Top

Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Ovarian Cancer | Review

The role of patient-derived ovarian cancer organoids in the study of PARP inhibitors sensitivity and resistance: from genomic analysis to functional testing

Authors: Mengyu Tao, Xia Wu

Published in: Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) harbors distinct genetic features such as homologous recombination repair (HRR) deficiency, and therefore may respond to poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). Over the past few years, PARPi have been added to the standard of care for EOC patients in both front-line and recurrent settings. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) genomic analysis provides key information, allowing for the prediction of PARPi response in patients who are PARPi naïve. However, there are indeed some limitations in NGS analyses. A subset of patients can benefit from PARPi, despite the failed detection of the predictive biomarkers such as BRCA1/2 mutations or HRR deficiency. Moreover, in the recurrent setting, the sequencing of initial tumor does not allow for the detection of reversions or secondary mutations restoring proficient HRR and thus leading to PARPi resistance. Therefore, it becomes crucial to better screen patients who will likely benefit from PARPi treatment, especially those with prior receipt of maintenance PARPi therapy. Recently, patient-derived organoids (PDOs) have been regarded as a reliable preclinical platform with clonal heterogeneity and genetic features of original tumors. PDOs are found feasible for functional testing and interrogation of biomarkers for predicting response to PARPi in EOC. Hence, we review the strengths and limitations of various predictive biomarkers and highlight the role of patient-derived ovarian cancer organoids as functional assays in the study of PARPi response. It was found that a combination of NGS and functional assays using PDOs could enhance the efficient screening of EOC patients suitable for PARPi, thus prolonging their survival time.

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A, Statistics C. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017:2017. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21387.

Webb PM, Jordan SJ. Epidemiology of epithelial ovarian cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2016.08.006.

Pignata S, CCS, Du Bois A, et al. Treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer. Ann Oncol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx441.

Narod S. Can advanced-stage ovarian cancer be cured? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.224.

Lord CJ, Ashworth A. PARP inhibitors: Synthetic lethality in the clinic. Science. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam7344.

Ledermann JA, Drew Y, Kristeleit RS. Homologous recombination deficiency and ovarian cancer. European Journal of Cancer. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.03.005.

Murai J, Huang SY, Das BB, et al. Trapping of PARP1 and PARP2 by clinical PARP inhibitors. Cancer Res. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.Can-12-2753.

Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature. 2011; https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10166.

Konstantinopoulos PA, Ceccaldi R, Shapiro GI, et al. Homologous Recombination Deficiency: Exploiting the Fundamental Vulnerability of Ovarian Cancer. Cancer Discov. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-15-0714.

10.

Fong PC, Boss DS, Yap TA, et al. Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in tumors from BRCA mutation carriers. N Engl J Med. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0900212.

11.

Audeh MW, Carmichael J, Penson RT, et al. Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and recurrent ovarian cancer: a proof-of-concept trial. Lancet. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60893-8.

12.

Gelmon KA, Tischkowitz M, Mackay H, et al. Olaparib in patients with recurrent high-grade serous or poorly differentiated ovarian carcinoma or triple-negative breast cancer: a phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-randomised study. Lancet Oncol. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(11)70214-5.

13.

Radhakrishnan SK, Jette N, Lees-Miller SP. Non-homologous end joining: Emerging themes and unanswered questions. DNA Repair. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2014.01.009.

14.

Ledermann J, Harter P, Gourley C, et al. 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. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70228-1.

15.

Mirza MR, Monk BJ, Herrstedt J, et al. Niraparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1611310.

16.

Coleman RL, Oza AM, Lorusso D, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32440-6.

17.

Moore K, Colombo N, Scambia G, et al. Maintenance Olaparib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1810858.

18.

Li H, Liu ZY, Wu N, et al. PARP inhibitor resistance: the underlying mechanisms and clinical implications. Mol Cancer. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12943-020-01227-0.

19.

Dutta D, Heo I, Clevers H. Disease modeling in stem cell-derived 3D organoid systems. Trends Mol Med. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2017.02.007.

20.

Drost J, Clevers H. Organoids in cancer research. Nat Rev Cancer. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-018-0007-6.

21.

Bleijs M, van de Wetering M, Clevers H, et al. Xenograft and organoid model systems in cancer research. Embo J. 2019. https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.2019101654.

22.

Mouw KW, Goldberg MS, Konstantinopoulos PA, et al. DNA Damage and Repair Biomarkers of Immunotherapy Response. Cancer Discov. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-17-0226.

23.

Brown JS, O'Carrigan B, Jackson SP, et al. Targeting DNA Repair in Cancer: Beyond PARP Inhibitors. Cancer Discov. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-16-0860.

24.

Plummer R. Perspective on the pipeline of drugs being developed with modulation of DNA damage as a target. Clin Cancer Res. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-10-0984.

25.

Forment JV, O'Connor MJ. Targeting the replication stress response in cancer. Pharmacol Ther. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2018.03.005.

26.

Bryant HE, Petermann E, Schultz N, et al. PARP is activated at stalled forks to mediate Mre11-dependent replication restart and recombination. EMBO J. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2009.206.

27.

De Vos M, Schreiber V, Dantzer F. The diverse roles and clinical relevance of PARPs in DNA damage repair: current state of the art. Biochem Pharmacol. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2012.03.018.

28.

Eustermann S, Wu WF, Langelier MF, et al. Structural basis of detection and signaling of DNA single-Strand breaks by human PARP-1. Mol Cell. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2015.10.032.

29.

Krishnakumar R, Kraus WL. The PARP side of the nucleus: molecular actions, physiological outcomes, and clinical targets. Mol Cell. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2010.06.017.

30.

Wei H, Yu X. Functions of PARylation in DNA Damage Repair Pathways. Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gpb.2016.05.001.

31.

Moynahan ME, Jasin M. Mitotic homologous recombination maintains genomic stability and suppresses tumorigenesis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2851.

32.

Radhakrishnan SK, Jette N, Lees-Miller SP. Non-homologous end joining: emerging themes and unanswered questions. DNA Repair (Amst). 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2014.01.009.

33.

Aymard F, Bugler B, Schmidt CK, et al. Transcriptionally active chromatin recruits homologous recombination at DNA double-strand breaks. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2796.

34.

Farmer H, McCabe N, Lord CJ, et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03445.

35.

Bryant HE, Schultz N, Thomas HD, et al. Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Nature. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03443.

36.

McCabe N, Turner NC, Lord CJ, et al. Deficiency in the repair of DNA damage by homologous recombination and sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition. Cancer Res. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.Can-06-0140.

37.

Bajrami I, Frankum JR, Konde A, et al. Genome-wide profiling of genetic synthetic lethality identifies CDK12 as a novel determinant of PARP1/2 inhibitor sensitivity. Cancer Res. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.Can-13-2541.

38.

Murai J, Huang SY, Renaud A, et al. Stereospecific PARP trapping by BMN 673 and comparison with olaparib and rucaparib. Mol Cancer Ther. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.Mct-13-0803.

39.

Mittica G, Ghisoni E, Giannone G, et al. PARP Inhibitors in Ovarian Cancer. Recent Pat Anticancer Drug Discov. 2018. https://doi.org/10.2174/1574892813666180305165256.

40.

Fong PC, Yap TA, Boss DS, et al. Poly(ADP)-ribose polymerase inhibition: frequent durable responses in BRCA carrier ovarian cancer correlating with platinum-free interval. J Clin Oncol. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.26.9589.

41.

Pennington KP, Walsh T, Harrell MI, et al. Germline and somatic mutations in homologous recombination genes predict platinum response and survival in ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-13-2287.

42.

Norquist BM, Brady MF, Harrell MI, et al. Mutations in homologous recombination genes and outcomes in ovarian carcinoma patients in GOG 218: an NRG oncology/gynecologic oncology group study. Clin Cancer Res. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-17-1327.

43.

Hodgson DR, Dougherty BA, Lai Z, et al. Candidate biomarkers of PARP inhibitor sensitivity in ovarian cancer beyond the BRCA genes. Br J Cancer. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0274-8.

44.

Swisher EM, Lin KK, Oza AM, et al. Rucaparib in relapsed, platinum-sensitive high-grade ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL2 part 1): an international, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30559-9.

45.

Mateo J, Porta N, Bianchini D, et al. Olaparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with DNA repair gene aberrations (TOPARP-B): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30684-9.

46.

Li H, LaDuca H, Pesaran T, et al. Classification of variants of uncertain significance in BRCA1 and BRCA2 using personal and family history of cancer from individuals in a large hereditary cancer multigene panel testing cohort. Genet Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0729-1.

47.

Cartegni L, Chew SL, Krainer AR. Listening to silence and understanding nonsense: exonic mutations that affect splicing. Nat Rev Genet. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg775.

48.

Bonnet C, Krieger S, Vezain M, et al. Screening BRCA1 and BRCA2 unclassified variants for splicing mutations using reverse transcription PCR on patient RNA and an ex vivo assay based on a splicing reporter minigene. J Med Genet. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.2007.056895.

49.

Alexandrov LB, Kim J, Haradhvala NJ, et al. The repertoire of mutational signatures in human cancer. Nature. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-1943-3.

50.

Watkins JA, Irshad S, Grigoriadis A, et al. Genomic scars as biomarkers of homologous recombination deficiency and drug response in breast and ovarian cancers. Breast Cancer Res. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr3670.

51.

Polak P, Kim J, Braunstein LZ, et al. A mutational signature reveals alterations underlying deficient homologous recombination repair in breast cancer. Nat Genet. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3934.

52.

Abkevich V, Timms KM, Hennessy BT, et al. Patterns of genomic loss of heterozygosity predict homologous recombination repair defects in epithelial ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.451.

53.

Talens F, Jalving M, Gietema JA, et al. Therapeutic targeting and patient selection for cancers with homologous recombination defects. Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/17460441.2017.1322061.

54.

Davies H, Glodzik D, Morganella S, et al. HRDetect is a predictor of BRCA1 and BRCA2 deficiency based on mutational signatures. Nat Med. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4292.

55.

Ceccaldi R, Sarangi P, D'Andrea AD. The Fanconi anaemia pathway: new players and new functions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm.2016.48.

56.

Graeser M, McCarthy A, Lord CJ, et al. A marker of homologous recombination predicts pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in primary breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-10-1027.

57.

Asakawa H, Koizumi H, Koike A, et al. Prediction of breast cancer sensitivity to neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on status of DNA damage repair proteins. Breast Cancer Res. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2486.

58.

Kubelac P, Genestie C, Auguste A, et al. Changes in DNA damage response markers with treatment in advanced ovarian Cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12030707.

59.

Willers H, Taghian AG, Luo CM, et al. Utility of DNA repair protein foci for the detection of putative BRCA1 pathway defects in breast cancer biopsies. Mol Cancer Res. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1158/1541-7786.Mcr-09-0149.

60.

Naipal KA, Verkaik NS, Ameziane N, et al. Functional ex vivo assay to select homologous recombination-deficient breast tumors for PARP inhibitor treatment. Clin Cancer Res. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-14-0571.

61.

Meijer TG, Verkaik NS, Sieuwerts AM, et al. Functional Ex Vivo Assay Reveals Homologous Recombination Deficiency in Breast Cancer Beyond BRCA Gene Defects. Clin Cancer Res. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-18-0063.

62.

van Wijk LM, Vermeulen S, Meijers M, et al. The RECAP test rapidly and reliably identifies homologous recombination-deficient ovarian carcinomas. Cancers (Basel). 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12102805.

63.

Cruz C, Castroviejo-Bermejo M, Gutiérrez-Enríquez S, et al. RAD51 foci as a functional biomarker of homologous recombination repair and PARP inhibitor resistance in germline BRCA-mutated breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy099.

64.

Castroviejo-Bermejo M, Cruz C, Llop-Guevara A, et al. A RAD51 assay feasible in routine tumor samples calls PARP inhibitor response beyond BRCA mutation. EMBO Mol Med. 2018. https://doi.org/10.15252/emmm.201809172.

65.

Färkkilä A, Gulhan DC, Casado J, et al. Immunogenomic profiling determines responses to combined PARP and PD-1 inhibition in ovarian cancer. Nat Commun. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15315-8.

66.

Edwards SL, Brough R, Lord CJ, et al. Resistance to therapy caused by intragenic deletion in BRCA2. Nature. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06548.

67.

Barber LJ, Sandhu S, Chen L, et al. Secondary mutations in BRCA2 associated with clinical resistance to a PARP inhibitor. J Pathol. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/path.4140.

68.

Sakai W, Swisher EM, Karlan BY, et al. Secondary mutations as a mechanism of cisplatin resistance in BRCA2-mutated cancers. Nature. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06633.

69.

Lord CJ, Ashworth A. BRCAness revisited. Nat Rev Cancer. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc.2015.21.

70.

Lin KK, Harrell MI, Oza AM, et al. BRCA Reversion Mutations in Circulating Tumor DNA Predict Primary and Acquired Resistance to the PARP Inhibitor Rucaparib in High-Grade Ovarian Carcinoma. Cancer Discov. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-18-0715.

71.

Symington LS, Gautier J. Double-strand break end resection and repair pathway choice. Annu Rev Genet. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-110410-132435.

72.

Di Virgilio M, Callen E, Yamane A, et al. Rif1 prevents resection of DNA breaks and promotes immunoglobulin class switching. Science. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230624.

73.

Zimmermann M, Lottersberger F, Buonomo SB, et al. 53BP1 regulates DSB repair using Rif1 to control 5′ end resection. Science. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231573.

74.

Noordermeer SM, Adam S, Setiaputra D, et al. The shieldin complex mediates 53BP1-dependent DNA repair. Nature. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0340-7.

75.

Ghezraoui H, Oliveira C, Becker JR, et al. 53BP1 cooperation with the REV7-shieldin complex underpins DNA structure-specific NHEJ. Nature. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0362-1.

76.

Jaspers JE, Kersbergen A, Boon U, et al. Loss of 53BP1 causes PARP inhibitor resistance in Brca1-mutated mouse mammary tumors. Cancer Discov. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-12-0049.

77.

Xu G, Chapman JR, Brandsma I, et al. REV7 counteracts DNA double-strand break resection and affects PARP inhibition. Nature. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14328.

78.

Gupta R, Somyajit K, Narita T, et al. DNA Repair Network Analysis Reveals Shieldin as a Key Regulator of NHEJ and PARP Inhibitor Sensitivity. Cell. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.050.

79.

Hustedt N, Durocher D. The control of DNA repair by the cell cycle. Nat Cell Biol. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb3452.

80.

Berti M, Ray Chaudhuri A, Thangavel S, et al. Human RECQ1 promotes restart of replication forks reversed by DNA topoisomerase I inhibition. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2501.

81.

Schlacher K, Christ N, Siaud N, et al. Double-strand break repair-independent role for BRCA2 in blocking stalled replication fork degradation by MRE11. Cell. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.03.041.

82.

Schlacher K, Wu H, Jasin M. A distinct replication fork protection pathway connects Fanconi anemia tumor suppressors to RAD51-BRCA1/2. Cancer Cell. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2012.05.015.

83.

Liao H, Ji F, Helleday T, et al. Mechanisms for stalled replication fork stabilization: new targets for synthetic lethality strategies in cancer treatments. EMBO Rep. 2018. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201846263.

84.

Ray Chaudhuri A, Callen E, Ding X, et al. Replication fork stability confers chemoresistance in BRCA-deficient cells. Nature. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18325.

85.

Ying S, Hamdy FC, Helleday T. Mre11-dependent degradation of stalled DNA replication forks is prevented by BRCA2 and PARP1. Cancer Res. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.Can-11-3417.

86.

Polato F, Callen E, Wong N, et al. CtIP-mediated resection is essential for viability and can operate independently of BRCA1. J Exp Med. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20131939.

87.

Guillemette S, Serra RW, Peng M, et al. Resistance to therapy in BRCA2 mutant cells due to loss of the nucleosome remodeling factor CHD4. Genes Dev. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.256214.114.

88.

Kolinjivadi AM, Sannino V, De Antoni A, et al. Smarcal1-mediated fork reversal triggers Mre11-dependent degradation of nascent DNA in the absence of Brca2 and stable Rad51 nucleofilaments. Mol Cell. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2017.07.001.

89.

Lok BH, Gardner EE, Schneeberger VE, et al. PARP inhibitor activity correlates with SLFN11 expression and demonstrates synergy with Temozolomide in small cell lung Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-16-1040.

90.

Rondinelli B, Gogola E, Yücel H, et al. EZH2 promotes degradation of stalled replication forks by recruiting MUS81 through histone H3 trimethylation. Nat Cell Biol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb3626.

91.

Ding X, Ray Chaudhuri A, Callen E, et al. Synthetic viability by BRCA2 and PARP1/ARTD1 deficiencies. Nat Commun. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12425.

92.

Kondrashova O, Topp M, Nesic K, et al. Methylation of all BRCA1 copies predicts response to the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in ovarian carcinoma. Nat Commun. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05564-z.

93.

Du Y, Yamaguchi H, Wei Y, et al. Blocking c-met-mediated PARP1 phosphorylation enhances anti-tumor effects of PARP inhibitors. Nat Med. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4032.

94.

Christie EL, Pattnaik S, Beach J, et al. Multiple ABCB1 transcriptional fusions in drug resistant high-grade serous ovarian and breast cancer. Nat Commun. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09312-9.

95.

Ibrahim YH, García-García C, Serra V, et al. PI3K inhibition impairs BRCA1/2 expression and sensitizes BRCA-proficient triple-negative breast cancer to PARP inhibition. Cancer Discov. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-11-0348.

96.

Johnson SF, Cruz C, Greifenberg AK, et al. CDK12 inhibition reverses De novo and acquired PARP inhibitor resistance in BRCA wild-type and mutated models of triple-negative breast Cancer. Cell Rep. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.10.077.

97.

Liszczak G, Diehl KL, Dann GP, et al. Acetylation blocks DNA damage-induced chromatin ADP-ribosylation. Nat Chem Biol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41589-018-0097-1.

98.

Konstantinopoulos PA, Barry WT, Birrer M, et al. Olaparib and α-specific PI3K inhibitor alpelisib for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer: a dose-escalation and dose-expansion phase 1b trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30905-7.

99.

Lheureux S, Oaknin A, Garg S, et al. EVOLVE: A Multicenter Open-Label Single-Arm Clinical and Translational Phase II Trial of Cediranib Plus Olaparib for Ovarian Cancer after PARP Inhibition Progression. Clin Cancer Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-19-4121.

100.

Ben-David U, Siranosian B, Ha G, et al. Genetic and transcriptional evolution alters cancer cell line drug response. Nature. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0409-3.

101.

Ben-David U, Ha G, Tseng YY, et al. Patient-derived xenografts undergo mouse-specific tumor evolution. Nat Genet. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3967.

102.

Rossi G, Manfrin A, Lutolf MP. Progress and potential in organoid research. Nat Rev Genet. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-018-0051-9.

103.

Broutier L, Mastrogiovanni G, Verstegen MM, et al. Human primary liver cancer-derived organoid cultures for disease modeling and drug screening. Nat Med. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4438.

104.

Gao D, Vela I, Sboner A, et al. Organoid cultures derived from patients with advanced prostate cancer. Cell. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.08.016.

105.

Sachs N, de Ligt J, Kopper O, et al. A Living Biobank of Breast Cancer Organoids Captures Disease Heterogeneity. Cell. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.11.010.

106.

van de Wetering M, Francies HE, Francis JM, et al. Prospective derivation of a living organoid biobank of colorectal cancer patients. Cell. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.03.053.

107.

Yan HHN, Siu HC, Law S, et al. A Comprehensive Human Gastric Cancer Organoid Biobank Captures Tumor Subtype Heterogeneity and Enables Therapeutic Screening. Cell Stem Cell. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2018.09.016.

108.

Kopper O, de Witte CJ, Lõhmussaar K, et al. An organoid platform for ovarian cancer captures intra- and interpatient heterogeneity. Nat Med. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0422-6.

109.

Kessler M, Hoffmann K, Brinkmann V, et al. The Notch and Wnt pathways regulate stemness and differentiation in human fallopian tube organoids. Nat Commun. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9989.

110.

Hill SJ, Decker B, Roberts EA, et al. Prediction of DNA Repair Inhibitor Response in Short-Term Patient-Derived Ovarian Cancer. Organoids Cancer Discov. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-18-0474.

111.

Maenhoudt N, Defraye C, Boretto M, et al. Developing Organoids from Ovarian Cancer as Experimental and Preclinical Models. Stem Cell Reports. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2020.03.004.

112.

Maru Y, Tanaka N, Itami M, et al. Efficient use of patient-derived organoids as a preclinical model for gynecologic tumors. Gynecol Oncol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.05.005.

113.

Chen H, Gotimer K, De Souza C, et al. Short-term organoid culture for drug sensitivity testing of high-grade serous carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.03.026.

114.

de Witte CJ, Espejo Valle-Inclan J, Hami N, et al. Patient-Derived Ovarian Cancer Organoids Mimic Clinical Response and Exhibit Heterogeneous Inter- and Intrapatient Drug Responses. Cell Rep. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2020.107762.

115.

Nanki Y, Chiyoda T, Hirasawa A, et al. Patient-derived ovarian cancer organoids capture the genomic profiles of primary tumours applicable for drug sensitivity and resistance testing. Sci Rep. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69488-9.

116.

Hoffmann K, Berger H, Kulbe H, et al. Stable expansion of high-grade serous ovarian cancer organoids requires a low-Wnt environment. Embo J. 2020. https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.2019104013.

117.

Soragni A, Janzen DM, Johnson LM, et al. A designed inhibitor of p53 aggregation rescues p53 tumor suppression in ovarian carcinomas. Cancer Cell. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2015.12.002.

118.

Bi J, Thiel KW, Litman JM, et al. Characterization of a TP53 somatic variant of unknown function from an ovarian Cancer patient using organoid culture and computational modeling. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/grf.0000000000000516.

119.

Florent R, Weiswald LB, Lambert B, et al. Bim, Puma and Noxa upregulation by Naftopidil sensitizes ovarian cancer to the BH3-mimetic ABT-737 and the MEK inhibitor Trametinib. Cell Death Dis. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41419-020-2588-8.

120.

Sun H, Wang H, Wang X, et al. Aurora-a/SOX8/FOXK1 signaling axis promotes chemoresistance via suppression of cell senescence and induction of glucose metabolism in ovarian cancer organoids and cells. Theranostics. 2020. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.43811.

121.

Vernon M, Lambert B, Meryet-Figuière M, et al. Functional miRNA screening identifies wide-ranging antitumor properties of miR-3622b-5p and reveals a new therapeutic combination strategy in ovarian tumor organoids. Mol Cancer Ther. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.Mct-19-0510.

122.

Shigeta S, Lui GYL, Shaw R, et al. Targeting BET proteins BRD2 and BRD3 in combination with PI3K-AKT inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for ovarian clear cell carcinoma. Mol Cancer Ther. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.Mct-20-0809.

123.

Jabs J, Zickgraf FM, Park J, et al. Screening drug effects in patient-derived cancer cells links organoid responses to genome alterations. Mol Syst Biol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.15252/msb.20177697.

124.

Phan N, Hong JJ, Tofig B, et al. A simple high-throughput approach identifies actionable drug sensitivities in patient-derived tumor organoids. Commun Biol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-019-0305-x.

125.

Driehuis E, van Hoeck A, Moore K, et al. Pancreatic cancer organoids recapitulate disease and allow personalized drug screening. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911273116.

126.

Pauli C, Hopkins BD, Prandi D, et al. Personalized In Vitro and In Vivo Cancer Models to Guide Precision Medicine. Cancer Discov. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-16-1154.

127.

Arena S, Corti G, Durinikova E, et al. A Subset of Colorectal Cancers with Cross-Sensitivity to Olaparib and Oxaliplatin. Clin Cancer Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-19-2409.

128.

Kong J, Lee H, Kim D, et al. Network-based machine learning in colorectal and bladder organoid models predicts anti-cancer drug efficacy in patients. Nat Commun. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19313-8.

129.

Zhang H, Liu T, Zhang Z, et al. Integrated Proteogenomic Characterization of Human High-Grade Serous Ovarian. Cancer Cell. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.05.069.

130.

Song G, Chen L, Zhang B, et al. Proteome-wide Tyrosine Phosphorylation Analysis Reveals Dysregulated Signaling Pathways in Ovarian Tumors. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.RA118.000851.

131.

McDermott JE, Arshad OA, Petyuk VA, et al. Proteogenomic characterization of ovarian HGSC implicates mitotic kinases, Replication Stress in Observed Chromosomal Instability. Cell Rep Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2020.100004.

132.

Yu KH, Levine DA, Zhang H, et al. J Proteome Res. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jproteome.5b01129.

133.

Xiao Q, Zhang F, Xu L, et al. High-throughput proteomics and AI for cancer biomarker discovery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2021.113844.

134.

Tiriac H, Belleau P, Engle DD, et al. Organoid Profiling Identifies Common Responders to Chemotherapy in Pancreatic. Cancer Cancer Discov. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-18-0349.

135.

Peyraud F, Italiano A. Combined PARP inhibition and immune checkpoint therapy in solid tumors. Cancers (Basel). 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12061502.

136.

Dijkstra KK, Cattaneo CM, Weeber F, et al. Generation of Tumor-Reactive T Cells by Co-culture of Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes and Tumor Organoids. Cell. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.07.009.

Title: The role of patient-derived ovarian cancer organoids in the study of PARP inhibitors sensitivity and resistance: from genomic analysis to functional testing
Authors: Mengyu Tao
Xia Wu
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Ovarian Cancer
Ovarian Cancer
Biomarkers
Published in: Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1756-9966
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-021-02139-7

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Retraction Note: A positive feedback loop consisting of C12orf59/NF-κB/CDH11 promotes gastric cancer invasion and metastasis

Current approach and novel perspectives in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: the role of targeting proteasome dysregulation as a molecular landmark in nasopharyngeal cancer

CircAGAP1 promotes tumor progression by sponging miR-15-5p in clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Correction to: Long non-coding RNA H19 promotes colorectal cancer metastasis via binding to hnRNPA2B1

PDX models reflect the proteome landscape of pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia but divert in select pathways

RBM15 facilitates laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma progression by regulating TMBIM6 stability through IGF2BP3 dependent

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer