Roisin M Connolly1,2, Fengmin Zhao3, Kathy D Miller4, Min-Jung Lee5, Richard L Piekarz6, Karen L Smith1, Ursa A Brown-Glaberman7, Jennifer S Winn8, Bryan A Faller9, Adedayo A Onitilo10, Mark E Burkard11, George T Budd12, Ellis G Levine13, Melanie E Royce14, Peter A Kaufman15, Alexandra Thomas16, Jane B Trepel5, Antonio C Wolff1, Joseph A Sparano17. 1. The Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD. 2. Cancer Research at UCC, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 3. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. 4. Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN. 5. Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD. 6. Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD. 7. University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM. 8. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA. 9. Heartland NCORP, Missouri Baptist Medical Centre, Saint Louis, MO. 10. Marshfield Clinic, Marshfield, WI. 11. University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, WI. 12. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH. 13. Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY. 14. New Mexico MU-NCORP, Albuquerque, NM. 15. University of Vermont Cancer Center, Burlington, VT. 16. Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, NC. 17. Montefiore Medical Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Endocrine therapy resistance in advanced breast cancer remains a significant clinical problem that may be overcome with the use of histone deacetylase inhibitors such as entinostat. The ENCORE301 phase II study reported improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with the addition of entinostat to the steroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) exemestane in advanced hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: E2112 is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study that enrolled men or women with advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer whose disease progressed after nonsteroidal AI. Participants were randomly assigned to exemestane 25 mg by mouth once daily and entinostat (EE) or placebo (EP) 5 mg by mouth once weekly. Primary end points were PFS by central review and OS. Secondary end points included safety, objective response rate, and lysine acetylation change in peripheral blood mononuclear cells between baseline and cycle 1 day 15. RESULTS: Six hundred eight patients were randomly assigned during March 2014-October 2018. Median age was 63 years (range 29-91), 60% had visceral disease, and 84% had progressed after nonsteroidal AI in metastatic setting. Previous treatments included chemotherapy (60%), fulvestrant (30%), and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor (35%). Most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events in the EE arm included neutropenia (20%), hypophosphatemia (14%), anemia (8%), leukopenia (6%), fatigue (4%), diarrhea (4%), and thrombocytopenia (3%). Median PFS was 3.3 months (EE) versus 3.1 months (EP; hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.13; P = .30). Median OS was 23.4 months (EE) versus 21.7 months (EP; hazard ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.21; P = .94). Objective response rate was 5.8% (EE) and 5.6% (EP). Pharmacodynamic analysis confirmed target inhibition in entinostat-treated patients. CONCLUSION: The combination of exemestane and entinostat did not improve survival in AI-resistant advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.
PURPOSE: Endocrine therapy resistance in advanced breast cancer remains a significant clinical problem that may be overcome with the use of histone deacetylase inhibitors such as entinostat. The ENCORE301 phase II study reported improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with the addition of entinostat to the steroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) exemestane in advanced hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: E2112 is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study that enrolled men or women with advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer whose disease progressed after nonsteroidal AI. Participants were randomly assigned to exemestane 25 mg by mouth once daily and entinostat (EE) or placebo (EP) 5 mg by mouth once weekly. Primary end points were PFS by central review and OS. Secondary end points included safety, objective response rate, and lysine acetylation change in peripheral blood mononuclear cells between baseline and cycle 1 day 15. RESULTS: Six hundred eight patients were randomly assigned during March 2014-October 2018. Median age was 63 years (range 29-91), 60% had visceral disease, and 84% had progressed after nonsteroidal AI in metastatic setting. Previous treatments included chemotherapy (60%), fulvestrant (30%), and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor (35%). Most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events in the EE arm included neutropenia (20%), hypophosphatemia (14%), anemia (8%), leukopenia (6%), fatigue (4%), diarrhea (4%), and thrombocytopenia (3%). Median PFS was 3.3 months (EE) versus 3.1 months (EP; hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.13; P = .30). Median OS was 23.4 months (EE) versus 21.7 months (EP; hazard ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.21; P = .94). Objective response rate was 5.8% (EE) and 5.6% (EP). Pharmacodynamic analysis confirmed target inhibition in entinostat-treated patients. CONCLUSION: The combination of exemestane and entinostat did not improve survival in AI-resistant advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.
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: Antonio C Wolff; M Elizabeth Hale Hammond; Kimberly H Allison; Brittany E Harvey; Lisa M McShane; Mitchell Dowsett Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Roisin M Connolly; Huili Li; Rachel C Jankowitz; Zhe Zhang; Michelle A Rudek; Stacie C Jeter; Shannon A Slater; Penny Powers; Antonio C Wolff; John H Fetting; Adam Brufsky; Richard Piekarz; Nita Ahuja; Peter W Laird; Hui Shen; Daniel J Weisenberger; Leslie Cope; James G Herman; George Somlo; Agustin A Garcia; Peter A Jones; Stephen B Baylin; Nancy E Davidson; Cynthia A Zahnow; Vered Stearns Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Lia Gore; Mace L Rothenberg; Cindy L O'Bryant; Mary Kay Schultz; Alan B Sandler; Denise Coffin; Candice McCoy; Astrid Schott; Catherine Scholz; S Gail Eckhardt Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-06-25 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Vishal Bhatnagar; Stacie Hudgens; Elisabeth Piault-Louis; Lee Jones; Julia A Beaver; H Kim Lyerly; Gregory Reaman; Thomas Fleming; Paul G Kluetz Journal: Oncologist Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: F André; E M Ciruelos; D Juric; S Loibl; M Campone; I A Mayer; G Rubovszky; T Yamashita; B Kaufman; Y-S Lu; K Inoue; Z Pápai; M Takahashi; F Ghaznawi; D Mills; M Kaper; M Miller; P F Conte; H Iwata; H S Rugo Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Courtney M Edwards; Miranda E Clements; Lawrence A Vecchi; Jasmine A Johnson; Rachelle W Johnson Journal: J Bone Oncol Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 4.072
Authors: Thomas B Karasic; Timothy J Brown; Charles Schneider; Ursina R Teitelbaum; Kim A Reiss; Tara C Mitchell; Ryan C Massa; Mark H O'Hara; Lisa DiCicco; Luis Garcia-Marcano; Ravi K Amaravadi; Peter J O'Dwyer Journal: Oncologist Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Dusan Ruzic; Nemanja Djoković; Tatjana Srdić-Rajić; Cesar Echeverria; Katarina Nikolic; Juan F Santibanez Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2022-01-16 Impact factor: 6.321