PURPOSE: Entinostat is an oral isoform selective histone deacetylase inhibitor that targets resistance to hormonal therapies in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer. This randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II study evaluated entinostat combined with the aromatase inhibitor exemestane versus exemestane alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with ER+ advanced breast cancer progressing on a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor were randomly assigned to exemestane 25 mg daily plus entinostat 5 mg once per week (EE) or exemestane plus placebo (EP). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Blood was collected in a subset of patients for evaluation of protein lysine acetylation as a biomarker of entinostat activity. RESULTS:One hundred thirty patients were randomly assigned (EE group, n = 64; EP group, n = 66). Based on intent-to-treat analysis, treatment with EE improved median PFS to 4.3 months versus 2.3 months with EP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.07; one-sided P = .055; two-sided P = .11 [predefined significance level of .10, one-sided]). Median overall survival was an exploratory end point and improved to 28.1 months with EE versus 19.8 months with EP (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.97; P = .036). Fatigue and neutropenia were the most frequent grade 3/4 toxicities. Treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was higher in the EE group versus the EP group (11% v 2%). Protein lysine hyperacetylation in the EE biomarker subset was associated with prolonged PFS. CONCLUSION: Entinostat added to exemestane is generally well tolerated and demonstrated activity in patients with ER+ advanced breast cancer in this signal-finding phase II study. Acetylation changes may provide an opportunity to maximize clinical benefit with entinostat. Plans for a confirmatory study are underway.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Entinostat is an oral isoform selective histone deacetylase inhibitor that targets resistance to hormonal therapies in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer. This randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II study evaluated entinostat combined with the aromatase inhibitor exemestane versus exemestane alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with ER+ advanced breast cancer progressing on a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor were randomly assigned to exemestane 25 mg daily plus entinostat 5 mg once per week (EE) or exemestane plus placebo (EP). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Blood was collected in a subset of patients for evaluation of protein lysine acetylation as a biomarker of entinostat activity. RESULTS: One hundred thirty patients were randomly assigned (EE group, n = 64; EP group, n = 66). Based on intent-to-treat analysis, treatment with EE improved median PFS to 4.3 months versus 2.3 months with EP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.07; one-sided P = .055; two-sided P = .11 [predefined significance level of .10, one-sided]). Median overall survival was an exploratory end point and improved to 28.1 months with EE versus 19.8 months with EP (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.97; P = .036). Fatigue and neutropenia were the most frequent grade 3/4 toxicities. Treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was higher in the EE group versus the EP group (11% v 2%). Protein lysine hyperacetylation in the EE biomarker subset was associated with prolonged PFS. CONCLUSION:Entinostat added to exemestane is generally well tolerated and demonstrated activity in patients with ER+ advanced breast cancer in this signal-finding phase II study. Acetylation changes may provide an opportunity to maximize clinical benefit with entinostat. Plans for a confirmatory study are underway.
Authors: José Baselga; Mario Campone; Martine Piccart; Howard A Burris; Hope S Rugo; Tarek Sahmoud; Shinzaburo Noguchi; Michael Gnant; Kathleen I Pritchard; Fabienne Lebrun; J Thaddeus Beck; Yoshinori Ito; Denise Yardley; Ines Deleu; Alejandra Perez; Thomas Bachelot; Luc Vittori; Zhiying Xu; Pabak Mukhopadhyay; David Lebwohl; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lawrence V Rubinstein; Edward L Korn; Boris Freidlin; Sally Hunsberger; S Percy Ivy; Malcolm A Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Elise A Olsen; Youn H Kim; Timothy M Kuzel; Theresa R Pacheco; Francine M Foss; Sareeta Parker; Stanley R Frankel; Cong Chen; Justin L Ricker; Jean Marie Arduino; Madeleine Duvic Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-06-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Richard L Piekarz; Robin Frye; Maria Turner; John J Wright; Steven L Allen; Mark H Kirschbaum; Jasmine Zain; H Miles Prince; John P Leonard; Larisa J Geskin; Craig Reeder; David Joske; William D Figg; Erin R Gardner; Seth M Steinberg; Elaine S Jaffe; Maryalice Stetler-Stevenson; Stephen Lade; A Tito Fojo; Susan E Bates Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stephen Chia; William Gradishar; Louis Mauriac; Jose Bines; Frederic Amant; Miriam Federico; Luis Fein; Gilles Romieu; Aman Buzdar; John F R Robertson; Adam Brufsky; Kurt Possinger; Pamela Rennie; Francisco Sapunar; Elizabeth Lowe; Martine Piccart Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rhoda Molife; Peter Fong; Michelle Scurr; Ian Judson; Stan Kaye; Johann de Bono Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Anderly C Chüeh; Janson W T Tse; Michael Dickinson; Paul Ioannidis; Laura Jenkins; Lars Togel; BeeShin Tan; Ian Luk; Mercedes Davalos-Salas; Rebecca Nightingale; Matthew R Thompson; Bryan R G Williams; Guillaume Lessene; Erinna F Lee; Walter D Fairlie; Amardeep S Dhillon; John M Mariadason Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 12.531