The modest benefit of PARP inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer, compared to ovarian cancer, is likely due to resistance induced by prior exposure to DNA-damaging agents like anthracyclines. This explains the clinical rationale for moving PARP inhibitors to earlier treatment settings, such as neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy, before resistance develops.
Related Insights
While platinum chemotherapy is considered the standard treatment after a patient progresses on a first-line ADC-IO combination, experts admit this is a standard "based on nothing." There is no clinical trial data to prove its efficacy in this specific setting; it serves only as a placeholder for new clinical trials.
Real-world data suggests that using one antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) immediately after another is often ineffective. A potential strategy to overcome this resistance is to administer a different class of chemotherapy before starting the second ADC.
When a patient has a BRCA2 mutation, clinicians on the panel view it as such a dominant predictive biomarker that they would prioritize a PARP inhibitor-based triplet regimen. This single genetic finding often outweighs other clinical factors or even the potential addition of docetaxel in treatment decisions.
Developers often test novel agents in late-line settings because the control arm is weaker, increasing the statistical chance of success. However, this strategy may doom effective immunotherapies by testing them in biologically hostile, resistant tumors, masking their true potential.
In metastatic breast cancer, approximately one-third of patients are unable to proceed to a second line of therapy due to disease progression or declining performance status. This high attrition rate argues for using the most effective agents, such as ADCs, in the first-line setting.
The FDA is predicted to approve new PARP inhibitors from trials like AMPLITUDE only for BRCA-mutated patients, restricting use to where data is strongest. This contrasts with the EMA's potential for broader approvals or denials. This highlights the diverging regulatory philosophies that create different drug access landscapes in the US and Europe.
For high-risk, HR+ patients with germline BRCA mutations, data suggest they derive less benefit from CDK4/6 inhibitors. A practical approach is to give one year of the PARP inhibitor olaparib first, followed by a CDK4/6 inhibitor, capitalizing on the delayed initiation allowance in major trials.
Giving adjuvant olaparib to BRCA-mutated patients who have already achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR) from neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy is discouraged. Their prognosis is already excellent, so adding a PARP inhibitor offers little potential benefit while exposing them to unnecessary risks of toxicity, such as MDS/AML.
Data from the MONARCH-E and NATALY trials show that the benefit of adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitors like abemaciclib and ribociclib persists and even increases after patients complete their 2-3 year treatment course. This sustained "carryover effect" suggests a lasting impact on disease biology rather than just temporary suppression.
Clinicians are hesitant to use newer, potentially safer non-covalent BTK inhibitors before established covalent inhibitors. While it's known that non-covalents work after covalents fail, the reverse is unproven, creating a one-way treatment path that reserves these newer agents for later lines of therapy.
