Mocetinostat for patients with previously treated, locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and inactivating alterations of acetyltransferase genes

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.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147860/1/cncr31817_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147860/2/cncr31817.pd

Rucaparib or Physician's Choice in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

peer reviewed[en] BACKGROUND: In a phase 2 study, rucaparib, an inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), showed a high level of activity in patients who had metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer associated with a deleterious BRCA alteration. Data are needed to confirm and expand on the findings of the phase 2 study. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients who had metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer with a BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM alteration and who had disease progression after treatment with a second-generation androgen-receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI). We randomly assigned the patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or a physician's choice control (docetaxel or a second-generation ARPI [abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide]). The primary outcome was the median duration of imaging-based progression-free survival according to independent review. RESULTS: Of the 4855 patients who had undergone prescreening or screening, 270 were assigned to receive rucaparib and 135 to receive a control medication (intention-to-treat population); in the two groups, 201 patients and 101 patients, respectively, had a BRCA alteration. At 62 months, the duration of imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer in the rucaparib group than in the control group, both in the BRCA subgroup (median, 11.2 months and 6.4 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.69) and in the intention-to-treat group (median, 10.2 months and 6.4 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P<0.001 for both comparisons). In an exploratory analysis in the ATM subgroup, the median duration of imaging-based progression-free survival was 8.1 months in the rucaparib group and 6.8 months in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.52). The most frequent adverse events with rucaparib were fatigue and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: The duration of imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer with rucaparib than with a control medication among patients who had metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer with a BRCA alteration. (Funded by Clovis Oncology; TRITON3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02975934.)