PURPOSE: Panobinostat, a pan-deacetylase inhibitor, increases acetylation of proteins associated with growth and survival of malignant cells. This phase 2 study evaluated the efficacy of intravenous (IV) panobinostat in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who had previously received chemotherapy. The primary end point was 24-week progression-free survival. Secondary end points included safety, tolerability, and the proportion of patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline. METHODS: IV panobinostat (20 mg/m(2)) was administered to patients on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Tumor response was assessed by imaging every 12 weeks (4 cycles) according to modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (Scher et al. in Clin Cancer Res 11:5223-5232, 23), and PSA response was defined as a 50 % decrease from baseline maintained for ≥4 weeks. Safety monitoring was routinely performed and included electrocardiogram monitoring. RESULTS: Of 35 enrolled patients, four (11.4 %) were alive without progression of disease at 24 weeks. PSA was evaluated in 34 (97.1 %) patients: five (14.3 %) patients demonstrated a decrease in PSA but none ≥50 %; one patient (2.9 %) had carcinoembryonic antigen as a marker of his prostate cancer, which declined by 43 %. Toxicities regardless of relationship to panobinostat included fatigue (62.9 %), thrombocytopenia (45.7 %), nausea (51.4 %), and decreased appetite (37.1 %). CONCLUSIONS: Despite promising preclinical data and scientific rationale, treatment with IV panobinostat did not show a sufficient level of clinical activity to pursue further investigation as a single agent in CRPC.
PURPOSE:Panobinostat, a pan-deacetylase inhibitor, increases acetylation of proteins associated with growth and survival of malignant cells. This phase 2 study evaluated the efficacy of intravenous (IV) panobinostat in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who had previously received chemotherapy. The primary end point was 24-week progression-free survival. Secondary end points included safety, tolerability, and the proportion of patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline. METHODS:IV panobinostat (20 mg/m(2)) was administered to patients on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Tumor response was assessed by imaging every 12 weeks (4 cycles) according to modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (Scher et al. in Clin Cancer Res 11:5223-5232, 23), and PSA response was defined as a 50 % decrease from baseline maintained for ≥4 weeks. Safety monitoring was routinely performed and included electrocardiogram monitoring. RESULTS: Of 35 enrolled patients, four (11.4 %) were alive without progression of disease at 24 weeks. PSA was evaluated in 34 (97.1 %) patients: five (14.3 %) patients demonstrated a decrease in PSA but none ≥50 %; one patient (2.9 %) had carcinoembryonic antigen as a marker of his prostate cancer, which declined by 43 %. Toxicities regardless of relationship to panobinostat included fatigue (62.9 %), thrombocytopenia (45.7 %), nausea (51.4 %), and decreased appetite (37.1 %). CONCLUSIONS: Despite promising preclinical data and scientific rationale, treatment with IV panobinostat did not show a sufficient level of clinical activity to pursue further investigation as a single agent in CRPC.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Oskar W Rokhlin; Agshin F Taghiyev; Natalya V Guseva; Rebecca A Glover; Peter M Chumakov; Julia E Kravchenko; Michael B Cohen Journal: Oncogene Date: 2005-10-13 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Howard I Scher; Karim Fizazi; Fred Saad; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Cora N Sternberg; Kurt Miller; Ronald de Wit; Peter Mulders; Kim N Chi; Neal D Shore; Andrew J Armstrong; Thomas W Flaig; Aude Fléchon; Paul Mainwaring; Mark Fleming; John D Hainsworth; Mohammad Hirmand; Bryan Selby; Lynn Seely; Johann S de Bono Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: L M Butler; D B Agus; H I Scher; B Higgins; A Rose; C Cordon-Cardo; H T Thaler; R A Rifkind; P A Marks; V M Richon Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2000-09-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: David B Seligson; Steve Horvath; Tao Shi; Hong Yu; Sheila Tze; Michael Grunstein; Siavash K Kurdistani Journal: Nature Date: 2005-06-30 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Amina Zoubeidi; Anousheh Zardan; Eliana Beraldi; Ladan Fazli; Richard Sowery; Paul Rennie; Colleen Nelson; Martin Gleave Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Maofu Fu; Mahadev Rao; Chenguang Wang; Toshiyuki Sakamaki; Jian Wang; Dolores Di Vizio; Xueping Zhang; Chris Albanese; Steven Balk; Chawnshang Chang; Saijun Fan; Eliot Rosen; Jorma J Palvimo; Olli A Jänne; Selen Muratoglu; Maria Laura Avantaggiati; Richard G Pestell Journal: Mol Cell Biol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 4.272
Authors: W Weichert; A Röske; V Gekeler; T Beckers; C Stephan; K Jung; F R Fritzsche; S Niesporek; C Denkert; M Dietel; G Kristiansen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: B J Eigl; S North; E Winquist; D Finch; L Wood; S S Sridhar; J Powers; J Good; M Sharma; J A Squire; J Bazov; T Jamaspishvili; M E Cox; P A Bradbury; E A Eisenhauer; K N Chi Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 3.850