Citations

Abstract Here, we investigate the potential role of the PARP inhibitor rucaparib (CO-338, formerly known as AG014699 and PF-01367338) for the treatment of sporadic ovarian cancer. We studied the growth inhibitory effects of rucaparib in a panel of 39 ovarian cancer cell lines that were each characterized for mutation and methylation status of BRCA1/2, baseline gene expression signatures, copy number variations of selected genes, PTEN status, and sensitivity to platinum-based chemotherapy. To study interactions with chemotherapy, we used multiple drug effect analyses and assessed apoptosis, DNA fragmentation, and γH2AX formation. Concentration-dependent antiproliferative effects of rucaparib were seen in 26 of 39 (67%) cell lines and were not restricted to cell lines with BRCA1/2 mutations. Low expression of other genes involved in homologous repair (e.g., BCCIP, BRCC3, ATM, RAD51L1), amplification of AURKA or EMSY, and response to platinum-based chemotherapy was associated with sensitivity to rucaparib. Drug interactions with rucaparib were synergistic for topotecan, synergistic, or additive for carboplatin, doxorubicin or paclitaxel, and additive for gemcitabine. Synergy was most pronounced when rucaparib was combined with topotecan, which resulted in enhanced apoptosis, DNA fragmentation, and γH2AX formation. Importantly, rucaparib potentiated chemotherapy independent of its activity as a single agent. PARP inhibition may be a useful therapeutic strategy for a wider range of ovarian cancers bearing deficiencies in the homologous recombination pathway other than just BRCA1/2 mutations. These results support further clinical evaluation of rucaparib either as a single agent or as an adjunct to chemotherapy for the treatment of sporadic ovarian cancer. Mol Cancer Ther; 12(6); 1002–15. ©2013 AACR.

Purpose In patients with hormone-dependent postmenopausal breast cancer, standard adjuvant therapy involves 5 years of the nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors anastrozole and letrozole. The steroidal inhibitor exemestane is partially non–cross-resistant with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors and is a mild androgen and could prove superior to anastrozole regarding efficacy and toxicity, specifically with less bone loss. Patients and Methods We designed an open-label, randomized, phase III trial of 5 years of exemestane versus anastrozole with a two-sided test of superiority to detect a 2.4% improvement with exemestane in 5-year event-free survival (EFS). Secondary objectives included assessment of overall survival, distant disease–free survival, incidence of contralateral new primary breast cancer, and safety. Results In the study, 7,576 women (median age, 64.1 years) were enrolled. At median follow-up of 4.1 years, 4-year EFS was 91% for exemestane and 91.2% for anastrozole (stratified hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.18; P = .85). Overall, distant disease–free survival and disease-specific survival were also similar. In all, 31.6% of patients discontinued treatment as a result of adverse effects, concomitant disease, or study refusal. Osteoporosis/osteopenia, hypertriglyceridemia, vaginal bleeding, and hypercholesterolemia were less frequent on exemestane, whereas mild liver function abnormalities and rare episodes of atrial fibrillation were less frequent on anastrozole. Vasomotor and musculoskeletal symptoms were similar between arms. Conclusion This first comparison of steroidal and nonsteroidal classes of aromatase inhibitors showed neither to be superior in terms of breast cancer outcomes as 5-year initial adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal breast cancer by two-way test. Less toxicity on bone is compatible with one hypothesis behind MA.27 but requires confirmation. Exemestane should be considered another option as up-front adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal hormone receptor–positive breast cancer.

Key Points Thalidomide and prednisone maintenance after transplantation improves progression-free but not overall survival.

Background: A breast cancer diagnosis can entail numerous physical and psychosocial challenges. Yoga practice (YP) may contribute to improved well-being for these patients. Primary Study Objective: Investigate feasibility and impact of YP on quality of life (QoL), mood, fatigue, and perceived stress immediately after breast cancer diagnosis. Methods: Thirty women were randomly assigned to a yoga group (YG) or control group (CG) immediately after cancer diagnosis. Setting: Pilot study conducted at an academic medical center breast clinic. Participant(s): Females (N = 30) who received a biopsy-proven breast cancer diagnosis without metastatic disease. Intervention (YG): One individual YP session at baseline, then 2 individual and 8 weekly group sessions followed by weekly gentle yoga at home (DVD). Questionnaires and saliva samples (ie, cortisol) completed at baseline and 12 weeks postdiagnosis. Results: Both groups reported significant improvements in QoL postintervention but with no significant difference between groups. Emotional well-being, mood-related tension-anxiety, depression-dejection, and confusion-bewilderment scores improved for both groups, and cortisol and cortisone levels decreased. Lumpectomies were prevalent with YG (67%) and CG (47%). YP was rated as “very effective,” providing relaxation (85%), stress relief (69%), and reduced muscle tension/general feeling of wellness (each 62%). Conclusion: Feasibility of YP immediately after breast cancer diagnosis was good. Improvement in emotional well-being, anxiety, depression, and levels of confusion was found in both groups. To our knowledge, this is the first study examining the impact of YP immediately after breast cancer diagnosis. Further research in this area is warranted.