4.3 Review

PARP Inhibitors in Ovarian Cancer

期刊

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/1574892813666180305165256

关键词

Niraparib; olaparib; ovarian cancer; PARP inhibitors; recent patents; rucaparib; talazoparib; veliparib

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Treatment of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer (EOC), historically based on surgery and platinum doublet chemotherapy, is associated with high risk of relapse and poor prognosis for recurrent disease. In this landscape, the innovative treatment with PARP inhibitors (PARPis) demonstrated an outstanding activity in EOC, and is currently changing clinical practice in BRCA mutant patients. Objectives: The study aimed to highlight the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, clinical activity, indications and current strategies of development of Olaparib, Niraparib, Rucaparib, Talazoparib and Veliparib, the 5 most relevant PARPis. Methods: We performed a review on Pubmed using 'ovarian cancer' and the name of each PARPi (PARP inhibitor) discussed in the review as Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) keywords. The same search was performed on clinicaltrial.gov to identify ongoing clinical trials and on google.com/patents and uspto.gov for recent patents exploring PARPIs in ovarian cancer. Results: Olaparib, Niraparib and Rucaparib are already approved for the treatment of recurrent EOC and their indications are partially overlapping. Talazoparib and Veliparib are promising PARPis, but currently under investigation in early phase trials. Several studies are evaluating PARPis in monotherapy or in associations, in a wide range of settings (i.e. first line, neoadjuvant, platinum-sensitive and resistant disease). Conclusion: PARPis are valuable options in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer with promising activity in different stages of this disease. Further studies are required to better define optimal clinical settings, predictors of response beyond BRCA mutations and strategies to overcome secondary resistance of PARPis therapy in EOC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据