David I Quinn1, Denice D Tsao-Wei2, Przemyslaw Twardowski3,4, Ana M Aparicio5,6, Paul Frankel3, Gurkamal Chatta7,8, John J Wright9, Susan G Groshen2, Stella Khoo3, Heinz-Josef Lenz5, Primo N Lara10, David R Gandara10, Edward Newman3. 1. Division of Oncology, University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1441 Eastlake Ave, Suite 3440, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. diquinn@usc.edu. 2. Biostatistics Core, University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA. 4. John Wayne Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, CA, USA. 5. Division of Oncology, University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1441 Eastlake Ave, Suite 3440, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. 6. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 7. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 8. Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA. 9. Clinical Treatment Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 10. University of California Davis Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Until the advent of T cell check point inhibitors standard second-line therapy for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) was undefined. Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) have anti-cancer activity in a variety of tumor models including modulation of apoptosis in bladder cancer cell lines. We evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of the HDACi vorinostat in patients with mUC failing first-line platinum-based therapy either in the adjuvant/neoadjuvant setting or for recurrent/advanced disease. METHODS: Vorinostat was given orally 200 mg twice daily continuously until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was RECIST response rate (RR); a RR > 20% was deemed interesting in a 2-stage design requiring one response in the first 12 patients to proceed to 2nd stage for a total of 37 subjects. CT or MRI scan imaging occurred every 6 weeks. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were accrued characterized by: median age 66 years (43-84); Caucasian (79%); males (86%); and Karnofsky performance status ≥90 (50%). Accrual was terminated in the first stage as no responses were observed. Best response was stable disease (3 patients). Progression was observed in 8 patients. Two patients came off therapy prior to re-imaging and a 3rd patient died while on treatment and was not assessed for response. Median number of cycles was 2 (range 1-11). Median disease-free survival and overall survival times were 1.1 (0.8, 2.1) & 3.2 (2.1, 14.5) months, respectively. Toxicities were predominantly cytopenias and thrombocytopenic bleeding. Two pts. had grade 5 toxicity unlikely related to treatment. Two pts. had grade 4 and 6 had grade 3 toxicities observed. Two patients with stable disease remained on therapy for 6+ cycles. CONCLUSIONS: Vorinostat on this dose-schedule had limited efficacy and significant toxicity resulting in a unfavorable risk:benefit ratio in patients with mUC. NCT00363883.
BACKGROUND: Until the advent of T cell check point inhibitors standard second-line therapy for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) was undefined. Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) have anti-cancer activity in a variety of tumor models including modulation of apoptosis in bladder cancer cell lines. We evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of the HDACi vorinostat in patients with mUC failing first-line platinum-based therapy either in the adjuvant/neoadjuvant setting or for recurrent/advanced disease. METHODS: Vorinostat was given orally 200 mg twice daily continuously until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was RECIST response rate (RR); a RR > 20% was deemed interesting in a 2-stage design requiring one response in the first 12 patients to proceed to 2nd stage for a total of 37 subjects. CT or MRI scan imaging occurred every 6 weeks. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were accrued characterized by: median age 66 years (43-84); Caucasian (79%); males (86%); and Karnofsky performance status ≥90 (50%). Accrual was terminated in the first stage as no responses were observed. Best response was stable disease (3 patients). Progression was observed in 8 patients. Two patients came off therapy prior to re-imaging and a 3rd patient died while on treatment and was not assessed for response. Median number of cycles was 2 (range 1-11). Median disease-free survival and overall survival times were 1.1 (0.8, 2.1) & 3.2 (2.1, 14.5) months, respectively. Toxicities were predominantly cytopenias and thrombocytopenic bleeding. Two pts. had grade 5 toxicity unlikely related to treatment. Two pts. had grade 4 and 6 had grade 3 toxicities observed. Two patients with stable disease remained on therapy for 6+ cycles. CONCLUSIONS: Vorinostat on this dose-schedule had limited efficacy and significant toxicity resulting in a unfavorable risk:benefit ratio in patients with mUC. NCT00363883.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bladder cancer; Clinical trial; Histone deacetylase inhibitor; Urothelial cancer
Authors: K Inoue; J W Slaton; T Karashima; C Yoshikawa; T Shuin; P Sweeney; R Millikan; C P Dinney Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Joaquim Bellmunt; Ronald de Wit; David J Vaughn; Yves Fradet; Jae-Lyun Lee; Lawrence Fong; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Miguel A Climent; Daniel P Petrylak; Toni K Choueiri; Andrea Necchi; Winald Gerritsen; Howard Gurney; David I Quinn; Stéphane Culine; Cora N Sternberg; Yabing Mai; Christian H Poehlein; Rodolfo F Perini; Dean F Bajorin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-02-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K Inoue; J W Slaton; S J Kim; P Perrotte; B Y Eve; M Bar-Eli; R Radinsky; C P Dinney Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2000-04-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: R J Cote; M D Dunn; S J Chatterjee; J P Stein; S R Shi; Q C Tran; S X Hu; H J Xu; S Groshen; C R Taylor; D G Skinner; W F Benedict Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1998-03-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: C Salem; G Liang; Y C Tsai; J Coulter; M A Knowles; A C Feng; S Groshen; P W Nichols; P A Jones Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2000-05-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Anne Monks; Yingdong Zhao; Curtis Hose; Hossein Hamed; Julia Krushkal; Jianwen Fang; Dmitriy Sonkin; Alida Palmisano; Eric C Polley; Laura K Fogli; Mariam M Konaté; Sarah B Miller; Melanie A Simpson; Andrea Regier Voth; Ming-Chung Li; Erik Harris; Xiaolin Wu; John W Connelly; Annamaria Rapisarda; Beverly A Teicher; Richard Simon; James H Doroshow Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Yohann Loriot; Andrea Necchi; Se Hoon Park; Jesus Garcia-Donas; Robert Huddart; Earle Burgess; Mark Fleming; Arash Rezazadeh; Begoña Mellado; Sergey Varlamov; Monika Joshi; Ignacio Duran; Scott T Tagawa; Yousef Zakharia; Bob Zhong; Kim Stuyckens; Ademi Santiago-Walker; Peter De Porre; Anne O'Hagan; Anjali Avadhani; Arlene O Siefker-Radtke Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jonathan E Rosenberg; Peter H O'Donnell; Arjun V Balar; Bradley A McGregor; Elisabeth I Heath; Evan Y Yu; Matthew D Galsky; Noah M Hahn; Elaina M Gartner; Juan M Pinelli; Shang-Ying Liang; Amal Melhem-Bertrandt; Daniel P Petrylak Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ilsiya Ibragimova; Essel Dulaimi; Michael J Slifker; David Y Chen; Robert G Uzzo; Paul Cairns Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 4.528