Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Review ArticleReviewsR

Specific Toxicity of Maintenance Olaparib Versus Placebo in Advanced Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

ANGELA DALIA RICCI, ALESSANDRO RIZZO, MARCO NOVELLI, SIMONA TAVOLARI, ANDREA PALLONI, NASTASSJA TOBER, FRANCESCA ABBATI, VERONICA MOLLICA, STEFANIA DE LORENZO, DANIELA TURCHETTI, MARIACRISTINA DI MARCO and GIOVANNI BRANDI
Anticancer Research February 2020, 40 (2) 597-608; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.13989
ANGELA DALIA RICCI
1Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: dalia.ricci@gmail.com
ALESSANDRO RIZZO
1Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MARCO NOVELLI
2Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SIMONA TAVOLARI
3Center of Applied Biomedical Research, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ANDREA PALLONI
1Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
NASTASSJA TOBER
1Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
FRANCESCA ABBATI
1Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
VERONICA MOLLICA
1Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
STEFANIA DE LORENZO
1Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DANIELA TURCHETTI
4Medical Genetics, Policlinico Sant'Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MARIACRISTINA DI MARCO
1Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
GIOVANNI BRANDI
1Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the safety of maintenance with olaparib after platinum-based chemotherapy in cancer patients. Materials and Methods. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the clinical role of olaparib maintenance therapy versus placebo in BRCA-mutated, advanced cancers. Safety profile from each selected study was investigated for all-grade and G3-G4 haematological and non-haematological adverse drug events (ADEs). Results: Four RTCs that involved 1099 patients were included in the analysis. Overall incidences of all-grade and G3-4 ADEs in olaparib group were 97.6% and 41%, respectively. Patients treated with maintenance olaparib showed higher risk of all-grade and G3-G4 anaemia, all-grade neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Moreover, all-grade and G3-G4 fatigue, all-grade vomiting, diarrhoea, nausea and decreased appetite were more common in the olaparib group compared to placebo. Conclusion: Despite an increased risk and incidence of several haematological and non-haematological toxicities, olaparib is a relatively safe agent for the treatment of advanced solid tumors. Prompt identification of ADEs is mandatory to avoid therapy discontinuation and optimize treatment.

  • Olaparib
  • meta-analysis
  • randomized clinical trial
  • anemia
  • fatigue
  • PARP
  • review

Poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors represent an emerging therapeutic class for patients harbouring mutated breast-related cancer antigens (BRCA) or homologous recombination-deficient (HRD) malignancies (1). The family of PARP enzymes consists of 17 nucleoproteins divided into four main groups, the first of which includes PARP1, PARP2, and PARP3 who play a key role during DNA repair (2). PARP enzymes are involved in detecting single-strand DNA breaks (SSB) and their activation triggers DNA repair mechanisms, such as base excision repair. In HRD cells (e.g., BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutated), this damage is converted into unrepairable double-stranded break (DSB) and leading to selective cell death (3).

Olaparib was the first PARP inhibitor introduced in clinical practice (4) and its efficacy in prolonging outcomes and manageable safety profile have allowed testing of this molecule as a maintenance treatment for several advanced malignancies (5). Olaparib is currently approved in Europe as maintenance treatment in patients affected by advanced BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer following response (defined as stable disease, partial response, or complete response) to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Furthermore, olaparib is approved for patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer after response to platinum-based chemotherapy. The role of olaparib in other malignancies and/or in combination with antiangiogenic agents is currently under investigation and it represents a hot topic in Medical Oncology (6).

The SOLO-1 trial was the first to compare front-line olaparib maintenance therapy with placebo after response to platinum-based chemotherapy in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with BRCA mutation. This double-blind, randomized, prospective phase III trial showed a decrease in the risk of disease progression or death by 70% with olaparib compared to placebo (HR=0.30; 95%CI=0.23 to 0.41; p<0.001), in the presence of an acceptable safety profile (7).

Olaparib maintenance therapy represents a therapeutic advance also in the management of pancreatic cancer. The recent results of the POLO trial – a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating olaparib maintenance after response to platinum-based chemotherapy in BRCA-mutated pancreatic cancer-, confirmed the efficacy of olaparib in extending progression-free survival (7.4 months vs. 3.8 months; HR=0.53; 95%CI=0.35-0.82; p=0.004) with a tolerable safety profile (8). Currently, there are ongoing trials aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of maintenance of olaparib in other neoplasms such as non-small-cell lung cancer, prostate cancer, and endometrial carcinoma, administered as single-agent therapy or in combination with other anticancer agents (9).

The aim of maintenance therapy is to maintain a long-lasting remission and to delay recurrence (10), leading to a prolonged treatment administration [e.g., two years in SOLO-1 trial (7)], with an acceptable safety profile and optimal quality of life. Since maintenance olaparib is now part of routine clinical practice, it is essential to investigate the overall incidence and risk of the most common side effects associated with its administration. Fatigue, haematological and gastrointestinal toxicities are the most common side effects of PARP inhibitors, although they may present different, specific, toxicity profiles (11).

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate toxicity of maintenance olaparib after platinum-based chemotherapy, focusing on the most commonly reported all-grade and high-grade (G3-G4) adverse events (ADEs) in randomized controlled clinical trials comparing olaparib versus placebo.

Materials and Methods

Search strategies. All phase II and phase III clinical trials published from June 15, 2008 to November 29, 2019 regarding the clinical role of olaparib maintenance therapy in advanced malignancies were retrieved by 2 different authors (ADR and AR). Keywords used for searching PubMed/ Medline, Cochrane library and EMBASE were: “Olaparib” OR “maintenance Olaparib” OR “Lynparza” OR “AZD-2281” AND “advanced cancer” OR “ovarian cancer” OR “pancreatic cancer” OR “metastatic malignancies”; only articles published in peer-reviewed journals and written in English language were considered. Furthermore, proceedings of the main international oncological meetings (American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, European Council of Clinical Oncology, American Association for Cancer Research), were also searched from 2005 onward for relevant abstracts.

Selection criteria. Studies selected from first analysis were then restricted to: 1) prospective phase II or III randomized controlled trials (RCT) in advanced malignancies; 2) participants enrolled in maintenance treatment with olaparib or placebo; 3) studies with available data about safety profile and adverse events.

Data extraction and quality assessment. The following data were extracted from each publication: 1) study general information (author, year, phase, carry out country, inclusion criteria); 2) primary site; 3) interventions; 4) formulation of olaparib maintenance therapy; 5) number of patients; 6) median treatment duration 7) primary and secondary outcomes; 8) side effects. Two separate authors (ADR and AR) conducted the search and identification independently.

We assessed the methodological quality of the included trials using Cochrane Collaboration tool. Studies examined were graded as having a “low risk”, “high risk”, or “unclear risk” of bias across the 7 specified domains. This meta-analysis was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (12).

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies. Risk of bias in the four selected studies was assessed independently by two authors (ADR and AR) using the tool of The Cochrane Collaboration (13) for assessing risk of bias and therefore including selection, performance, detection, attrition and reporting bias. The lists of outcomes reported in the published paper were compared to those from study protocols or trials registries. The results were summarized in both a risk of bias graph (Figure 1) and risk of bias summary (Figure 2).

Types of outcome measures. We examined nine most common hematological and non-hematological ADEs including fatigue, anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, decreased appetite and abdominal pain. Toxicity outcomes were divided in two groups: hematological (anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematological toxicities (fatigue, diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, decreased appetite and abdominal pain).

Toxicity data were obtained from safety profile or supplemental material of each study and classified according to the CTCAE (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) version (3 or 4) of the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC) (14, 15).

Statistical analysis. All statistical analyses were performed using R studio and Review Manager 5.3. For the calculation of incidence rate (IR), the number of patients with all- and G3-4 ADEs and the total number of patients being treated with olaparib were determined from each trial. The proportions of patients with all- and G3-4 ADEs and 95%CIs were calculated.

Relative Risks (RRs) were used to analyze dichotomous variables, including all-grade and high-grade (G3-G4) events (ADEs); RRs were combined with Mantel-Haenszel method. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was examined using the Chi-square test and the I2 statistic, and a fixed-effects model was applied to analyze quantitative data when there was no significant heterogeneity (I2<50%). In other cases, a random-effects model was adopted (I2>50%).

Results

Studies selected. In our search, 288 potentially relevant reports were identified, which were subsequently restricted to 4 after independent evaluation by 2 authors (ADR and AR) (7, 8, 16, 17). We excluded 284 records as non-pertinent reports (meta-analysis and systematic reviews, review articles, editorials, case reports, pre-clinical studies, retrospective studies, non-randomized studies, no placebo-controlled arm trials, no maintenance trials, ongoing trials/trials in progress).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Risk of bias graph: Authors' judgements on each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

All studies included in our analysis were published as full manuscripts (7, 8, 16, 17) and were judged as studies with a low risk of bias in separate reviews of 2 authors (ADR and AR). Figure 3 shows the search process.

Of the 4 eligible studies, three studies compared maintenance olaparib versus placebo after response to platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced or metastatic ovarian cancer (7, 8, 16). The same comparison was made in the fourth study, where maintenance Olaparib was compared to placebo after response to platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (17). Three trials were phase III studies (8, 16, 17), while one study was a phase II trial (7). The four studies shared several characteristics: they were all randomized, double-blind, international, multicentre, placebo-controlled trials where the PARP inhibitor olaparib was administered as maintenance therapy after partial/complete response to platinum-based chemotherapy (7, 8, 16, 17).

A total of 1099 patients were available for the meta-analysis (olaparib: 682; placebo: 417).

Olaparib dosage was as follows: 400 mg capsules twice daily in one study (7), and 300 mg tablets twice daily in the other three studies (8, 16, 17). A summary of the included RCTs is presented in Table I. All 4 trials reported ADEs according to the National Cancer Institute's CTCAE version 3 or 4 criteria (14, 15).

Incidence and RR of ADEs. As stated above, the outcomes were divided in two groups: hematological (anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematological toxicities (fatigue, diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, decreased appetite and abdominal pain). In order to evaluate all-grade and G3-4 ADEs, data were included from all 4 RCTs comprising 1099 patients. Table II shows the pooled IRs of all outcomes included in our analysis. The incidences of all-grade and G3-4 ADEs for patients receiving maintenance olaparib were 97.6% and 41%, respectively. For any grade of ADEs, nausea, fatigue, anemia, vomiting and diarrhea were the most frequent clinical ADEs (70.1%, 61.4%, 35.2%, 34.9% and 30.8%, respectively). The most common G3-4 ADEs were anemia (16.3%) and fatigue (4.8%).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Risk of bias summary: Authors' judgments on each risk of bias item for each included study.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Study flow diagram.

Haematological toxicities. We assessed 3 types of frequently occurring hematological ADEs: anemia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia.

Patients treated with maintenance olaparib showed higher risk of G3-4 anemia (RR=8.86; 95%CI=4.12-19.07, p<0.00001) (Figure 4A), all-grade anemia (RR=3.39; 95%CI=2.05-5.61, p<0.00001 random effect model) (Figure 4B), all-grade neutropenia (RR=2.36; 95%CI=1.49-3.74, p=0.0003) (Figure 5B) and all-grade thrombocytopenia (RR=3.52; 95%CI=1.71-7.27, p=0.0006) (Figure 6B). In addition, no significant differences were observed between the incidence of G3-4 neutropenia (RR=2.33; 95%CI=0.71-7.58, p=0.16) (Figure 5A) and G3-4 thrombocytopenia (RR=0.67; 95%CI=0.15-2.97, p=0.60) (Figure 6A). All-grade and G3-G4 thrombocytopenia were reported in 2 of the 4 clinical trials and, consequently, the analysis was conducted in only 2 trials.

There was a considerable heterogeneity in all-grade anaemia analysis (p=0.07, I2=57%) between the two subgroups.

Non-haematological toxicities. We assessed 6 types of frequently occurring non-hematological ADEs: fatigue, diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, decreased appetite and abdominal pain. Patients treated with olaparib maintenance therapy showed higher risk of G3-G4 fatigue (RR=2.42; 95%CI=1.16-5.02, p=0.02) (Figure 7A), all-grade fatigue (RR=1.54; 95%CI=1.35-1.76, p<0.00001) (Figure 7B), all-grade vomiting (RR=2.18; 95%CI=1.70-2.80, p<0.00001) (Figure 7D), all-grade diarrhea (RR=1.39; 95%CI=1.12-1.73, p=0.003) (Figure 8B), all-grade nausea (RR=2.07; 95%CI=1.79-2.39, p<0.00001) (Figure 8D) and all-grade decreased appetite (RR=2.05; 95%CI=1.44-2.90, p<0.0001) (Figure 9B) when compared to placebo.

In addition, no significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding the incidence of G3-G4 diarrhea (RR=2.33; 95%CI=0.71-7.58, p=0.16) (Figure 8A), G3-G4 vomiting (RR=1.58; 95%CI=0.50-4.96, p=0.43) (Figure 7C), G3-G4 nausea (RR=2.52; 95%CI=0.71-8.88, p=0.15) (Figure 8C), G3-G4 decreased appetite (RR=4.08; 95%CI=0.51-32.71, p=0.19) (Figure 9A), G3-G4 abdominal pain (RR=0.74; 95%CI=0.34-1.60, p=0.44) (Figure 9C) and all-grade abdominal pain (RR=0.93; 95%CI=0.75-1.16, p=0.54) (Figure 9D) The results showed low heterogeneity; therefore a fixed effects model was used.

Discussion

Our analysis included 4 RCTs that evaluated efficacy and safety of maintenance olaparib in two malignancies with unfavourable prognosis (7, 8, 16, 17). Although maintenance olaparib was associated with an increased risk of several all-grade and G3-4 toxicities when compared to placebo, it showed a manageable safety profile, with 41% of IR for G3-4 ADEs. The analysis showed that the most common G3-4 ADEs were anemia (16.3%) and fatigue (4.8%). We did not consider the risk of developing myeloid leukaemia (AML), given the rarity of the event (5 cases of AML were reported in the olaparib group and 1 case in the placebo group). Adverse events reported in the trials were usually managed by dose interruption or dose reduction, rather than discontinuation (7, 8, 16, 17).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Summary of the included studies.

Generally, anaemia afflicts up to 64% of patients treated for malignancies and it is characterized by a variety of etiopathogenetic mechanisms, including inflammation/chronic disease, iron deficiency, marrow aplasia/hypoplasia, and haemolytic anaemias (18). Anaemia is also the most common haematological toxicity among PARP inhibitors (11); this ADE has been associated to PARP2 inhibition during differentiation of erythroid progenitors, as observed by Farres et al. in mice lacking PARP2 (19), though no studies in humans have been performed so far. Dose interruptions or transfusions are often required to manage symptomatic anaemia and low haemoglobin levels (20). In the four selected studies, the increased risk of anaemia could also have an indirect impact on treatment-associated fatigue, another very common toxicity. In fact, if fatigue represents a frequent corollary of cancer and its therapies, up to 69% of patients treated with the three approved PARP inhibitors (olaparib, niraparib and rucaparib) had experienced some grade fatigue (11). Nevertheless, there are subjective and objective dysfunctional components involved in fatigue not directly related to anticancer drugs, and pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological approaches may be efficient in reducing the symptom (21).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Incidence rate of all-grade and G3-4 adverse drug events (ADEs) resulting from olaparib treatment and placebo.

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Forest plot of comparison between olaparib maintenance treatment and placebo; the outcome was risk ratio of anemia (G3, G4: A; all-grade: B). CI: Confidence interval.

Figure 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5.

Forest plot of comparison between olaparib maintenance treatment and placebo; the outcome was risk ratio of neutropenia (G3, G4: A; all-grade: B). CI: Confidence interval.

Figure 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 6.

Forest plot of comparison between olaparib maintenance treatment and placebo; the outcome was risk ratio of thrombocytopenia (G3, G4: A; all-grade: B). CI: Confidence interval.

Figure 7.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 7.

Forest plot of comparison between olaparib maintenance treatment and placebo; the outcomes were risk ratio of fatigue (G3, G4: A; all-grade: B) and vomiting (G3, G4: C; all-grade: D). CI: Confidence interval.

Regarding gastrointestinal toxicities, a meta-analysis by Liu et al. (22) has demonstrated a significant increase in the risk of ADEs correlated with PARP inhibitor treatment, especially high-grade nausea and vomiting. Nausea has also been reported to be the most prevalent side effect associated with olaparib administration (11). A proactive approach with antiemetic therapy (e.g. metoclopramide) might limit dose adjustments or discontinuations in patients who experience treatment-related nausea and vomiting (23). It has also been recommended to switch to full tablet dose in patients receiving lower dose capsules for gastrointestinal side effects, given the better benefit-risk ratio of tablet formulation with similar efficacy and lower pill burden (20).

We compared our results with previous similar meta-analysis. First, Zhou et al. in 2017 (24) investigated the overall incidence and RRs of severe hematologic toxicities among patients treated with PARP inhibitors, including olaparib. This meta-analysis showed that patients receiving olaparib had an increased risk of severe neutropenia, while the RR of high-grade anaemia failed to reach statistical significance (RR=1.50; 95%CI=0.77-2.95, p=0.236). Guo et al. in 2018 (25) showed an increase in risk of severe anaemia (RR=2.21, 95%CI=1.53-3.49 p<0.001) in RCTs evaluating olaparib monotherapy in advanced cancers, together with an increased risk of anorexia (RR=3.50, 95%CI=1.08-11.33.49, p<0.037), which was reported in only 2 of the 7 trials included. In 2019, a meta-analysis by Ruiz-Schutz et al. (26) showed that treatment with olaparib, in comparison with other interventions (placebo, chemotherapy), was associated with a significant increase in the risk of developing all-grade and high-grade fatigue and anaemia, in line with our findings. Yet, all these studies included RCTs evaluating Olaparib both as a monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy agents, so it is conceivable that adverse events might be influenced by chemotherapy toxicities. Moreover, the first two meta-analyses considered the incidence and RR of only G3-G4 side effects.

Figure 8.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 8.

Forest plot of comparison between olaparib maintenance treatment and placebo; the outcomes were risk ratio of diarrhea (G3, G4: A; all-grade: B) and nausea (G3, G4: C; all-grade: D). CI: Confidence interval.

Furthermore, our findings are in line with the most frequently reported ADEs from the latest retrospective real-world studies (6, 27, 28). Recently, real-world experiences with olaparib regarding Italian, Korean and Chinese patients affected by ovarian cancer have gathered robust evidence of the safety of maintenance olaparib. All-grade fatigue and nausea and G3-G4 anaemia were confirmed to be the most common toxicities recorded (6, 27, 28).

Our meta-analysis holds its own strengths and limitations. The strengths of our work regard the inclusions of only randomized placebo-controlled trials, the total number of patients and the high-quality statistical analysis. However, the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution because there are some limitations. First, the data were abstracted from published clinical trial results and were not gathered from individual patient records; and thus, the analysis of factors potentially contributing to development of haematological and non-haematological toxicities, such as concomitant treatments or additional comorbidities, was not possible. Second, the varying types of tumours, the under-representation of men compared to women, the impact of previous treatments in patients with relapsed disease and the different formulations of olaparib might be sources of heterogeneity. Third, the evaluation of long-term toxicities was limited by the relatively short follow-up of the last two RCTs (7, 8).

Figure 9.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 9.

Forest plot of comparison between olaparib maintenance treatment and placebo; the outcomes were risk ratio of decreased appetite (G3, G4: A; all-grade: B) and abdominal pain (G3, G4: C; all-grade: D). CI: Confidence interval.

Conclusion

PARP inhibitors are a new class of small-molecule drugs that have profoundly modified the oncology landscape. In the era of tailor-made medicine, olaparib has demonstrated a clinical benefit as maintenance therapy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers affected by advanced platinum-sensitive ovarian and pancreatic cancers.

Although extended administration of olaparib may increase the risk of several haematological and non-haematological toxicities, our study suggests that olaparib is a relatively safe agent. However, special attention should be paid to olaparib-related ADEs, in order to improve drug compliance, to avoid therapy discontinuation and to optimize olaparib treatment. Furthermore, there is an urgent need for real-world data in order to better define safety profile and benefit-risk ratio, beyond the borders of traditional randomized clinical trials.

Acknowledgements

The Author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Footnotes

  • Authors' Contributions

    ADR, AR: Concept, design, statistical analysis and final review; MN: statistical analysis; ST, AP, NT, FA, VM, SDL: Data collection; DT, MCDM, GB: Final review and approval.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors have stated that they have no conflicts of interest regarding this study.

  • Received December 17, 2019.
  • Revision received December 26, 2019.
  • Accepted January 2, 2020.
  • Copyright© 2020, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Franzese E,
    2. Centonze S,
    3. Diana A,
    4. Carlino F,
    5. Guerrera LP,
    6. Di Napoli M,
    7. De Vita F,
    8. Pignata S,
    9. Ciardiello F,
    10. Orditura M
    : PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer. Cancer Treat Rev 73: 1-9, 2019. PMID: 30543930. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2018.12.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Ledermann JA,
    2. Pujade-Lauraine E
    : Olaparib as maintenance treatment for patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. Ther Adv Med Oncol 11: 1758835919849753, 2019. PMID: 31205507. DOI: 10.1177/1758835919849753
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Eoh KJ,
    2. Park HS,
    3. Park JS,
    4. Lee ST,
    5. Han JW,
    6. Lee JY,
    7. Kim S,
    8. Kim SW,
    9. Kim YT,
    10. Nam EJ
    : Distinct clinical courses of epithelial ovarian cancer with mutations in BRCA1 5’ and 3’ exons. Anticancer Res 38(12): 6947-6953, 2018. PMID: 30504414. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13073
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Jain PG,
    2. Patel BD
    : Medicinal chemistry approaches of poly ADP-Ribose polymerase 1 (PARP1) inhibitors as anticancer agents – A recent update. Eur J Med Chem 165: 198-215, 2019. PMID: 30684797. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2019.01.024
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Gadducci A,
    2. Guerrieri ME
    : PARP inhibitors in epithelial ovarian cancer: state of art and perspectives of clinical research. Anticancer Res 36(5): 2055-2064, 2016. PMID: 27127105.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Cecere SC,
    2. Giannone G,
    3. Salutari V,
    4. Arenare L,
    5. Lorusso D,
    6. Ronzino G,
    7. Lauria R,
    8. Cormio G,
    9. Carella C,
    10. Scollo P,
    11. Ghizzoni V,
    12. Raspagliesi F,
    13. Di Napoli M,
    14. Mazzoni E,
    15. Marchetti C,
    16. Bergamini A,
    17. Orditura M,
    18. Valabrega G,
    19. Scambia G,
    20. Maltese G,
    21. De Matteis E,
    22. Cardalesi C,
    23. Loizzi V,
    24. Boccia S,
    25. Naglieri E,
    26. Scandurra G,
    27. Pignata S
    : 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 pii: S0090-8258(19)31607-5, 2019. PMID: 31699415. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.10.023
  7. ↵
    1. Moore K,
    2. Colombo N,
    3. Scambia G,
    4. Kim BG,
    5. Oaknin A,
    6. Friedlander M,
    7. Lisyanskaya A,
    8. Floquet A,
    9. Leary A,
    10. Sonke GS,
    11. Gourley C,
    12. Banerjee S,
    13. Oza A,
    14. González-Martín A,
    15. Aghajanian C,
    16. Bradley W,
    17. Mathews C,
    18. Liu J,
    19. Lowe ES,
    20. Bloomfield R,
    21. DiSilvestro P
    : Maintenance Olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 379(26): 2495-2505, 2018. PMID: 30345884. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1810858
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Golan T,
    2. Hammel P,
    3. Reni M,
    4. Van Cutsem E,
    5. Macarulla T,
    6. Hall MJ,
    7. Park JO,
    8. Hochhauser D,
    9. Arnold D,
    10. Oh DY,
    11. Reinacher-Schick A,
    12. Tortora G,
    13. Algül H,
    14. O'Reilly EM,
    15. McGuinness D,
    16. Cui KY,
    17. Schlienger K,
    18. Locker GY,
    19. Kindler HL
    : Maintenance olaparib for germline BRCA -mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 381(4): 317-327, 2019. PMID: 31157963. DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa1903387
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Ashworth A,
    2. Lord CJ
    : Synthetic lethal therapies for cancer: what's next after PARP inhibitors? Nat Rev Clin Oncol 15(9): 564-576, 2018. PMID: 29955114. DOI: 10.1038/s41571-018-0055-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Khalique S,
    2. Hook JM,
    3. Ledermann JA
    : Maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 26(5): 521-528, 2014. PMID: 25033374. DOI: 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000110
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. LaFargue CJ,
    2. Dal Molin GZ,
    3. Sood AK,
    4. Coleman RL
    : Exploring and comparing adverse events between PARP inhibitors. Lancet Oncol 20(1): e15-e28, 2019. PMID: 30614472. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30786-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Moher D,
    2. Liberati A,
    3. Tetzlaff J,
    4. Altman DG,
    5. PRISMA Group
    : Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009. PMID: 19621072. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005
  13. ↵
    1. Higgins J,
    2. Green S
    : Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Cochrane Collab, 2011.
  14. ↵
    Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 (CTCAE). In: Principles and Practice of Clinical Trial Medicine, 2008. DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-373695-6.00022-3
  15. ↵
    1. NCI,
    2. NIH D
    . Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0. NIH Publ, 2009.
  16. ↵
    1. Ledermann J,
    2. Harter P,
    3. Gourley C,
    4. Friedlander M,
    5. Vergote I,
    6. Rustin G,
    7. Scott CL,
    8. Meier W,
    9. Shapira-Frommer R,
    10. Safra T,
    11. Matei D,
    12. Fielding A,
    13. Spencer S,
    14. Dougherty B,
    15. Orr M,
    16. Hodgson D,
    17. Barrett JC,
    18. Matulonis U
    : Olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer: A preplanned retrospective analysis of outcomes by BRCA status in a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 15(8): 852-861, 2014. PMID: 24882434. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70228-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Pujade-Lauraine E,
    2. Ledermann JA,
    3. Selle F,
    4. Gebski V,
    5. Penson RT,
    6. Oza AM,
    7. Korach J,
    8. Huzarski T,
    9. Poveda A,
    10. Pignata S,
    11. Friedlander M,
    12. Colombo N,
    13. Harter P,
    14. Fujiwara K,
    15. Ray-Coquard I,
    16. Banerjee S,
    17. Liu J,
    18. Lowe ES,
    19. Bloomfield R,
    20. Pautier P,
    21. SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21 Investigators
    : 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 18(9): 1274-1284, 2017. PMID: 28754483. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30469-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Gaspar BL,
    2. Sharma P,
    3. Das R
    : Anaemia in malignancies: Pathogenetic and diagnostic considerations. Hematology 20(1): 18-25, 2015. PMID: 24666207. DOI: 10.1179/1607845414Y.0000000161
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Farrés J,
    2. Llacuna L,
    3. Martin-Caballero J,
    4. Martinez C,
    5. Lozano JJ,
    6. Ampurdanés C,
    7. Lopez-Contreras AK,
    8. Florensa L,
    9. Navarro J,
    10. Ottina E,
    11. Dantzer F,
    12. Schreiber V,
    13. Villunger A,
    14. Fernandez-Capetillo O,
    15. Yélamos J
    : PARP-2 sustains erythropoiesis in mice by limiting replicative stress in erythroid progenitors. Cell Death Differ 22(7): 1144-1157, 2015. PMID: 25501596. DOI: 10.1038/cdd.2014.202
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Moore KN,
    2. Birrer MJ
    : Administration of the tablet formulation of olaparib in patients with ovarian cancer: practical guidance and expectations. Oncologist 23(6): 697-703, 2018. PMID: 29593098. DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0485
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Bower JE
    : Cancer-related fatigue – mechanisms, risk factors, and treatments. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 11(10): 597-609, 2014. PMID: 25113839. DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.127
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Liu Y,
    2. Meng J,
    3. Wang G
    : Risk of selected gastrointestinal toxicities associated with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the treatment of ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis of published trials. Drug Des Devel Ther 12: 3013-3019, 2018. PMID: 30271116. DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S164553
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Friedlander M,
    2. Banerjee S,
    3. Mileshkin L,
    4. Scott C,
    5. Shannon C,
    6. Goh J
    : Practical guidance on the use of Olaparib capsules as maintenance therapy for women with BRCA mutations and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 12(4): 323-331, 2016. PMID: 27917619. DOI: 10.1111/ajco.12636
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Zhou J xin,
    2. Feng L Jin,
    3. Zhang X
    : Risk of severe hematologic toxicities in cancer patients treated with PARP inhibitors: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Drug Des Devel Ther 11: 3309-3017, 2017. PMID: 29075104. DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S147726
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Guo XX,
    2. Wu HL,
    3. Shi HY,
    4. Su L,
    5. Zhang X
    : The efficacy and safety of Olaparib in the treatment of cancers: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cancer Manag Res 10: 2553-2565, 2018. PMID: 30127642. DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S169558
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Ruiz-Schutz VC,
    2. Gomes LM,
    3. Mariano RC,
    4. de Almeida DVP,
    5. Pimenta JM,
    6. Dal Molin GZ,
    7. Kater FR,
    8. Yamamura R,
    9. Correa Neto NF,
    10. Maluf FC,
    11. Schultz FA
    : Risk of fatigue and anaemia in patients with advanced cancer treated with Olaparib: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 141: 163-173, 2019. PMID: 31306986. DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2019.06.012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Paik ES,
    2. Lee YJ,
    3. Lee JY,
    4. Shin W,
    5. Park SY,
    6. Kim SI,
    7. Kim JW,
    8. Choi CH,
    9. Kim BG
    : Real-world experience of olaparib maintenance in high-grade serous recurrent ovarian cancer patients with BRCA1/2 mutation: A Korean Multicenter Study. J Clin Med E1920, 2019. PMID: 31717415. DOI: 10.3390/jcm8111920
  28. ↵
    1. Ni J,
    2. Cheng X,
    3. Zhou R,
    4. Xu X,
    5. Guo W,
    6. Chen X
    : Olaparib in the therapy of advanced ovarian cancer: first real world experiences in safety and efficacy from China. J Ovarian Res 12(1): 117, 2019. PMID: 31775908. DOI: 10.1186/s13048-019-0594-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 40 (2)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 40, Issue 2
February 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Specific Toxicity of Maintenance Olaparib Versus Placebo in Advanced Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
5 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Specific Toxicity of Maintenance Olaparib Versus Placebo in Advanced Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
ANGELA DALIA RICCI, ALESSANDRO RIZZO, MARCO NOVELLI, SIMONA TAVOLARI, ANDREA PALLONI, NASTASSJA TOBER, FRANCESCA ABBATI, VERONICA MOLLICA, STEFANIA DE LORENZO, DANIELA TURCHETTI, MARIACRISTINA DI MARCO, GIOVANNI BRANDI
Anticancer Research Feb 2020, 40 (2) 597-608; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13989

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Specific Toxicity of Maintenance Olaparib Versus Placebo in Advanced Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
ANGELA DALIA RICCI, ALESSANDRO RIZZO, MARCO NOVELLI, SIMONA TAVOLARI, ANDREA PALLONI, NASTASSJA TOBER, FRANCESCA ABBATI, VERONICA MOLLICA, STEFANIA DE LORENZO, DANIELA TURCHETTI, MARIACRISTINA DI MARCO, GIOVANNI BRANDI
Anticancer Research Feb 2020, 40 (2) 597-608; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13989
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The (Eternal) Debate on Microwave Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation in BCLC-A Hepatocellular Carcinoma
  • Circulating Tumor DNA in Biliary Tract Cancer: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives
  • Second-line Treatment in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: Today and Tomorrow
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Cytokine-based Cancer Immunotherapy: Challenges and Opportunities for IL-10
  • Proteolytic Enzyme Therapy in Complementary Oncology: A Systematic Review
  • Multimodal Treatment of Primary Advanced Ovarian Cancer
Show more Reviews

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • olaparib
  • meta-analysis
  • randomized clinical trial
  • anemia
  • fatigue
  • PARP
  • review
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire