Abstract LB-273: A head-to-head comparison of the properties of five clinical PARP inhibitors identifies new insights that can explain both the observed clinical efficacy and safety profiles
Authors: Elisabetta Leo, Jeffrey Johannes, Giuditta Illuzzi, Andrew Zhang, Paul Hemsley, Michal J. Bista, Jonathan P. Orme, Verity A. Talbot, Ana J. Narvaez, Elizabeth Underwood, Andrew Pike, Jenni K. Nikkila, Lucy Riches, Sinbad Sweeney, Frida Gustafsson, Anna Cronin, Piero Ricchiuto, Debora A. Roaquin, Fiona Pachl, Eric Miele, Ruth MacDonald, Glen Hawthorne, Andrew N. Mead, Mark J. O'Connor
Journal: Cancer Research (2018)

Abstract Four poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have now presented phase 3 monotherapy data showing compelling benefit of targeting tumours enriched with DNA damage response (DDR) pathway deficiencies, including BRCA gene mutations. Indirect treatment comparisons using the published clinical data from these late stage trials suggest similar levels of monotherapy efficacy are observed in spite of reported differences in PARP trapping potency. However, there is greater diversity in the observed safety profiles. To try and understand these observations, we have carried out a head-to-head comparison of these four PARP inhibitors (olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib and talazoparib) as well as veliparib, which recently reported phase 3 chemotherapy combination data. In our studies, we included an assessment of molecular mechanism of action that included PAR inhibition, PARP trapping and synthetic lethality in isogenic BRCA mutant and wild type models. In addition, an assessment of selectivity in terms of both inhibition of PARP family members using a novel chemoproteomic approach, as well as secondary (off-target) activities was performed. Finally, effects on human haematopoietic stem cell viability and bio-distribution to bone marrow in the rat were tested and compared. A detailed correlation of our datasets with the observed clinical results, including adverse events, suggests these preclinical experiments provide an excellent predictor of clinical response and could be used to assess emerging as well as novel PARP inhibitors. OlaparibVeliparibRucaparibNiraparibTalazoparibCompanyAZAbbVieClovisTesaroPfizerPhaseApprovedIIIApprovedApprovedIIIPARP1 SPR Kd (µM)0.0010.0070.0010.0130.002PARP2 SPR Kd (µM)0.0010.0140.0230.0430.005PARPs with Proteomic Kd &amp;lt;1 µM1,2,3,4,131,2,3,4,131,2,3,4,10,131,2,131,2,3,4,5a,13, 16Sec. Pharm. #, top hit µM0/855/85 5HT7, 0.513/85 5HT4, 0.517/84 DAT, 0.040/85Monotherapy dose (mg)300 bd (tablet)500 bd600 bd300 od1 od Citation Format: Elisabetta Leo, Jeffrey Johannes, Giuditta Illuzzi, Andrew Zhang, Paul Hemsley, Michal J. Bista, Jonathan P. Orme, Verity A. Talbot, Ana J. Narvaez, Elizabeth Underwood, Andrew Pike, Jenni K. Nikkila, Lucy Riches, Sinbad Sweeney, Frida Gustafsson, Anna Cronin, Piero Ricchiuto, Debora A. Roaquin, Fiona Pachl, Eric Miele, Ruth MacDonald, Glen Hawthorne, Andrew N. Mead, Mark J. O'Connor. A head-to-head comparison of the properties of five clinical PARP inhibitors identifies new insights that can explain both the observed clinical efficacy and safety profiles [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-273.