scholarly journals Homologous Recombination Repair Deficiency and Implications for Tumor Immunogenicity

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 2249
Author(s):  
Sandra van Wilpe ◽  
Sofie H. Tolmeijer ◽  
Rutger H. T. Koornstra ◽  
I. Jolanda M. de Vries ◽  
Winald R. Gerritsen ◽  
...  

Homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD) can be observed in virtually all cancer types. Although HRD sensitizes tumors to DNA-damaging chemotherapy and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, all patients ultimately develop resistance to these therapies. Therefore, it is necessary to identify therapeutic regimens with a more durable efficacy. HRD tumors have been suggested to be more immunogenic and, therefore, more susceptible to treatment with checkpoint inhibitors. In this review, we describe how HRD might mechanistically affect antitumor immunity and summarize the available translational evidence for an association between HRD and antitumor immunity across multiple tumor types. In addition, we give an overview of all available clinical data on the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors in HRD tumors and describe the evidence for using treatment strategies that combine checkpoint inhibitors with PARP inhibitors.

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ke Shen ◽  
Li Yang ◽  
Fei-Yan Li ◽  
Feng Zhang ◽  
Lei-Lei Ding ◽  
...  

: Endometrial cancer is one of the three most common malignant tumors in the female reproductive system. Advanced and recurrent endometrial cancers have poor prognoses and lack effective treatments. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have been applied to many different types of tumors, and they can selectively kill tumor cells that are defective in homologous recombination repair. Endometrial cancer is characterized by mutations in homologous recombination repair genes; accordingly, PARP inhibitors have achieved positive results in off-label treatments of endometrial cancer cases. Clinical trials of PARP inhibitors as monotherapies and within combination therapies for endometrial cancer are ongoing. For this review, we searched PubMed with "endometrial cancer" and "PARP inhibitor" as keywords, and we used "olaparib", "rucaparib", "niraparib" and "talazoparib" as search terms in clinicaltrials.gov for ongoing trials. The literature search ended in October 2020, and only English-language publications were selected. Multiple studies confirm that PARP inhibitors play an important role in killing tumor cells with defects in homologous recombination repair. Its combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors, PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitors, cell cycle checkpoint inhibitors, and other drugs can improve the treatment of endometrial cancer.


Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 254
Author(s):  
Jenny-Maria Jönsson ◽  
Maria Bååth ◽  
Ida Björnheden ◽  
Irem Durmaz Sahin ◽  
Anna Måsbäck ◽  
...  

Serous endometrial cancer (SEC) resembles high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) genetically and clinically, with recurrent copy number alterations, TP53 mutations and a poor prognosis. Thus, SEC patients may benefit from targeted treatments used in HGSOC, e.g., PARP inhibitors. However, the preclinical and clinical knowledge about SEC is scarce, and the exact role of defective DNA repair in this tumor subgroup is largely unknown. We aimed to outline the prevalence of homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD), copy-number alterations, and somatic mutations in SEC. OncoScan SNP arrays were applied to 19 tumors in a consecutive SEC series to calculate HRD scores and explore global copy-number profiles and genomic aberrations. Copy-number signatures were established and targeted sequencing of 27 HRD-associated genes was performed. All factors were examined in relation to HRD scores to investigate potential drivers of the HRD phenotype. Ten of the 19 SEC tumors (53%) had an HRD score > 42, considered to reflect an HRD phenotype. Higher HRD score was associated with loss of heterozygosity in key HRD genes, and copy-number signatures associated with non-BRCA1/2 dependent HRD in HGSOC. A high number of SECs display an HRD phenotype. It remains to be elucidated whether this also confers PARP inhibitor sensitivity.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A344-A344
Author(s):  
Timothy A Yap ◽  
Mallika Dhawan ◽  
Andrew E Hendifar ◽  
Michele Maio ◽  
Taofeek K Owonikoko ◽  
...  

BackgroundTreatment with the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab has improved clinical outcomes in multiple previously treated advanced solid tumors. The poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib has shown antitumor activity as monotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced ovarian, breast, pancreatic, and prostate cancers with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations (BRCAm). Activity was also seen in patients with previously treated advanced solid tumors with other homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) and in those with ovarian cancer with homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD) phenotype. PARP inhibitors have been found to increase interferon signaling and tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, enhancing tumor susceptibility to immune checkpoint blockade. Antitumor activity of PD-(L)1 plus PARP inhibition was found to be higher than expected with either agent alone in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer regardless of BRCAm or HRD status and in patients with BRCAm breast cancer. KEYLYNK-007 (NCT04123366) evaluates the antitumor activity and safety of olaparib in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced solid tumors with HRRm and/or HRD.MethodsThis phase 2, nonrandomized, multicenter, open-label study will enroll approximately 300 patients aged ≥18 years with histologically/cytologically confirmed, previously treated, advanced solid tumors with HRRm and/or HRD per Lynparza HRR-HRD assay (Foundation Medicine, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA), with an ECOG PS of 0-1. Patients will be grouped by biomarker status: subgroup 1: BRCAm; subgroup 2: HRRm without BRCAm; and subgroup 3: HRD positive without HRRm (loss of heterozygosity score ≥16 per Lynparza HRR-HRD assay). Patients will receive olaparib 300 mg twice daily + pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously Q3W (35 cycles) until PD, unacceptable AEs, intercurrent illness, investigator decision, withdrawal of consent, or pregnancy. Tumor imaging assessment by blinded independent central review (BICR) per RECIST v1.1 or Prostate Cancer Working Group (PCWG)–modified RECIST v1.1 for prostate cancer will occur Q9W for 12 months, then Q12W until PD, start of new anticancer treatment, withdrawal of consent, pregnancy, or death. AEs will be monitored throughout the study and for 30 days after final dose (90 days for serious AEs). The primary endpoint is ORR (RECIST v1.1 or PCWG–modified RECIST version 1.1 by BICR). Secondary endpoints include duration of response (DOR) and PFS (RECIST v1.1 or PCWG–modified RECIST v1.1 by BICR), OS, and safety. Point estimate and exact Clopper-Pearson CI for ORR, and Kaplan-Meier estimates for DOR, PFS, and OS will be calculated. A total of 89 sites are currently enrolling in 20 countries.ResultsN/AConclusionsN/ATrial RegistrationClinicalTrials. gov identifier, NCT04123366Ethics ApprovalAn independent institutional review board or ethics committee approved the protocol at each study site, and the trial is being conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki.


BMC Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaoming Liao ◽  
Zedong Jiang ◽  
Yiran Yang ◽  
Cong Zhang ◽  
Meiting Jiang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a clinically aggressive disease with abundant variants that cause homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD). Whether TNBC patients with HRD are sensitive to anthracycline, cyclophosphamide and taxane (ACT), and whether the combination of HRD and tumour immunity can improve the recognition of ACT responders are still unknown. Methods Data from 83 TNBC patients in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) was used as a discovery cohort to analyse the association between HRD and ACT chemotherapy benefits. The combined effects of HRD and immune activation on ACT chemotherapy were explored at both the genome and the transcriptome levels. Independent cohorts from the Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC) and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) were adopted to validate our findings. Results HRD was associated with a longer ACT chemotherapy failure-free interval (FFI) with a hazard ratio of 0.16 (P = 0.004) and improved patient prognosis (P = 0.0063). By analysing both HRD status and ACT response, we identified patients with a distinct TNBC subtype (ACT-S&HR-P) that showed higher tumour lymphocyte infiltration, IFN-γ activity and NK cell levels. Patients with ACT-S&HR-P had significantly elevated immune inhibitor levels and presented immune activation associated with the increased activities of both innate immune cells and adaptive immune cells, which suggested treatment with immune checkpoint blockade as an option for this subtype. Our analysis revealed that the combination of HRD and immune activation enhanced the efficiency of identifying responders to ACT chemotherapy (AUC = 0.91, P = 1.06e−04) and synergistically contributed to the clinical benefits of TNBC patients. A transcriptional HRD signature of ACT response-related prognostic factors was identified and independently validated to be significantly associated with improved survival in the GEO cohort (P = 0.0038) and the METABRIC dataset (P < 0.0001). Conclusions These findings highlight that HR deficiency prolongs FFI and predicts intensified responses in TNBC patients by combining HRD and immune activation, which provides a molecular basis for identifying ACT responders.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17550-e17550
Author(s):  
Ignacio Romero ◽  
Ana Oaknin ◽  
Zaida Garcia-Casado ◽  
Raul Marquez ◽  
Alfonso Yubero Esteban ◽  
...  

e17550 Background: In epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), the identification of mutations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes on tumor is prognostic, predictive of response to PARP inhibitors, and a tool to identify individuals at genetic cancer risk. The aim of this study is to compare the concordance between two laboratories in identifying and classifying genetic variants in HRR genes. Methods: In a multicentre ambispective series of unselected, non mucinous EOC of all stages formalin-fixed and paraffin embedded tumors were collected. These samples underwent the same mutational analysis of 15 HRR genes ( ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDK12, CHEK1, CHEK2, FANCL, PALB2, PPP2R2A, RAD51B, RAD51C, RAD51D, RAD54L) in two different Laboratories (Lab1, Lab2) that used their own validated multi-gene NGS panels. Variant allele frequency (VAF) threshold was 5% for single nucleotide polymorphism and 10% for indels. Large rearrangements were not analyzed. Variants were classified into three categories based on ACMG criteria: non-mutated (class 1-2), Variants of Uncertain Significance (VUS: class 3) and likely pathogenic/pathogenic (class 4-5). Results: A total of 81 cases were sent for the analysis. One had low DNA quality and therefore 80 cases were finally studied (85% high grade serous and 74% FIGO stage III-IV). Results reported by Lab1 and Lab2 (lab1/Lab2) were the following: 21/19 (26%/24%) cases had BRCA1/2 mutations, 7/8 (8.7%/10%) mutations on other HRR genes including two in ATM and RAD51D, one in CHEK1, CHEK2, and FANCL and one RAD51C reported in Lab2 only while the rest were either VUS 23/27 (29%/34%) or non-mutated 29/26 (36%/33%). Concordance between laboratories in classifying patients was 93.75% (kappa coefficient 0.86). Discrepancies (DC) on variants were classified into arbitrary categories, namely 0= complete concordance, category 1 meaning DC in detection assumed to be due to tumor heterogeneity (VAF nearby the threshold) or technique (1A), or caused by laboratories performance and avoidable (1B) and the category 2 identified DC in interpretation without clinical relevance (2A) or clinically relevant (2B), the results of total number of variants are shown in table. Overall, regarding clinically relevant DC in HRR genes, 9 DC in variants were observed including six 2B, two 1A and one 1B and they affect 5 (6.3%) patients since some were overlapping. Conclusions: In our EOC series the concordance of two Laboratories in the identification of clinically relevant HRR mutations on tumor is high but discrepancies in interpretation remain a challenge that needs further harmonization.[Table: see text]


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 684-694
Author(s):  
Rebecca Arend ◽  
Shannon Neville Westin ◽  
Robert L Coleman

Most women with ovarian cancer experience disease relapse, presenting numerous treatment challenges for clinicians. Maintenance therapy in the relapsed setting aims to extend the time taken for a cancer to progress, thus delaying the need for additional treatments. Four therapies are currently approved in the USA for secondline maintenance treatment of platinum sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer: one antivascular endothelial growth factor agent (bevacizumab) and three poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib). In addition to efficacy, maintenance therapies must have a good tolerability profile and no significant detrimental impact on quality of life, as patients who receive maintenance are generally free from cancer related symptoms. Data from key bevacizumab trials (OCEANS, NCT00434642; GOG-0213, NCT00565851; MITO16B, NCT01802749) and PARP inhibitor trials (Study 19, NCT00753545; SOLO2, NCT01874353; NOVA, NCT01847274; ARIEL3, NCT01968213) indicate that bevacizumab and the PARP inhibitors are effective in patients with platinum sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer but differ in their tolerability profiles. In addition, the efficacy of PARP inhibitors is dependent on the presence of homologous recombination repair deficiency, with patients with the deficiency experiencing greater responses from treatment compared with those who are homologous recombination repair proficient. Allowing for caveats of cross trial comparisons, we advise that clinicians account for the following points when choosing whether and when to administer a secondline maintenance treatment for a specific patient: presence of a homologous recombination repair deficient tumor; the patient’s baseline characteristics, such as platelet count and blood pressure; mode of administration of therapy; and consideration of future treatment options for thirdline and later therapy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document