Helpt u ons aan 500 donateurs om kanker-actueel online te kunnen houden?

1 november 2018: Zie ook dit artikel:

1 augustus 2018: lees ook dit artikel:

4 april 2018: lees ook dit artikel:

en zie ook de artikelen in gerelateerde artikelen

4 april 2018: Bron: HOPA 2018

Rucaparib (RUBRACA) een zogeheten parpremmer verlengt als onderhoudsbehandeling de progressievrije overleving met meer dan 100 procent in vergelijking met een placebo bij vrouwen met een recidief van platinum-gevoelige (chemo gevoelig)  eierstokkanker. De ziektevrije en progressievrije overleving in vergelijking met een placebo was beduidend beter voor rucaparib, 13,6 maanden vs 5,4 voor placebo bij alle deelnemende patiënten ongeacht hun BRCA status. Dus ook bij vrouwen met eierstokkanker die geen BRCA mutatie hebben zorgt rucaparib (RUBRACA) voor uitstekende resultaten.

Bij vrouwen met wel een BRCA mutatie status waren de resultaten nog beter,  16,6 maanden voor rucaparib versus 5,4 maanden voor placebo. Blijkt uit de ARIEL3 fase III studie.

Hier een grafiek van hoe de ARIEL studies zijn verlopen afgelopen jaren (tekst gaat verder onder grafiek) :

rucaparib studies bij eierstokkanker

Bovenstaande en onderstaande grafiek komt uit een reviewstudie december 2017 over rucaparuib bij zowel eierstokkanker als borstkanker: Emerging treatment options for ovarian cancer: focus on rucaparib

Table 3

PFS/ORR by HRD sub-group with rucaparib in relapsed, platinum-sensitive high-grade ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL2 part 1)5

HRD subgroups of high-grade ovarian cancerNumber of patients in each groupMedian PFS, months (95% CI)Hazard ratioORR
RECIST, % (n, 95% CI)RECIST/CA125, % (n, 95% CI)
BRCA mutant 40 12.8 (9.0–14.7) 0.27, P<0.0001 80% (32, 64–91) 85% (34, 70–94)
BRCA wild type and LOH high 82 5.7 (5.3–7.6) 0.62, P<0.011 29% (24, 20–40) 44% (34, 33–55)
BRCA wild type and LOH low 70 5.2 (3.6–5.5) 10% (7, 4–20) 20% (14, 11–31)

Abbreviations: BRCA, breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene; CI, confidence interval; CA125, cancer antigen 125; HRD, homologous recombination repair deficiency; LOH, loss of heterozygosity; ORR, objective response rate; PFS, progression-free survival; RECIST, Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (Version 1.1).

Uit de presentatie van de nieuwste studie op HOPA 2018:

Op basis van een intent-to-treat analyse was de mediane progressievrije overleving 10,8 maanden (95% betrouwbaarheidsinterval 8,3 - 11,4) met rucaparib, vergeleken met 5,4 maanden (95% betrouwbaarheidsinterval 5,3 - 5,5) voor placebo (P <.0001 ).

Van de 354 homologe recombinatie-deficiënte patiënten was de mediane progressievrije overleving met rucaparib 13,6 maanden (95% betrouwbaarheidsinterval 10,9 - 16,2) en 5,4 maanden voor placebo (95% betrouwbaarheidsinterval 5,1 - 5,6) (p <.0001).

Bij de 196 patiënten, specifiek met BRCA-mutaties, was de mediane progressievrije overleving voor rucaparib 16,6 maanden (95% betrouwbaarheidsinterval 13,4 - 22,9) en 5,4 maanden voor placebo (95% betrouwbaarheidsinterval 3,4 - 6,7) (P <.0001).

De meest gemelde aan de behandeling gerelateerde bijwerkingen waren misselijkheid en braken, evenals asthenie en bloedarmoede. De auteurs melden dat deze consistent zijn met eerdere studies van rucaparib. De bijwerkingen werden behandeld met profylactische en / of ondersteunende zorg, onderbrekingen in de behandeling en / of dosisverlagingen.


Rucaparib effectively increases progression-free survival with high-grade, recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer regardless of HRR status. They suggest that it could be considered as a new standard of care for women with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer following a partial or complete response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy.

Het volledige studierapport van de HOPA gepresenteerde studie is in december 2017 gepubliceerd in The Lancet: Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma after response to platinum therapy (ARIEL3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial en tegen betaling in te zien.

Hier het abstract van de studie met referentielijst van reviewstudie:

Rucaparib effectively increases progression-free survival with high-grade, recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer regardless of HRR status. They suggest that it could be considered as a new standard of care for women with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer following a partial or complete response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy.

Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma after response to platinum therapy (ARIEL3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Prof Robert L Coleman, MD'Correspondence information about the author Prof Robert L Coleman*,
Prof Amit M Oza, MD
Domenica Lorusso, MD
Carol Aghajanian, MD
Ana Oaknin, MD
Andrew Dean, MD
Prof Nicoletta Colombo, PhD
Johanne I Weberpals, MD
Andrew Clamp, PhD
Prof Giovanni Scambia, MD
Alexandra Leary, MD
Robert W Holloway, MD
Margarita Amenedo Gancedo, MD
Peter C Fong, FRACP
Jeffrey C Goh, FRACP
David M O'Malley, MD
Prof Deborah K Armstrong, MD
Jesus Garcia-Donas, MD
Prof Elizabeth M Swisher, MD
Anne Floquet, MD
Prof Gottfried E Konecny, MD
Prof Iain A McNeish, FCRP
Clare L Scott, PhD
Terri Cameron, MSc
Lara Maloney, BA
Jeff Isaacson, PhD
Sandra Goble, MS
Caroline Grace, BSc
Thomas C Harding, PhD
Mitch Raponi, PhD
James Sun, PhD
Kevin K Lin, PhD
Heidi Giordano, MA
Prof Jonathan A Ledermann, MD*
on behalf of the  
*Contributed equally
Members listed in the appendix



Rucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, has anticancer activity in recurrent ovarian carcinoma harbouring a BRCA mutation or high percentage of genome-wide loss of heterozygosity. In this trial we assessed rucaparib versus placebo after response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with high-grade, recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma.


In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 87 hospitals and cancer centres across 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma, had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, had achieved complete or partial response to their last platinum-based regimen, had a cancer antigen 125 concentration of less than the upper limit of normal, had a performance status of 0–1, and had adequate organ function. Patients were ineligible if they had symptomatic or untreated central nervous system metastases, had received anticancer therapy 14 days or fewer before starting the study, or had received previous treatment with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. We randomly allocated patients 2:1 to receive oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo in 28 day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six, stratified by homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval after the penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to the most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival evaluated with use of an ordered step-down procedure for three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations (carcinoma associated with deleterious germline or somatic BRCA mutations), patients with homologous recombination deficiencies (BRCA mutant or BRCA wild-type and high loss of heterozygosity), and the intention-to-treat population, assessed at screening and every 12 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with, number NCT01968213; enrolment is complete.


Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, we randomly allocated 564 patients: 375 (66%) to rucaparib and 189 (34%) to placebo. Median progression-free survival in patients with a BRCA-mutant carcinoma was 16·6 months (95% CI 13·4–22·9; 130 [35%] patients) in the rucaparib group versus 5·4 months (3·4–6·7; 66 [35%] patients) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·23 [95% CI 0·16–0·34]; p<0·0001). In patients with a homologous recombination deficient carcinoma (236 [63%] vs 118 [62%]), it was 13·6 months (10·9–16·2) versus 5·4 months (5·1–5·6; 0·32 [0·24–0·42]; p<0·0001). In the intention-to-treat population, it was 10·8 months (8·3–11·4) versus 5·4 months (5·3–5·5; 0·36 [0·30–0·45]; p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in the safety population (372 [99%] patients in the rucaparib group vs 189 [100%] in the placebo group) were reported in 209 (56%) patients in the rucaparib group versus 28 (15%) in the placebo group, the most common of which were anaemia or decreased haemoglobin concentration (70 [19%] vs one [1%]) and increased alanine or aspartate aminotransferase concentration (39 [10%] vs none).


Across all primary analysis groups, rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer who had achieved a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. ARIEL3 provides further evidence that use of a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the maintenance treatment setting versus placebo could be considered a new standard of care for women with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer following a complete or partial response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy.


Clovis Oncology


YD is an investigator on clinical trials of olaparib and rucaparib, has participated in advisory boards for Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca, has received research grant support from Clovis Oncology, and was involved in the preclinical and clinical development of rucaparib. Newcastle University receives royalties for rucaparib. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.


1. IARC . World Cancer Report 2014. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation; 2014. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
2. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(1):10–29. [PubMed]
3. Seidman JD, Horkayne-Szakaly I, Haiba M, Boice CR, Kurman RJ, Ronnett BM. The histologic type and stage distribution of ovarian carcinomas of surface epithelial origin. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2004;23(1):41–44. [PubMed]
4. 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;20(3):764–775. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Swisher EM, Lin KK, Oza AM, et al. Rucaparib in relapsed, platinum-sensitive high-grade ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL2 Part 1): an inter-national, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(1):75–87. [PubMed]
6. Mirza MR, Monk BJ, Herrstedt J, et al. Niraparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(22):2154–2164. [PubMed]
7. Ledermann J, Harter P, Gourley C, et al. Olaparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(15):1382–1392. [PubMed]
8. [webpage on the Internet] FDA Approves Olaparib Tablets for Maintenance Treatment in Ovarian Cancer. [Accessed September 3, 2017]. Available from:
9. [webpage on the Internet] FDA Grants Accelerated Approval to New Treatment for Advanced Ovarian Cancer. [Accessed September 3, 2017]. Available from:
10. [webpage on the Internet] FDA Approves Maintenance Treatment for Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian, Fallopian Tube or Primary Peritoneal Cancers. [Accessed September 3, 2017]. Available from:
11. Kaelin WG., Jr The concept of synthetic lethality in the context of anticancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5(9):689–698. [PubMed]
12. Hoeijmakers JH. Genome maintenance mechanisms for preventing cancer. Nature. 2001;411(6835):366–374. [PubMed]
13. Hoeijmakers JH. DNA damage, aging, and cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(15):1475–1485. [PubMed]
14. De Bont R, van Larebeke N. Endogenous DNA damage in humans: a review of quantitative data. Mutagenesis. 2004;19(3):169–185. [PubMed]
15. Lindahl T. Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA. Nature. 1993;362(6422):709–715. [PubMed]
16. Jeggo PA, Pearl LH, Carr AM. DNA repair, genome stability and cancer: a historical perspective. Nat Rev Cancer. 2016;16(1):35–42. [PubMed]
17. Chambon P, Weill JD, Mandel P. Nicotinamide mononucleotide activation of new DNA-dependent polyadenylic acid synthesizing nuclear enzyme. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1963;11:39–43. [PubMed]
18. Sugimura T, Fujimura S, Hasegawa S, Kawamura Y. Polymerization of the adenosine 5′-diphosphate ribose moiety of NAD by rat liver nuclear enzyme. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1967;138(2):438–441. [PubMed]
19. Nishizuka Y, Ueda K, Nakazawa K, Hayaishi O. Studies on the polymer of adenosine diphosphate ribose. I. Enzymic formation from nicotinamide adenine dinuclotide in mammalian nuclei. J Biol Chem. 1967;242(13):3164–3171. [PubMed]
20. Okayama H, Edson CM, Fukushima M, Ueda K, Hayaishi O. Purification and properties of poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) synthetase. J Biol Chem. 1977;252(20):7000–7005. [PubMed]
21. Benjamin RC, Gill DM. ADP-ribosylation in mammalian cell ghosts. Dependence of poly(ADP-ribose) synthesis on strand breakage in DNA. J Biol Chem. 1980;255(21):10493–10501. [PubMed]
22. Durkacz BW, Omidiji O, Gray DA, Shall S. (ADP-ribose)n participates in DNA excision repair. Nature. 1980;283(5747):593–596. [PubMed]
23. de Murcia G, Menissier de Murcia J. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase: a molecular nick-sensor. Trends Biochem Sci. 1994;19(4):172–176. [PubMed]
24. Rouleau M, Patel A, Hendzel MJ, Kaufmann SH, Poirier GG. PARP inhibition: PARP1 and beyond. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010;10(4):293–301. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
25. Schreiber V, Dantzer F, Ame JC, de Murcia G. Poly(ADP-ribose): novel functions for an old molecule. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2006;7(7):517–528. [PubMed]
26. Ame JC, Spenlehauer C, de Murcia G. The PARP superfamily. Bioessays. 2004;26(8):882–893. [PubMed]
27. 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;28(17):2601–2615. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
28. Hu Y, Petit SA, Ficarro SB, et al. PARP1-driven poly-ADP-ribosylation regulates BRCA1 function in homologous recombination-mediated DNA repair. Cancer Discov. 2014;4(12):1430–1447. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
29. Wang M, Wu W, Wu W, et al. PARP-1 and Ku compete for repair of DNA double strand breaks by distinct NHEJ pathways. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34(21):6170–6182. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
30. Oliver FJ, Menissier-de Murcia J, de Murcia G. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in the cellular response to DNA damage, apoptosis, and disease. Am J Hum Genet. 1999;64(5):1282–1288. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
31. Huertas P. DNA resection in eukaryotes: deciding how to fix the break. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2010;17(1):11–16. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
32. Neale MJ, Keeney S. Clarifying the mechanics of DNA strand exchange in meiotic recombination. Nature. 2006;442(7099):153–158. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
33. Wooster R, Bignell G, Lancaster J, et al. Identification of the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2. Nature. 1995;378(6559):789–792. [PubMed]
34. Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D, et al. A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science. 1994;266(5182):66–71. [PubMed]
35. Alsop K, Fereday S, Meldrum C, et al. BRCA mutation frequency and patterns of treatment response in BRCA mutation-positive women with ovarian cancer: a report from the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(21):2654–2663. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
36. Milam KM, Cleaver JE. Inhibitors of poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) synthesis: effect on other metabolic processes. Science. 1984;223(4636):589–591. [PubMed]
37. Ferraris DV. Evolution of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 (PARP-1) inhibitors. From concept to clinic. J Med Chem. 2010;53(12):4561–4584. [PubMed]
38. Helleday T. The underlying mechanism for the PARP and BRCA synthetic lethality: clearing up the misunderstandings. Mol Oncol. 2011;5(4):387–393. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
39. Calabrese CR, Almassy R, Barton S, et al. Anticancer chemosensitization and radiosensitization by the novel poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 inhibitor AG14361. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(1):56–67. [PubMed]
40. Plummer R, Jones C, Middleton M, et al. Phase I study of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, AG014699, in combination with temozolomide in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(23):7917–7923. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
41. Farmer H, McCabe N, Lord CJ, et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature. 2005;434(7035):917–921. [PubMed]
42. Bryant HE, Schultz N, Thomas HD, et al. Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Nature. 2005;434(7035):913–917. [PubMed]
43. 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;361(2):123–134. [PubMed]
44. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1) Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–247. [PubMed]
45. 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;376(9737):245–251. [PubMed]
46. Drew Y, Ledermann J, Hall G, et al. Phase 2 multicentre trial investigating intermittent and continuous dosing schedules of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib in germline BRCA mutation carriers with advanced ovarian and breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2016;114(12):e21. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
47. Rebecca Sophie Kristeleit M. PhD phase 1/2 study of oral rucaparib: FINAL phase 1 results. Abstract presented at: ASCO; June 1; 2014; Alexandria, VA.
48. Kristeleit R, Shapiro GI, Burris HA, et al. A phase I-II study of the oral PARP inhibitor rucaparib in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated ovarian carcinoma or other solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(15):4095–4106. [PubMed]
49. Wahlberg E, Karlberg T, Kouznetsova E, et al. Family-wide chemical profiling and structural analysis of PARP and tankyrase inhibitors. Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30(3):283–288. [PubMed]
50. The study of oral rucaparib in patients with a solid tumor (Phase I) or with gBRCA mutation ovarian cancer (Phase II) [Accessed September 3, 2017]. Available from: NLM identifier: NCT01482715.
51. 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 Sep 12; Epub. [PubMed]
52. 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;28(15):2512–2519. [PubMed]
53. National Comprehensive Cancer Network I, [webpage on the Internet] NCCN Guidelines for Supportive Care. [Accessed September 3, 2017]. Available from:
54. Kikuchi R, Lao Y, Bow DA, et al. Prediction of clinical drug-drug interactions of veliparib (ABT-888) with human renal transporters (OAT1, OAT3, OCT2, MATE1, and MATE2K) J Pharm Sci. 2013;102(12):4426–4432. [PubMed]
55. Mateo J, Carreira S, Sandhu S, et al. DNA-repair defects and olaparib in metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(18):1697–1708. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
56. Robson M, Im SA, Senkus E, et al. Olaparib for metastatic breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(6):523–533. [PubMed]
57. Brown JS, O’Carrigan B, Jackson SP, Yap TA. Targeting DNA repair in cancer: beyond PARP inhibitors. Cancer Discov. 2017;7(1):20–37. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
58. Lesueur P, Chevalier F, Austry JB, et al. Poly-(ADP-ribose)-polymerase inhibitors as radiosensitizers: a systemic review of pre-clinical and clinical human studies. Oncotarget. 2017;8(40):69105–69124. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
59. Tang ML, Khan MK, Croxford JL, Tan KW, Angeli V, Gasser S. The DNA damage response induces antigen presenting cell-like functions in fibroblasts. Eur J Immunol. 2014;44(4):1108–1118. [PubMed]
60. Kroemer G, Galluzzi L, Kepp O, Zitvogel L. Immunogenic cell death in cancer therapy. Annu Rev Immunol. 2013;31:51–72. [PubMed]
61. Coleman RL, Oza AM, Lorusso DA, 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(10106):1949–1961. [PubMed]
62. 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(9):1274–1284. [PubMed]

Articles from International Journal of Women's Health are provided here courtesy of Dove Press

Plaats een reactie ...

1 Reactie op "Parpremmer rucaparib verdubbelt ziektevrije overleving (5 vs 11 en 13 maanden) bij chemo gevoelige eierstokkanker. Ook bij patienten zonder BRCA mutatie is rucaparib effectief"

  • linda snoep :
    Goed nieuws!
    Ook de niraparib (Zejula) laat goede resultaten zien en schijnt al goedgekeurd te zijn door de EMA.
    De vraag is nu: kunnen vrouwen die al eerder behandeld zijn voor eierstok kanker, BRCA-gendraagster zijn, en nog steeds kankervrij, profylactisch behandeld worden met dit middel? Want dat die kanker terugkomt is vrijwel zeker. Maar met dit middel, kan het nog even uitgesteld worden...
    Mijn gynaecologe doet er vaag over...
    Wie kan hier antwoord op geven?

Gerelateerde artikelen

Gerelateerde artikelen

Niraparib - Zejula als onderhoudsbehandeling >> niraparib plus bevacizumab >> Niraparib geeft zeer goede >> Parpremmers Olaparib en niraparib >> PARP remmers zoals olaparib >> Talazoparib, een PARP remmer, >> Olaparib plus Bevacizumab >> Olaparib als onderhoudsbehandeling >> Olaparib, een PARP remmer, >> Olaparib plus cedinarib lijkt >>