Skip to main content

Cytotoxic and targeted therapy for BRCA1/2-driven cancers

Abstract

Tumors arising in BRCA1/2 germline mutation carriers usually demonstrate somatic loss of the remaining BRCA1/2 allele and increased sensitivity to platinum compounds, anthracyclines, mitomycin C and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). Exposure to conventional platinum-based therapy or PARPi results in the restoration of BRCA1/2 function and development of resistance to systemic therapy, therefore, there is a need for other treatment options. Some studies suggested that the use of specific drug combinations or administration of high-dose chemotherapy may result in pronounced tumor responses. BRCA1/2-driven tumors are characterized by increased immunogenicity; promising efficacy of immune therapy has been demonstrated in a number of preclinical and clinical investigations. There are outstanding issues, which require further consideration. Platinum compounds and PARPi have very similar mode of antitumor action and are likely to render cross-resistance to each other, so their optimal position in cancer treatment schemes may be a subject of additional studies. Sporadic tumors with somatically acquired inactivation of BRCA1/2 or related genes resemble hereditary neoplasms with regard to the spectrum of drug sensitivity; the development of user-friendly BRCAness tests presents a challenge. Many therapeutic decisions are now based on the BRCA1/2 status, so the significant reduction of the turn-around time for predictive laboratory assays is of particular importance.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The development of tumors in BRCA1/2 germ-line mutation carriers usually includes somatic inactivation of the remaining allele of the involved gene. Consequently, these malignancies are characterized by tumor-selective BRCA1/2 deficiency, down-regulation of DNA double-strand break repair and high-level chromosomal instability. These features of BRCA1/2-driven cancers underlie their specific pattern of sensitivity to cytotoxic and targeted compounds. This review discusses the latest developments in the therapy of BRCA1/2-associated malignancies.

Cytotoxic therapy

Platinum-based cytotoxic drugs form DNA crosslinks, which are believed to ultimately cause DNA double-strand breaks and activate DNA repair by homologous recombination. Recent studies updated this concept indicating that other mechanisms, i.e., the formation of single-stranded DNA replication gaps, may underlie an increased sensitivity of BRCA1/2-deficient cells to cisplatin or carboplatin [1]. Clinical validation of these data present a challenge. Platinum salts form a backbone for the therapy of ovarian cancer (OC); however, these agents are almost always given in combination with other drugs, with carboplatin/paclitaxel being the most common regimen in the past. Retrospective and prospective studies revealed that BRCA1/2 mutation carriers obtain more benefit from a standard therapy for OC as compared to women with non-hereditary OC disease [2,3,4]. Investigations involving breast cancer (BC) patients are more complicated, given that platinum-containing schemes were not included in the standard BC treatment options until recently. Consequently, it took a few interventional trials to reveal that the replacement of the standard chemotherapy by single-agent cisplatin is indeed a promising option for clinical management of BRCA1-driven BC [5,6,7,8]. However, there are at least two outstanding issues: 1) how the performance of platinum-based therapy compares with the efficacy of other drug regimens? 2) what is the best companion to be added to the platinum backbone?

There are only a few studies, which directly compared single-agent platinum vs. conventional non-platinum therapy in BC patients with germ-line BRCA1/2 mutations. Byrski et al. [5] analyzed mainly patients with recurrent Slavic/Jewish mutations in BRCA1 gene and revealed higher efficacy of neoadjuvant cisplatin as compared to retrospective data obtained with the use of standard neoadjuvant regimens. However, these observations were not replicated in a recent randomized study, which utilized doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide as a comparator to cisplatin and involved patients with diverse mutations and BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes [9]. For the time being, it is safe to conclude that single-agent cisplatin may be considered as an option for the neoadjuvant treatment of BC in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. However, although this drug frequently induces pathologic complete (pCR) responses, many platinum-treated women still present with a residual tumor mass at surgery [7, 8]. Therefore, it is feasible to examine whether the addition of other therapeutic agents to the cisplatin backbone will result in the improvement of the pCR rate in neoadjuvant BC setting. Single-agent carboplatin showed significantly better efficacy than docetaxel in BRCA1/2 germ-line mutation carriers, which were analyzed as a subgroup within a randomized trial for patients with triple-negative advanced BC [10].

Several laboratory studies suggested sensitivity of BRCA-deficient cells to mitomycin C. These findings have been confirmed by clinical data. Single-agent mitomycin C demonstrated activity towards heavily pretreated OC patients with BRCA1 mutations [11]. Combination of mitomycin C and cisplatin showed good performance both in neoadjuvant setting and in the treatment of recurrent OC disease in BRCA1 mutation carriers, being clearly superior to the carboplatin/paclitaxel or other regimens [12,13,14]. Importantly, some OC patients exposed to mitomycin/cisplatin-containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy experience complete pathologic responses, while standard drug schemes almost never result in complete elimination of OC cells [12, 14]. These data call for the evaluation of mitomycin/cisplatin efficacy in BC patients carrying BRCA1/2 germ-line mutation. There are reports suggesting that combination of cisplatin and anthracyclines may exert significant therapeutic activity in BRCA1-driven hereditary BCs [15]. Choice of companion to cisplatin may depend on the spectrum of drugs utilized in the standard treatment for a given cancer type. For example, cisplatin/gemcitabine doublet demonstrated a remarkable efficacy in BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2-driven hereditary pancreatic cancer [16].

Two very recent studies demonstrated increased sensitivity of BRCA1/2-driven tumors to bifunctional alkylating agents. Bifunctional alkylating drugs are able to generate DNA crosslinks and in this respect resemble platinum compounds [17]. Melphalan showed remarkable activity in women with recurrent hereditary BRCA1/2-mutated OC, whose disease was classified as platinum-resistant according to the duration of platinum-free interval [18]. Patients with BRCA1/2-associated relapsed OC experienced significant benefit from metronomic oral cyclophosphamide [19]. In line with these data, there are reports describing successful utilization of metronomic cyclophosphamide as a maintenance therapy, i.e., in the setting which resembles the current use of PARP inhibitors [20].

There is a high number of investigations, which compared conventional multidrug regimens in various categories of BC patients, and analyzed the outcomes in subgroups of women with germ-line BRCA1/2 mutations. It is generally agreed, that the use of anthracyclines produces good results in patients with BRCA1/2-driven tumors [5, 9, 21, 22]. Many current treatment schemes involve the use of taxanes, and the analysis taxane-containing regimens is highly complicated due to a number of important nuances. Presence of BRCA1 is essential for taxane-mediated apoptotic death; some although not all studies suggested that the inclusion of taxanes into the drug cocktail compromises the efficacy of chemotherapy for BRCA1-associated tumors [5, 21, 23]. This statement may not be applicable to BRCA2, as the latter gene is not essential for taxane-driven killing of cancer cells [24]. Virtually all available studies pooled together BRCA1- and BRCA2-mutated cancers; this approach may be acceptable for the evaluation of the treatment outcomes for BRCA1/2-specific agents (anthracyclines, platinum drugs, mitomycin C, PARP inhibitors), but is questionable while considering the analysis of efficacy of taxanes or some other drugs. Even more importantly, the mode of administration of taxanes may play a role in the treatment outcomes, at least in theory. Some schemes utilized concurrent administration of taxanes with other cytotoxic agents, while it is also common to practice sequential use of anthracyclines and microtubule inhibitors [22, 23, 25,26,27]. If we speculate, that the treatment by anthracyclines results in the restoration of BRCA1 function via secondary mutation or other mechanisms [24, 28], the subsequent use of taxanes is likely to render the benefit similar to the one observed in non-selected BC patients.

The distinction between BRCA1 and BRCA2 may indeed be of importance in some circumstances. BRCA2-associated tumors demonstrate higher sensitivity to trabectedin or lurbinectedin than BRCA1-driven neoplasms [29, 30]. There are case reports describing very prolonged responses of BRCA2-mutated tumors to melphalan [31, 32].

PARP inhibitors

There are a few PARP inhibitors (PARPi) approved for the clinical use. The guidelines for administration of PARPi are complicated, as the registration trials involved different categories of patients. Early clinical investigations included mainly patients with germ-line BRCA1/2 mutations [33]. Subsequent studies also considered other categories of tumors with evidences of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), e.g., cancers with somatic inactivation of BRCA1/2, or tumors driven by mutations in other genes of DNA repair pathways, or neoplasms characterized by high-level chromosomal instability. In addition, several trials relied on the fact that the majority of OCs display so-called BRCAness phenotype, i.e. they are characterized by some degree of HRD, and, consequently, platinum sensitivity; therefore, the use of PARPi maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive OC patients could be considered irrespective of laboratory assays. In fact, these studies utilized phenotypic criteria for the selection of the patients, i.e. the mere fact of the response to platinum agents was taken as a chance to obtain further benefit from PARPi [34]. For the time being, talazoparib is the only PARPi, whose indications are limited to BRCA1/2 germ-line mutation carriers, with BC being an approved indication [35]. Niraparib has been registered only for OC patients as the maintenance therapy for the platinum-responsive disease and as a single-agent treatment for BRCA1/2-driven or chromosomally-unstable OC after exposure to multiple lines of therapy [36, 37]. Similar indications for OC treatment are formulated for rucaparib; rucaparib is also recommended for pretreated prostate cancers carrying germ-line or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations [38, 39]. There are several scenarios for the use of olaparib as the maintenance therapy in OC, which include both BRCA1/2-associated and non-selected platinum-responsive OCs [40,41,42]. Use of olaparib in BC patients is limited to BRCA1/2 germ-line mutation carriers [43]. Olaparib is also recommended as a maintenance treatment for hereditary BRCA1/2-driven pancreatic cancer [44]. Guidelines for the use of olaparib in castrate-resistant prostate cancer are based on the presence of germ-line or somatic mutations in several genes involved in DNA repair by homologous recombination [45]. There are multiple recently completed or ongoing PARPi trials; therefore, the list of PARPi and the spectrum of approved indications are likely to expand in the near future. It is anticipated, that PARPi will be increasingly used for the treatment of BRCA1/2-like sporadic tumors and that adjuvant PARPi regimens will enter clinical practice [46,47,48].

The invention of PARPi resulted in significant changes in the landscape of cancer treatment. It is beyond the doubt that the use of PARPi is associated with medically relevant improvement of disease outcomes, although at least some real-world studies produce more modest estimates as compared to the registration trials [49]. There are several issues requiring consideration. The mechanisms of action of PARPi demonstrates significant overlap with platinum agents, i.e. these two categories of drugs are seemingly interchangeable in some circumstances [50]. Cisplatin and carboplatin have significant adverse effects and several contraindications, which are not applicable to PARPi, therefore PARP inhibitors are certainly the choice for patients with poor tolerability to platinum compounds [50,51,52]. However, it is of concern that the available trials usually did not consider the direct comparison between PARPi and cisplatin/carboplatin, while some of them certainly could [53]. For example, the success of adjuvant PARPi trial [48] suggests that evaluation of adjuvant platinum-based therapy is also feasible in BC patients carrying BRCA1/2 germ-line mutation. PARPi are expensive, hence their comparative assessment towards other drugs has not only medical but also economical relevance [54, 55]. The trend of extending of PARPi indications beyond the tumors driven by germ-line BRCA1/2 mutations needs to be followed [40, 41, 56, 57]. There are data suggesting that the best responders to PARPi and platinum compounds are accumulated mainly within patients with BRCA1/2-driven hereditary cancers, while sporadic tumors with evidences for BRCAness/HRD phenotype often demonstrate less pronounced although still medically meaningful response to BRCA1/2-specific therapy [4, 42, 58]. The in-depth analysis of prostate cancer patients receiving olaparib revealed that mainly BRCA1/2 mutations were associated with the tumor response, while subjects with alterations in other genes of HRD pathway derived no benefit from this drug, despite that the registration documents pooled together BRCA1/2 and non-BRCA1/2 mutations [59, 60]. Furthermore, there are data suggesting that only BRCA2 but not BRCA1 mutations are associated with high efficacy of PARPi in prostate cancer [61]. Use of PARPi usually results in the restoration of DNA repair, often by the secondary mutation in BRCA1/2 genes [28]. These tumors are almost certainly cross-resistant to platinum-based therapy and some other cytotoxic drugs. Surprisingly, there is relatively little discussion in the medical literature regarding the remaining treatment options after the failure of PARPi; some clinical data indicate that the use PARPi may expectedly compromise the efficacy of subsequent therapeutic regimens [62].

Immune therapy

BRCA1/2-driven tumors exhibit chromosomal instability, which results in accumulation of genomic rearrangements and, possibly, emergence of cancer-specific antigens [63]. Preclinical studies confirmed increased antigenicity of BRCA1-associated tumors and demonstrated that the use of inhibitors of immune checkpoints is a promising treatment option [64]. Matsuo et al. [65] utilized nivolumab in 6 heavily pretreated patients with BRCA1/2-related ovarian cancer and observed objective tumor responses in 4 cases. There are data suggesting that platinum and PARPi treatment may increase immunogenicity of tumor cells [66,67,68,69,70]. Multiple clinical trials involving a combined use of PARPi and immunomodulatory agents are currently underway, and the first results suggest a promise of this approach for BRCA1/2-associated malignancies [58, 68, 71, 72]. The analysis of already existing data sets is also of potential importance. For example, combination of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel is now routinely utilized for the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative BC if the tumor-infiltrating immune cells express PD-L1 [73]. A significant portion of women with triple-negative BC carry germ-line BRCA1 mutations [74]; it would be of interest to evaluate the efficacy of the above doublet in this subset of patients and to compare the efficacy of immune therapy with the outcomes of platinum-based treatment.

Loss-of-heterozygosity testing and other supporting laboratory assays

Tumor-selective loss of the remaining BRCA1/2 allele is a key event determining antitumor activity of platinum compounds and PARP inhibitors. It is essential to recognize that the mere presence of BRCA1/2 germ-line mutation in the genome of a given cancer patient is not always a reliable indication for the administration of the above drugs. There are some tumor types besides breast and ovarian cancer whose risk is somewhat elevated in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, however these tumors do not always display loss-of-heterozygosity (LOH) for BRCA1/2 locus, i.e. they retain the wild-type BRCA1/2 allele [75]. Furthermore, even breast and ovarian carcinomas arising in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers do not always have LOH at the BRCA1/2 locus, and, expectedly, tumors with retention of the normal BRCA1/2 gene copy show limited sensitivity to platinum drugs [76]. This heterogeneity is currently not considered in daily clinical practice, e.g., BRCA1/2 LOH or HRD testing is not incorporated in the decision-making process for patients with hereditary cancers. It is likely, that in some future the process of drug choice will be supported by the additional analysis of tumor genome. BRCA1/2-driven tumors have characteristic “genomic scars”, which are caused by chromosomal instability. These BRCAness genetic profiles can be reliably determined by the next generation sequencing (NGS). NGS technologies are gradually becoming more cost-effective and user-friendly, and the same applies to the BRCAness assays. Recent studies suggested some simplified approaches for the analysis of BRCAness (HRD) phenotype, which appear to be suitable for routine clinical use [4, 56, 57].

Acquired resistance to BRCA1/2-specifc therapy

Clinical analysis of novel drugs or treatment regimens presents an ethical challenge, especially for tumors which are more or less responsive to standard therapeutic schemes. Consequently, early-phase clinical trials usually involve heavily pretreated patients, or, alternatively, add a novel drug to the standard therapy backbone. Cancers arising in BRCA1/2 mutations carriers constitute an especial category of malignancies, as they critically change their biological properties over the course of treatment. The analysis of tumors exposed to platinum therapy or PARPi revealed instances of the rescue of BRCA1/2 function, which is achieved by the second mutation in the affected gene, and, consequently, by the restoration of BRCA1/2 open reading frame [24, 28]. These data are supported by clinical observations of extraordinarily good response in patients with deletion of large fragments of BRCA1/2 genes, i.e., in instances where BRCA1/2 function cannot be restored by the secondary mutation [51, 77]. Studies on BRCA1-mutated ovarian carcinomas demonstrated the persistence of a small fraction of BRCA1-proficient cells even in chemonaive tumors; these cells rapidly repopulate tumor mass during the first weeks of platinum-based therapy thus explaining the phenomenon of inevitable emergence of platinum-resistance [78, 79]. Therefore, it is potentially error-prone to evaluate the efficacy of BRCA1/2-specific therapies in the pretreated patients, as the tumors rapidly lose their target and, therefore, adapt to the pressure of platinum compounds or PARPi [80,81,82].

Most of patients with advanced cancer present with multiple metastatic foci. While the core genetic events underlying natural cancer development are usually identical in primary tumors and metastatic lumps, the mechanisms of adaptation of each individual metastatic clone to a therapeutic pressure may be more or less unique. Furthermore, when the systemic treatment is indeed highly efficient, the pattern of disease progression is often limited to an expansion of a single tumor lump. Topical radiological or surgical ablation may be considered for the management of patients with oligometastatic disease, and the latter pattern of tumor appearance is characteristic for BRCA1/2-driven tumors exposed to platinum-based therapy [83, 84]. In agreement with these data, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, being clearly inferior to primary surgical debulking in non-selected OC patients, provides equivalent survival outcomes in women with highly chemosensitive hereditary ovarian tumors [84, 85].

Intensification of therapy, i.e. the use of drug combination or increased drug doses is a common approach to combat the tumor plasticity. This attitude is applied to potentially curable cancers, for example, to germ-cell tumors and some hematological malignancies. High-dose chemotherapy, being a life-threatening, highly afflictive and very expensive intervention, was utilized as an investigational treatment to patients with metastatic breast cancer some years ago. The analysis of long-term survivors revealed that high-dose chemotherapy is not a preferable option for non-selected BC cases, but may result in very prolonged responses and possibly even cure from the metastatic BC disease in carriers of germ-line BRCA1/2 mutations [86,87,88].

Conclusions

The discovery of hereditary breast-ovarian cancer genes was initially viewed as an advance in preventive medicine, with the focus on timely cancer diagnosis and prophylactic surgery applied to BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Studies on molecular pathogenesis of BRCA1/2-driven tumors revealed their specific vulnerabilities and shaped the concept of synthetic lethality [89]. While the actual clinical efficacy of diagnostic screening in BRCA1/2 heterozygotes turned out to be lower than initially foreseen [90], we are witnessing a spectacular breakthrough in systemic treatment of BRCA1/2-associated tumors. Current guidelines already consider BRCA1/2 testing for the adjustment of therapeutic schemes in patients with breast, ovarian, prostate and pancreatic malignancies. Lessons learned from hereditary cancers led to the extension of many drug indications to sporadic tumors carrying BRCAness phenotype. BRCA1/2 testing and related laboratory procedures are currently guiding many therapeutic decisions. The full-scale BRCA1/2 analysis or HRD evaluation require significant time and resources, so they are still poorly compatible with the choice of neoadjuvant or first-line therapy. However, given that the acquisition of tumor resistance to systemic treatment often involves restoration of BRCA1/2 function, it is essential to ensure that patients with BRCA1/2-driven tumors receive BRCA1/2-specific drugs (e.g., platinum-based regimens) in the very beginning of therapeutic intervention. Significant reduction of the turn-around-time for multigene assays is a critical need for further advances in molecular cancer medicine.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

BC:

Breast cancer

HRD:

Homologous recombination deficiency

NGS:

Next generation sequencing

OC:

Ovarian cancer

PARPi:

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors

pCR:

Pathologic complete response

References

  1. 1.

    Panzarino NJ, Krais JJ, Cong K, Peng M, Mosqueda M, Nayak SU, et al. Replication gaps underlie BRCA deficiency and therapy response. Cancer Res. 2021;81(5):1388–97. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-1602.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Alsop K, Fereday S, Meldrum C, deFazio A, Emmanuel C, George J, et al. BRCA mutation frequency and patterns of treatment response in BRCA mutation-positive women with ovarian cancer: a report from the Australian ovarian cancer study group. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(21):2654–63.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Gorodnova TV, Sokolenko AP, Ivantsov AO, Iyevleva AG, Suspitsin EN, Aleksakhina SN, et al. High response rates to neoadjuvant platinum-based therapy in ovarian cancer patients carrying germ-line BRCA mutation. Cancer Lett. 2015;369(2):363–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2015.08.028.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sokolenko AP, Gorodnova TV, Bizin IV, Kuligina ES, Kotiv KB, Romanko AA, et al. Molecular predictors of the outcome of paclitaxel plus carboplatin neoadjuvant therapy in high-grade serous ovarian cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2021;88(3):439–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-021-04301-6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Byrski T, Gronwald J, Huzarski T, Grzybowska E, Budryk M, Stawicka M, et al. Pathologic complete response rates in young women with BRCA1-positive breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(3):375–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Byrski T, Dent R, Blecharz P, Foszczynska-Kloda M, Gronwald J, Huzarski T, et al. Results of a phase II open-label, non-randomized trial of cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with BRCA1-positive metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(4):R110. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr3231.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Byrski T, Huzarski T, Dent R, Marczyk E, Jasiowka M, Gronwald J, et al. Pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant cisplatin in BRCA1-positive breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;147(2):401–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3100-x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Moiseyenko VM, Dolmatov GD, Moiseyenko FV, Ivantsov AO, Volkov NM, Chubenko VA, et al. High efficacy of cisplatin neoadjuvant therapy in a prospective series of patients carrying BRCA1 germ-line mutation. Med Oncol. 2015;32(4):89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-015-0514-1.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Tung N, Arun B, Hacker MR, Hofstatter E, Toppmeyer DL, Isakoff SJ, et al. TBCRC 031: randomized phase II study of neoadjuvant cisplatin versus doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide in germline BRCA carriers with HER2-negative breast cancer (the INFORM trial). J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(14):1539–48. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.03292.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Tutt A, Tovey H, Cheang MCU, Kernaghan S, Kilburn L, Gazinska P, et al. Carboplatin in BRCA1/2-mutated and triple-negative breast cancer BRCAness subgroups: the TNT trial. Nat Med. 2018;24(5):628–37. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0009-7.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Moiseyenko VM, Chubenko VA, Moiseyenko FV, Zhabina AS, Gorodnova TV, Komarov YI, et al. Evidence for clinical efficacy of mitomycin C in heavily pretreated ovarian cancer patients carrying germ-line BRCA1 mutation. Med Oncol. 2014;31(10):199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-014-0199-x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Gorodnova TV, Kotiv KB, Ivantsov AO, Mikheyeva ON, Mikhailiuk GI, Lisyanskaya AS, et al. Efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy with cisplatin plus mitomycin C in BRCA1-mutated ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28(8):1498–506. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000001352.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Gorodnova TV, Sokolenko AP, Kondratiev SV, Kotiv KB, Belyaev AM, Berlev IV, et al. Mitomycin C plus cisplatin for systemic treatment of recurrent BRCA1-associated ovarian cancer. Investig New Drugs. 2020;38(6):1872–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10637-020-00965-8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Gorodnova TV, Sokolenko AP, Kotiv KB, Sokolova TN, Ivantsov AO, Guseynov KD, et al. Neoadjuvant therapy of BRCA1-driven ovarian cancer by combination of cisplatin, mitomycin C and doxorubicin. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2021;19(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-021-00173-2.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Sæther NH, Skuja E, Irmejs A, Maksimenko J, Miklasevics E, Purkalne G, et al. Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in BRCA1-positive breast cancer: a retrospective cohort analysis and literature review. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2018;16(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-018-0092-2.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    O'Reilly EM, Lee JW, Zalupski M, Capanu M, Park J, Golan T, et al. Randomized, multicenter, phase II trial of gemcitabine and cisplatin with or without veliparib in patients with pancreas adenocarcinoma and a germline BRCA/PALB2 mutation. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(13):1378–88. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.02931.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Fu D, Calvo JA, Samson LD. Balancing repair and tolerance of DNA damage caused by alkylating agents. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12(2):104–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3185.

  18. 18.

    Conteduca V, Scarpi E, Farolfi A, Brighi N, Rossi L, Gurioli G, et al. Melphalan as a Promising Treatment for BRCA-Related Ovarian Carcinoma. Front Oncol. 2021;11:716467. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.716467.

  19. 19.

    Spiliopoulou P, Hinsley S, McNeish IA, Roxburgh P, Glasspool R. Metronomic oral cyclophosphamide in relapsed ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31(7):1037–44. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2021-002467.

  20. 20.

    El-Husseiny K, Motawei H, Ali MS. Continuous Low-Dose Oral Cyclophosphamide and Methotrexate as Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Carcinoma After Complete Clinical Response to Platinum and Paclitaxel Chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26(3):437–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000647.

  21. 21.

    Pfeifer W, Sokolenko AP, Potapova ON, Bessonov AA, Ivantsov AO, Laptiev SA, et al. Breast cancer sensitivity to neoadjuvant therapy in BRCA1 and CHEK2 mutation carriers and non-carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;148(3):675–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3206-1.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Paluch-Shimon S, Friedman E, Berger R, Papa M, Dadiani M, Friedman N, et al. Neo-adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel in triple-negative breast cancer among BRCA1 mutation carriers and non-carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;157(1):157–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3800-5.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Arun B, Bayraktar S, Liu DD, Gutierrez Barrera AM, Atchley D, Pusztai L, et al. Response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer in BRCA mutation carriers and noncarriers: a single-institution experience. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(28):3739–46.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Iyevleva AG, Imyanitov EN. Cytotoxic and targeted therapy for hereditary cancers. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2016;14(1):17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-016-0057-2.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Bignon L, Fricker JP, Nogues C, Mouret-Fourme E, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Caron O, et al. Efficacy of anthracycline/taxane-based neo-adjuvant chemotherapy on triple-negative breast cancer in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast J. 201;24(3):269–77.

  26. 26.

    Wunderle M, Gass P, Häberle L, Flesch VM, Rauh C, Bani MR, et al. BRCA mutations and their influence on pathological complete response and prognosis in a clinical cohort of neoadjuvantly treated breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;171(1):85–94.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Pohl-Rescigno E, Hauke J, Loibl S, Möbus V, Denkert C, Fasching PA, et al. Association of germline variant status with therapy response in high-risk early-stage breast cancer: a secondary analysis of the GeparOcto randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(5):744–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Tobalina L, Armenia J, Irving E, O'Connor MJ, Forment JV. A meta-analysis of reversion mutations in BRCA genes identifies signatures of DNA end-joining repair mechanisms driving therapy resistance. Ann Oncol. 2021;32(1):103–12.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Ghouadni A, Delaloge S, Lardelli P, Kahatt C, Byrski T, Blum JL, et al. Higher antitumor activity of trabectedin in germline BRCA2 carriers with advanced breast cancer as compared to BRCA1 carriers: a subset analysis of a dedicated phase II trial. Breast. 2017;34:18–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2017.04.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Cruz C, Llop-Guevara A, Garber JE, Arun BK, Pérez Fidalgo JA, Lluch A, et al. Multicenter phase II study of lurbinectedin in BRCA-mutated and unselected metastatic advanced breast cancer and biomarker assessment substudy. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(31):3134–43. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2018.78.6558.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Osher DJ, Kushner YB, Arseneau J, Foulkes WD. Melphalan as a treatment for BRCA-related ovarian carcinoma: can you teach an old drug new tricks? J Clin Pathol. 2011;64(10):924–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Fan FS, Yang CF. Complete response to orally administered melphalan in malignant pleural effusion from an occult female genital organ primary neoplasm with BRCA1/2 mutations: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2018;12(1):122. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-018-1674-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Fong PC, Boss DS, Yap TA, Tutt A, Wu P, Mergui-Roelvink M, et al. Inhibition of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase in tumors from BRCA mutation carriers. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(2):123–34. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0900212.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Banerjee SN, Lord CJ. First-line PARP inhibition in ovarian cancer - standard of care for all? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020;17(3):136–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-020-0335-9.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Litton JK, Rugo HS, Ettl J, Hurvitz SA, Gonçalves A, Lee KH, et al. Talazoparib in patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(8):753–63. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1802905.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    González-Martín A, Pothuri B, Vergote I, DePont CR, Graybill W, Mirza MR, et al. Niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(25):2391–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Moore KN, Secord AA, Geller MA, Miller DS, Cloven N, Fleming GF, et al. Niraparib monotherapy for late-line treatment of ovarian cancer (QUADRA): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(5):636–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30029-4.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Coleman RL, Oza AM, Lorusso D, Aghajanian C, Oaknin A, Dean A, et al. Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma after response to platinum therapy (ARIEL3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;390(10106):1949–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32440-6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Abida W, Patnaik A, Campbell D, Shapiro J, Bryce AH, McDermott R, et al. Rucaparib in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer harboring a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene alteration. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(32):3763–72.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Pujade-Lauraine E, Ledermann JA, Selle F, Gebski V, Penson RT, Oza AM, et al. Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(9):1274–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30469-2.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Moore K, Colombo N, Scambia G, Kim BG, Oaknin A, Friedlander M, et al. Maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(26):2495–505.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Ray-Coquard I, Pautier P, Pignata S, Pérol D, González-Martín A, Berger R, et al. Olaparib plus bevacizumab as first-line maintenance in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(25):2416–28.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Robson M, Im SA, Senkus E, Xu B, Domchek SM, Masuda N, et al. Olaparib for metastatic breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(6):523–33. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1706450.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Golan T, Hammel P, Reni M, Van Cutsem E, Macarulla T, Hall MJ, et al. Maintenance olaparib for germline BRCA-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(4):317–27.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    de Bono J, Mateo J, Fizazi K, Saad F, Shore N, Sandhu S, et al. Olaparib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(22):2091–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Diéras V, Han HS, Kaufman B, Wildiers H, Friedlander M, Ayoub JP, et al. Veliparib with carboplatin and paclitaxel in BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer (BROCADE3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(10):1269–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30447-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Eikesdal HP, Yndestad S, Elzawahry A, Llop-Guevara A, Gilje B, Blix ES, et al. Olaparib monotherapy as primary treatment in unselected triple negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2021;32(2):240–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2020.11.009.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Tutt ANJ, Garber JE, Kaufman B, Viale G, Fumagalli D, Rastogi P, et al. Adjuvant olaparib for patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(25):2394–405. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2105215.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Lord R, Rauniyar J, Morris T, Condon O, Jones R, Miller R, et al. Real world outcomes in platinum sensitive relapsed ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer treated in routine clinical practice in the United Kingdom prior to poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(7):1026–33. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-000973.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Fasching PA, Link T, Hauke J, Seither F, Jackisch C, Klare P, et al. Neoadjuvant paclitaxel/olaparib in comparison to paclitaxel/carboplatinum in patients with HER2-negative breast cancer and homologous recombination deficiency (GeparOLA study). Ann Oncol. 2021;32(1):49–57.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Moiseyenko VM, Chubenko VA, Moiseyenko FV, Zagorskaya LA, Zaytseva YA, Gesha NE, et al. "Lazarus response" to olaparib in a virtually chemonaive breast cancer patient carrying gross BRCA2 gene deletion. Cureus. 2018;10(2):e2150.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Boussios S, Abson C, Moschetta M, Rassy E, Karathanasi A, Bhat T, et al. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors: talazoparib in ovarian cancer and beyond. Drugs R D. 2020;20(2):55–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40268-020-00301-8.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Gyawali B. The OlympiAD trial: who won the gold? Ecancermedicalscience. 2017;11:ed75.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Gonzalez R, Havrilesky LJ, Myers ER, Secord AA, Dottino JA, Berchuck A, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing "PARP inhibitors-for-all" to the biomarker-directed use of PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed advanced stage ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;159(2):483–90.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Wolford JE, Bai J, Moore KN, Kristeleit R, Monk BJ, Tewari KS. Cost-effectiveness of niraparib, rucaparib, and olaparib for treatment of platinum-resistant, recurrent ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157(2):500–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Gourley C, Miller RE, Hollis RL, Ledermann JA. Role of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors beyond BReast CAncer gene-mutated ovarian tumours: definition of homologous recombination deficiency? Curr Opin Oncol. 2020;32(5):442–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCO.0000000000000660.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Miller RE, Leary A, Scott CL, Serra V, Lord CJ, Bowtell D, et al. ESMO recommendations on predictive biomarker testing for homologous recombination deficiency and PARP inhibitor benefit in ovarian cancer. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(12):1606–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2020.08.2102.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Lin J, Yang X, Zhao H. BRCA mutations and homologous recombination repair deficiency in treatment with niraparib combined with pembrolizumab. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(3):440–1. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.4595.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Stopsack KH. Efficacy of PARP inhibition in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is very different with non-BRCA DNA repair alterations: reconstructing prespecified endpoints for cohort B from the phase 3 PROfound trial of olaparib. Eur Urol. 2021;79(4):442–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Lotan TL, Kaur HB, Salles DC, Murali S, Schaeffer EM, Lanchbury JS, et al. Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) score in germline BRCA2- versus ATM-altered prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2021;34(6):1185–93. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41379-020-00731-4.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Markowski MC, Antonarakis ES. BRCA1 versus BRCA2 and PARP inhibitor sensitivity in prostate cancer: more different than alike? J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(32):3735–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.02246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Cecere SC, Giannone G, Salutari V, Arenare L, Lorusso D, Ronzino G, et al. Olaparib as maintenance therapy in patients with BRCA 1-2 mutated recurrent platinum sensitive ovarian cancer: real world data and post progression outcome. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;156(1):38–44.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Criscitiello C, Curigliano G. Tumour infiltrating lymphocytes and correlation with response to intensified platinum-based chemotherapy in BRCA-like tumours. Eur J Cancer. 2020;127:236–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Nolan E, Savas P, Policheni AN, Darcy PK, Vaillant F, Mintoff CP, et al. Combined immune checkpoint blockade as a therapeutic strategy for BRCA1-mutated breast cancer. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9(393):eaal4922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Matsuo K, Spragg SE, Ciccone MA, Blake EA, Ricker C, Pham HQ, et al. Nivolumab use for BRCA gene mutation carriers with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: a case series. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2018;25:98–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2018.06.011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Mesnage SJL, Auguste A, Genestie C, Dunant A, Pain E, Drusch F, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) increases immune infiltration and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Ann Oncol. 2017;28(3):651–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw625.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Chabanon RM, Soria JC, Lord CJ, Postel-Vinay S. Beyond DNA repair: the novel immunological potential of PARP inhibitors. Mol Cell Oncol. 2019;6(2):1585170. https://doi.org/10.1080/23723556.2019.1585170.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Goncalves A, Mezni E, Bertucci F. Combining poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors in breast cancer: rationale and preliminary clinical results. Curr Opin Oncol. 2020;32(6):585–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCO.0000000000000680.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Alvarado-Cruz I, Mahmoud M, Khan M, Zhao S, Oeck S, Meas R, et al. Differential immunomodulatory effect of PARP inhibition in BRCA1 deficient and competent tumor cells. Biochem Pharmacol. 2021;184:114359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2020.114359.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Mehta AK, Cheney EM, Hartl CA, Pantelidou C, Oliwa M, Castrillon JA, et al. Targeting immunosuppressive macrophages overcomes PARP inhibitor resistance in BRCA1-associated triple-negative breast cancer. Nat Cancer. 2021;2(1):66–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43018-020-00148-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Konstantinopoulos PA, Waggoner S, Vidal GA, Mita M, Moroney JW, Holloway R, et al. Single-arm phases 1 and 2 trial of niraparib in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian carcinoma. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(8):1141–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Vinayak S, Tolaney SM, Schwartzberg L, Mita M, McCann G, Tan AR, et al. Open-label clinical trial of niraparib combined with pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(8):1132–40. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1029.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Schmid P, Rugo HS, Adams S, Schneeweiss A, Barrios CH, Iwata H, et al. Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (IMpassion130): updated efficacy results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(1):44–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30689-8.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Toss A, Molinaro E, Venturelli M, Domati F, Marcheselli L, Piana S, et al. BRCA detection rate in an Italian cohort of luminal early-onset and triple-negative breast cancer patients without family history: when biology overcomes genealogy. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(5):1252. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12051252.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Jonsson P, Bandlamudi C, Cheng ML, Srinivasan P, Chavan SS, Friedman ND, et al. Tumour lineage shapes BRCA-mediated phenotypes. Nature. 2019;571(7766):576–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Maxwell KN, Wubbenhorst B, Wenz BM, De Sloover D, Pluta J, Emery L, et al. BRCA locus-specific loss of heterozygosity in germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):319. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00388-9.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Randall M, Burgess K, Buckingham L, Usha L. Exceptional response to olaparib in a patient with recurrent ovarian cancer and an entire BRCA1 germline gene deletion. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2020;18(3):223–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Sokolenko AP, Savonevich EL, Ivantsov AO, Raskin GA, Kuligina ES, Gorodnova TV, et al. Rapid selection of BRCA1-proficient tumor cells during neoadjuvant therapy for ovarian cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Cancer Lett. 2017;397:127–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2017.03.036.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Sokolenko AP, Bizin IV, Preobrazhenskaya EV, Gorodnova TV, Ivantsov AO, Iyevleva AG, et al. Molecular profiles of BRCA1-associated ovarian cancer treated by platinum-based therapy: analysis of primary, residual and relapsed tumors. Int J Cancer. 2020;146(7):1879–88.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Roberts C, Strauss VY, Kopijasz S, Gourley C, Hall M, Montes A, et al. Results of a phase II clinical trial of 6-mercaptopurine (6MP) and methotrexate in patients with BRCA-defective tumours. Br J Cancer. 2020;122(4):483–90.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Grinda T, Delaloge S. Survival benefits of PARP inhibitors in advanced breast cancer: a mirage? Ann Oncol. 2020;31(11):1432–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2020.09.018.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Imyanitov E, Sokolenko A. Mechanisms of acquired resistance of BRCA1/2-driven tumors to platinum compounds and PARP inhibitors. World J Clin Oncol. 2021;12(7):544–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Marchetti C, Rosati A, Scaletta G, Pietragalla A, Arcieri M, Ergasti R, et al. Secondary cytoreductive surgery in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer before olaparib maintenance: still getting any benefit? A case-control study. Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Dec;155(3):400–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Gorodnova T, Sokolenko A, Ni V, Ivantsov A, Kotiv K, Petrik S, et al. BRCA1-associated and sporadic ovarian carcinomas: outcomes of primary cytoreductive surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29(4):779–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Petrillo M, Marchetti C, De Leo R, Musella A, Capoluongo E, Paris I, et al. BRCA mutational status, initial disease presentation, and clinical outcome in high-grade serous advanced ovarian cancer: a multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(3):334.e1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Huang F, Kushner YB, Langleben A, Foulkes WD. Eleven years disease-free: role of chemotherapy in metastatic BRCA2-related breast cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009;6(8):488–92. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.90.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Steenbruggen TG, Linn SC, Rodenhuis S, Sonke GS. Ongoing remission nineteen years after high-dose chemotherapy for oligometastatic breast cancer; what can we learn from this patient? Cureus. 2015;7(12):e433.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Boudin L, Gonçalves A, Sabatier R, Moretta J, Sfumato P, Asseeva P, et al. Highly favorable outcome in BRCA-mutated metastatic breast cancer patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51(8):1082–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2016.82.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Lord CJ, Ashworth A. PARP inhibitors: synthetic lethality in the clinic. Science. 2017;355(6330):1152–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam7344.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    van der Velde NM, Mourits MJ, Arts HJ, de Vries J, Leegte BK, Dijkhuis G, et al. Time to stop ovarian cancer screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers? Int J Cancer. 2009;124(4):919–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.24038.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study has been supported by the Russian Science Foundation, grant number 21-75-30015.

Funding

This study has been supported by the Russian Science Foundation, grant number 21–75-30015.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evgeny N. Imyanitov.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The author declares that he has no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Imyanitov, E.N. Cytotoxic and targeted therapy for BRCA1/2-driven cancers. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 19, 36 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-021-00193-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • BRCA1
  • BRCA2
  • Cisplatin
  • Carboplatin
  • Mitomycin C
  • PARP inhibitors
  • BRCAness