Immune modulating activity of the CHK1 inhibitor prexasertib and anti-PD-L1 antibody LY3300054 in patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer and other solid tumors

The complementarity of DDR, nucleic acids and anti-tumour immunity

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) immunotherapy is a first-line treatment for selected cancers, yet the mechanisms of its efficacy remain incompletely understood. Furthermore, only a minority of patients with cancer benefit from ICB, and there is a lack of fully informative treatment response biomarkers. Selectively exploiting defects in DNA damage repair is also a standard treatment for cancer, spurred by enhanced understanding of the DNA damage response (DDR). DDR and ICB are closely linked-faulty DDR produces immunogenic cancer neoantigens that can increase the efficacy of ICB therapy, and tumour mutational burden is a good but imperfect biomarker for the response to ICB. DDR studies in ICB efficacy initially focused on contributions to neoantigen burden. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that ICB efficacy is complicated by the immunogenic effects of nucleic acids generated from exogenous DNA damage or endogenous processes such as DNA replication. Chemotherapy, radiation, or selective DDR inhibitors (such as PARP inhibitors) can generate aberrant nucleic acids to induce tumour immunogenicity independently of neoantigens. Independent of their functions in immunity, targets of immunotherapy such as cyclic GMP-AMP synthase (cGAS) or PD-L1 can crosstalk with DDR or the DNA repair machinery to influence the response to DNA-damaging agents. Here we review the rapidly evolving, multifaceted interfaces between DDR, nucleic acid immunogenicity and immunotherapy efficacy, focusing on ICB. Understanding these interrelated processes could explain ICB treatment failures and reveal novel exploitable therapeutic vulnerabilities in cancers. We conclude by addressing major unanswered questions and new research directions.

Maintaining Genome Integrity: Protein Kinases and Phosphatases Orchestrate the Balancing Act of DNA Double-Strand Breaks Repair in Cancer

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are the most lethal DNA damages which lead to severe genome instability. Phosphorylation is one of the most important protein post-translation modifications involved in DSBs repair regulation. Kinases and phosphatases play coordinating roles in DSB repair by phosphorylating and dephosphorylating various proteins. Recent research has shed light on the importance of maintaining a balance between kinase and phosphatase activities in DSB repair. The interplay between kinases and phosphatases plays an important role in regulating DNA-repair processes, and alterations in their activity can lead to genomic instability and disease. Therefore, study on the function of kinases and phosphatases in DSBs repair is essential for understanding their roles in cancer development and therapeutics. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge of kinases and phosphatases in DSBs repair regulation and highlight the advancements in the development of cancer therapies targeting kinases or phosphatases in DSBs repair pathways. In conclusion, understanding the balance of kinase and phosphatase activities in DSBs repair provides opportunities for the development of novel cancer therapeutics.

The mechanism and clinical application of DNA damage repair inhibitors combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of urologic cancer

Urologic cancers such as kidney, bladder, prostate, and uroepithelial cancers have recently become a considerable global health burden, and the response to immunotherapy is limited due to immune escape and immune resistance. Therefore, it is crucial to find appropriate and effective combination therapies to improve the sensitivity of patients to immunotherapy. DNA damage repair inhibitors can enhance the immunogenicity of tumor cells by increasing tumor mutational burden and neoantigen expression, activating immune-related signaling pathways, regulating PD-L1 expression, and reversing the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment to activate the immune system and enhance the efficacy of immunotherapy. Based on promising experimental results from preclinical studies, many clinical trials combining DNA damage repair inhibitors (e.g., PARP inhibitors and ATR inhibitors) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors) are underway in patients with urologic cancers. Results from several clinical trials have shown that the combination of DNA damage repair inhibitors with immune checkpoint inhibitors can improve objective rates, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS) in patients with urologic tumors, especially in patients with defective DNA damage repair genes or a high mutational load. In this review, we present the results of preclinical and clinical trials of different DNA damage repair inhibitors in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors in urologic cancers and summarize the potential mechanism of action of the combination therapy. Finally, we also discuss the challenges of dose toxicity, biomarker selection, drug tolerance, drug interactions in the treatment of urologic tumors with this combination therapy and look into the future direction of this combination therapy.

Could Inhibiting the DNA Damage Repair Checkpoint Rescue Immune-Checkpoint-Inhibitor-Resistant Endometrial Cancer?

Endometrial cancer (EC) is increasingly undermining female health worldwide, with poor survival rates for advanced or recurrent/metastatic diseases. The application of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has opened a window of opportunity for patients with first-line therapy failure. However, there is a subset of patients with endometrial cancer who remain insensitive to immunotherapy alone. Therefore, it is necessary to develop new therapeutic agents and further explore reliable combinational strategies to optimize the efficacy of immunotherapy. DNA damage repair (DDR) inhibitors as novel targeted drugs are able to generate genomic toxicity and induce cell death in solid tumors, including EC. Recently, growing evidence has demonstrated the DDR pathway modulates innate and adaptive immunity in tumors. In this review, we concentrate on the exploration of the intrinsic correlation between DDR pathways, especially the ATM-CHK2-P53 pathway and the ATR-CHK1-WEE1 pathway, and oncologic immune response, as well as the feasibility of adding DDR inhibitors to ICIs for the treatment of patients with advanced or recurrent/metastatic EC. We hope that this review will offer some beneficial references to the investigation of immunotherapy and provide a reasonable basis for "double-checkpoint inhibition" in EC.

A Phase I/II Trial of Oral SRA737 (a Chk1 Inhibitor) Given in Combination with Low-Dose Gemcitabine in Patients with Advanced Cancer

PURPOSE

This was a Phase I/II trial of the novel checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1) inhibitor SRA737 given in combination with gemcitabine. Its objectives were to establish the safety profile, recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D), pharmacokinetics profile, and clinical activity of SRA737.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled into dose-escalation cohorts and treated in 28-day cycles with oral SRA737 on days 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17, and intravenous gemcitabine on days 1, 8, and 15. Treatment was continued until progression. Each expansion cohort included up to 20 patients with specific genetically defined tumors.

RESULTS

The RP2D was determined to be 500 mg SRA737 combined with low-dose (250 mg/m2) gemcitabine. Of 143 enrolled patients, 77 were treated at doses of at least 500 mg SRA737 combined with 250 mg/m2 gemcitabine. Common toxicities of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and diarrhea were primarily mild to moderate, and rarely led to treatment discontinuation. Anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia were grade ≥3 in 11.7%, 16.7%, and 10% of patients treated at the RP2D, respectively. The objective response rate (ORR) was 10.8% overall and notably the ORR in anogenital cancer was 25%. Partial tumor responses were observed in anogenital cancer, cervical cancer, high-grade serous ovarian cancer, rectal cancer, and small cell lung cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

SRA737 in combination with low-dose gemcitabine was well tolerated with lower myelotoxicity than has been seen at standard doses of gemcitabine or with other combinations of Chk1 inhibitors with gemcitabine. Tumor responses were observed in anogenital and other solid tumors.

Targeting replication stress in cancer therapy

Replication stress is a major cause of genomic instability and a crucial vulnerability of cancer cells. This vulnerability can be therapeutically targeted by inhibiting kinases that coordinate the DNA damage response with cell cycle control, including ATR, CHK1, WEE1 and MYT1 checkpoint kinases. In addition, inhibiting the DNA damage response releases DNA fragments into the cytoplasm, eliciting an innate immune response. Therefore, several ATR, CHK1, WEE1 and MYT1 inhibitors are undergoing clinical evaluation as monotherapies or in combination with chemotherapy, poly[ADP-ribose]polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, or immune checkpoint inhibitors to capitalize on high replication stress, overcome therapeutic resistance and promote effective antitumour immunity. Here, we review current and emerging approaches for targeting replication stress in cancer, from preclinical and biomarker development to clinical trial evaluation.

A Phase 2 study of prexasertib (LY2606368) in platinum resistant or refractory recurrent ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

High-grade serous ovarian cancer, the most frequent type of ovarian cancer, has a poor prognosis and novel treatments are needed for patients with platinum resistant/refractory disease. New therapeutic strategies targeting cell cycle checkpoints, including CHK1 inhibition with prexasertib, may help improve clinical response and overcome resistance.

METHODS

Patients with ovarian cancer (N = 169) were assigned to 4 cohorts as part of the Phase 2 multicenter trial (NCT03414047): Cohort 1: platinum resistant, BRCA-wildtype with ≥3 lines prior therapy; Cohort 2: platinum resistant BRCA-wildtype with <3 lines prior therapy; Cohort 3: platinum resistant, BRCA-mutated with prior PARP inhibitor therapy; Cohort 4: platinum refractory, BRCA-mutated, or BRCA-wildtype with any number of prior therapy lines. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) and secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), and safety. DNA from tumor biopsies was sequenced to identify biomarkers.

RESULTS

The ORR in platinum resistant patients (Cohorts 1--3) was 12.1%, and 6.9% in platinum refractory patients. In platinum resistant patients, DCR was 37.1%, and consistent across cohorts. In platinum refractory patients, DCR was 31.0%. Consistent with the prexasertib mechanism of action, the most common treatment related adverse events of all grades included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, fatigue, nausea, and anemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Prexasertib demonstrated durable single agent activity in a subset of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer regardless of clinical characteristics, BRCA status, or prior therapies, including PARPi. There was no obvious correlation with genomic alterations in responders vs non-responders, emphasizing the need for alternative biomarker approaches for responder identification.

Efficacy evaluation of multi-immunotherapy in ovarian cancer: From bench to bed

Ovarian cancer, one of the most common gynecological malignancies, is characterized by high mortality and poor prognosis. Cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy remain the mainstay of ovarian cancer treatment, and most women experience recurrence after standard care therapies. There is compelling evidence that ovarian cancer is an immunogenic tumor. For example, the accumulation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes is associated with increased survival, while increases in immunosuppressive regulatory T cells are correlated with poor clinical outcomes. Therefore, immunotherapies targeting components of the tumor microenvironment have been gradually integrated into the existing treatment options, including immune checkpoint blockade, adoptive cell therapy, and cancer vaccines. Immunotherapies have changed guidelines for maintenance treatment and established a new paradigm in ovarian cancer treatment. Despite single immunotherapies targeting DNA repair mechanisms, immune checkpoints, and angiogenesis bringing inspiring efficacy, only a subset of patients can benefit much from it. Thus, the multi-immunotherapy investigation remains an active area for ovarian cancer treatment. The current review provides an overview of various clinically oriented forms of multi-immunotherapy and explores potentially effective combinational therapies for ovarian cancer.

The role of DNA damage repair (DDR) system in response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy

As our understanding of the mechanisms of cancer treatment has increased, a growing number of studies demonstrate pathways through which DNA damage repair (DDR) affects the immune system. At the same time, the varied response of patients to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy has prompted the discovery of various predictive biomarkers and the study of combination therapy. Here, our investigation explores the interactions involved in combination therapy, accompanied by a review that summarizes currently identified and promising predictors of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) that are useful for classifying oncology patients. In addition, this work, which discusses immunogenicity and several components of the tumor immune microenvironment, serves to illustrate the mechanism by which higher response rates and improved efficacy of DDR inhibitors (DDRi) in combination with ICIs are achieved.

Novel Therapeutic Approaches with DNA Damage Response Inhibitors for Melanoma Treatment

Targeted therapies against components of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway and immunotherapies, which block immune checkpoints, have shown important clinical benefits in melanoma patients. However, most patients develop resistance, with consequent disease relapse. Therefore, there is a need to identify novel therapeutic approaches for patients who are resistant or do not respond to the current targeted and immune therapies. Melanoma is characterized by homologous recombination (HR) and DNA damage response (DDR) gene mutations and by high replicative stress, which increase the endogenous DNA damage, leading to the activation of DDR. In this review, we will discuss the current experimental evidence on how DDR can be exploited therapeutically in melanoma. Specifically, we will focus on PARP, ATM, CHK1, WEE1 and ATR inhibitors, for which preclinical data as single agents, taking advantage of synthetic lethal interactions, and in combination with chemo-targeted-immunotherapy, have been growing in melanoma, encouraging the ongoing clinical trials. The overviewed data are suggestive of considering DDR inhibitors as a valid therapeutic approach, which may positively impact the future of melanoma treatment.

GM-CSF secreting leukemia cell vaccination for MDS/AML after allogeneic HSCT: a randomized, double-blinded, phase 2 trial

Vaccination using irradiated, adenovirus transduced autologous myeloblasts to secrete granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GVAX) early after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) can induce potent immune responses. We conducted a randomized phase 2 trial of GVAX after HSCT for myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts or relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Myeloblasts were harvested before HSCT to generate the vaccine. Randomization to GVAX vs placebo (1:1) was stratified according to disease, transplant center, and conditioning. Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis included tacrolimus and methotrexate. GVAX or placebo vaccination was started between day 30 and 45 if there was engraftment and no GVHD. Vaccines were administered subcutaneously/intradermally weekly × 3, then every 2 weeks × 3. Tacrolimus taper began after vaccine completion. A total of 123 patients were enrolled, 92 proceeded to HSCT, and 57 (GVAX, n = 30; placebo, n = 27) received at least 1 vaccination. No Common Toxicity Criteria grade 3 or worse vaccine-related adverse events were reported, but injection site reactions were more common after GVAX (10 vs 1; P = .006). With a median follow-up of 39 months (range, 9-89 months), 18-month progression-free survival, overall survival, and relapse incidence were 53% vs 55% (P = .79), 63% vs 59% (P = .86), and 30% vs 37% (P = .51) for GVAX and placebo, respectively. Nonrelapse mortality at 18 months was 17% vs 7.7% (P = .18), grade II to IV acute GVHD at 12 months was 34% vs 12% (P = .13), and chronic GVHD at 3 years was 49% vs 57% for GVAX and placebo (P = .26). Reconstitution of T, B, and natural killer cells was not decreased or enhanced by GVAX. There were no differences in serum major histocompatibility chain-related protein A/B or other immune biomarkers between GVAX and placebo. GVAX does not improve survival after HSCT for myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01773395.

Therapeutic Targeting of DNA Damage Response in Cancer

DNA damage response (DDR) is critical to ensure genome stability, and defects in this signaling pathway are highly associated with carcinogenesis and tumor progression. Nevertheless, this also provides therapeutic opportunities, as cells with defective DDR signaling are directed to rely on compensatory survival pathways, and these vulnerabilities have been exploited for anticancer treatments. Following the impressive success of PARP inhibitors in the treatment of BRCA-mutated breast and ovarian cancers, extensive research has been conducted toward the development of pharmacologic inhibitors of the key components of the DDR signaling pathway. In this review, we discuss the key elements of the DDR pathway and how these molecular components may serve as anticancer treatment targets. We also summarize the recent promising developments in the field of DDR pathway inhibitors, focusing on novel agents beyond PARP inhibitors. Furthermore, we discuss biomarker studies to identify target patients expected to derive maximal clinical benefits as well as combination strategies with other classes of anticancer agents to synergize and optimize the clinical benefits.

Harnessing DNA Repair Defects to Augment Immune-Based Therapies in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has poor prognosis with limited treatment options, with little therapeutic progress made during the past several decades. DNA damage response (DDR) associated therapies, including radiation and inhibitors of DDR, demonstrate potential efficacy against TNBC, especially under the guidance of genomic subtype-directed treatment. The tumor immune microenvironment also contributes greatly to TNBC malignancy and response to conventional and targeted therapies. Immunotherapy represents a developing trend in targeted therapies directed against TNBC and strategies combining immunotherapy and modulators of the DDR pathways are being pursued. There is increasing understanding of the potential interplay between DDR pathways and immune-associated signaling. As such, the question of how we treat TNBC regarding novel immuno-molecular strategies is continually evolving. In this review, we explore the current and upcoming treatment options of TNBC in the context of DNA repair mechanisms and immune-based therapies, with a focus on implications of recent genomic analyses and clinical trial findings.

CCNE1 amplification among metastatic sites in patients with gynecologic high-grade serous carcinoma

•

CCNE1 amplification is conserved among metastatic sites in CCNE1-amplified high-grade serous carcinomas.

•

Limited CCNE1 copy number heterogeneity among CCNE1-amplified cases suggests some genomic change during metastasis.

•

Digital droplet PCR can be used to quantify CCNE1 copy number from archival specimens of high-grade serous carcinomas.

Objective

We sought to characterize the variability of CCNE1 amplification among metastatic sites of CCNE1 amplified high grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) cases to investigate the feasibility of targeting this alteration for therapeutic purposes.

Methods

Patients with CCNE1 amplified HGSC who underwent surgical cytoreduction with metastatic sites were identified from institutional molecular profiling reports and a population of HGSC cases screened using digital droplet PCR (ddPCR). Cases with normal CCNE1 copy number were included as controls. Slides from metastatic sites were cut from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue blocks, dissected for tumor of > 50% purity, and underwent DNA extraction. CCNE1 copy number was determined by ddPCR. Tumor purity was confirmed with mutant TP53 allele fraction from targeted massively parallel sequencing.

Results

Four of 15 patients from an institutional database screened by ddPCR were found to have CCNE1 amplification. Three additional patients were identified from a query of institutional commercial clinical reports. Among these 7 CCNE1 amplified cases (2 uterine, 5 ovarian), 5 showed preservation of CCNE1 amplification (copy number > 5) among all metastatic sites. The remaining 2 cases had multiple metastatic sites without preserved CCNE1 amplification. Non-amplified cases had predominantly normal CCNE1 copy number across metastatic sites.

Conclusions

CCNE1 amplification is an early genomic event in HGSC and is preserved in most metastatic sites suggesting a uniform response to pathway targeting therapies.

Phase 1 Combination Study of the CHK1 Inhibitor Prexasertib and the PARP Inhibitor Olaparib in High-grade Serous Ovarian Cancer and Other Solid Tumors

PURPOSE

Checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1) plays a central role in the response to replication stress through modulation of cell-cycle checkpoints and homologous recombination (HR) repair. In BRCA-deficient cancers with de novo or acquired PARP inhibitor resistance, the addition of the CHK1 inhibitor prexasertib to the PARP inhibitor olaparib compromises replication fork stability, as well as HR proficiency, allowing for sensitization to PARP inhibition.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study followed a 3+3 design with a 7-day lead-in of olaparib alone, followed by 28-day cycles with prexasertib administered on days 1 and 15 in combination with an attenuated dose of olaparib on days 1-5 and 15-19. Pharmacokinetic blood samples were collected after olaparib alone and following combination therapy. Patients enrolled to the expansion phase of the study underwent paired tumor biopsies for pharmacodynamic (PD) assessments.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients were treated. DLTs included grade 3 neutropenia and grade 3 febrile neutropenia. The MTD/recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was prexasertib at 70 mg/m² i.v. with olaparib at 100 mg by mouth twice daily. Most common treatment-related adverse events included leukopenia (83%), neutropenia (86%), thrombocytopenia (66%), and anemia (72%). Four of 18 patients with BRCA1-mutant, PARP inhibitor-resistant, high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) achieved partial responses. Paired tumor biopsies demonstrated reduction in RAD51 foci and increased expression of γ-H2AX, pKAP1, and pRPA after combination exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

Prexasertib combined with olaparib has preliminary clinical activity in BRCA-mutant patients with HGSOC who have previously progressed on a PARP inhibitor. PD analyses show that prexasertib compromises HR with evidence of induction of DNA damage and replication stress.