Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32799124›Full record

ArticleEBioMedicine2020

Molecular correlates of sensitivity to PARP inhibition beyond homologous recombination deficiency in pre-clinical models of colorectal cancer point to wild-type TP53 activity.

Jørgen Smeby, Kushtrim Kryeziu, Kaja C G Berg, Ina A Eilertsen, Peter W Eide, Bjarne Johannessen, Marianne G Guren, Arild Nesbakken, Jarle Bruun, Ragnhild A Lothe and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EBioMedicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. PARP Inhibitors in Colorectal Malignancies: A 2023 Update.Reviews on recent clinical trials · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jørgen SmebyDepartment of Molecular Oncology, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway;; K.G. Jebsen Colorectal Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Kushtrim KryeziuDepartment of Molecular Oncology, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway;; K.G. Jebsen Colorectal Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Kaja C G BergDepartment of Molecular Oncology, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway;; K.G. Jebsen Colorectal Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Ina A EilertsenDepartment of Molecular Oncology, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway;; K.G. Jebsen Colorectal Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Peter W EideDepartment of Molecular Oncology, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway;; K.G. Jebsen Colorectal Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Bjarne JohannessenDepartment of Molecular Oncology, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway;; K.G. Jebsen Colorectal Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Marianne G GurenK.G. Jebsen Colorectal Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Arild NesbakkenK.G. Jebsen Colorectal Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Jarle BruunDepartment of Molecular Oncology, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway;; K.G. Jebsen Colorectal Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Ragnhild A LotheDepartment of Molecular Oncology, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway;; K.G. Jebsen Colorectal Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Anita SveenDepartment of Molecular Oncology, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway;; K.G. Jebsen Colorectal Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: anita.sveen@rr-research.no.
Oslo University Hospital · NOUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPARP inhibitors are active in various tumour types beyond BRCA-mutant cancers, but their activity and molecular correlates in colorectal cancer (CRC) are not well studied.

methodsMutations and genome-wide mutational patterns associated with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) were investigated in 255 primary CRCs with whole-exome sequencing and/or DNA copy number data. Efficacy of five PARP inhibitors and their molecular correlates were evaluated in 93 CRC cell lines partly annotated with mutational-, DNA copy number-, and/or gene expression profiles. Post-treatment gene expression profiling and specific protein expression analyses were performed in two pairs of PARP inhibitor sensitive and resistant cell lines.

findingsA subset of microsatellite stable (MSS) CRCs had truncating mutations in homologous recombination-related genes, but these were not associated with genomic signatures of HRD. Eight CRC cell lines (9%) were sensitive to PARP inhibition, but sensitivity was not predicted by HRD-related genomic and transcriptomic signatures. In contrast, drug sensitivity in MSS cell lines was strongly associated with TP53 wild-type status (odds ratio 15.7, p = 0.023) and TP53-related expression signatures. Increased downstream TP53 activity was among the primary response mechanisms, and TP53 inhibition antagonized the effect of PARP inhibitors. Wild-type TP53-mediated suppression of RAD51 was identified as a possible mechanism of action for sensitivity to PARP inhibition.

interpretationPARP inhibitors are active in a subset of CRC cell lines and preserved TP53 function may increase the likelihood of response.

Indexed as

Homologous RecombinationAnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsCell Line, TumorColorectal NeoplasmsDNA Copy Number VariationsExome SequencingGene Expression ProfilingHumansMiceMutationNeoplasm StagingPoly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase InhibitorsPoly(ADP-ribose) PolymerasesPrognosisTranscriptomeAntineoplastic AgentsPoly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase InhibitorsPoly(ADP-ribose) PolymerasesTP53 protein, humanTumor Suppressor Protein p53Colorectal cancergene expressionhomologous recombination deficiencymutational signaturesPARP inhibitionRAD51TP53

Identifiers

PMID32799124
PMCPMC7452640
OpenAlexW3049320246

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.