Back to Authors

Ji, Jiuping Jay

Mayo Clinic

Science Applications International Corporation (United States)

Citations 2

Randomized trial of oral cyclophosphamide (C) with or without veliparib (V), an oral poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, in patients with recurrent BRCA-positive ovarian, or primary peritoneal or high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma.
Sullivan, Daniel M. , Gandara, David R., Erlichman, Charles , Villalona‐Calero, Miguel A. , Morgan, Robert J. , Chen, Alice P. , Ji, Jiuping Jay, Lih, Chih‐Jian, Steinberg, Seth M. , Conley, Barbara A. , Doroshow, James H. , Kummar, Shivaani , Oza, Amit M. , Fleming, Gini F. , Ji, Jiuping , Allen, Deborah Emma , Williams, P. Mickey

Journal of Clinical Oncology | March 11, 2020 | Volume: 30 | Issue: 15_suppl | Pages: 5020-5020

10.1200/jco.2012.30.15_suppl.5020 Get It

5020 Background: V+C was well tolerated in a phase I trial and responses and prolonged disease stabilization were observed in BRCA + patients (pts).To assess the relative contribution of the PARP inhibitor to the efficacy observed for the combination, we conducted a randomized multicenter trial comparing the response rate (RR) of V and C to the RR of C alone in patients with deleterious BRCA mutations and recurrent ovarian, or primary peritoneal, fallopian tube or high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Methods: Pts were ≥ 18 yrs, KPS ≥ 70%, had adequate organ function, prior therapy with PARP inhibitors was allowed.Both drugs were administered orally qd; C 50 mg, V 60 mg; 21 day cycles. Pts were randomized to receive either C alone or V+C. At disease progression, pts on C alone were allowed to cross over to the combination. Radiologic imaging was performed at baseline and q 3 cycles for assessment of response. Dose reduction of V was allowed to 40 mg for gr 3 non-hematologic or gr 4 hematologic toxicities. The study design had an 88% power to detect the difference between a 15% RR for C alone versus 35% for V+C, early closure if fewer responses were observed on the combination arm in the first 65 pts enrolled (half of the total projected accrual). Results: Total of 74 pts were enrolled (36 pts C, 38 pts V+C), median age 58 (37-79 yrs), # of prior therapies: median 4 (1-9), 2 pts had prior PARP therapy. Treatment was well tolerated, Gr ≥ 2 toxicities per arm for initial regimen (# of pts): C alone: lymphopenia (2), mucositis (1); V+C: lymphopenia (4), anemia (2), leucopenia (2), neutropenia (2). Of the 74 pts evaluable for response at the interim analysis, 3 PRs observed in 36 pts on V+C and 5 PRs of 38 pts on C alone arm; thus accrual was stopped. PAR levels assessed by validated ELISA were inhibited (>80%) in PBMCs in 9/10 pts 4 hours post V, no inhibition with C alone. Conclusions: Addition of V, a PARP inhibitor, to C did not improve RR versus C alone. Exomic sequencing, gene expression studies, and Fanconi Anemia triple stain immunofluorescence (FATSI) assay for FancD2 nuclear foci formation using archival tissue are ongoing.
A Phase 1 Study of the PARP Inhibitor Veliparib in Combination with Temozolomide in Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Gojo, Ivana , Pratz, Keith W. , McDevitt, Michael A. , Baer, Maria R. , Gore, Steven D. , Showel, Margaret M. , Gladstone, Douglas E. , Ji, Jiuping Jay, Wang, Lihua , Kinders, Robert J. , Pouquet, Marie , Walbi, Ismail A. , Poh, Weijie , Herman, James G. , Karnitz, Larry M., Chen, Alice P. , Karp, Judith E. , Kaufmann, Scott H. , Beumer, Jan Hendrik , Blackford, Amanda , Smith, B. Douglas , Carraway, Hetty E. , Levis, Mark J. , Dezern, Amy Elizabeth , Ji, Jiuping , Rudek, Michelle A. , Poh, Weijie

Clinical Cancer Research | August 8, 2016 | Volume: 23 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 697-706

10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-16-0984 Get It

Abstract Purpose: In preclinical studies, the PARP inhibitor veliparib enhanced the antileukemic action of temozolomide through potentiation of DNA damage. Accordingly, we conducted a phase 1 study of temozolomide with escalating doses of veliparib in patients with relapsed, refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or AML arising from aggressive myeloid malignancies. Experimental Design: Patients received veliparib [20–200 mg once a day on day 1 and twice daily on days 4–12 in cycle 1 (days 1–8 in cycle ≥2)] and temozolomide [150–200 mg/m2 daily on days 3–9 in cycle 1 (days 1–5 in cycle ≥2)] every 28 to 56 days. Veliparib pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics [ability to inhibit poly(ADP-ribose) polymer (PAR) formation and induce H2AX phosphorylation] were assessed. Pretreatment levels of MGMT and PARP1 protein, methylation of the MGMT promoter, and integrity of the Fanconi anemia pathway were also examined. Results: Forty-eight patients were treated at seven dose levels. Dose-limiting toxicities were oral mucositis and esophagitis lasting >7 days. The MTD was veliparib 150 mg twice daily with temozolomide 200 mg/m2 daily. The complete response (CR) rate was 17% (8/48 patients). Veliparib exposure as well as inhibition of PAR polymer formation increased dose proportionately. A veliparib-induced increase in H2AX phosphorylation in CD34+ cells was observed in responders. Three of 4 patients with MGMT promoter methylation achieved CR. Conclusions: Veliparib plus temozolomide is well tolerated, with activity in advanced AML. Further evaluation of this regimen and of treatment-induced phosphorylation of H2AX and MGMT methylation as potential response predictors appears warranted. Clin Cancer Res; 23(3); 697–706. ©2016 AACR.