| Literature DB >> 34552864 |
Mark M Awad1, Yvan Le Bruchec2, Brian Lu2, Jason Ye3, JulieAnn Miller2, Patrick H Lizotte4, Megan E Cavanaugh4, Amanda J Rode4, Calin Dan Dumitru2, Alexander Spira5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Histone deacetylase (HDAC) overexpression has been documented in various cancers and may be associated with worse outcomes. Data from early-phase studies of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) suggest encouraging antitumor activity with the combination of an HDAC inhibitor and either platinum-based chemotherapy or an EGFR inhibitor; however, toxicity is a limiting factor in the use of pan-HDAC inhibitors. Selective inhibition of HDAC6 may represent a potential therapeutic target and preclinical studies revealed immunomodulatory effects with HDAC6 inhibition, suggesting the potential for combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. This phase Ib, multicenter, single-arm, open-label, dose-escalation study investigated the HDAC6 inhibitor ACY-241 (citarinostat) plus nivolumab in patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC who had not received a prior HDAC or immune checkpoint inhibitor.Entities:
Keywords: ACY-241; HDAC6; citarinostat; nivolumab; non-small cell lung cancer
Year: 2021 PMID: 34552864 PMCID: PMC8451476 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.696512
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1Study design. C, cycle; D, day; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; HDAC, histone deacetylase; IV, intravenous; Nivo, nivolumab; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; PD, progressive disease; QD, once daily; Tox, toxicity. a First dose for the first 2 patients was 3 mg/kg prior to approval of the 240-mg dose.
Baseline characteristics (safety population).
| Characteristic | ACY-241 180 mg | ACY-241 360 mg | ACY-241 480 mg | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 66 (42-74) | 72 (53-81) | 65 (53-77) | 66 (42-81) |
|
| 2 (50) | 1 (20) | 3 (38) | 6 (35) |
|
| 2 (50) | 4 (80) | 5 (63) | 11 (65) |
|
| 3 (75) | 3 (60) | 3 (38) | 9 (53) |
|
| ||||
|
| 2 (50) | 0 | 2 (25) | 4 (24) |
|
| 2 (50) | 5 (100) | 6 (75) | 13 (76) |
|
| ||||
| | 4 (100) | 3 (60) | 8 (100) | 15 (88) |
| | 0 | 2 (40) | 0 | 2 (12) |
|
| ||||
| | 3 (75) | 4 (80) | 6 (75) | 13 (76) |
| | 1 (25) | 1 (20) | 2 (25) | 4 (24) |
|
| ||||
| | 1 (50) | 3 (60) | 7 (88) | 11 (73) |
| | 1 (50) | 2 (40) | 1 (13) | 4 (27) |
| | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
|
| ||||
| | 4 (100) | 5 (100) | 6 (75) | 15 (88) |
| | 0 | 3 (60) | 4 (67) | 7 (47) |
| | 0 | 0 | 1 (17) | 1 (7) |
| | 4 (100) | 2 (40) | 1 (17) | 7 (47) |
| | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
|
| 4 (100) | 5 (100) | 8 (100) | 17 (100) |
ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; PD-L1, programmed death ligand 1.
Percentages based on patients with known status.
Percentages based on patients with known mutations.
Other mutations include (but are not limited to) PIK3CA, ERBB2, and BRCA2.
Safety (n = 17; safety population).
| TEAE, n (%) | Grade 1/2 | Grade ≥ 3 |
|---|---|---|
|
| 2 (11.8) | 3 (17.6) |
|
| 0 | 3 (17.6) |
|
| 1 (5.9) | 2 (11.8) |
|
| 0 | 2 (11.8) |
|
| 0 | 2 (11.8) |
|
| 6 (35.3) | 1 (5.9) |
|
| 4 (23.5) | 1 (5.9) |
|
| 3 (17.6) | 1 (5.9) |
|
| 3 (17.6) | 1 (5.9) |
|
| 2 (11.8) | 1 (5.9) |
|
| 1 (5.9) | 1 (5.9) |
|
| 1 (5.9) | 1 (5.9) |
|
| 0 | 1 (5.9) |
|
| 0 | 1 (5.9) |
|
| 0 | 1 (5.9) |
|
| 0 | 1 (5.9) |
|
| 0 | 1 (5.9) |
|
| 0 | 1 (5.9) |
|
| 0 | 1 (5.9) |
TEAE, treatment-emergent adverse event.
TEAEs ordered first by incidence of grade ≥ 3, then by incidence of grade 1/2.
Grade 5 TEAE.
Best response per RECIST v1.1 (intent-to-treat population).
| Response, n (%) | ACY-241 180 mg | ACY-241 360 mg | ACY-241 480 mg | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
|
| 1 (25) | 0 | 0 | 1 (6) |
|
| 2 (50) | 3 (60) | 0 | 5 (28) |
|
| 0 | 1 (20) | 1 (11) | 2 (11) |
|
| 0 | 1 (20) | 3 (33) | 4 (22) |
|
| 1 (25) | 0 | 5 (56) | 6 (33) |
|
| 3 (75) | 3 (60) | 0 | 6 (33) |
PD-L1, programmed death ligand 1; RECIST, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.
One patient with known PD-L1 status was PD-L1 negative.
Patient discontinued before tumor assessment or did not reach first postbaseline tumor assessment. One patient withdrew consent, 2 patients had progressive disease before nivolumab treatment, 2 patients discontinued due to adverse events, and 1 patient died before the first tumor assessment.
One patient had an unconfirmed partial response before progression.
Figure 2Sum of tumor shrinkage and best response per RECIST v1.1 (n = 11). Tumor shrinkage measured from baseline. One response-evaluable patient received first dose of nivolumab but had progressive disease before first tumor assessment and was excluded here. PD-L1, programmed death ligand 1; RECIST, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.
Figure 3Infiltrating immune cells (A), CD3+ lymphocytes; (B), CD45+ leukocytes; (C), CD8+ T cells. Percentages of selected immune cell subpopulations in tumor biopsies before and after ACY-241 treatment. These patients originated in 2 dose-level cohorts, which are indicated by different colors (orange, 360 mg; blue, 480 mg). To facilitate the determination of trends, a light-blue box plot (median, second, and third quartiles, and min-max range) is overlaid on the line plots.