
==== Front
Target Oncol
Target Oncol
Targeted Oncology
1776-2596
1776-260X
Springer International Publishing Cham

37993604
1016
10.1007/s11523-023-01016-x
Systematic Review
Hematological Toxicity of PARP Inhibitors in Metastatic Prostate Cancer Patients with Mutations of BRCA or HRR Genes: A Systematic Review and Safety Meta-analysis
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5423-3158
Maiorano Brigida Anna b.maiorano@operapadrepio.it
brigidamaiorano@gmail.com

1
De Giorgi Ugo 2
Verzoni Elena 3
Maiello Evaristo 1
Procopio Giuseppe 3
Conteduca Vincenza 4
Di Maio Massimo 5
the MeetURO group
1 https://ror.org/00md77g41 grid.413503.0 0000 0004 1757 9135 Oncology Unit, IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy
2 grid.419563.c 0000 0004 1755 9177 Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo Per Lo Studio Dei Tumori (IRST) “Dino Amadori”, Meldola, Italy
3 https://ror.org/05dwj7825 grid.417893.0 0000 0001 0807 2568 Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy
4 https://ror.org/01xtv3204 grid.10796.39 0000 0001 2104 9995 Unit of Medical Oncology and Biomolecular Therapy, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Policlinico Riuniti, Foggia, Italy
5 https://ror.org/048tbm396 grid.7605.4 0000 0001 2336 6580 Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
22 11 2023
22 11 2023
2024
19 1 111
1 11 2023
© The Author(s) 2023, corrected publication 2023
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial 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-nc/4.0/.
Background

PARP inhibitors (PARPis) are effective treatment options for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as single agents or in combination with androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA). However, a clinically relevant adverse effect of these agents is hematological toxicity, a typical class adverse event (AE), which can lead to treatment modifications and discontinuations.

Objective

We aimed to analyze the risk of hematological AEs, including anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia secondary to PARPi treatments in mCRPC.

Patients and Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) meeting abstracts for clinical trials concerning the use of PARPis, both as single agents and in combination, in patients with mCRPC. The search deadline was 30 June, 2023. We analyzed the pooled incidence of all grades of and ≥ G3 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. We subsequently calculated risk ratios (RRs) for all grades of and ≥ G3 AEs of PARPis versus non-PARPis from randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

Results

Eleven phase 2/3 trials with olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib administered as single agents or combined with ARTA were selected. Anemia was the most common all grades (38.6%) and ≥ G3 AE (24.9%). In the analysis of relative risk, six RCTs were included. The administration of PARPis significantly increased the risk of developing all grades of anemia (RR = 2.44), neutropenia (RR = 3.15), and thrombocytopenia (RR = 4.66) compared with non-PARPis. Similarly, a significant increase in the risk of ≥ G3 anemia (RR = 5.73) and thrombocytopenia (RR = 5.44), and a not significant increased risk of neutropenia (RR = 3.41), were detected.

Conclusions

In mCRPC, PARPis increase the risk of hematological toxicity compared with other treatments, both as single agents or combined with ARTA (high-quality evidence). Clinicians should be aware of this risk and the correct management, especially with the expected increased PARPis use in mCRPC.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11523-023-01016-x.

issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024
==== Body
pmcKey Points

PARP inhibitors have been approved for metastatic prostate cancer; however, they typically have blood toxicity, often leading to dosage modification or interruption.	
Our meta-analysis found that PARP inhibitors significantly increased the risk of anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia, and severe anemia and neutropenia, compared with other treatments, in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.	
We should warn clinicians of this risk to manage patients correctly, because there are many ongoing studies with PARP inhibitors, and their use is expected to rise in the next years.	

Introduction

Prostate cancer is the most common tumor and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in males [1]. In the setting of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), despite the availability of several agents, such as chemotherapy (CHT)—mainly represented by the taxanes family—and androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA), there is a need to improve survival and response rates [2]. In fact, up to one out of four patients with mCRPC carries mutations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes, mainly breast cancer-related gene (BRCA) 1 and 2 (8–10%), with a negative prognostic role for survival and disease progression and potential sensitivity to poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPis) [3–6].

In 2020, PARPis entered the therapeutic path of mCRPC, starting with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of olaparib for patients with germline or somatic mutations of HRR genes, progressing to ARTA after the results of the phase 3 PROfound trial, in which olaparib prolonged overall survival (OS) up to 19.1 versus 14.7 months compared with the alternative ARTA [hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, p = 0.02] [7–10]. The European Medical Agency (EMA) restricted the approval only for BRCA1/2-mutated patients with mCRPC [11]. Subsequently, rucaparib was approved by FDA as monotherapy for treating patients with mCRPC [12, 13]. More recently, three combinations of PARPis and ARTA have been approved after improving survival and responses in randomized clinical trials (RCT): abiraterone + olaparib, niraparib + abiraterone, and talazoparib + enzalutamide [7, 11, 14–17]. The current FDA and EMA indications are presented in Table 1.Table 1 Summary of PARPis approvals by the FDA and EMA regulatory agencies

PARPi	FDA indication	EMA indication	
Olaparib	Deleterious or suspected deleterious germline/somatic HRR-mutated mCRPC, after progression to an ARTA	Somatic/germline BRCA1/2-mutated mCRPC after progression to an ARTA	
Olaparib + abiraterone	Deleterious or suspected deleterious BRCA-mutated mCRPC	Naïve mCRPC not eligible for chemotherapy	
Niraparib + abiraterone	Deleterious or suspected deleterious BRCA-mutated mCRPC	Somatic/germline BRCA1/2-mutated mCRPC not eligible for chemotherapy	
Talazoparib + enzalutamide	HRR-mutated mCRPC	–	
Rucaparib	Somatic/germline BRCA1/2-mutated mCRPC progressing to ARTA and a taxane	–	
ARTA androgen receptor-targeted agent, BRCA1/2 breast cancer-related gene 1/2, EMA European Medical Agency, FDA US Food and Drug Administration, HRR homologous recombination repair, mCRPC metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, PARPi poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitor

PARPis are associated with characteristic class adverse events (AEs), such as hematological toxicity, often representing a reason for dosage modification, interruption, or discontinuation, or need for supportive cares such as transfusions [18–20]. These effects can be challenging in a population such as mCRPC, where patients are often pretreated with CHT carrying a risk of hematological toxicity, having a relevant bone disease burden, or with elderly age at diagnosis linked to high frailty. Based on these premises, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the hematological toxicity of PARPis in mCRPC.

Materials and Methods

Data Retrieval Strategies and Extraction

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [21 PRISMA]. In June 2023, two authors independently searched the literature using the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases with no data restriction. An additional search for meeting abstracts from the ASCO and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) was performed. A crosscheck reference from review articles was also conducted for all possible pertinent data retrieval. The following terms were used: (“PARP inhibitor” OR “PARP inhibitors” OR olaparib OR niraparib OR veliparib OR rucaparib OR talazoparib) AND (“prostate cancer” OR “prostate carcinoma” OR prost*).

Full texts and conference abstracts were examined, and citations for candidate studies using a predefined information list were screened. For each eligible study, the following data were independently extracted: study characteristics (authors’ names, year of publication, clinical trial name, phase, design, randomization), population (setting, sample size, patients’ demographics), description of interventions (drug, dosage, and combinations), and safety data (number, type and grade of hematologic AEs). Two authors conducted data collection independently, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

Population, Outcomes of the Analysis, Included Studies

Eligible studies were: (1) prospective phase II and III clinical trials, (2) conducted in patients with mCRPC, (3) conducted using PARPis (laparib, niraparib, rucaparib, talazoparib), and (4) reporting data of hematological toxicity, more specifically anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. Reviews, commentaries, letters, personal opinions, preclinical studies, case reports, and studies that did not report the outcome data and/or with sample size < 10 participants were excluded. The research was restricted to the English language.

Patients of the experimental group were treated with PARPis single agent or combined with other drugs such as ARTA. In the control group, patients did not receive PARPis, whereas other drugs (e.g., ARTA, chemotherapy) or placebo (PBO) were administered.

Hematological safety was explored as the number and grade [all grades and greater than grade 3 (≥ G3)] of AEs: anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. In the meta-analysis, all grades and ≥ G3 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia represented the analyzed outcomes.

Risk of Bias Assessment

Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias. The Cochrane tool for the bias risk was used [22].

Data Synthesis and Statistical Analysis

We extracted the number of patients developing the specific AE for calculating the incidence of all grades and ≥ G3 AEs. The proportion of patients and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. For comparing the risk of hematological AEs with PARPis and without PARPis, risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated. The summary estimates were generated using the generic inverse variance and a fixed-effect model (Mantel–Haenszel method) or a random-effect model (DerSimonian–Laird method), depending on the absence or presence of heterogeneity [23, 24]. The presence of heterogeneity between the studies was assessed through the χ2 test and I2 statistic. I2 values of 25%, 50%, and 75% were established for low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively. When I2 < 50%, the fixed-effects model was used; otherwise, the random-effects model was used [25]. Subgroup analyses were planned to detect the underlying source of heterogeneity between the studies in terms of agent name (olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, talazoparib), treatment regimens (PARPi given as a single agent versus combination), and disease setting (naïve for CRPC versus pretreated patients). A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the stability of the global estimate by moving away one study at a time. No correction for multiplicity was applied. The statistical significance was considered in the case of p value < 0.05 (all tests were two-sided). R studio v.3 was used for performing the statistical analysis.

Assessment of Evidence Certainty

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method was used to assess the certainty of the evidence through a non-contextualized approach, including the risk of bias, inconsistency of the effect, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. A GRADE Summary of Findings graphic was developed using the GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool platform (www.gradepro.org).

Results

Search Results

The research identified 725 studies from databases and conference abstracts. After duplicate removal, 710 papers were screened. Among them, 690 papers were excluded for non-English language, preclinical articles, or reviews. After considering only RCTs, six studies were included in the meta-analysis at the end of the selection process. The PRISMA flow chart summarizing the selection process is presented in Fig. 1.Fig. 1 PRISMA flowchart of the selection process

Characteristics of the Included Studies

In the qualitative analyses, we selected eleven studies [9, 10, 12–18, 27–33]. Among them, there were four single-arm open-label (SA–OL) phase II studies, including a total of 581 pretreated patients with mCRPC in the safety population, receiving olaparib (n = 1), niraparib (n = 1), talazoparib (n = 1), and rucaparib (n = 1) [12, 13, 26, 28, 29]. One phase II RCT was considered only in the qualitative synthesis, as it included olaparib in the experimental and control groups, given at different dosages, for a total of 49 patients per arm in the safety population [29]. The other six RCTs were also included in the quantitative meta-analysis [9, 10, 14–18, 31–33]. Among them, there were three phase II and three phase III trials. In two studies, olaparib and rucaparib were administered as single agents in the experimental arm and compared respectively with ARTA and ARTA/taxane in the control arm [9, 10, 33]. In four studies, PARPis were combined with ARTA in the experimental arm, and compared with PBO plus ARTA in the control group: olaparib plus abiraterone (n = 2), niraparib plus abiraterone (n = 1), and talazoparib plus enzalutamide (n = 1) [14–17, 30, 31]. Overall, 1605 patients represented the safety population treated with PARPis in the experimental arm (526 as monotherapy) and 1339 patients in the control group (260 as monotherapy). In the different studies, eligible patients should have a minimum of 10.0 g/dL of hemoglobin, 1.5 x 109/L absolute neutrophils count, and 100 × 109/L platelets. No significant risk of bias was evidenced (Supplementary Fig. 1).

The main characteristics of the included studies are listed in Table 2.Table 2 Characteristics of the included studies

Trial	First author	Year	Phase	Design	Disease setting	Treatment	No. of patients (safety)	Median treatment duration (months)	
Single agents	
 PROfound (NCT02987543) [9]	de Bono J	2020	3	RCT	mCRPC (pretreated with ARTA)	Olaparib

ARTA

	256

130

	37.2	
 TRITON2 (NCT02952534) [12, 13]	Abida W	2020	2	SA–OL	mCRPC (pretreated with ARTA and Txt)	Rucaparib	115	6.5	
 TOPARP-A

(NCT01682772) [26]

	Mateo J	2015	2	SA–OL	mCRPC (pretreated with CHT)	Olaparib	50	3.0	
 TOPARP-B (NCT01682772) [27]	Mateo J	2020	2	RCT*	mCRPC (pretreated with taxanes)	Olaparib 300 mg

Olaparib 400 mg

	49

49

	NA	
TALAPRO-1 (NCT03148795) [28]	de Bono J	2021	2	SA–OL	mCRPC (pretreated with ARTA and Txt)	Talazoparib	127	6.1	
 GALAHAD (NCT02854436) [29]	Smith MR	2022	2	SA–OL	mCRPC (pretreated with ARTA and Txt)	Niraparib	289	6.7	
 TRITON3 (NCT02975934) [32]	Fizazi K	2023	3	RCT	mCRPC (pretreated with ARTA)	Rucaparib

ARTA/Txt

	270

130

	8.3

5.1

	
Combinations	
 PROpel (NCT03732820) [15]	Clarke NW	2022	3	RCT	mCRPC (naïve)	Olaparib + abiraterone

PBO + abiraterone

	398

396

	17.5

15.7

	
 TALAPRO-2 (NCT03395197) [16]	Agarwal N	2023	2	RCT	mCRPC (naïve)	Talazoparib + enzalutamide

PBO + enzalutamide

	398

401

	19.8

16.2

	
 NCT01972217 [30]	Clarke NW	2018	2	RCT	mCRPC (pretreated with Txt)	Olaparib + abiraterone

PBO + abiraterone

	71

71

	10.1

8.3

	
 MAGNITUDE (NCT03748641) [31]	Chi KN	2022	3	RCT	mCRPC (naïve)	Niraparib + abiraterone

PBO + abiraterone

	212

211

	NA	
ARTA androgen receptor-targeted agent, CHT chemotherapy, mCRPC metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, NA not available, PBO placebo, RCT randomized clinical trial, SA–OL single-arm open-label, Txt Taxotere

*This RCT was excluded from the meta-analysis. See below for explanations

Incidence Rate of Hematological AEs

Among all grades of AEs, anemia was the most common (38.6%), followed by neutropenia (12.0%) and thrombocytopenia (14.3%). As for ≥ G3 toxicities, again, anemia presented most frequently (24.9%), followed by thrombocytopenia (8.0%) and neutropenia (5.0%) (Table 3).Table 3 Pooled incidence of hematologic AEs of PARP-inhibitors in mCRPC

Hematologic AE	Incidence rate, % (95% CI)	
Anemia	38.6% (37.5–39.8)	
Neutropenia	12.0% (11.6–12.4)	
Thrombocytopenia	14.3% (13.5–15.1)	
≥ G3 anemia	24.9% (24.1–25.6)	
≥ G3 neutropenia	5.0% (4.7–5.3)	
≥ G3 thrombocytopenia	8.0% (7.0–9.0)	
AE adverse event, CI confidence interval, ≥ G3 equal to over grade 3

Risk of Hematological AEs of PARPis Compared to Non-PARPis

Patients treated with PARPis had a significantly higher risk of all grades of anemia than those not receiving PARPis (RR = 2.44; 95% CI, 1.54–3.84; p = 0.0001). The use of PARPis significantly also increased the risk of neutropenia (RR = 3.15; 95% CI, 1.58–6.27; p = 0.008) and thrombocytopenia (RR = 4.66; 95% CI, 1.62–13.38; p = 0.004). All analyses had a statistically significant heterogeneity among the studies (Fig. 2A–C).Fig. 2 Relative risk of all grades of anemia (A), neutropenia (B), and thrombocytopenia (C) of PARPis compared with non-PARPis in mCRPC

Risk of Severe Hematological AEs of PARPis Compared with Non-PARPis

Patients receiving PARPis were at a significantly higher risk of ≥ G3 anemia (RR = 5.73; 95% CI 2.72–12.04; p < 0.00001), with significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 81%; p < 0.0001). Moreover, they tended to have a higher risk of ≥ G3 neutropenia (RR = 3.41; 95% CI 0.71–16.37; p = 0.13), with significant heterogeneity among the included studies (I2 = 90%; p < 0.0001). Patients were also at a higher risk of ≥ G3 thrombocytopenia (RR = 5.44; 95% CI 2.76–10.73; p < 0.00001). In this analysis, the studies were homogeneous (Fig. 3A–C).Fig. 3 Relative risk of ≥ G3 anemia (A), neutropenia (B), and thrombocytopenia (C) of PARPis compared with non-PARPis in mCRPC

Subgroup and Sensitivity Analysis

To explore the sources of heterogeneity, we performed subgroup analyses according to drug type (olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, talazoparib), PARPis monotherapy versus combination, and disease setting (naïve versus pretreated patients). The administered PARPi influenced the all grades of AEs, ≥ G3 anemia and neutropenia results. The ≥G3 neutropenia RR was different when PARPis were used in combination rather than as single agents (Table 4).Table 4 Subgroup analyses for hematological toxicity of PARPis in mCRPC

Subgroup	Anemia, RR (95% CI)	Neutropenia, RR (95% CI)	Thrombocytopenia, RR (95%CI)	≥ G3 anemia, RR (95%CI)	≥ G3 neutropenia, RR (95% CI)	≥ G3 thrombocytopenia, RR (95% CI)	
Drug name	
 Olaparib	2.10 (0.87–5.05)	10.00 (1.31–76.08)	1.00 (0.06–15.68)	3.69 (1.13–12.07)	/	3.00 (0.12–72.42)	
 Niraparib	2.27 (1.67–3.07)	2.41 (1.26–4.59)	2.49 (1.49–4.15)	3.92 (2.34–6.56)	4.64 (1.35–15.93)	2.79 (1.02–7.60)	
 Rucaparib	2.64 (1.78–3.9)	1.62 (0.85–3.07)	48.82 (3.04–785.15)	30.81 (4.32–219.66)	0.96 (0.46–2.00)	15.95 (0.96–263.84)	
 Talazoparib	3.77 (3.01–4.72)	5.11 (3.49–7.48)	7.05 (4.10–12.13)	10.96 (6.81–17.67)	9.19 (4.49–18.82)	7.30 (2.59–20.59)	
 Subgroup differences	P = 0.04	P = 0.009	P = 0.009	P = 0.009	P < 0.0001	P = 0.47	
Disease setting	
 Naive	2.91 (2.19–3.90)	3.67 (1.76–7.65)	4.17 (1.48–11.79)	5.88 (3.00–11.52)	3.67 (1.76–7.65)	4.47 (1.72–11.63)	
 Pre-treated	2.01 (0.85–4.78)	3.13 (0.54–18.13)	6.96 (0.09–545.43)	9.65 (0.54–173.42)	3.13 (0.54–18.13)	7.68 (0.94–63.07)	
 Subgroup differences	P = 0.42	P = 0.87	P = 0.82	P = 0.74	P = 0.87	P = 0.65	
PARPis mono versus combo	
 Monotherapy	1.68 (0.69–1.40)	1.62 (0.85–3.07)	48.82 (3.04–785.15)	6.13 (0.15–249.04)	0.96 (0.46–2.00)	15.95 (0.96–263.84)	
 Combination	2.97 (2.25–3.92)	4.04 (2.11–7.72)	3.62 (1.38–9.49)	6.38 (3.29–12.39)	7.74 (4.16–14.37)	4.36 (2.16–8.80)	
 Subgroup differences	P = 0.23	P = 0.05	P = 0.08	P = 0.98	P < 0.0001	P = 0.38	
Statistically significant differences are bolded

CI confidence interval, ≥ G3 equal to over grade 3, RR relative risk

The sensitivity analysis showed no differences in the results after removing one study at a time, except all grades of thrombocytopenia, which was mainly influenced by the TALAPRO-2 study, and ≥ G3 neutropenia that was influenced by MAGNITUDE and TALAPRO-2 studies (Supplementary Fig. 2 A–F).

Discussion

Summary of Findings

PARPis have emerged as one of the most exciting targeted therapies for prostate cancer. Since 2020, PARPis have been approved by the Regulatory Agencies for clinical use in mCRPC, namely olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib, and talazoparib [7, 8, 11] (Table 1). Our systematic review and safety meta-analysis focuses explicitly on the mCRPC setting, reporting a higher incidence rate for hematological AEs of all grades and severe grades when PARPis are administered as single agents or combined with different treatments.

Regarding all grades of AEs, the administration of PARPis in mCRPC increases the risk of developing anemia (RR 2.44), with an absolute effect of 468 versus 192 events every 1000 patients. PARPis increase the risk of developing neutropenia (RR 3.15), with an absolute effect of 201 versus 64 events every 1000 patients, and thrombocytopenia (RR 4.66), with an absolute effect of 189 versus 41 every 1000 patients. Referring to severe AEs, PARPis increase the risk of developing ≥ G3 anemia (RR 5.73, absolute effect of 231 versus 40 every 1000 patients), neutropenia (RR 3.41, absolute effect of 97 versus 28 every 1000 patients), and thrombocytopenia (RR 5.44, absolute effect of 60 versus 11 every 1000 patients). Considering the GRADE considerations, we judged the quality of the evidence as high for all the outcomes. Therefore, we are confident that the true effect on AEs lies close to that of the estimated effect (Fig. 4).Fig. 4 Summary of findings of the included studies for all grades of and ≥ G3 hematological adverse events of PARPis compared with non-PARPis in mCRPC

Implications for Clinical Practice and Future Directions

Hematological toxicity is frequently reported in other tumor subtypes as an on-target class effect of PARPis, mainly depending on PARP trapping and BRCA2 expression by erythroid progenitors [33–40]. Olaparib and rucaparib had a > 100-fold half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) between PARP inhibition and bone marrow toxicity, whereas talazoparib was only two-fold as the therapeutic effect of the latter lies close to the toxic activity [34–36]. Effectively, in our subgroup analysis, the higher RR for anemia was attributable to talazoparib, even if more studies are needed to explore this evidence further. In the studies, most hematological toxicity depended on PARPis: indeed, enzalutamide and abiraterone in the control groups definitely showed a lower risk of anemia, ranging from 16% to 22% (0–8.5% as ≥ G3 anemia). In the TALAPRO-2, a median hemoglobin decrease of 2 g/dL was recorded in the talazoparib + enzalutamide group. This led to 13.1% of patients receiving red blood cell transfusions, with 8.3% receiving erythropoietin-stimulating agents [16, 17].

Similar to other tumor subtypes, in mCRPC, hematologic AEs tend to occur early after PARPis starts, recovering after a few months [33–40]. Currently, no specific explanation has been found for this phenomenon. In the PROfound trial, hematologic AEs peaked within the first 2 months of olaparib start and lasted for a further 2 months. Anemia often led to olaparib interruption (26%), reduction (16%), and discontinuation (8%) [9, 10]. In the TALAPRO-2 study, ≥ G3 hematologic AEs occurred within 6 months of talazoparib starting (median 3.3 months for anemia, 2.3 for neutropenia and thrombocytopenia) and usually resolved in the first month. A total of 19.1% of patients discontinued talazoparib due to AEs [16, 17]. Anemia was more consistently the leading cause of treatment interruption (44.2%), reduction (43.2%), and discontinuation (8.3%) [41]. Notably, a high bone disease burden, which often characterizes patients with mCRPC, previous treatments with bone marrow toxicity such as taxanes, advanced age at diagnosis, and comorbidities could contribute to the onset and worsening of anemia and other hematologic AEs in these patients. As the FDA and other societies recommend, all patients starting PARPis should have a complete blood count at least monthly. In the case of niraparib, this monitoring should be done weekly in the first month [7, 11].

Hematological safety should be even more carefully considered in the followingyears when the use of PARPis is expected to rise, and they will be combined with other drugs in earlier disease settings. In fact, studies are ongoing in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), and results expected in the coming months could allow us to change our clinical practice and anticipate the use of PARPis in this disease (Table 5).Table 5 Ongoing studies of PARPis in mHSPC

Clinical trial name	Phase	Experimental arm	Control arm	Target number	
TALAPRO-3 (NCT04821622)	3	Talazoparib + enzalutamide	PBO + enzalutamide	550	
AMPLITUDE (NCT04497844)	3	Niraparib + abiraterone	PBO + abiraterone	788	
ZZ-First (NCT04332744)	2	Talazoparib + enzalutamide	–	54	
PBO placebo

BRCA1/2 mutations are also demonstrated in mHSPC and are associated with shorter time to mCRPC and overall survival [3–6]. The studies listed in Table 4 are combination studies with a PARPi and either abiraterone or enzalutamide. Our analysis of these combinations in mCRPC showed no significant differences compared with monotherapy in all grades and severe hematological toxicities (except ≥ G3 neutropenia), suggesting these combinations should be well tolerated in mHSPC.

To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative and quantitative synthesis of hematological AEs of PARPis specifically addressing patients with mCRPC. The results of our analysis on patients with mCRPC confirm previous data regarding other tumor subtypes. A strength of this analysis is the systematic approach to reviewing all the published trials with quantitatively meta-analyzed RCTs, resulting in a large number of analyzed patients. Limitations of our study are represented firstly by the heterogeneity of the studies in terms of different PARPis and settings, monotherapy versus combinations, and comparator arms. We cannot compare germline and somatic mutations or BRCA versus HRR genes due to a lack of information in the included studies, even though we could not expect differences between the groups regarding safety. Still, this analysis could have helped to clarify the risk–benefit ratio, especially in populations for which PARPis efficacy is unclear, such as HRR negative patents. Moreover, we must consider that patients in worse general conditions were not included in the clinical trials; therefore, the real impact of hematologic AEs in the daily clinical practice could be more relevant, and this consideration should be taken into account in a population, such as the mCRPC, often of advanced age and multiple comorbidities. Further ongoing RCTs will better help to clarify the real impact of hematological AEs of PARPis compared with different treatment strategies. Finally, another limitation of our meta-analysis is the use of aggregate rather than individual data.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our analysis highlights the hematological toxicities of PARPis alone and in combination with ARTA. Clinicians and patients should be aware of this risk, and the need for regular monitoring of blood counts. Results of the ongoing studies and updates of the published trials could better distinguish the specific toxicity profile of the different PARPis available for patients with prostate cancer.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.Supplementary file1 (PDF 679 KB)

Mauro F.P. Maiorano and Maria R. Marrone for language and editing.

Declarations

Funding

No external funding was used in the preparation of this manuscript.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest that might be relevant to the contents of this manuscript.

Availability of Data and Material:

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethics Approval

Not applicable.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Authors’ Contributions

BAM: conception and design of the work, data acquisition, analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing and editing, and responsible for correspondence; UDG: data interpretation, and manuscript reviewing and approval; EV: visualization and approval; EM: visualization and approval; GP: manuscript reviewing and approval; VC: manuscript reviewing and approval; MDM: data analysis and interpretation, and manuscript reviewing and approval. All the authors have read and agreed with the submitted version of the manuscript.

The original article has been updated: Due to table 1 update.

Change history

12/9/2023

A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1007/s11523-023-01025-w
==== Refs
References

1. Siegel RL Miller KD Fuchs HE Jemal A Cancer statistics, 2022 CA A Cancer J Clinicians 2022 72 7 33 10.3322/caac.21708
2. Chen K O’Brien J McVey A Jenjitranant P Kelly BD Kasivisvanathan V Combination treatment in metastatic prostate cancer: is the bar too high or have we fallen short? Nat Rev Urol 2022 10.1038/s41585-022-00669-z 36509970
3. Grasso CS Wu Y-M Robinson DR Cao X Dhanasekaran SM Khan AP The mutational landscape of lethal castration-resistant prostate cancer Nature 2012 487 239 243 10.1038/nature11125 22722839
4. Robinson D Van Allen EM Wu Y-M Schultz N Lonigro RJ Mosquera J-M Integrative clinical genomics of advanced prostate cancer Cell 2015 162 454 10.1016/j.cell.2015.06.053 28843286
5. Stellato M Guadalupi V Sepe P Mennitto A Claps M Zattarin E The emerging role of PARP inhibitors in prostate cancer Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2020 20 715 726 10.1080/14737140.2020.1797497 32758032
6. Conteduca V Mosca A Brighi N de Giorgi U Rescigno P New prognostic biomarkers in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer Cells 2021 10 193 10.3390/cells10010193 33478015
7. Oncology (Cancer) / Hematologic Malignancies Approval Notifications. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/oncology-cancer-hematologic-malignancies-approval-notifications. Accessed 31 Oct 2023.
8. Maiorano BA Conteduca V Catalano M Antonuzzo L Maiello E De Giorgi U Roviello G Personalized medicine for metastatic prostate cancer: the paradigm of PARP inhibitors Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2023 192 104157 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2023.104157 37863403
9. de Bono J Mateo J Fizazi K Saad F Shore N Sandhu S Olaparib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer N Engl J Med 2020 382 2091 2102 10.1056/NEJMoa1911440 32343890
10. Hussain M Mateo J Fizazi K Saad F Shore N Sandhu S Survival with olaparib in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer N Engl J Med 2020 383 2345 2357 10.1056/NEJMoa2022485 32955174
11. Lynparza | European Medicines Agency [Internet]. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/Lynparza. Accessed 31 Oct 2023.
12. Abida W Campbell D Patnaik A Shapiro JD Sautois B Vogelzang NJ Non-BRCA DNA damage repair gene alterations and response to the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: analysis from the phase II TRITON2 study Clin Cancer Res 2020 26 2487 2496 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-0394 32086346
13. Abida W Patnaik A Campbell D Shapiro J Bryce AH McDermott R on behalf of the TRITON2 investigators Rucaparib in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer harboring a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene alteration JCO 2020 38 3763 3772 10.1200/JCO.20.01035
14. Saad F Armstrong AJ Thiery-Vuillemin A Oya M Loredo E Procopio G PROpel: Phase III trial of olaparib (ola) and abiraterone (abi) versus placebo (pbo) and abi as first-line (1L) therapy for patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) JCO 2022 40 11 11 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.6_suppl.011
15. Clarke NW Armstrong AJ Thiery-Vuillemin A Oya M Shore N Loredo E Abiraterone and olaparib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer N Engl J Med 2022 10.1056/EVIDoa2200043 36351262
16. Agarwal N Azad A Shore ND Carles J Fay AP Dunshee C TALAPRO-2: A phase 3 randomized study of enzalutamide (ENZA) plus talazoparib (TALA) versus placebo in patients with new metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) JCO 2021 39 TP5089 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.TPS5089
17. Azad A Fizazi K Matsubara N Saad F De Giorgi U Joung JY Talazoparib (TALA) plus enzalutamide (ENZA) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): Safety analyses from the randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled, phase 3 TALAPRO-2 study JCO 2023 41 5053 5053 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.5053
18. Wang C Li J Haematologic toxicities with PARP inhibitors in cancer patients: an up to date meta analysis of 29 randomized controlled trials J Clin Pharm Ther 2021 46 571 584 10.1111/jcpt.13349 33421183
19. Nindra U Hong JH Balakrishnar B Pal A Chua W Review of toxicities of PARP inhibitors in metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer Clin Genitourin Cancer 2023 21 183 193 10.1016/j.clgc.2022.07.005 35927195
20. Zhou JX Feng LJ 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 2017 11 3009 3017 10.2147/DDDT.S147726 29075104
21. Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM Boutron I Hoffmann TC Mulrow CD The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 2021 10.1136/bmj.n71 33782057
22. Higgins JP Altman DG Gøtzsche PC Jüni P Moher D Oxman AD Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ 2011 343 d5928 10.1136/bmj.d5928 22008217
23. DerSimonian R Laird N Meta-analysis in clinical trials Control Clin Trials 1986 7 177 188 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 3802833
24. Cochran WG The combination of estimates from different experiments Biometrics 1954 10 101 129 10.2307/3001666
25. Higgins JPT Thompson SG Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis Stat Med 2002 21 1539 1558 10.1002/sim.1186 12111919
26. Mateo J Carreira S Sandhu S Miranda S Mossop H Perez-Lopez R DNA-repair defects and olaparib in metastatic prostate cancer N Engl J Med 2015 373 1697 1708 10.1056/NEJMoa1506859 26510020
27. Mateo J Porta N Bianchini D McGovern U Elliott T Jones R 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 21 162 174 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30684-9 31806540
28. De Bono JS Mehra N Higano CS Saad F Buttigliero C Mata M TALAPRO-1: A phase II study of talazoparib (TALA) in men with DNA damage repair mutations (DDRmut) and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)—First interim analysis (IA) JCO 2020 38 119 119 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.6_suppl.119
29. Smith MR Sandhu SK Kelly WK Scher HI Efstathiou E Lara PN Pre-specified interim analysis of GALAHAD: a phase II study of niraparib in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and biallelic DNA-repair gene defects (DRD) Ann Oncol 2019 30 v884 v885 10.1093/annonc/mdz394.043
30. Clarke N Wiechno P Alekseev B Sala N Jones R Kocak I Olaparib combined with abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial Lancet Oncol 2018 19 975 986 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30365-6 29880291
31. Chi KN Rathkopf DE Smith MR Efstathiou E Attard G Olmos D Phase 3 MAGNITUDE study: First results of niraparib (NIRA) with abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) as first-line therapy in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with and without homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations JCO 2022 40 12 12 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.6_suppl.012
32. Fizazi K Piulats JM Reaume MN Ostler P McDermott R Gingerich JR TRITON3 Investigators Rucaparib or physician's choice in metastatic prostate cancer N Engl J Med 2023 388 719 732 10.1056/NEJMoa2214676 36795891
33. Hopkins TA Ainsworth WB Ellis PA Donawho CK DiGiammarino EL Panchal SC PARP1 trapping by PARP inhibitors drives cytotoxicity in both cancer cells and healthy bone marrow Mol Cancer Res 2019 17 409 419 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-18-0138 30429212
34. LaFargue CJ Dal Molin GZ Sood AK Coleman RL Exploring and comparing adverse events between PARP inhibitors Lancet Oncol 2019 20 e15 e28 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30786-1 30614472
35. Dhawan MS Bartelink IH Aggarwal RR Leng J Kelley RK Melisko ME A phase I study of carboplatin and talazoparib in patients with and without DNA repair mutations J Clin Oncol 2017 35 15_suppl 2527 10.1200/JCO.2017.35.15_suppl.2527 28535084
36. Farrés J Llacuna L Martin-Caballero J Martínez C Lozano JJ Ampurdanés C PARP-2 sustains erythropoiesis in mice by limiting replicative stress in erythroid progenitors Cell Death Differ 2015 22 1144 1157 10.1038/cdd.2014.202 25501596
37. Wang S Woodgate S Potter J Lawo S Mikule K Evaluation of clinical-stage PARP inhibitors in cell-based assays to correlate PARP suppression with functional impact on DNA repair Eur J Cancer 2016 69 S123 124 10.1016/s0959-8049(16)32967-7
38. Coleman RL Oza AM Lorusso D Aghajanian C Oaknin A Dean A 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 1949 1961 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32440-6 28916367
39. Mirza MR Monk BJ Herrstedt J Oza AM Mahner S Redondo A ENGOT-OV16, NOVA Investigators Niraparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer N Engl J Med 2016 375 2154 2164 10.1056/NEJMoa1611310 27717299
40. Berek JS Matulonis UA Peen U Ghatage P Mahner S Redondo A Safety and dose modification for patients receiving niraparib Ann Oncol 2018 29 1784 1792 10.1093/annonc/mdy181 29767688
41. Azad A Fizazi K Matsubara N Saad F De Giorgi U Joung JY Talazoparib (TALA) plus enzalutamide (ENZA) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): Safety analyses from the randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled, phase 3 TALAPRO-2 study J Clin Oncol 2023 41 suppl 16 abstr 5053 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.5053
