Exploring and comparing adverse events between PARP inhibitors
- PMID: 30614472
- PMCID: PMC7292736
- DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30786-1
Exploring and comparing adverse events between PARP inhibitors
Abstract
Ovarian cancer remains one of the most challenging malignancies to treat. Targeted therapies such as poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have emerged as one of the most exciting new treatments for ovarian cancer, particularly in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations or those without a functional homologous recombination repair pathway. Perhaps the most advantageous characteristic of PARP inhibitors is their mechanism of action, which targets cancer cells on the basis of their inherent deficiencies while seemingly avoiding normally functioning cells. Although health-care providers might assume a low toxicity profile because of their specific mechanism of action, PARP inhibitors are not completely benign and overall show a class effect adverse-event profile. Further complicating this situation, three different PARP inhibitors have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since 2014, each with their own specific indications and individual toxicity profiles. The diversity of adverse events seen both within and across this class of drug underscores the importance of having a comprehensive reference to help guide clinical decision making when treating patients. This Review characterises and compares all toxicities associated with each PARP inhibitor, both in monotherapy and in novel combinations with other drugs, with a particular focus on potential management strategies to help mitigate toxic effects. Although the excitement surrounding PARP inhibitors might certainly be warranted, a thorough understanding of all associated toxicities is imperative to ensure that patients can achieve maximal clinical benefit.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of interests
RLC reports personal fees from Cell Medica, DelMar Pharmaceuticals, Geistlich, Genmab, ImmunoGen, Perthera, Takeda, Tesaro, TRM Oncology, Clovis, Aravive Biologics Inc, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Caris Life Sciences, Eisai·Morphotek, Gamamabs, Janssen, Medscape, Merck, Myriad, and Roche, outside the submitted work; and grants from Clovis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, and Roche, outside the submitted work. AKS is part of the advisory board of Kiyatec, is a stockholder for Biopath, a consultant at Tesaro, and reports grants from M-Trap, all outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.
Figures

References
-
- Walsh CS. Two decades beyond BRCA1f2: homologous recombination, hereditary cancer risk and a target for ovarian cancer therapy. Gynecol Oncol2015; 137: 343–50. - PubMed
-
- Valerie K, Povirk LF. Regulation and mechanisms of mammalian double-strand break repair. Oncogene 2003; 22: 5792–812. - PubMed
-
- Sung P, Klein H. Mechanism of homologous recombination: mediators and helicases take on regulatory functions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol2006; 7: 739–50. - PubMed
-
- Satoh MS, Lindahl T. Role of poly(ADP-ribose) formation in DNA repair. Nature 1992; 356: 356–58. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous