TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical Trials Assessing Hypomethylating Agents Combined with Other Therapies
T2 - Causes for Failure and Potential Solutions
AU - Zavras, Phaedon D.
AU - Shastri, Aditi
AU - Goldfinger, Mendel
AU - Verma, Amit K.
AU - Saunthararajah, Yogen
N1 - Funding Information:
A. Shastri reports other support from Kymera Therapeutics and OncLive, as well as personal fees from Janssen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. A.K. Verma reports grants from BMS, Janssen, Curis, and Prelude, as well as other support from Stelexis during the conduct of the study. Y. Saunthararajah reports other support from EpiDestiny and Novo Nordisk during the conduct of the study. In addition, Y. Saunthararajah has a patent for tetrahydrouridine and decitabine issued, licensed, and with royalties paid from EpiDestiny; has a patent for tetrahydrouridine and 5-azacytidine pending; has a patent for ISWI inhibitor (tumor differentiation therapy) issued; is in research and development of drug strategies for non-cytotoxic targeting of epigenetic proteins, defining how to combine tetrahydrouridine, decitabine, and 5-azacytidine; is leading a team that is developing a non-cytotoxic inhibitor of the ISWI family of ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers; and reports patents and industry partnerships in this field of research and development. No disclosures were reported by the other authors.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors.
PY - 2021/12/15
Y1 - 2021/12/15
N2 - Purpose: Azacitidine and decitabine are hypomethylating agents (HMA), that is, both inhibit and deplete DNA methyltransferase 1 (DNMT1). HMAs are standard single-agent therapies for myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myelogenous leukemias. Several attempts to improve outcomes by combining HMAs with investigational agents, excepting with the BCL2- inhibitor venetoclax, have failed in randomized clinical trial (RCT) evaluations. We extract lessons from decades of clinical trials to thereby inform future work. Experimental Design: Serial single-agent clinical trials were analyzed for mechanism and pathway properties of HMAs underpinning their success, and for rules for dose and schedule selection. RCTs were studied for principles, dos and don'ts for productive combination therapy. Results: Single-agent HMA trial results encourage dose and schedule selection to increase S-phase-dependent DNMT1 targeting, and discourage doses that cause indiscriminate antimetabolite effects/cytotoxicity, because these attrit myelopoiesis reserves needed for clinical response. Treatment-related myelosuppression should prompt dose/frequency reductions of less active investigational agents rather than more active HMA. Administering cytostatic agents concurrently with HMA can antagonize S-phase-dependent DNMT1 targeting. Supportive care that enables on-time administration of S-phase (exposure-time)- dependent HMA could be useful. Agents that manipulate pyrimidine metabolism to increase HMA pro-drug processing into DNMT1-depleting nucleotide, and/or inhibit other epigenetic enzymes implicated in oncogenic silencing of lineage differentiation, could be productive, but doses and schedules should adhere to therapeutic index/molecular-targeted principles already learned. Conclusions: More than 40 years of clinical trial history indicates mechanism, pathway, and therapeutic index properties of HMAs that underpin their almost exclusive success and teaches lessons for selection and design of combinations aiming to build on this treatment foundation.
AB - Purpose: Azacitidine and decitabine are hypomethylating agents (HMA), that is, both inhibit and deplete DNA methyltransferase 1 (DNMT1). HMAs are standard single-agent therapies for myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myelogenous leukemias. Several attempts to improve outcomes by combining HMAs with investigational agents, excepting with the BCL2- inhibitor venetoclax, have failed in randomized clinical trial (RCT) evaluations. We extract lessons from decades of clinical trials to thereby inform future work. Experimental Design: Serial single-agent clinical trials were analyzed for mechanism and pathway properties of HMAs underpinning their success, and for rules for dose and schedule selection. RCTs were studied for principles, dos and don'ts for productive combination therapy. Results: Single-agent HMA trial results encourage dose and schedule selection to increase S-phase-dependent DNMT1 targeting, and discourage doses that cause indiscriminate antimetabolite effects/cytotoxicity, because these attrit myelopoiesis reserves needed for clinical response. Treatment-related myelosuppression should prompt dose/frequency reductions of less active investigational agents rather than more active HMA. Administering cytostatic agents concurrently with HMA can antagonize S-phase-dependent DNMT1 targeting. Supportive care that enables on-time administration of S-phase (exposure-time)- dependent HMA could be useful. Agents that manipulate pyrimidine metabolism to increase HMA pro-drug processing into DNMT1-depleting nucleotide, and/or inhibit other epigenetic enzymes implicated in oncogenic silencing of lineage differentiation, could be productive, but doses and schedules should adhere to therapeutic index/molecular-targeted principles already learned. Conclusions: More than 40 years of clinical trial history indicates mechanism, pathway, and therapeutic index properties of HMAs that underpin their almost exclusive success and teaches lessons for selection and design of combinations aiming to build on this treatment foundation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122368083&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85122368083&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-2139
DO - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-2139
M3 - Article
C2 - 34551907
AN - SCOPUS:85122368083
SN - 1078-0432
VL - 27
SP - 6653
EP - 6661
JO - Clinical Cancer Research
JF - Clinical Cancer Research
IS - 24
ER -