Understanding Failure and Improving Treatment Using HDAC Inhibitors for Prostate Cancer

Novel treatment regimens are required for castration-resistant prostate cancers (CRPCs) that become unresponsive to standard treatments, such as docetaxel and enzalutamide. Histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors showed promising results in hematological malignancies, but they failed in solid tumors such as prostate cancer, despite the overexpression of HDACs in CRPC. Four HDAC inhibitors, vorinostat, pracinostat, panobinostat and romidepsin, underwent phase II clinical trials for prostate cancers; however, phase III trials were not recommended due to a majority of patients exhibiting either toxicity or disease progression. In this review, the pharmacodynamic reasons for the failure of HDAC inhibitors were assessed and placed in the context of the advancements in the understanding of CRPCs, HDACs and resistance mechanisms. The review focuses on three themes: evolution of androgen receptor-negative prostate cancers, development of resistance mechanisms and differential effects of HDACs. In conclusion, advancements can be made in this field by characterizing HDACs in prostate tumors more extensively, as this will allow more specific drugs catering to the specific HDAC subtypes to be designed.

Vorinostat in advanced prostate cancer patients progressing on prior chemotherapy (National Cancer Institute Trial 6862): trial results and interleukin-6 analysis: a study by the Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Clinical Trial Consortium and University of Chicago Phase 2 Consortium

BACKGROUND

This phase 2 trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of vorinostat in chemotherapy-pretreated patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

METHODS

Patients with disease progression on 1 prior chemotherapy, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >or=5 ng/mL, and adequate organ function were treated with 400 mg vorinostat orally daily. The primary endpoint was the 6-month progression rate. Secondary endpoints included safety, rate of PSA decline, objective response, overall survival, and effects of vorinostat on serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven eligible patients were accrued. The median number of cycles delivered was 2 (range, 1-7). All patients were taken off therapy before 6 months. The best objective response in the eligible patient was stable disease in 2 (7%) patients. No PSA decline of >or=50% was observed. There was 1 grade 4 adverse event (AE), and 44% of patients experienced grade 3 adverse events. The most common adverse events were fatigue (81%), nausea (74%), anorexia (59%), vomiting (33%), diarrhea (33%), and weight loss (26%). Median time to progression and overall survival were 2.8 and 11.7 months, respectively. Median IL-6 levels (pg/mL) were higher in patients removed from the protocol for toxicity compared with progression at all time points, including baseline (5.2 vs 2.1, P = .02), Day 15 Cycle 1 (9.5 vs 2.2, P = .01), Day 1 Cycle 2 (9.8 vs 2.2, P = .01), and end of study (11.0 vs 2.9, P = .09).

CONCLUSIONS

Vorinostat at this dose was associated with significant toxicities limiting efficacy assessment in this patient population. The significant association between IL-6 levels and removal from the study for toxicities warrants further investigation.