Dataset Information

XRCC1 deficient triple negative breast cancers are sensitive to ATR, ATM and Wee1 inhibitor either alone or in combination with olaparib

ABSTRACT:

Background:

PARP inhibitor (PARPi) monotherapy is a new strategy in BRCA germ-line deficient triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, not all patients respond, and the development of resistance limits the use of PARPi monotherapy. Therefore, the development of alternative synthetic lethality strategy, including in sporadic TNBC, is a priority. XRCC1, a key player in base excision repair, single strand break repair, nucleotide excision repair and alternative non-homologous end joining, interacts with PARP1 and coordinates DNA repair. ATR, ATM and Wee1 have essential roles in DNA repair and cell cycle regulation.

Methods:

Highly selective inhibitors of ATR (AZD6738), ATM (AZ31) and Wee1 (AZD1775) either alone or in combination with olaparib were tested for synthetic lethality in XRCC1 deficient TNBC or HeLa cells. Clinicopathological significance of ATR, ATM or Wee1 co-expression in XRCC1 proficient or deficient tumours was evaluated in a large cohort of 1650 human breast cancers.

Results:

ATR (AZD6738), ATM (AZ31) or Wee1 (AZD1775) monotherapy was selectively toxic in XRCC1 deficient cells. Selective synergistic toxicity was evident when olaparib was combined with AZD6738, AZ31 or AZD1775. The most potent synergistic interaction was evident with the AZD6738 and olaparib combination therapy. In clinical cohorts, ATR, ATM or Wee1 overexpression in XRCC1 deficient breast cancer was associated with poor outcomes.

Conclusion:

XRCC1 stratified DNA repair targeted combinatorial approach is feasible and warrants further clinical evaluation in breast cancer.

SUBMITTER: Ali R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7758562 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The current view of the involvement of PI3-kinases in checkpoint responses after DNA damage is that ATM is the key regulator of G1-, S- or G2-phase checkpoints, that ATR is only partly involved in the regulation of S- and G2-phase checkpoints and that DNA-PKcs is not involved in checkpoint regulation. However, further analysis of the contributions of these kinases to checkpoint responses in cells exposed to ionizing radiation (IR) recently uncovered striking integrations and interplays among ATM, ATR and DNA-PKcs that adapt not only to the phase of the cell cycle in which cells are irradiated, but also to the load of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), presumably to optimize their processing. Specifically, we found that low IR doses in G2-phase cells activate a G2-checkpoint that is regulated by epistatically coupled ATM and ATR. Thus, inhibition of either kinase suppresses almost fully its activation. At high IR doses, the epistatic ATM/ATR coupling relaxes, yielding to a cooperative regulation. Thus, single-kinase inhibition suppresses partly, and only combined inhibition suppresses fully G2-checkpoint activation. Interestingly, DNA-PKcs integrates with ATM/ATR in G2-checkpoint control, but functions in its recovery in a dose-independent manner. Strikingly, irradiation during S-phase activates, independently of dose, an exclusively ATR-dependent G2 checkpoint. Here, ATM couples with DNA-PKcs to regulate checkpoint recovery. In the present work, we extend these studies and investigate organization and functions of these PI3-kinases in the activation of the G1 checkpoint in cells irradiated either in the G0 or G1 phase. We report that ATM is the sole regulator of the G1 checkpoint after exposure to low IR doses. At high IR doses, ATM remains dominant, but contributions from ATR also become detectable and are associated with limited ATM/ATR-dependent end resection at DSBs. Under these conditions, only combined ATM + ATR inhibition fully abrogates checkpoint and resection. Contributions of DNA-PKcs and CHK2 to the regulation of the G1 checkpoint are not obvious in these experiments and may be masked by the endpoint employed for checkpoint analysis and perturbations in normal progression through the cell cycle of cells exposed to DNA-PKcs inhibitors. The results broaden our understanding of organization throughout the cell cycle and adaptation with increasing IR dose of the ATM/ATR/DNA-PKcs module to regulate checkpoint responses. They emphasize notable similarities and distinct differences between G1-, G2- and S-phase checkpoint regulation that may guide DSB processing decisions.

Project description:BackgroundOlaparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor and cediranib is an anti-angiogenic agent with activity against VEGF receptor (VEGFR) 1, VEGFR2, and VEGFR3. Both oral agents have antitumour activity in women with recurrent ovarian cancer, and their combination was active and had manageable toxicities in a phase 1 trial. We investigated whether this combination could improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared with olaparib monotherapy in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.MethodsIn our randomised, open-label, phase 2 study, we recruited women (aged ≥18 years) who had measurable platinum-sensitive, relapsed, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, or those with deleterious germline BRCA1/2 mutations from nine participating US academic medical centres. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to permuted blocks, stratified by germline BRCA status and previous anti-angiogenic therapy, to receive olaparib capsules 400 mg twice daily or the combination at the recommended phase 2 dose of cediranib 30 mg daily and olaparib capsules 200 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. The phase 2 trial is no longer accruing patients. An interim analysis was conducted in November, 2013, after 50% of expected events had occurred and efficacy results were unmasked. The primary analysis was performed on March 31, 2014, after 47 events (66% of those expected). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01116648.FindingsBetween Oct 26, 2011, and June 3, 2013, we randomly allocated 46 women to receive olaparib alone and 44 to receive the combination of olaparib and cediranib. Median PFS was 17·7 months (95% CI 14·7-not reached) for the women treated with cediranib plus olaparib compared with 9·0 months (95% CI 5·7-16·5) for those treated with olaparib monotherapy (hazard ratio 0·42, 95% CI 0·23-0·76; p=0·005). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more common with combination therapy than with monotherapy, including fatigue (12 patients in the cediranib plus olaparib group vs five patients in the olaparib monotherapy group), diarrhoea (ten vs none), and hypertension (18 vs none).InterpretationCediranib plus olaparib seems to improve PFS in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, and warrants study in a phase 3 trial. The side-effect profile suggests such investigations should include assessments of quality of life and patient-reported outcomes to understand the effects of a continuing oral regimen with that of intermittent chemotherapy.FundingAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (3 U01 CA062490-16S2); Intramural Program of the Center for Cancer Research; and the Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, NIH.