Rucaparib in the landscape of PARP inhibition in ovarian cancer

Introduction: The landscape of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition in ovarian cancer is rapidly evolving and becoming increasingly complex. Ovarian cancer is leading therapeutic innovation by providing the proof of concept for DNA repair as a target. Three different PARP inhibitors have now received approvals in the US and Europe in different indications. Subtle but crucial differences can be found among the licensed indications for each PARP inhibitor in terms of histology, type of BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic), number of prior lines of chemotherapy and whether the indication is in the treatment or maintenance settings.

Areas covered: We review the latest clinical data regarding the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in ovarian cancer, provide an update on the evolving landscape of PARP inhibition in ovarian cancer, and summarize avenues of ongoing and future research.

Expert opinion: All eligible patients should be offered a PARP inhibitor. SOLO1 trial results demonstrated an unprecedented benefit maintenance with PARP inhibitors in first line. Results from trials evaluating PARP inhibitors as maintenance in first line regardless of BRCA status and from trials evaluating combinatorial strategies are eagerly awaited.     

Vestibular Function Measurement Devices

Vestibular function laboratories utilize a multitude of diagnostic instruments to evaluate a dizzy patient. Caloric irrigators, oculomotor stimuli, and rotational chairs produce a stimulus whose accuracy is required for the patient response to be accurate. Careful attention to everything from cleanliness of equipment to threshold adjustments determine on a daily basis if patient data are going to be correct and useful. Instrumentation specifications that change with time such as speed and temperature must periodically be checked using calibrated instruments.     

A Phase I Trial of Trametinib in Combination with Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer

Lessons Learned

• The combination of trametinib and sorafenib has an acceptable safety profile, albeit at doses lower than approved for monotherapy.
• Maximum tolerated dose is trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice daily.
• The limited anticancer activity observed in this unselected patient population does not support further exploration of trametinib plus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BackgroundThe RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is associated with proliferation and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preclinical data suggest that paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway may be one of the resistance mechanisms of sorafenib; therefore, we evaluated trametinib plus sorafenib in HCC.MethodsThis was a phase I study with a 3+3 design in patients with treatment‐naïve advanced HCC. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. The secondary objective was clinical efficacy.ResultsA total of 17 patients were treated with three different doses of trametinib and sorafenib. Two patients experienced dose‐limiting toxicity, including grade 4 hypertension and grade 3 elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/bilirubin over 7 days. Maximum tolerated dose was trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐related adverse events were elevated AST (37%) and hypertension (24%). Among 11 evaluable patients, 7 (63.6%) had stable disease with no objective response. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 and 7.8 months, respectively. Phosphorylated‐ERK was evaluated as a pharmacodynamic marker, and sorafenib plus trametinib inhibited phosphorylated‐ERK up to 98.1% (median: 81.2%) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells.ConclusionTrametinib and sorafenib can be safely administered up to trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day with limited anticancer activity in advanced HCC.     

Population Genetics Identifies Challenges in Analyzing Rare Variants

Geneticists have, for years, understood the nature of genome‐wide association studies using common genomic variants. Recently, however, focus has shifted to the analysis of rare variants. This presents potential problems for researchers, as rare variants do not always behave in the same way common variants do, sometimes rendering decades of solid intuition moot. In this paper, we present examples of the differences between common and rare variants. We show why one must be significantly more careful about the origin of rare variants, and how failing to do so can lead to highly inflated type I error. We then explain how to best avoid such concerns with careful understanding and study design. Additionally, we demonstrate that a seemingly low error rate in next‐generation sequencing can dramatically impact the false‐positive rate for rare variants. This is due to the fact that rare variants are, by definition, seen infrequently, making it hard to distinguish between errors and real variants. Compounding this problem is the fact that the proportion of errors is likely to get worse, not better, with increasing sample size. One cannot simply scale their way up in order to solve this problem. Understanding these potential pitfalls is a key step in successfully identifying true associations between rare variants and diseases.