Dataset Information

Phase 1 trial of entinostat as monotherapy and combined with exemestane in Japanese patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Entinostat is an oral inhibitor of class I histone deacetylases intended for endocrine therapy-resistant patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced or metastatic breast cancer (BC). We examined the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of entinostat monotherapy and combined entinostat/exemestane in Japanese patients.

Methods

This phase 1 study (3 + 3 dose-escalation design) enrolled postmenopausal women with advanced/metastatic HR+ BC previously treated with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of entinostat monotherapy (3 mg/qw, 5 mg/qw, or 10 mg/q2w) and entinostat+exemestane (5 mg/qw + 25 mg/qd) were assessed. Pharmacokinetics, lysine acetylation (Ac-K), and T-cell activation markers were measured at multiple time points.

Results

Twelve patients were enrolled. No DLTs or grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) occurred. Drug-related AEs (≥ 2 patients) during DLT observation were hypophosphatemia, nausea, and platelet count decreased. Six patients (50%) achieved stable disease (SD) for ≥ 6 months, including one treated for > 19 months. Median progression-free survival was 13.9 months (95% CI 1.9-not calculable); median overall survival was not reached. Area under the plasma concentration-time curve and Ac-K in peripheral blood CD19+ B cells increased dose-proportionally. The changing patterns of entinostat concentrations and Ac-K levels were well correlated. T-cell activation markers increased over time; CD69 increased more in patients with SD ≥ 6 months vs. SD < 6 months.

Conclusions

Entinostat monotherapy and combined entinostat/exemestane were well tolerated in Japanese patients, with no additional safety concerns compared with previous reports. The correlation between pharmacokinetics and Ac-K in peripheral blood CD19+ B cells, and also T-cell activation markers, merits further investigation.

Trial registration

JAPIC Clinical Trial Information, JapicCTI-153066 . Registered 12 November 2015. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02623751 . Registered 8 December 2015.

SUBMITTER: Masuda N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8611843 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundXentuzumab-a humanised IgG1 monoclonal antibody-binds IGF-1 and IGF-2, inhibiting their growth-promoting signalling and suppressing AKT activation by everolimus. This phase Ib/II exploratory trial evaluated xentuzumab plus everolimus and exemestane in hormone receptor-positive, locally advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer (LA/MBC).MethodsPatients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative LA/MBC resistant to non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors were enrolled. Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane were determined in phase I (single-arm, dose-escalation). In phase II (open-label), patients were randomised 1:1 to the RP2D of xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane or everolimus/exemestane alone. Randomisation was stratified by the presence of visceral metastases. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsMTD was determined as xentuzumab 1000 mg weekly plus everolimus 10 mg/day and exemestane 25 mg/day. A total of 140 patients were enrolled in phase II (70 to each arm). Further recruitment was stopped following an unfavourable benefit-risk assessment by the internal Data Monitoring Committee appointed by the sponsor. Xentuzumab was discontinued; patients could receive everolimus/exemestane if clinically indicated. Median PFS was 7.3 months (95% CI 3.3-not calculable) in the xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane group and 5.6 months (3.7-9.1) in the everolimus/exemestane group (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.57-1.65; P = 0.9057). In a pre-specified subgroup of patients without visceral metastases at screening, xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane showed evidence of PFS benefit versus everolimus/exemestane (hazard ratio 0.21 [0.05-0.98]; P = 0.0293). Most common any-cause adverse events in phase II were diarrhoea (29 [41.4%] in the xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane group versus 20 [29.0%] in the everolimus/exemestane group), mucosal inflammation (27 [38.6%] versus 21 [30.4%]), stomatitis (24 [34.3%] versus 24 [34.8%]), and asthenia (21 [30.0%] versus 24 [34.8%]).ConclusionsAddition of xentuzumab to everolimus/exemestane did not improve PFS in the overall population, leading to early discontinuation of the trial. Evidence of PFS benefit was observed in patients without visceral metastases when treated with xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane, leading to initiation of the phase II XENERA™-1 trial (NCT03659136).Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02123823 . Prospectively registered, 8 March 2013.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The prognostic and predictive value of the two nonluminal (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]-enriched and basal-like) subtypes within advanced hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer is currently unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS:This study retrospectively analyzed 261 tumors (80.7% primary; 19.3% metastatic) from the BOLERO-2 study; BOLERO-2 randomized 724 patients with advanced HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer to everolimus plus exemestane or placebo plus exemestane. Tumors were classified using a PAM50 subtype predictor. Multivariable Cox regression analyses tested the independent prognostic significance of PAM50, and associations between PAM50 subtypes and treatment upon progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated. RESULTS:Subtype distribution was 46.7% luminal A (n = 122), 21.5% HER2-enriched (n = 56), 15.7% luminal B (n = 41), 14.2% normal-like (n = 37), and 1.9% basal-like (n = 5); HER2-enriched subtypes were more common in metastatic versus primary tumors (32.0% vs. 18.7%; p = .038). Median PFS differences between luminal and nonluminal (6.7 vs. 5.2 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.94; p = .020) and HER2-enriched and non-HER2-enriched subtypes (5.2 vs. 6.2 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.07-2.19; p = .019) were significant. Everolimus plus exemestane significantly improved median PFS versus placebo plus exemestane among patients with HER2-enriched tumors (5.8 vs. 4.1 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26-0.90; p = .034); however, the association between HER2-enriched tumors and everolimus benefit was nonsignificant (p = .433). CONCLUSION:The HER2-enriched subtype was identified in a substantial proportion of advanced HR+/HER2-negative breast tumors, and was a consistent biomarker of poor prognosis. Tailored therapies are therefore needed for HER2-enriched tumors in the advanced HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:Using 261 tumor samples from the BOLERO-2 phase III clinical trial, this study shows that a substantial proportion (20%-30%) of hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancers do not have a luminal A or B gene expression profile. This group of patients with nonluminal disease has a poor survival outcome regardless of the addition of everolimus to exemestane. This is the second study that confirms the prognostic value of this biomarker. Overall, these findings indicate a necessity to design novel clinical trials targeting nonluminal disease within HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer.

Project description:Importance:Everolimus plus exemestane and capecitabine are approved second-line therapies for advanced breast cancer. Objective:A postapproval commitment to health authorities to estimate the clinical benefit of everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus or capecitabine monotherapy for estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Design:Open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial of treatment effects in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer that had progressed during treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. Interventions:Patients were randomized to 3 treatment regimens: (1) everolimus (10 mg/d) plus exemestane (25 mg/d); (2) everolimus alone (10 mg/d); and (3) capecitabine alone (1250 mg/m2 twice daily). Main Outcomes and Measures:Estimated hazard ratios (HRs) of progression-free survival (PFS) for everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus alone (primary objective) or capecitabine alone (key secondary objective). Safety was a secondary objective. No formal statistical comparisons were planned. Results:A total of 309 postmenopausal women were enrolled, median age, 61 years (range, 32-88 years). Of these, 104 received everolimus plus exemestane; 103, everolimus alone; and 102, capecitabine alone. Median follow-up from randomization to the analysis cutoff (June 1, 2017) was 37.6 months. Estimated HR of PFS was 0.74 (90% CI, 0.57-0.97) for the primary objective of everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus alone and 1.26 (90% CI, 0.96-1.66) for everolimus plus exemestane vs capecitabine alone. Between treatment arms, potential informative censoring was noted, and a stratified multivariate Cox regression model was used to account for imbalances in baseline characteristics; a consistent HR was observed for everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus (0.73; 90% CI, 0.56-0.97), but the HR was closer to 1 for everolimus plus exemestane vs capecitabine (1.15; 90% CI, 0.86-1.52). Grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more frequent with capecitabine (74%; n?=?75) vs everolimus plus exemestane (70%; n?=?73) or everolimus alone (59%; n?=?61). Serious adverse events were more frequent with everolimus plus exemestane (36%; n?=?37) vs everolimus alone (29%; n?=?30) or capecitabine (29%; n?=?30). Conclusions and Relevance:These findings suggest that everolimus plus exemestane combination therapy offers a PFS benefit vs everolimus alone, and they support continued use of this therapy in this setting. A numerical PFS difference with capecitabine vs everolimus plus exemestane should be interpreted cautiously owing to imbalances among baseline characteristics and potential informative censoring. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01783444.

Project description:PurposeEndocrine 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 methodsE2112 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.ResultsSix 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.ConclusionThe combination of exemestane and entinostat did not improve survival in AI-resistant advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.