First-in-Human Trial of the Oral Ataxia Telangiectasia and RAD3-Related (ATR) Inhibitor BAY 1895344 in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors

Combination ATR and PARP Inhibitor (CAPRI): A phase 2 study of ceralasertib plus olaparib in patients with recurrent, platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

Platinum-resistant, high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) has limited treatment options. Preclinical data suggest that poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related kinase inhibitors (ATRi) are synergistic. CAPRI (NCT03462342) is an investigator-initiated study of olaparib plus ceralasertib in recurrent HGSOC. Herein, we present results from the platinum-resistant cohort.

METHODS

A Simon 2-stage design was utilized. Platinum-resistant HGSOC patients received ceralasertib 160 mg orally daily, days 1-7 and olaparib 300 mg orally twice daily, days 1-28 of a 28-day cycle until toxicity or progression. Primary endpoints were toxicity and efficacy including objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST. Secondary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The null hypothesis (≤5% ORR) would be rejected if there were ≥ 1 responses in 12 patients.

RESULTS

Fourteen PARPi-naïve patients were evaluable for toxicity; 12 were evaluable for response. Three had BRCA1 mutations (1 germline, 2 somatic). Adverse events possibly related to treatment were primarily grade (G) 1/2. G3 toxicities included nausea (14.3%), fatigue (7.1%), anorexia (7.1%), and anemia (7.1%). No objective responses occurred. Best response was stable disease in 9 patients and progressive disease in three. Five patients had a ≥ 20% to <30% reduction in disease burden, including 3 with BRCA1 mutations. Three of 11 patients (27%; 2 with BRCA1 mutations) evaluable by Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup criteria had >50% CA-125 decline, including 2 with CA-125 normalization. Median PFS was 4.2 months overall (90% CI:3.5-8.2) and 8.2 months (3.6 months-not determined) for patients with BRCA1 mutations.

CONCLUSIONS

Olaparib plus ceralasertib is well-tolerated. No objective responses occurred, though a signal of activity was seen particularly in disease associated with BRCA1. Further evaluation of this combination should include alternate dosing strategies in genomically-selected populations.

Targeting MUS81 promotes the anticancer effect of WEE1 inhibitor and immune checkpoint blocking combination therapy via activating cGAS/STING signaling in gastric cancer cells

Background

Identification of genomic biomarkers to predict the anticancer effects of indicated drugs is considered a promising strategy for the development of precision medicine. DNA endonuclease MUS81 plays a pivotal role in various biological processes during malignant diseases, mainly in DNA damage repair and replication fork stability. Our previous study reported that MUS81 was highly expressed and linked to tumor metastasis in gastric cancer; however, its therapeutic value has not been fully elucidated.

Methods

Bioinformatics analysis was used to define MUS81-related differential genes, which were further validated in clinical tissue samples. Gain or loss of function MUS81 cell models were constructed to elucidate the effect and mechanism of MUS81 on WEE1 expression. Moreover, the antitumor effect of targeting MUS81 combined with WEE1 inhibitors was verified using in vivo and in vitro assays. Thereafter, the cGAS/STING pathway was evaluated, and the therapeutic value of MUS81 for immunotherapy of gastric cancer was determined.

Results

In this study, MUS81 negatively correlated with the expression of cell cycle checkpoint kinase WEE1. Furthermore, we identified that MUS81 regulated the ubiquitination of WEE1 via E-3 ligase β-TRCP in an enzymatic manner. In addition, MUS81 inhibition could sensitize the anticancer effect of the WEE1 inhibitor MK1775 in gastric cancer in vitro and in vivo. Interestingly, when MUS81 was targeted, it increased the accumulation of cytosolic DNA induced by MK1775 treatment and activated the DNA sensor STING-mediated innate immunity in the gastric cancer cells. Thus, the WEE1 inhibitor MK1775 specifically enhanced the anticancer effect of immune checkpoint blockade therapy in MUS81 deficient gastric cancer cells.

Conclusions

Our data provide rational evidence that targeting MUS81 could elevate the expression of WEE1 by regulating its ubiquitination and could activate the innate immune response, thereby enhancing the anticancer efficacy of WEE1 inhibitor and immune checkpoint blockade combination therapy in gastric cancer cells.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13046-021-02120-4.

A Replication stress biomarker is associated with response to gemcitabine versus combined gemcitabine and ATR inhibitor therapy in ovarian cancer

In a trial of patients with high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), addition of the ATR inhibitor berzosertib to gemcitabine improved progression free survival (PFS) compared to gemcitabine alone but biomarkers predictive of treatment are lacking. Here we report a candidate biomarker of response to gemcitabine versus combined gemcitabine and ATR inhibitor therapy in HGSOC ovarian cancer. Patients with replication stress (RS)-high tumors (n = 27), defined as harboring at least one genomic RS alteration related to loss of RB pathway regulation and/or oncogene-induced replication stress achieve significantly prolonged PFS (HR = 0.38, 90% CI, 0.17-0.86) on gemcitabine monotherapy compared to those with tumors without such alterations (defined as RS-low, n = 30). However, addition of berzosertib to gemcitabine benefits only patients with RS-low tumors (gemcitabine/berzosertib HR 0.34, 90% CI, 0.13-0.86) and not patients with RS-high tumors (HR 1.11, 90% CI, 0.47-2.62). Our findings support the notion that the exacerbation of RS by gemcitabine monotherapy is adequate for lethality in RS-high tumors. Conversely, for RS-low tumors addition of berzosertib-mediated ATR inhibition to gemcitabine is necessary for lethality to occur. Independent prospective validation of this biomarker is required.

Precision Oncology with Drugs Targeting the Replication Stress, ATR, and Schlafen 11

Precision medicine aims to implement strategies based on the molecular features of tumors and optimized drug delivery to improve cancer diagnosis and treatment. DNA replication is a logical approach because it can be targeted by a broad range of anticancer drugs that are both clinically approved and in development. These drugs increase deleterious replication stress (RepStress); however, how to selectively target and identify the tumors with specific molecular characteristics are unmet clinical needs. Here, we provide background information on the molecular processes of DNA replication and its checkpoints, and discuss how to target replication, checkpoint, and repair pathways with ATR inhibitors and exploit Schlafen 11 (SLFN11) as a predictive biomarker.

Ceralasertib-Mediated ATR Inhibition Combined With Olaparib in Advanced Cancers Harboring DNA Damage Response and Repair Alterations (Olaparib Combinations)

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have emerged as promising therapy in cancers with homologous recombination repair deficiency. However, efficacy is limited by both intrinsic and acquired resistance. The Olaparib Combinations basket trial explored olaparib alone and in combination with other homologous recombination-directed targeted therapies. Here, we report the results of the arm in which olaparib was combined with the orally bioavailable ataxia telangiectasia and RAD3-related inhibitor ceralasertib in patients with relapsed or refractory cancers harboring DNA damage response and repair alterations, including patients with BRCA-mutated PARP inhibitor-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Germline and somatic mutations had to be deleterious by COSMIC or ClinVar for eligibility. Olaparib was administered at 300 mg twice daily and ceralasertib at 160 mg daily on days 1-7 in 28-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicities. Primary end points were confirmed complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) rates and clinical benefit rate (CBR; CR + PR + stable disease [SD] at 16 weeks).

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were enrolled, with median four prior therapies. Five patients required dose reductions for myelosuppression. Overall response rate was 8.3% and CBR was 62.5% among the entire cohort. Two of five patients with tumor harboring ATM mutation achieved CR or SD ongoing at 24+ months, respectively (CBR 40%). Of seven patients with PARP inhibitor-resistant HGSOC, one achieved PR (-90%) and five had SD ranging 16-72 weeks (CBR 86%).

CONCLUSION

Olaparib with ceralasertib demonstrated preliminary activity in ATM-mutated tumors and in PARP inhibitor-resistant BRCA1/2-mutated HGSOC. These data warrant additional studies to further confirm activity in these settings.

Intersection of Two Checkpoints: Could Inhibiting the DNA Damage Response Checkpoint Rescue Immune Checkpoint-Refractory Cancer?

Metastatic cancers resistant to immunotherapy require novel management strategies. DNA damage response (DDR) proteins, including ATR (ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related), ATM (ataxia telangiectasia mutated) and DNA-PK (DNA-dependent protein kinase), have been promising therapeutic targets for decades. Specific, potent DDR inhibitors (DDRi) recently entered clinical trials. Surprisingly, preclinical studies have now indicated that DDRi may stimulate anti-tumor immunity to augment immunotherapy. The mechanisms governing how DDRi could promote anti-tumor immunity are not well understood; however, early evidence suggests that they can potentiate immunogenic cell death to recruit and activate antigen-presenting cells to prime an adaptive immune response. Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is well suited to test these concepts. It is inherently immunogenic as ~50% of patients with advanced MCC persistently benefit from immunotherapy, making MCC one of the most responsive solid tumors. As is typical of neuroendocrine cancers, dysfunction of p53 and Rb with upregulation of Myc leads to the very rapid growth of MCC. This suggests high replication stress and susceptibility to DDRi and DNA-damaging agents. Indeed, MCC tumors are particularly radiosensitive. Given its inherent immunogenicity, cell cycle checkpoint deficiencies and sensitivity to DNA damage, MCC may be ideal for testing whether targeting the intersection of the DDR checkpoint and the immune checkpoint could help patients with immunotherapy-refractory cancers.

Synthetic Lethality in Cancer Therapeutics: The Next Generation

Synthetic lethality (SL) provides a conceptual framework for tackling targets that are not classically "druggable," including loss-of-function mutations in tumor suppressor genes required for carcinogenesis. Recent technological advances have led to an inflection point in our understanding of genetic interaction networks and ability to identify a wide array of novel SL drug targets. Here, we review concepts and lessons emerging from first-generation trials aimed at testing SL drugs, discuss how the nature of the targeted lesion can influence therapeutic outcomes, and highlight the need to develop clinical biomarkers distinct from those based on the paradigms developed to target activated oncogenes. SIGNIFICANCE: SL offers an approach for the targeting of loss of function of tumor suppressor and DNA repair genes, as well as of amplification and/or overexpression of genes that cannot be targeted directly. A next generation of tumor-specific alterations targetable through SL has emerged from high-throughput CRISPR technology, heralding not only new opportunities for drug development, but also important challenges in the development of optimal predictive biomarkers.

Targeting the replication stress response through synthetic lethal strategies in cancer medicine

The replication stress response (RSR) involves a downstream kinase cascade comprising ataxia telangiectasia-mutated (ATM), ATM and rad3-related (ATR), checkpoint kinases 1 and 2 (CHK1/2), and WEE1-like protein kinase (WEE1), which cooperate to arrest the cell cycle, protect stalled forks, and allow time for replication fork repair. In the presence of elevated replicative stress, cancers are increasingly dependent on RSR to maintain genomic integrity. An increasing number of drug candidates targeting key RSR nodes, as monotherapy through synthetic lethality, or through rational combinations with immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies, are demonstrating promising efficacy in early phase trials. RSR targeting is also showing potential in reversing PARP inhibitor resistance, an important area of unmet clinical need. In this review, we introduce the concept of targeting the RSR, detail the current landscape of monotherapy and combination strategies, and discuss emerging therapeutic approaches, such as targeting Polθ.

Analyzing the Opportunities to Target DNA Double-Strand Breaks Repair and Replicative Stress Responses to Improve Therapeutic Index of Colorectal Cancer

Despite the ample improvements of CRC molecular landscape, the therapeutic options still rely on conventional chemotherapy-based regimens for early disease, and few targeted agents are recommended for clinical use in the metastatic setting. Moreover, the impact of cytotoxic, targeted agents, and immunotherapy combinations in the metastatic scenario is not fully satisfactory, especially the outcomes for patients who develop resistance to these treatments need to be improved. Here, we examine the opportunity to consider therapeutic agents targeting DNA repair and DNA replication stress response as strategies to exploit genetic or functional defects in the DNA damage response (DDR) pathways through synthetic lethal mechanisms, still not explored in CRC. These include the multiple actors involved in the repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) through homologous recombination (HR), classical non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), and microhomology-mediated end-joining (MMEJ), inhibitors of the base excision repair (BER) protein poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), as well as inhibitors of the DNA damage kinases ataxia-telangiectasia and Rad3 related (ATR), CHK1, WEE1, and ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM). We also review the biomarkers that guide the use of these agents, and current clinical trials with targeted DDR therapies.

ATR Inhibition as an Attractive Therapeutic Resource against Cancer

In this issue of Cancer Discovery, Yap and colleagues demonstrate in a phase I trial enrolling 22 patients diagnosed with advanced solid tumors that BAY 1895344, a new potent and specific ATR inhibitor, is safe and able to induce durable responses in ATM-deficient tumors. This compelling clinical activity paves the way for innovative combination regimens that rely on exploitation of DNA damage response defects in cancer.See related article by Yap et al., p. 80.

Beyond the Androgen Receptor: The Sequence, the Mutants, and New Avengers in the Treatment of Castrate-Resistant Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Targeting the androgen receptor by depriving testosterone with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists or antagonists, or surgical castration, has been the backbone of metastatic prostate cancer treatment. Although most prostate cancers initially respond to androgen deprivation, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer evolves into a heterogeneous disease with diverse drivers of progression and mechanisms of therapeutic resistance. Development of castrate resistance phenotype is associated with lethality despite the recent noteworthy strides gained via increase in therapeutic options. Identification of novel therapeutics to further improve survival and achieve durable responses in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is a clinical necessity. In this review, we outline the existing avengers for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer by clinical presentation, placing into context the clinical state of the patient, such as burden of disease and symptoms. Doing so might aid in the ability to optimize the sequence of agents and allow for maximal exposure to life-prolonging therapeutics. Realizing the limitations of the androgen signaling inhibition, we explore the androgen-indifferent prostate cancer: the mutants. Classically, these subtypes have been associated with variant histology, but androgen-indifferent prostate cancer features are now frequently observed in association with heterogeneous morphologies, including double-negative prostate cancers, lacking both androgen receptor and neuroendocrine features, or clinicopathologic criteria, such as the aggressive variant prostate cancer criteria. The framework of new avengers against metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer based on mechanism, including DNA repair, immune checkpoint inhibition, PTEN/PI3K/AKT pathway, prostate-specific membrane antigen targets, bispecific T-cell engagers, and radionuclide therapies, is summarized in this review.

Clinical Candidates Targeting the ATR-CHK1-WEE1 Axis in Cancer

Selective killing of cancer cells while sparing healthy ones is the principle of the perfect cancer treatment and the primary aim of many oncologists, molecular biologists, and medicinal chemists. To achieve this goal, it is crucial to understand the molecular mechanisms that distinguish cancer cells from healthy ones. Accordingly, several clinical candidates that use particular mutations in cell-cycle progressions have been developed to kill cancer cells. As the majority of cancer cells have defects in G1 control, targeting the subsequent intra‑S or G2/M checkpoints has also been extensively pursued. This review focuses on clinical candidates that target the kinases involved in intra‑S and G2/M checkpoints, namely, ATR, CHK1, and WEE1 inhibitors. It provides insight into their current status and future perspectives for anticancer treatment. Overall, even though CHK1 inhibitors are still far from clinical establishment, promising accomplishments with ATR and WEE1 inhibitors in phase II trials present a positive outlook for patient survival.

Chemotherapy Induces Senescence-Like Resilient Cells Capable of Initiating AML Recurrence

Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) frequently relapse after chemotherapy, yet the mechanism by which AML reemerges is not fully understood. Herein, we show that primary AML cells enter a senescence-like phenotype following chemotherapy in vitro and in vivo. This is accompanied by induction of senescence/inflammatory and embryonic diapause transcriptional programs, with downregulation of MYC and leukemia stem cell genes. Single-cell RNA sequencing suggested depletion of leukemia stem cells in vitro and in vivo, and enrichment for subpopulations with distinct senescence-like cells. This senescence effect was transient and conferred superior colony-forming and engraftment potential. Entry into this senescence-like phenotype was dependent on ATR, and persistence of AML cells was severely impaired by ATR inhibitors. Altogether, we propose that AML relapse is facilitated by a senescence-like resilience phenotype that occurs regardless of their stem cell status. Upon recovery, these post-senescence AML cells give rise to relapsed AMLs with increased stem cell potential. SIGNIFICANCE: Despite entering complete remission after chemotherapy, relapse occurs in many patients with AML. Thus, there is an urgent need to understand the relapse mechanism in AML and the development of targeted treatments to improve outcome. Here, we identified a senescence-like resilience phenotype through which AML cells can survive and repopulate leukemia.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1307.

Homologous recombination deficiency: how genomic signatures are generated

Cancer genomes harbor mutational and structural rearrangements that are jointly shaped by DNA damage and repair mechanisms. Accumulating evidence suggests that genetic alterations in DNA repair-defective tumors reflect the scars caused by the use of backup DNA repair mechanisms needed to maintain cellular viability. Detailed analysis of the patterns of mutations and structural rearrangements present in BRCA1/2-deficient tumors has allowed for the delineation of genomic signatures that reflect alternative repair with inactive homologous recombination (HR). Here we aim to summarize recent advances in the analysis of genomic signatures associated with HR-deficiency and examine recent studies that have shed light on the backup repair mechanisms responsible for genomic scarring in HR-deficient tumors.

The promise of DNA damage response inhibitors for the treatment of glioblastoma

Glioblastoma (GBM), the most aggressive primary brain tumor, has a dismal prognosis. Despite our growing knowledge of genomic and epigenomic alterations in GBM, standard therapies and outcomes have not changed significantly in the past two decades. There is therefore an urgent unmet need to develop novel therapies for GBM. The inter- and intratumoral heterogeneity of GBM, inadequate drug concentrations in the tumor owing to the blood-brain barrier, redundant signaling pathways contributing to resistance to conventional therapies, and an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, have all hindered the development of novel therapies for GBM. Given the high frequency of DNA damage pathway alterations in GBM, researchers have focused their efforts on pharmacologically targeting key enzymes, including poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), DNA-dependent protein kinase, ataxia telangiectasia-mutated, and ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related. The mainstays of GBM treatment, ionizing radiation and alkylating chemotherapy, generate DNA damage that is repaired through the upregulation and activation of DNA damage response (DDR) enzymes. Therefore, the use of PARP and other DDR inhibitors to render GBM cells more vulnerable to conventional treatments is an area of intense investigation. In this review, we highlight the growing body of data behind DDR inhibitors in GBM, with a focus on putative predictive biomarkers of response. We also discuss the challenges involved in the successful development of DDR inhibitors for GBM, including the intracranial location and predicted overlapping toxicities of DDR agents with current standards of care, and propose promising strategies to overcome these hurdles.

Targeting DNA Damage Response in Prostate and Breast Cancer

Steroid hormone signaling induces vast gene expression programs which necessitate the local formation of transcription factories at regulatory regions and large-scale alterations of the genome architecture to allow communication among distantly related cis-acting regions. This involves major stress at the genomic DNA level. Transcriptionally active regions are generally instable and prone to breakage due to the torsional stress and local depletion of nucleosomes that make DNA more accessible to damaging agents. A dedicated DNA damage response (DDR) is therefore essential to maintain genome integrity at these exposed regions. The DDR is a complex network involving DNA damage sensor proteins, such as the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP-1), the DNA-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit (DNA-PKcs), the ataxia-telangiectasia-mutated (ATM) kinase and the ATM and Rad3-related (ATR) kinase, as central regulators. The tight interplay between the DDR and steroid hormone receptors has been unraveled recently. Several DNA repair factors interact with the androgen and estrogen receptors and support their transcriptional functions. Conversely, both receptors directly control the expression of agents involved in the DDR. Impaired DDR is also exploited by tumors to acquire advantageous mutations. Cancer cells often harbor germline or somatic alterations in DDR genes, and their association with disease outcome and treatment response led to intensive efforts towards identifying selective inhibitors targeting the major players in this process. The PARP-1 inhibitors are now approved for ovarian, breast, and prostate cancer with specific genomic alterations. Additional DDR-targeting agents are being evaluated in clinical studies either as single agents or in combination with treatments eliciting DNA damage (e.g., radiation therapy, including targeted radiotherapy, and chemotherapy) or addressing targets involved in maintenance of genome integrity. Recent preclinical and clinical findings made in addressing DNA repair dysfunction in hormone-dependent and -independent prostate and breast tumors are presented. Importantly, the combination of anti-hormonal therapy with DDR inhibition or with radiation has the potential to enhance efficacy but still needs further investigation.

Accelerating precision medicine in metastatic prostate cancer

Despite advances in prostate cancer screening and treatment, available therapy options, particularly in later stages of the disease, remain limited and the treatment-resistant setting represents a serious unmet medical need. Moreover, disease heterogeneity and disparities in patient access to medical advances result in significant variability in outcomes across patients. Disease classification based on genomic sequencing is a promising approach to identify patients whose tumors exhibit actionable targets and make more informed treatment decisions. Here we discuss how we can accelerate precision oncology to inform broader genomically-driven clinical decisions for men with advanced prostate cancer, drug development and ultimately contribute to new treatment paradigms.

Therapeutic targeting of the DNA damage response in prostate cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present article highlights the most common DNA repair gene mutations, using specific examples of individual genes or gene classes, and reviews the epidemiology and treatment implications for each one [with particular emphasis on poly-ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibition and PD-1 blockade].

RECENT FINDINGS

Genetic and genomic testing have an increasingly important role in the oncology clinic. For patients with prostate cancer, germline genetic testing is now recommended for all men with high-risk and metastatic disease, and somatic multigene tumor testing is recommended for men with metastatic castration-resistant disease. The most common mutations that are present in men with advanced prostate cancer are in genes coordinating DNA repair and the DNA damage response.

SUMMARY

Although much of what is discussed currently remains investigational, it is clear that genomically-targeted treatments will become increasingly important for patients with prostate cancer in the near future and beyond.