Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41240294›Full record

ReviewTargeted oncology2025

Targeting DNA Damage Repair Pathways Beyond PARP Inhibition.

Eve Merry, Charlie Gourley

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Targeted oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Eve MerryCancer Research UK Scotland Centre, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Crewe Road South, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.
Charlie GourleyCancer Research UK Scotland Centre, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Crewe Road South, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK. charlie.gourley@ed.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2377-7221

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exploiting DNA damage repair (DDR) vulnerabilities has become a major focus in cancer drug development following the clinical success of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Beyond PARP, inhibitors of multiple other DDR proteins have progressed from preclinical development to early-phase clinical trials. DNA damage repair inhibitors have shown promise both as a selective therapeutic strategy in genomically selected cancers harbouring specific genetic vulnerabilities, and as a potential treatment approach to overcome innate and acquired PARP inhibitor resistance. This review summarises the most recent DDR inhibitor clinical evidence, focusing on DDR signalling targets; ATR (ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related protein serine/threonine kinase), ATM (ataxia telangiectasia mutated kinase), DNA-PK (DNA-dependent protein kinase), CHK1 (checkpoint kinase 1), WEE1 and recently emerging DNA repair targets; RAD51, PolƟ (DNA polymerase theta), WRN (Werner syndrome helicase), USP1 (ubiquitin specific peptidase 1) and PARG (poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase). We highlight both clinical successes and failures of DDR inhibitors as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy, PARP and other DDR inhibitors. The challenges that must be addressed to see the true potential of these agents are discussed. Finally, we consider future directions and the necessity for integration of biomarkers and genomic profiling in DDR inhibitor clinical trials to optimally identify patients with tumours genetically vulnerable, and so crucially, take advantage of the selective therapeutic opportunity provided by DDR inhibition.

Indexed as

DNA DamageDNA RepairNeoplasmsPoly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase InhibitorsHumansPoly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.