Rucaparib in relapsed, platinum-sensitive high-grade ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL2 Part 1): an international, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial.

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have activity in ovarian carcinomas with homologous recombination deficiency. Along with BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) mutations genomic loss of heterozygosity (LOH) might also represent homologous recombination deficiency. In ARIEL2, we assessed the ability of tumour genomic LOH, quantified with a next-generation sequencing assay, to predict response to rucaparib, an oral PARP inhibitor.

Related collections

Most cited references 39

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

E A Eisenhauer, P Therasse, J Bogaerts … (2009)

Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.

0 comments Cited 6524 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Integrated Genomic Analyses of Ovarian Carcinoma

Nikolaus Schultz (2012)

Summary The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) project has analyzed mRNA expression, miRNA expression, promoter methylation, and DNA copy number in 489 high-grade serous ovarian adenocarcinomas (HGS-OvCa) and the DNA sequences of exons from coding genes in 316 of these tumors. These results show that HGS-OvCa is characterized by TP53 mutations in almost all tumors (96%); low prevalence but statistically recurrent somatic mutations in 9 additional genes including NF1, BRCA1, BRCA2, RB1, and CDK12; 113 significant focal DNA copy number aberrations; and promoter methylation events involving 168 genes. Analyses delineated four ovarian cancer transcriptional subtypes, three miRNA subtypes, four promoter methylation subtypes, a transcriptional signature associated with survival duration and shed new light on the impact on survival of tumors with BRCA1/2 and CCNE1 aberrations. Pathway analyses suggested that homologous recombination is defective in about half of tumors, and that Notch and FOXM1 signaling are involved in serous ovarian cancer pathophysiology.

0 comments Cited 1377 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy.

Hannah L. Farmer, Nuala McCabe, Christopher J. Lord … (2005)

BRCA1 and BRCA2 are important for DNA double-strand break repair by homologous recombination, and mutations in these genes predispose to breast and other cancers. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) is an enzyme involved in base excision repair, a key pathway in the repair of DNA single-strand breaks. We show here that BRCA1 or BRCA2 dysfunction unexpectedly and profoundly sensitizes cells to the inhibition of PARP enzymatic activity, resulting in chromosomal instability, cell cycle arrest and subsequent apoptosis. This seems to be because the inhibition of PARP leads to the persistence of DNA lesions normally repaired by homologous recombination. These results illustrate how different pathways cooperate to repair damage, and suggest that the targeted inhibition of particular DNA repair pathways may allow the design of specific and less toxic therapies for cancer.

0 comments Cited 1083 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Lancet Oncol.

Title: The Lancet. Oncology

Publisher: Elsevier BV

ISSN (Electronic): 1474-5488

ISSN (Print): 1470-2045

Publication date (Electronic): Jan 2017

Volume: 18

Issue: 1

Affiliations

[1 ] University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: swishere@uw.edu.

[2 ] Clovis Oncology, Boulder, CO, USA.

[3 ] Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.

[4 ] Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

[5 ] Foundation Medicine, Cambridge, MA, USA.

[6 ] University of California Los Angeles, Santa Monica, CA, USA.

[7 ] The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

[8 ] British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

[9 ] The Ohio State University, James Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.

[10 ] University College London, Cancer Institute, London, UK.

[11 ] Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers, Lakewood, CO, USA.

[12 ] Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.

[13 ] Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

[14 ] The University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA.

[15 ] Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain.

[16 ] GINECO, Centre Léon Bérard and University Claude Bernard, Lyon, France.

[17 ] University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

[18 ] Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

[19 ] Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France.

[20 ] Gustave Roussy Cancer Center and INSERM U981, Villejuif, France.

[21 ] Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Article

Publisher Item ID: S1470-2045(16)30559-9

DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30559-9

PubMed ID: 27908594

SO-VID: 7fa5b830-4ac0-4cfe-a037-000a092e3181

History

Data availability:

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.