Mocetinostat for patients with previously treated, locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and inactivating alterations of acetyltransferase genes
Grivas, Petros; Mortazavi, Amir; Picus, Joel; Hahn, Noah M.; Milowsky, Matthew I.; Hart, Lowell L.; Alva, Ajjai; Bellmunt, Joaquim; Pal, Sumanta K.; Bambury, Richard M.; O’donnell, Peter H.; Gupta, Sumati; Guancial, Elizabeth A.; Sonpavde, Guru P.; Faltaos, Demiana; Potvin, Diane; Christensen, James G.; Chao, Richard C.; Rosenberg, Jonathan E.
2019-02-15
Citation
Grivas, Petros; Mortazavi, Amir; Picus, Joel; Hahn, Noah M.; Milowsky, Matthew I.; Hart, Lowell L.; Alva, Ajjai; Bellmunt, Joaquim; Pal, Sumanta K.; Bambury, Richard M.; O’donnell, Peter H. ; Gupta, Sumati; Guancial, Elizabeth A.; Sonpavde, Guru P.; Faltaos, Demiana; Potvin, Diane; Christensen, James G.; Chao, Richard C.; Rosenberg, Jonathan E. (2019). "Mocetinostat for patients with previously treated, locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and inactivating alterations of acetyltransferase genes." Cancer 125(4): 533-540.
Abstract
BackgroundThe authors evaluated mocetinostat (a class I/IV histone deacetylase inhibitor) in patients with urothelial carcinoma harboring inactivating mutations or deletions in CREB binding protein [CREBBP] and/or E1A binding protein p300 [EP300] histone acetyltransferase genes in a singleâ arm, openâ label phase 2 study.MethodsEligible patients with platinumâ treated, advanced/metastatic disease received oral mocetinostat (at a dose of 70 mg 3 times per week [TIW] escalating to 90 mg TIW) in 28â day cycles in a 3â stage study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02236195). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate.ResultsGenomic testing was feasible in 155 of 175 patients (89%). Qualifying tumor mutations were CREBBP (15%), EP300 (8%), and both CREBBP and EP300 (1%). A total of 17 patients were enrolled into stage 1 (the intentâ toâ treat population); no patients were enrolled in subsequent stages. One partial response was observed (11% [1 of 9 patients; the population that was evaluable for efficacy comprised 9 of the 15 planned patients]); activity was deemed insufficient to progress to stage 2 (null hypothesis: objective response rate of â ¤15%). All patients experienced â ¥1 adverse event, most commonly nausea (13 of 17 patients; 77%) and fatigue (12 of 17 patients; 71%). The median duration of treatment was 46 days; treatment interruptions (14 of 17 patients; 82%) and dose reductions (5 of 17 patients; 29%) were common. Mocetinostat exposure was lower than anticipated (doseâ normalized maximum serum concentration [Cmax] after TIW dosing of 0.2 ng/mL/mg).ConclusionsTo the authorsâ knowledge, the current study represents the first clinical trial using genomicâ based selection to identify patients with urothelial cancer who are likely to benefit from selective histone deacetylase inhibition. Mocetinostat was associated with significant toxicities that impacted drug exposure and may have contributed to modest clinical activity in these pretreated patients. The efficacy observed was considered insufficient to warrant further investigation of mocetinostat as a single agent in this setting.After the genomicâ based selection of patients with urothelial cancer with inactivating mutations/deletions in the histone acetyltransferase genes CREBBP and/or EP300, singleâ agent mocetinostat appears to be associated with significant toxicities that limit drug exposure. This may have contributed to the limited activity noted in the current phase 2 study (response rate of 11%) among heavily pretreated patients with platinumâ refractory disease.Publisher
Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
ISSN
0008-543X 1097-0142
Other DOIs
Types
Article
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.