Advances in Therapy

, Volume 36, Issue 12, pp 3368–3380 | Cite as

Comparison of PARPis with Angiogenesis Inhibitors and Chemotherapy for Maintenance in Ovarian Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

  • Yanling Feng
  • He Huang
  • Ting Wan
  • Chuyao Zhang
  • Chongjie Tong
  • Jihong LiuEmail author
Original Research



Seventy-five percent of ovarian cancer would relapse within 18–28 months after platinum-base chemotherapy. Evidence suggests that maintenance chemotherapy is effective in prolonging remission. Recent target therapies such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) and angiogenesis inhibitors (AIs) are known to ease burden and recurrence of ovarian cancer. There is limited data for head-to-head comparison of PARPis, AIs, and chemotherapeutic agents (CTAs) as maintenance treatment. This network meta-analysis thus assessed the effectiveness and toxicity of these three maintenance therapies in patients with ovarian cancer.


We searched relevant sources (PubMed, EMBASE) to identify randomized controlled trials assessing efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy in patients with ovarian cancer. Primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by blinded review; safety and tolerability were secondary outcomes. A network meta-analysis to compare three drug classes was performed using statistical software R.


We included 24 trials (11,366 patients) assessing efficacy and safety of PARPis (n = 4), AIs (n = 12), and CTAs (n = 8). PARPis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.64; 95% credible intervals (CrI) 0.55–0.73] and AIs (HR 0.87; 95% CrI 0.81–0.93) showed significant improvement in PFS compared to placebo but not CTA (HR 1.00; 95% CrI 0.86–1.15). PARPis showed significant improvement in PFS compared to AIs (HR 0.73; 95% CrI 0.63–0.86) and CTA (HR 0.64; 95% CrI 0.52–0.78). Adverse events (AEs) leading to treatment discontinuation and dose reduction were lower in PARPis [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.60; CrI 0.31–1.18 and IRR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.50–1.06, respectively] compared to AIs, but the differences were not significant.


PARPi as maintenance treatment improved PFS in ovarian cancer and was relatively safer in terms of implications caused by AEs when compared to AIs. This network meta-analysis provides valuable evidence and significant insights into treatment of ovarian cancer.


Angiogenesis inhibitors Chemotherapy Maintenance therapy Ovarian cancer PARP inhibitors 




No funding or sponsorship was received for this study or publication of this article. The Rapid Service Fee was funded by the authors.

Medical Writing Assistance

Medical writing support was provided by Dr Anuradha Nalli and Dr Amit Bhat of Indegene and funded by AstraZeneca China Investment Co., Ltd.


All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.


Yanling Feng, He Huang, Ting Wan, Chuyao Zhang, Chongjie Tong, and Jihong Liu have nothing to disclose.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any experiments with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Data Availability

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

Supplementary material

12325_2019_1106_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 3616 kb)


  1. 1.
    Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burges A, Schmalfeldt B. Ovarian Cancer. Dtsch Aerzteblatt Online. 2011. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.
  3. 3.
    The World Ovarian Cancer Coalation atlas: global trends in incidence, mortality, and survival. World Ovarian Cancer Coalition. 2018. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.
  4. 4.
    Salehi F, Dunfield L, Phillips KP, Krewski D, Vanderhyden BC. Risk factors for ovarian cancer: an overview with emphasis on hormonal factors. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2008;11:301–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fung-Kee-Fung M, Oliver T, Elit L, Oza A, Hirte HW, Bryson P. Optimal chemotherapy treatment for women with recurrent ovarian cancer. Curr Oncol. 2007;14:195–208.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    López-Guerrero JA, Romero I, Poveda A. Trabectedin therapy as an emerging treatment strategy for recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Chin J Cancer. 2015;34:41–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kikuchi Y, Kita T, Takano M, Kudoh K, Yamamoto K. Treatment options in the management of ovarian cancer. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2005;6:743–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Markman M, Liu PY, Wilczynski S, et al. Phase III randomized trial of 12 versus 3 months of maintenance paclitaxel in patients with advanced ovarian cancer after complete response to platinum and paclitaxel-based chemotherapy: a Southwest Oncology Group and Gynecologic Oncology Group trial. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2460–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Markman M, Liu PY, Moon J, et al. Impact on survival of 12 versus 3 monthly cycles of paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) administered to patients with advanced ovarian cancer who attained a complete response to primary platinum-paclitaxel: follow-up of a Southwest Oncology Group and Gynecologic Oncology Group phase 3 trial. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;114:195–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abaid LN, Goldstein BH, Micha JP, Rettenmaier MA, Brown JV, Markman M. Improved overall survival with 12 cycles of single-agent paclitaxel maintenance therapy following a complete response to induction chemotherapy in advanced ovarian carcinoma. Oncology. 2010;78:389–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morales J, Li L, Fattah FJ, et al. Review of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) mechanisms of action and rationale for targeting in cancer and other diseases. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr. 2014;24:15–28.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vyas S, Chang P. New PARP targets for cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2014;14:502–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lesueur P, Chevalier F, Austry J-B, et al. Poly-(ADP-ribose)-polymerase inhibitors as radiosensitizers: a systematic review of pre-clinical and clinical human studies. Oncotarget. 2017;8. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.
  14. 14.
    Kaufman B, Shapira-Frommer R, Schmutzler RK, et al. Olaparib monotherapy in patients with advanced cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:244–50.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oza Amit M, Cibula D, Oaknin A, et al. Olaparib plus paclitaxel plus carboplatin (P/C) followed by olaparib maintenance treatment in patients (pts) with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer (PSR SOC): a randomized, open-label phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15):Suppl 5001. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oza AM, Cibula D, Benzaquen AO, et al. Olaparib combined with chemotherapy for recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:87–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ledermann J, Harter P, Gourley C, et al. Olaparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1382–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kummar S, Oza AM, Fleming GF, et al. Randomized trial of oral cyclophosphamide and veliparib in high-grade serous ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancers, or BRCA-mutant ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21:1574–82.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Swisher EM, McNeish IA, Coleman RL, et al. ARIEL 2/3: an integrated clinical trial program to assess activity of rucaparib in ovarian cancer and to identify tumor molecular characteristics predictive of response. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(5):619.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Friedlander M, Hancock KC, Rischin D, et al. A phase II, open-label study evaluating pazopanib in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;119:32–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hirte HW, Vidal L, Fleming GF, et al. A phase II study of cediranib (AZD2171) in recurrent or persistent ovarian, peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer: final results of a PMH, Chicago and California consortia trial. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5521.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aghajanian C, Blank SV, Goff BA, et al. OCEANS: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2039–45.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burger RA, Brady MF, Bookman MA, et al. Incorporation of bevacizumab in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2473–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ledermann JA, Hackshaw A, Kaye S, et al. Randomized phase II placebo-controlled trial of maintenance therapy using the oral triple angiokinase inhibitor BIBF 1120 after chemotherapy for relapsed ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3798–804.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R package: Gemtc.. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    Woods BS, Hawkins N, Scott DA. Network meta-analysis on the log-hazard scale, combining count and hazard ratio statistics accounting for multi-arm trials: a tutorial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010. Scholar
  29. 29.
    du Bois A, Floquet A, Kim J-W, et al. Incorporation of pazopanib in maintenance therapy of ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol [Internet]. 2014;5:5. Scholar
  30. 30.
    du Bois A, Kristensen G, Ray-Coquard I, et al. Standard first-line chemotherapy with or without nintedanib for advanced ovarian cancer (AGO-OVAR 12): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:78–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Herzog TJ, Scambia G, Kim B-G, et al. A randomized phase II trial of maintenance therapy with sorafenib in front-line ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130:25–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Karlan BY, Oza AM, Richardson GE, et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of AMG 386 combined with weekly paclitaxel in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:362–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ledermann JA, Embleton AC, Raja F, et al. Cediranib in patients with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (ICON6): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1066–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Monk BJ, Poveda A, Vergote I, et al. Final results of a phase 3 study of trebananib plus weekly paclitaxel in recurrent ovarian cancer (TRINOVA-1): long-term survival, impact of ascites, and progression-free survival-2. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;143:27–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Perren TJ, Swart AM, Pfisterer J, et al. A phase 3 trial of bevacizumab in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2484–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pignata S, Lorusso D, Scambia G, et al. Pazopanib plus weekly paclitaxel versus weekly paclitaxel alone for platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory advanced ovarian cancer (MITO 11): a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:561–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bolis G, Danese S, Tateo S, et al. Epidoxorubicin versus no treatment as consolidation therapy in advanced ovarian cancer: results from a phase II study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16(Suppl 1):74–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    De Placido S, Scambia G, Di Vagno G, et al. Topotecan compared with no therapy after response to surgery and carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with ovarian cancer: multicenter Italian trials in ovarian cancer (MITO-1) randomized study. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2635–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mannel RS, Brady MF, Kohn EC, et al. A randomized phase III trial of IV carboplatin and paclitaxel × 3 courses followed by observation versus weekly maintenance low-dose paclitaxel in patients with early-stage ovarian carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;122:89–94.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nicoletto MO, Tumolo S, Falci C, et al. A randomized study of epithelial ovarian cancer: is chemotherapy useful after complete remission? Int J Med Sci. 2004;1:116–25.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pecorelli S, Favalli G, Gadducci A, et al. Phase III trial of observation versus six courses of paclitaxel in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in complete response after six courses of paclitaxel/platinum-based chemotherapy: final results of the After-6 protocol 1. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4642–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pfisterer J, Weber B, Reuss A, et al. Randomized phase III trial of topotecan following carboplatin and paclitaxel in first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a gynecologic cancer intergroup trial of the AGO-OVAR and GINECO. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1036–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Piccart MJ, Floquet A, Scarfone G, et al. Intraperitoneal cisplatin versus no further treatment: 8-year results of EORTC 55875, a randomized phase III study in ovarian cancer patients with a pathologically complete remission after platinum-based intravenous chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003;13(Suppl 2):196–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sorbe B, Swedish-Norgewian Ovarian Cancer Study Group. Consolidation treatment of advanced (FIGO stage III) ovarian carcinoma in complete surgical remission after induction chemotherapy: a randomized, controlled, clinical trial comparing whole abdominal radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and no further treatment. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003;13:278–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mirza MR, Monk BJ, Herrstedt J, et al. Niraparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:2154–64.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    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;390:1949–61.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pujade-Lauraine E, Ledermann JA, Selle F, et al. 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. 2017;18:1274–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chen H, Fang F, Liu GJ, Xie HY, Zou J, Feng D. Maintenance chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancer Group. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. Accessed 11 Jun 2018.
  49. 49.
    Gaitskell K, Martinek I, Bryant A, Kehoe S, Nicum S, Morrison J. Angiogenesis inhibitors for the treatment of ovarian cancer. Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancer Group. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011. Accessed 12 Jun 2018.
  50. 50.
    Wiggans AJ, Cass GK, Bryant A, Lawrie TA, Morrison J. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for the treatment of ovarian cancer. Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancer Group. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015. Accessed 12 Jun 2018.
  51. 51.
    Jagtap P, Szabó C. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase and the therapeutic effects of its inhibitors. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2005;4:421–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ratnam K, Low JA. Current development of clinical inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in oncology. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:1383–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Peralta-Leal A, Rodríguez MI, Oliver FJ. Poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase-1 (PARP-1) in carcinogenesis: potential role of PARP inhibitors in cancer treatment. Clin Transl Oncol. 2008;10:318–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bryant HE, Schultz N, Thomas HD, et al. Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Nature. 2005;434:913–7.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Farmer H, McCabe N, Lord CJ, et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature. 2005;434:917–21.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kyle S, Thomas HD, Mitchell J, Curtin NJ. Exploiting the Achilles heel of cancer: the therapeutic potential of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in BRCA2-defective cancer. Br J Radiol. 2008;81(1):S6–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Faraoni I, Graziani G. Role of BRCA mutations in cancer treatment with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Cancers. 2018;10:487.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Javle M, Curtin NJ. The role of PARP in DNA repair and its therapeutic exploitation. Br J Cancer. 2011;105:1114–22.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hennessy BTJ, Timms KM, Carey MS, et al. Somatic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 could expand the number of patients that benefit from poly (ADP ribose) polymerase inhibitors in ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3570–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Turner N, Tutt A, Ashworth A. Targeting the DNA repair defect of BRCA tumours. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2005;5:388–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Healthcare Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer MedicineSun Yat-sen University Cancer CenterGuangzhouP. R. China

Personalised recommendations