3 mo) among non-carriers (HR: 0.48, p = 0.006; Fig. 3B). Among patients who had not received prior platinum therapy, the median PFS was 2.7 months (90% CI, 1.9 to 4.0 mo) compared to 1.9 months (90% CI, 1.3 to 2.3 mo) among patients who had received prior platinum therapy (HR: 0.45, p = 0.005; Fig. 3C). Patients who were BRCA1/2 carriers without prior platinum therapy had a significantly prolonged progression-free survival (mPFS 6.2 mo; 90% CI, 3.7 to 7.3 mo) compared to other groups (HR: 0.34, p = 0.0003; Fig. 3D). One patient, a BRCA2 carrier who had no prior platinum therapy, had a durable complete remission for at least 5 years as of last contact. No significant difference in PFS was observed by breast cancer subtype (Supplemental Fig. 3).

Safety

All 62 patients who received at least one dose of veliparib and TMZ were considered for safety evaluation. Patients had a median treatment duration of 9 weeks (range 0.1 to 85 weeks), with a median daily dose of 60 mg (range, 40 to 80mg) for veliparib and 200 mg (range, 75 to 480 mg) for TMZ. A total of 27 and 26 patients had a dose delay on veliparib and TMZ respectively; 29 patients (47%) had a dose modification on TMZ.

Of the 62 patients, one patient received only one dose of veliparib and TMZ and experienced no treatment-related adverse events. The most common all-grade AEs were thrombocytopenia, nausea, fatigue, anemia, and leukocytosis (Table 4), and the most frequent grade 3 or higher AEs were thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, leukocytosis, nausea, and vomiting. The most common AEs that caused dose delays or modifications were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. One patient discontinued study treatment due to prolonged thrombocytopenia. Another patient died of sepsis after receiving 4 cycles of treatment.

Table 4

Treatment-related adverse events
Event	All Grade	Grade3	Grade 4	Grade 5
Event	n (%) (Total n = 62)
Thrombocytopenia	51 (82)	20 (32)	11 (18)
Nausea	45 (73)	6 (10)
Fatigue	37 (60)	4 (6)
Anemia	36 (58)	4 (6)	1 (2)
Leukocytosis	33 (53)	10 (16)
Neutropenia	32 (52)	13 (21)	4 (6)
Vomiting	21 (34)	5 (8)
Lymphopenia	19 (31)	4 (6)
Anorexia	13 (21)	1 (2)
ALT, SGPT	12 (19)	0
Alkaline phosphatase	10 (16)	0
Headache	10 (16)	2 (3)
Constipation	9 (15)	0
Diarrhea	9 (15)	1 (2)
Hypokalemia	9 (15)	1 (2)
AST, SGOT	8 (13)	0
Hyperglycemia	7 (11)	0
Febrile neutropenia	3 (5)	2 (3)	1 (2)
Dyspnea	3 (5)	1 (2)	1 (2)
Anxiety	2 (3)	1 (2)
Allergic reaction	1 (2)	1 (2)
Infection, lung	1 (2)	1 (2)		1 (2)
Hypoxia	1 (2)	1 (2)	1 (2)

Although neither cohort in this study met the prespecified target ORR, the combination of veliparib and TMZ demonstrated antitumor activity among metastatic breast cancer patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, particularly those who had not received prior platinum chemotherapy. The objective response rate was significantly greater and the median PFS was significantly longer among BRCA1/2 carriers than non-carriers, and among patients who had not received prior platinum chemotherapy than those who had. A higher ORR (32%) and CBR at 4 mo (58%), and a longer PFS (6.2 mo) were observed in the subset of BRCA1/2-positive patients who had not received prior platinum therapy. Although the study was initially designed to test the hypothesis that the combination of TMZ and veliparib was active in metastatic breast cancer regardless of BRCA mutation status, there was no clinical activity observed in non-carriers despite encouraging preclinical data.

This was the first study to evaluate the efficacy of veliparib and TMZ in breast cancer. A previous trial of single-agent veliparib (400 mg BID) in platinum-naïve BRCA-mutant breast cancer showed response rates of 14% (3/22) for BRCA1 + patients and 36% (8/22) BRCA2 + patients [28]. These response rates were comparable to the ORR of 32% observed in this study among platinum-naïve BRCA + patients (Table 3). Notably, patients in the present study received veliparib twice daily at 30–40 mg, about one tenth of the dose used in the previous trial, suggesting that the observed activity in our study was unlikely due to the single agent activity of veliparib. Rather, our data support that TMZ enhanced the efficacy of veliparib in BRCA-deficient patients. The observation that this combination led to responses only in patients with BRCA1/2 deficiency suggests that responses were dependent on the mechanism of synthetic lethality, in which inhibition of PARP in the presence of BRCA deficiency made cancer cells more vulnerable to TMZ-induced DNA damage. This may explain why the addition of TMZ to veliparib exhibited antitumor efficacy at a lower dose of veliparib, whereas single-agent veliparib required a higher dose for clinical activity in this population [28].

In this study, the combination of veliparib and TMZ had no activity in patients who had progressed on prior platinum therapy. This result is consistent with prior work showing that PARP inhibitors and platinum agents share common mechanisms of resistance [29, 30, 7], at least partly explained by secondary somatic mutations that restore the function of BRCA1/2 proteins [31, 29, 32]. Other overlapping resistance mechanisms to both PARP inhibitors and platinum therapy include microRNA-mediated restoration of HR, replication fork stabilization, PARP1 mutations, and drug efflux pumps [33, 7, 34].

Previous studies showed PARP inhibition potentiates the activity of TMZ and exacerbates TMZ hematological toxicity [15–19]. Accordingly, thrombocytopenia was the most common hematological toxicity in this study. The severity of hematologic toxicities in this study was comparable to a subsequent study with the same combination regimen [14] and was more prominent than in patients receiving veliparib monotherapy [28]. One patient in this study discontinued treatment due to thrombocytopenia, and another patient died due to severe infection possibly related to the study treatment. The observed hematological toxicity was effectively managed in most patients with dose reductions of TMZ.

This proof-of-concept phase II study had several limitations. The single-arm design and lack of a comparison group prevent drawing conclusions about the efficacy of this combination therapy compared to single-agent veliparib. Furthermore, although TMZ has no demonstrated activity in metastatic breast cancer, it has not been evaluated in breast cancer patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. Additionally, the small sample size precluded analyses with adequate power to detect enhanced efficacy in subgroups. Despite these limitations, this study suggested that veliparib with TMZ had clinical activity in platinum-naïve BRCA-deficient breast cancer patients and led to a multicenter randomized phase II BROCADE study of veliparib and TMZ compared to carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without veliparib among patients with BRCA-associated metastatic breast cancer [35, 14]. The BROCADE trial found that TMZ with veliparib yielded inferior ORR and PFS compared to carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without veliparib [14]. Thus, veliparib combined with platinum-based regimens had better efficacy than veliparib combined with TMZ. The subsequent phase III BROCADE3 trial evaluated the efficacy of carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without veliparib in BRCA1/2-deficient MBC and confirmed improved PFS with the addition of veliparib (HR 0.71) [36].

In this phase II study, veliparib and TMZ showed efficacy in patients with BRCA-deficient metastatic breast cancer with no prior platinum treatment that was comparable to single-agent veliparib at a higher dose. However, the study did not meet its primary response rate endpoint in patients with MBC unselected for BRCA mutations, nor in patients with known BRCA mutation. The regimen was predominantly associated with hematologic adverse events manageable with dose modifications.

Acknowledgements We gratefully thank all of the patients and their families for their participation. We thank our oncology colleagues and research staff at the participating sites for their support. This work was supported by AbbVie Inc.

Funding This study was conducted with funding support from AbbVie Inc.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest The corresponding author SJI has received institutional research funding and consulting fees from Abbvie. JX, TEK, BO, NMT, RSG, KH, JEG, LWE, EPW, PEG, BYY, and BAC report no conflicts of interest to this study.

Ethical approval The study protocol and informed consent form were reviewed and approved by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center (DF/HCC) institutional review board. This study was performed in accordance to the Declaration of Helsinki and International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines.

Informed consent Written informed consent was obtained from all patients involved in the study before any study procedure.

Consent to participate Not applicable

Consent for publication Not applicable

Availability of data and material Not applicable

Code availability Not applicable

Campeau PM, Foulkes WD, Tischkowitz MD (2008) Hereditary breast cancer: new genetic developments, new therapeutic avenues. Hum Genet 124(1):31–42. doi:10.1007/s00439-008-0529-1
Easton DF, Pharoah PD, Antoniou AC, Tischkowitz M, Tavtigian SV, Nathanson KL, Devilee P, Meindl A, Couch FJ, Southey M, Goldgar DE, Evans DG, Chenevix-Trench G, Rahman N, Robson M, Domchek SM, Foulkes WD (2015) Gene-panel sequencing and the prediction of breast-cancer risk. N Engl J Med 372(23):2243–2257. doi:10.1056/NEJMsr1501341
Mahdavi M, Nassiri M, Kooshyar MM, Vakili-Azghandi M, Avan A, Sandry R, Pillai S, Lam AK, Gopalan V (2019) Hereditary breast cancer; Genetic penetrance and current status with BRCA. J Cell Physiol 234(5):5741–5750. doi:10.1002/jcp.27464
Chen S, Parmigiani G (2007) Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J Clin Oncol 25(11):1329–1333. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.09.1066
Kamel D, Gray C, Walia JS, Kumar V (2018) PARP Inhibitor Drugs in the Treatment of Breast, Ovarian, Prostate and Pancreatic Cancers: An Update of Clinical Trials. Curr Drug Targets 19(1):21–37. doi:10.2174/1389450118666170711151518
Jerez Y, Marquez-Rodas I, Aparicio I, Alva M, Martin M, Lopez-Tarruella S (2020) Poly (ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibition in Patients with Breast Cancer and BRCA 1 and 2 Mutations. Drugs 80(2):131–146. doi:10.1007/s40265-019-01235-5
D'Andrea AD (2018) Mechanisms of PARP inhibitor sensitivity and resistance. DNA Repair 71:172–176. doi:10.1016/j.dnarep.2018.08.021
Litton JK, Rugo HS, Ettl J, Hurvitz SA, Goncalves A, Lee KH, Fehrenbacher L, Yerushalmi R, Mina LA, Martin M, Roche H, Im YH, Quek RGW, Markova D, Tudor IC, Hannah AL, Eiermann W, Blum JL (2018) Talazoparib in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer and a Germline BRCA Mutation. N Engl J Med 379(8):753–763. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1802905
Robson M, Im SA, Senkus E, Xu B, Domchek SM, Masuda N, Delaloge S, Li W, Tung N, Armstrong A, Wu W, Goessl C, Runswick S, Conte P (2017) Olaparib for Metastatic Breast Cancer in Patients with a Germline BRCA Mutation. N Engl J Med 377(6):523–533. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1706450
Samol J, Ranson M, Scott E, Macpherson E, Carmichael J, Thomas A, Cassidy J (2012) Safety and tolerability of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, olaparib (AZD2281) in combination with topotecan for the treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors: a phase I study. Invest New Drugs 30(4):1493–1500. doi:10.1007/s10637-011-9682-9
Kummar S, Wade JL, Oza AM, Sullivan D, Chen AP, Gandara DR, Ji J, Kinders RJ, Wang L, Allen D, Coyne GO, Steinberg SM, Doroshow JH (2016) Randomized phase II trial of cyclophosphamide and the oral poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor veliparib in patients with recurrent, advanced triple-negative breast cancer. Invest New Drugs 34(3):355–363. doi:10.1007/s10637-016-0335-x
Rodler ET, Kurland BF, Griffin M, Gralow JR, Porter P, Yeh RF, Gadi VK, Guenthoer J, Beumer JH, Korde L, Strychor S, Kiesel BF, Linden HM, Thompson JA, Swisher E, Chai X, Shepherd S, Giranda V, Specht JM (2016) Phase I Study of Veliparib (ABT-888) Combined with Cisplatin and Vinorelbine in Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer and/or BRCA Mutation-Associated Breast Cancer. Clin Cancer Res 22(12):2855–2864. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2137
Matulonis UA, Wulf GM, Barry WT, Birrer M, Westin SN, Farooq S, Bell-McGuinn KM, Obermayer E, Whalen C, Spagnoletti T, Luo W, Liu H, Hok RC, Aghajanian C, Solit DB, Mills GB, Taylor BS, Won H, Berger MF, Palakurthi S, Liu J, Cantley LC, Winer E (2017) Phase I dose escalation study of the PI3kinase pathway inhibitor BKM120 and the oral poly (ADP ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib for the treatment of high-grade serous ovarian and breast cancer. Ann Oncol 28(3):512–518. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdw672
Han HS, Dieras V, Robson M, Palacova M, Marcom PK, Jager A, Bondarenko I, Citrin D, Campone M, Telli ML, Domchek SM, Friedlander M, Kaufman B, Garber JE, Shparyk Y, Chmielowska E, Jakobsen EH, Kaklamani V, Gradishar W, Ratajczak CK, Nickner C, Qin Q, Qian J, Shepherd SP, Isakoff SJ, Puhalla S (2018) Veliparib with temozolomide or carboplatin/paclitaxel versus placebo with carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with BRCA1/2 locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer: randomized phase II study. Ann Oncol 29(1):154–161. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx505
Boulton S, Pemberton LC, Porteous JK, Curtin NJ, Griffin RJ, Golding BT, Durkacz BW (1995) Potentiation of temozolomide-induced cytotoxicity: a comparative study of the biological effects of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. British journal of cancer 72(4):849–856. doi:10.1038/bjc.1995.423
Cheng CL, Johnson SP, Keir ST, Quinn JA, Ali-Osman F, Szabo C, Li H, Salzman AL, Dolan ME, Modrich P, Bigner DD, Friedman HS (2005) Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 inhibition reverses temozolomide resistance in a DNA mismatch repair-deficient malignant glioma xenograft. Mol Cancer Ther 4(9):1364–1368. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-05-0128
Daniel RA, Rozanska AL, Thomas HD, Mulligan EA, Drew Y, Castelbuono DJ, Hostomsky Z, Plummer ER, Boddy AV, Tweddle DA, Curtin NJ, Clifford SC (2009) Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 enhances temozolomide and topotecan activity against childhood neuroblastoma. Clin Cancer Res 15(4):1241–1249. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-1095
Miknyoczki S, Chang H, Grobelny J, Pritchard S, Worrell C, McGann N, Ator M, Husten J, Deibold J, Hudkins R, Zulli A, Parchment R, Ruggeri B (2007) The selective poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1(2) inhibitor, CEP-8983, increases the sensitivity of chemoresistant tumor cells to temozolomide and irinotecan but does not potentiate myelotoxicity. Mol Cancer Ther 6(8):2290–2302. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-07-0062
Plummer R, Jones C, Middleton M, Wilson R, Evans J, Olsen A, Curtin N, Boddy A, McHugh P, Newell D, Harris A, Johnson P, Steinfeldt H, Dewji R, Wang D, Robson L, Calvert H (2008) Phase I study of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, AG014699, in combination with temozolomide in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 14(23):7917–7923. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-1223
Nuthalapati S, Munasinghe W, Giranda V, Xiong H (2018) Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Mass Balance of Veliparib in Combination with Temozolomide in Subjects with Nonhematologic Malignancies. Clin Pharmacokinet 57(1):51–58. doi:10.1007/s40262-017-0547-z
Trudeau ME, Crump M, Charpentier D, Yelle L, Bordeleau L, Matthews S, Eisenhauer E (2006) Temozolomide in metastatic breast cancer (MBC): a phase II trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada - Clinical Trials Group (NCIC-CTG). Ann Oncol 17(6):952–956. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl056
Cao KI, Lebas N, Gerber S, Levy C, Le Scodan R, Bourgier C, Pierga JY, Gobillion A, Savignoni A, Kirova YM (2015) Phase II randomized study of whole-brain radiation therapy with or without concurrent temozolomide for brain metastases from breast cancer. Ann Oncol 26(1):89–94. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu488
Palma JP, Wang YC, Rodriguez LE, Montgomery D, Ellis PA, Bukofzer G, Niquette A, Liu X, Shi Y, Lasko L, Zhu GD, Penning TD, Giranda VL, Rosenberg SH, Frost DJ, Donawho CK (2009) ABT-888 confers broad in vivo activity in combination with temozolomide in diverse tumors. Clin Cancer Res 15(23):7277–7290. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1245
Pietanza MC, Waqar SN, Krug LM, Dowlati A, Hann CL, Chiappori A, Owonikoko TK, Woo KM, Cardnell RJ, Fujimoto J, Long L, Diao L, Wang J, Bensman Y, Hurtado B, de Groot P, Sulman EP, Wistuba II, Chen A, Fleisher M, Heymach JV, Kris MG, Rudin CM, Byers LA (2018) Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase II Study of Temozolomide in Combination With Either Veliparib or Placebo in Patients With Relapsed-Sensitive or Refractory Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol 36(23):2386–2394. doi:10.1200/JCO.2018.77.7672
Pishvaian MJ, Slack RS, Jiang W, He AR, Hwang JJ, Hankin A, Dorsch-Vogel K, Kukadiya D, Weiner LM, Marshall JL, Brody JR (2018) A phase 2 study of the PARP inhibitor veliparib plus temozolomide in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer 124(11):2337–2346. doi:10.1002/cncr.31309
Gojo I, Beumer JH, Pratz KW, McDevitt MA, Baer MR, Blackford AL, Smith BD, Gore SD, Carraway HE, Showel MM, Levis MJ, Dezern AE, Gladstone DE, Ji JJ, Wang L, Kinders RJ, Pouquet M, Ali-Walbi I, Rudek MA, Poh W, Herman JG, Karnitz LM, Kaufmann SH, Chen A, Karp JE (2017) A Phase 1 Study of the PARP Inhibitor Veliparib in Combination with Temozolomide in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Clin Cancer Res 23(3):697–706. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-0984
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, Dancey J, Arbuck S, Gwyther S, Mooney M, Rubinstein L, Shankar L, Dodd L, Kaplan R, Lacombe D, Verweij J (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 45 (2):228–247. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
Somlo G, Frankel PH, Arun BK, Ma CX, Garcia AA, Cigler T, Cream LV, Harvey HA, Sparano JA, Nanda R, Chew HK, Moynihan TJ, Vahdat LT, Goetz MP, Beumer JH, Hurria A, Mortimer J, Piekarz R, Sand S, Herzog J, Van Tongeren LR, Ferry-Galow KV, Chen AP, Ruel C, Newman EM, Gandara DR, Weitzel JN (2017) Efficacy of the PARP Inhibitor Veliparib with Carboplatin or as a Single Agent in Patients with Germline BRCA1- or BRCA2-Associated Metastatic Breast Cancer: California Cancer Consortium Trial NCT01149083. Clin Cancer Res 23(15):4066–4076. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2714
Waks AG, Cohen O, Kochupurakkal B, Kim D, Dunn CE, Buendia Buendia J, Wander S, Helvie K, Lloyd MR, Marini L, Hughes ME, Freeman SS, Ivy SP, Geradts J, Isakoff S, LoRusso P, Adalsteinsson VA, Tolaney SM, Matulonis U, Krop IE, D'Andrea AD, Winer EP, Lin NU, Shapiro GI, Wagle N (2020) Reversion and non-reversion mechanisms of resistance to PARP inhibitor or platinum chemotherapy in BRCA1/2-mutant metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2020.02.008
Choi YE, Meghani K, Brault ME, Leclerc L, He YJ, Day TA, Elias KM, Drapkin R, Weinstock DM, Dao F, Shih KK, Matulonis U, Levine DA, Konstantinopoulos PA, Chowdhury D (2016) Platinum and PARP Inhibitor Resistance Due to Overexpression of MicroRNA-622 in BRCA1-Mutant Ovarian Cancer. Cell Rep 14(3):429–439. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2015.12.046
Norquist B, Wurz KA, Pennil CC, Garcia R, Gross J, Sakai W, Karlan BY, Taniguchi T, Swisher EM (2011) Secondary somatic mutations restoring BRCA1/2 predict chemotherapy resistance in hereditary ovarian carcinomas. J Clin Oncol 29(22):3008–3015. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.34.2980
Mylavarapu S, Das A, Roy M (2018) Role of BRCA Mutations in the Modulation of Response to Platinum Therapy. Front Oncol 8:16. doi:10.3389/fonc.2018.00016
Slade D (2020) PARP and PARG inhibitors in cancer treatment. Genes Dev 34(5–6):360–394. doi:10.1101/gad.334516.119
Patel M, Nowsheen S, Maraboyina S, Xia F (2020) The role of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in the treatment of cancer and methods to overcome resistance: a review. Cell Biosci 10:35. doi:10.1186/s13578-020-00390-7
Isakoff SJ, Puhalla S, Domchek SM, Friedlander M, Kaufman B, Robson M, Telli ML, Dieras V, Han HS, Garber JE, Johnson EF, Maag D, Qin Q, Giranda VL, Shepherd SP (2017) A randomized Phase II study of veliparib with temozolomide or carboplatin/paclitaxel versus placebo with carboplatin/paclitaxel in BRCA1/2 metastatic breast cancer: design and rationale. Future Oncol 13(4):307–320. doi:10.2217/fon-2016-0412
Dieras V, Han HS, Kaufman B, Wildiers H, Friedlander M, Ayoub JP, Puhalla SL, Bondarenko I, Campone M, Jakobsen EH, Jalving M, Oprean C, Palacova M, Park YH, Shparyk Y, Yanez E, Khandelwal N, Kundu MG, Dudley M, Ratajczak CK, Maag D, Arun BK (2020) Veliparib with carboplatin and paclitaxel in BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer (BROCADE3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 21(10):1269–1282. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30447-2

PDF

Journal Publication

published 20 Aug, 2021

Read the published version in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment →

Reviews received at journal
07 Apr, 2021
Editor assigned by journal
22 Feb, 2021
Reviewers invited by journal
22 Feb, 2021
First submitted to journal
22 Feb, 2021

You are reading this latest preprint version

Phase II Trial of Veliparib and Temozolomide in Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients With and Without BRCA1/2mutations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Patients

Study Design and Treatment

Study Endpoints and Assessment

Statistical Analysis

Results

Patient Characteristics

Response to Treatment

Survival analysis

Safety

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

Funding This study was conducted with funding support from AbbVie Inc.

Conflicts of interest The corresponding author SJI has received institutional research funding and consulting fees from Abbvie. JX, TEK, BO, NMT, RSG, KH, JEG, LWE, EPW, PEG, BYY, and BAC report no conflicts of interest to this study.

References

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1