ArticlesVorinostat in patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma who have progressed on previous chemotherapy (VANTAGE-014): a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial
Introduction
Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a rare malignancy that, in most cases, is related to previous exposure to asbestos. Malignant pleural mesothelioma generally spreads locally within the pleural cavity, and the most common first symptom is dyspnoea due to a pleural effusion. Available therapies generally have little effect on prognosis. Surgery in combination with radiation and chemotherapy can be used for healthy patients with early stage disease, but most patients have unresectable disease and are treated mainly with palliative chemotherapy. The standard first-line treatment for patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma consists of a combination of pemetrexed and cisplatin, which, compared with treatment with cisplatin alone, increases median overall survival from 9·3 to 12·1 months (log-rank p-value 0·020).1 For subsequent therapy lines, no standard salvage therapy exists. Vinorelbine and gemcitabine are often used in this setting on the basis of results from first-line trials or small phase 2 trials, but the proportion of patients achieving a response are negligible, and no data suggest that treatment with these drugs increases survival.2
Vorinostat (suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid) is an oral drug that binds to the catalytic site of histone deacetylase subtypes 1, 2, 3, and 6, thereby inhibiting their activity.3 In addition to directly regulating transcription through changes in chromatin structure, histone deacetylase inhibitors modulate the acetylation of transcription factors and other non-histone proteins. This modulation leads to a range of biological effects that have been shown to be relevant in malignant pleural mesothelioma in preclinical studies.4 Histone deacetylase inhibitors sensitise malignant pleural mesothelioma cells to apoptosis by downregulation of BCL-XL and XIAP.5, 6, 7 Histone deacetylase inhibitors reduce the expression of VEGF and HIF1,8 and the effects of angiogenesis inhibition in malignant pleural mesothelioma have been studied extensively in the laboratory,9, 10 and in clinical trials.11 Histone deacetylase inhibitors also exert various immunomodulatory effects.12
Vorinostat showed preliminary signs of clinical activity in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma given this treatment in the original phase 1 trial of the oral formulation.13 From the 73 patients given treatment, 13 had malignant pleural mesothelioma, all but one of whom had previously received chemotherapy.14 Six of these patients continued in the study for more than 4 months. Two patients had radiographic partial responses, including one patient who had received five previous regimens, although their responses were not confirmed in subsequent imaging. These results, along with the desperate need to develop effective therapies for this group of patients, prompted interest in proceeding with this large randomised trial to establish whether treatment with vorinostat improves survival for patients with mesothelioma.
Section snippets
Study design and patients
In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older from 90 international centres (appendix) with pathologically confirmed malignant pleural mesothelioma of any histological subtype, a Karnofsky performance score of at least 70, and progression of disease after one or two previous chemotherapy regimens. The expected median survival for this patient population was 6 months. Previous treatment should have included pemetrexed plus
Results
From July 12, 2005, to Feb 14, 2011, enrolment was completed with 661 patients from 90 international centres in 24 countries randomly assigned and included in the intention-to-treat analysis (figure 1). 329 patients received vorinostat and 332 received placebo. Baseline characteristics of the patients were balanced across the two treatment groups (table 1). Median follow-up time was 195 (IQR 94–335) days for patients in the vorinostat group and 173 (90–325) days for the placebo group.
Treatment
Discussion
In this randomised study, to our knowledge the largest ever done in malignant pleural mesothelioma, the use of single-drug vorinostat did not improve overall survival compared with placebo in patients who had previously received chemotherapy (panel). Progression-free survival was significantly improved but not in a clinically meaningful manner. Limited efficacy data were available from the phase 1 trial before the initiation of this phase 3 trial, and as such, the trial had strict stopping
References (29)
- et al.
Vinorelbine and gemcitabine as second- or third-line therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma
Lung Cancer
(2014) - et al.
Histone deacetylase inhibitors
Adv Cancer Res
(2004) - et al.
Histone deacetylase inhibitors in malignant pleural mesothelioma: preclinical rationale and clinical trials
J Thorac Oncol
(2010) - et al.
Sensitization of mesothelioma to TRAIL apoptosis by inhibition of histone deacetylase: role of Bcl-xL down-regulation
Biochem Biophys Res Commun
(2004) - et al.
A histone deacetylase inhibitor LBH589 downregulates XIAP in mesothelioma cell lines which is likely responsible for increased apoptosis with TRAIL
J Thorac Oncol
(2009) - et al.
A phase II study of sorafenib in malignant mesothelioma: results of Cancer and Leukemia Group B 30307
J Thorac Oncol
(2010) - et al.
Potential role of histone deacetylase inhibitors in mesothelioma: clinical experience with suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid
Clin Lung Cancer
(2006) - et al.
Modified RECIST criteria for assessment of response in malignant pleural mesothelioma
Ann Oncol
(2004) - et al.
Phase 2 trial of oral vorinostat (suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid, SAHA) for refractory cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL)
Blood
(2007) - et al.
Phase II trial of oral vorinostat (suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid) in relapsed diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma
Ann Oncol
(2008)
The determination of the number of patients required in a preliminary and a follow-up trial of a new chemotherapeutic agent
J Chron Dis
Phase II study of belinostat (PXD101), a histone deacetylase inhibitor, for second line therapy of advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma
J Thorac Oncol
Phase III study of pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma
J Clin Oncol
Histone deacetylase inhibitor downregulation of bcl-xl gene expression leads to apoptotic cell death in mesothelioma
Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol
Cited by (160)
Epigenetic therapies: histone deacetylases
2023, Epigenetic Cancer Therapy, Second EditionSystemic therapy for pre-treated malignant mesothelioma: A systematic review, meta-analysis and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
2022, European Journal of CancerCitation Excerpt :Compared with active treatments, serious Tr-AEs were higher with the anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 versus single-agent anti-PD1 immunotherapy (26.2 versus 14.3%) [9], and with the addition of ramucirumab to chemotherapy (43.8 versus 29.6%) [8], but lower with single-agent anti-PD1 than chemotherapy (19.4 versus 25.7%) [7], and with the addition of NGR-hTNF to chemotherapy (8.8 versus 10.4%) [18]. The reported Tr-deaths were higher than placebo or BSC/ASC with the anti-CTLA4 (1.3 versus 0%) [16] and the histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor (0.9 versus 0.3%) [17]. Compared with active treatments, Tr-deaths were higher with anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 versus single-agent anti-PD1 immunotherapy (4.9 versus 0%) [9].
ARCS-M: forging progress from this negative trial in malignant pleural mesothelioma
2022, The Lancet Oncology