The Histone Deacetylase Inhibitor Romidepsin Spares Normal Tissues While Acting as an Effective Radiosensitizer in Bladder Tumors in Vivo.
Acetylation
/ drug effects
Cell Line, Tumor
DNA Breaks, Double-Stranded
/ drug effects
DNA Repair
/ drug effects
Depsipeptides
/ adverse effects
Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors
/ adverse effects
Histones
/ metabolism
Humans
Organs at Risk
/ radiation effects
Radiation-Sensitizing Agents
/ adverse effects
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
/ pathology
Xenograft Model Antitumor Assays
Journal
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
ISSN: 1879-355X
Titre abrégé: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7603616
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 05 2020
01 05 2020
Historique:
received:
13
11
2019
revised:
10
01
2020
accepted:
13
01
2020
pubmed:
29
1
2020
medline:
6
10
2020
entrez:
29
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Muscle-invasive bladder cancer has a 40% to 60% 5-year survival rate with radical treatment by surgical removal of the bladder or radiation therapy-based bladder preservation techniques, including concurrent chemoradiation. Elderly patients cannot tolerate current chemoradiation therapy regimens and often receive only radiation therapy, which is less effective. We urgently need effective chemotherapy agents for use with radiation therapy combinations that are nontoxic to normal tissues and tolerated by elderly patients. We have identified histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors as promising agents to study. Pan-HDAC inhibition, using panobinostat, is a good strategy for radiosensitization, but more selective agents may be more useful radiosensitizers in a clinical setting, resulting in fewer systemic side effects. Herein, we study the HDAC class I-selective agent romidepsin, which we predict to have fewer off-target effects than panobinostat while maintaining an effective level of tumor radiosensitization. In vitro effects of romidepsin were assessed by clonogenic assay and showed that romidepsin was effective in the nanomolar range in different bladder cancer cells and radiosensitized these cells. The radiosensitizing effect of romidepsin was confirmed in vivo using superficial xenografts. The drug/irradiation combination treatment resulted in significant tumor growth delay but did not increase the severity of acute (3.75 days) intestinal normal tissue toxicity or late toxicity at 29 weeks. Moreover, we showed that romidepsin treatment impaired both homologous recombination and nonhomologous end joining DNA repair pathways, suggesting that the disruption of DNA repair pathways caused by romidepsin is a key mechanism for its radiosensitizing effect in bladder cancer cells. This study demonstrates that romidepsin is an effective radiosensitizer in vitro and in vivo and does not increase the acute and late toxicity after ionizing radiation. Romidepsin is already in clinical use for the cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, but a phase 1 clinical trial of romidepsin as a radiosensitizer could be considered in muscle-invasive bladder cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31987970
pii: S0360-3016(20)30074-2
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.01.015
pmc: PMC7181176
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Depsipeptides
0
Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors
0
Histones
0
Radiation-Sensitizing Agents
0
romidepsin
CX3T89XQBK
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
212-221Subventions
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C5255/A23755
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C15140/A19817
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2010 Jun;10(6):935-54
pubmed: 20553216
Mol Cancer Ther. 2018 Feb;17(2):381-392
pubmed: 28839000
Cancer Lett. 2015 Jan 28;356(2 Pt B):525-35
pubmed: 25305451
DNA Repair (Amst). 2011 Sep 5;10(9):970-7
pubmed: 21824827
Nat Rev Cancer. 2001 Dec;1(3):194-202
pubmed: 11902574
Mol Cell. 2012 Aug 24;47(4):497-510
pubmed: 22920291
Eur Urol. 2017 Jan;71(1):96-108
pubmed: 27370177
BMC Clin Pathol. 2014 Mar 13;14(1):10
pubmed: 24624923
Br J Cancer. 2013 Mar 5;108(4):748-54
pubmed: 23361058
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 May 1;62(1):223-9
pubmed: 15850925
Oncogene. 2012 Feb 2;31(5):537-51
pubmed: 21725353
Future Oncol. 2011 Nov;7(11):1335-46
pubmed: 22044206
Eur Urol. 2014 Jul;66(1):120-37
pubmed: 24613684
Eur Urol. 2017 Mar;71(3):462-475
pubmed: 27375033
N Engl J Med. 2012 Apr 19;366(16):1477-88
pubmed: 22512481
Amino Acids. 2004 Jul;26(4):435-41
pubmed: 15290351
J Cell Biochem. 2009 Jul 1;107(4):600-8
pubmed: 19459166
Adv Urol. 2012;2012:142135
pubmed: 22924038
Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Jul 1;18(13):3509-15
pubmed: 22535155
J Cell Mol Med. 2011 Dec;15(12):2735-44
pubmed: 21362133
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Feb 20;29(6):733-8
pubmed: 21205754
Cancer. 2019 Feb 15;125(4):533-540
pubmed: 30570744
BJU Int. 2013 Apr;111(4):537-42
pubmed: 23551441
Clin Epigenetics. 2018 Jul 31;10(1):100
pubmed: 30064501
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Mar 14;20(6):
pubmed: 30875794
Clin Cancer Res. 2005 Jul 1;11(13):4912-22
pubmed: 16000590
Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 Dec 1;44(21):10017-10030
pubmed: 27738139
Radiat Res. 2013 Feb;179(2):160-70
pubmed: 23259762
Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 Jul;40(13):5795-818
pubmed: 22467216
Cancer Res. 2017 Jun 1;77(11):3027-3039
pubmed: 28363998
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Sep 1;78(1):237-45
pubmed: 20646843
Clin Cancer Res. 2014 Nov 1;20(21):5435-45
pubmed: 25224279
Nat Chem Biol. 2010 Mar;6(3):238-243
pubmed: 20139990
Clin Epigenetics. 2010 Dec;1(3-4):117-136
pubmed: 21258646
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Nov 20;28(33):4912-8
pubmed: 20956620
Br J Cancer. 2008 Sep 2;99(5):689-94
pubmed: 18728657