
==== Front
Oncologist
Oncologist
oncolo
The Oncologist
1083-7159
1549-490X
Oxford University Press US

38886159
10.1093/oncolo/oyae118
oyae118
Clinical Trial Results
AcademicSubjects/MED00010
Entinostat in patients with relapsed or refractory abdominal neuroendocrine tumors
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1171-065X
Jamison Jacob K Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States

Zhou Mengxi Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology Oncology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, United States

Gelmann Edward P University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, United States

Luk Lyndon Department of Radiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, United States

Bates Susan E Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology Oncology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, United States

Califano Andrea Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology Oncology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, United States
Department of Systems Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, United States
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, United States
Chan Zuckerberg Biohub New York, New York, NY, United States
Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, United States
Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, United States

Fojo Tito Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology Oncology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, United States

Corresponding author: Andrea Califano, Dr., Department of Systems Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA (ac2248@cumc.columbia.edu)
Corresponding author: Tito Fojo, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology Oncology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA (atf2116@cumc.columbia.edu)
Andrea Califano and Tito Fojo contributed equally.

9 2024
31 5 2024
31 5 2024
29 9 817e1213
07 4 2024
19 4 2024
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.
2024
The data published online to support this summary are the property of the authors. Please contact the authors about reuse rights of the original data.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are rare neoplasms with an increasing annual incidence and prevalence. Many are metastatic at presentation or recur following surgical resection and require systemic therapy, for which somatostatin analogs such as octreotide or lanreotide comprise typical first-line therapies. Nonetheless, treatment options remain limited. Epigenetic processes such as histone modifications have been implicated in malignant transformation and progression. In this study, we evaluated the anti-proliferative effects of a histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, entinostat, which was computationally predicted to show anti-cancer activity, as confirmed in in vitro and in vivo models of GEP-NETs.

Methods

This was a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of entinostat in patients with relapsed or refractory abdominal NETs. The primary objective was to estimate the objective response rate to entinostat. Additionally, with each patient as his/her own control we estimated the rates of tumor growth prior to enrollment on study and while receiving entinostat. Patients received 5 mg entinostat weekly until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The dose could be changed to 10 mg biweekly for patients who did not experience grade ≥ 2 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in cycle 1, but was primarily administered at the starting 5 mg weekly dose.

Results

The study enrolled only 5 patients due to early termination by the drug sponsor. The first patient that enrolled had advanced disease and died within days of enrollment before follow-up imaging due to a grade 5 AE unrelated to study treatment and was considered non-evaluable. Best RECIST response for the remaining 4 patients was stable disease (SD) with time on study of 154+, 243, 574, and 741 days. With each patient as his/her own control, rates of tumor growth on entinostat were markedly reduced with rates 17%, 20%, 33%, and 68% of the rates prior to enrollment on study. Toxicities possibly or definitely related to entinostat included grade 2/3 neutrophil count decrease [2/4 (50%)/ 2/4 (50%)], grade 3 hypophosphatemia [1/4, (25%)], grade 1/2 fatigue [1/4 (25%)/ 2/4 (50%)], and other self-limiting grade 1/2 AEs.

Conclusion

In the treatment of relapsed or refractory abdominal NETs, entinostat 5 mg weekly led to prolonged SD and reduced the rate of tumor growth by 32% to 83% with an acceptable safety profile (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03211988).

Treatment options for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are limited. This study evaluated the anti-proliferative effects of a HDAC inhibitor, entinostat, which has previously shown anti-cancer activity in in vitro and in vivo models of GEP-NETs.

neuroendocrine tumor
entinostat
GEP-NET
HDAC inhibitors
tumor growth rate
==== Body
pmcLessons learned

In patients with relapsed/refractory abdominal neuroendocrine tumors, the histone deacetylase inhibitor, entinostat, was well tolerated and reduced rates of tumor growth by 32%-80% with tumor doubling times of 297, 724, 1149, and 2214 days.

Conducted during the pandemic weekly administration as outpatients provided a convenient treatment platform.

A novel method of efficacy analysis that includes time in equations that estimate tumor growth rates allowed each patient to serve as his/her own control—valuable for small trials.

Discussion

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are derived from neuroendocrine cells and include a heterogenous group of rare neoplasms that often affect organs of the gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) tract.1 These tumors are somewhat unique due to the release of bioactive amines and peptides such as gastrin or insulin. Up to 27%1 of NETs present with metastatic disease, and up to 42%2 recur following surgical resection, such that systemic therapy is needed. Somatostatin analogs such as octreotide or lanreotide have shown significant prolongation of progression-free survival among patients with metastatic GEP-NETs and typically constitute first-line therapies.3

We studied the histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDAC) entinostat in patients with neuroendocrine tumors. The study was based on preclinical data demonstrating entinostat-mediated, in vivo inversion of master regulator protein activity signatures, as predicted by the VIPER-based OncoTreat algorithm.45 These effects are consistent with our understanding of HDAC inhibition allowing hyperacetylation, open chromatin and induction of genes that control cell growth and differentiation. Other lines of evidence suggesting particular sensitivity of neuroendocrine cancers to HDAC inhibitors have been gathered including both clinical and preclinical studies.6

The present study examining entinostat given as a 5 mg oral dose every week or 10 mg every other week in patients with relapsed or refractory abdominal NETs showed an acceptable safety profile with no dose-limiting toxicity. Side effects were consistent with those previously reported including fatigue, neutropenia, and hypophosphatemia (Table 1). All evaluable patients achieved best response of stable disease per RECIST, with 3 of 4 maintaining this response at study closure, resulting in a median progression-free survival of 381 + days. Use of a novel method of efficacy analysis that allowed each patient to serve as his/her own control demonstrated a reduction in the rate of tumor growth (ie, an increase in tumor doubling time) in all patients. Although the study was prematurely closed due to sponsor decision regarding entire drug development plan, these data support further investigation of HDAC inhibitors in this patient population.

Table 1. Adverse events.

Event	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	
Abdominal pain	1				
Anemia	1				
Anorexia	1				
Bloating	1				
Diarrhea	1				
Fatigue	1	2			
Fever	2				
Flu-like symptoms	1				
Nausea	3				
Night sweats	1				
Vomiting	1				
Neutrophil count decreased		2	2		
Platelet count decreased	1				
Hypophosphatemia			1		

Table 2. Summary data for patients.

	Patient 2	Patient 3	Patient 4	Patient 5	
Date of diagnosis	07/25/2017	05/19/2017	03/04/2019	12/31/2012	
Date of enrollment/C1D1	8/14/2019	8/13/2019	2/12/2020	10/27/2020	
Age at enrollment	66 years	59 years	77 years	82 years	
Primary tumor location	Small bowel (resected)	Pancreatic tail	Pancreatic body	Pancreatic tail (resected)	
Diagnosis method	Liver core biopsy	Liver core biopsy	Pancreas and liver EUS-guided core biopsies	Distal pancreatectomy	
Differentiation	Well differentiated	Poorly differentiated	Well differentiated	Well differentiated	
Ki67 Index	1%-2%	5%	4%	10%	
Prior treatment (duration)	Surgical resection of small bowel
Lanreotide (7 mo)	Lanreotide (2 yr)	Lanreotide (7 mo)
Octreotide (2 mo)	Distal pancreatectomy
Lanreotide (7 mo)
Octreotide (12 mo)	
Pre-enrollment gallium-DOTATATE avidity	Liver
Abdominal lymph nodes	Pancreatic tail
Liver
Portacaval and peripancreatic lymph nodes	Pancreatic body
Liver
Bone (left 3rd rib)	Liver
Peritoneum
Left adrenal gland vs lymph node	
Pre-enrollment chromogranin-A (ng/mL, months prior to enrollment)	92 (<1)	61 (<1)	171 (1)	210 (10)	
Time on study	24 months	18 months	8 months	5 months	
Best overall response per RECIST	−20%	0%	0%	−10%	

Trial Information

Disease	Relapsed or refractory abdominal neuroendocrine tumors	
Stage of disease/treatment	IV	
Prior therapy	≥1 prior regimen	
Type of study	Phase II	
Primary endpoint	Objective RECIST response based on patient’s best response that is documented during protocol therapy	
Secondary endpoints	Duration of response, overall survival, progression-free survival, and safety	

Additional details of endpoints or study design

Mathematical model

The model assumes that changes in tumor quantity during treatment result from two processes—exponential decay of the treatment-sensitive fraction of tumor at rate d, and exponential growth or re-growth of the resistant fraction at rate g (Figure 2). The data of most tumors can be fitted to 1 of 4 equations:

f(t)=exp(−d•t)+exp(g•t)−1 (1)

f(t)=exp(g•t) (2)

f(t)=exp(−d•t) (3)

f(t)=Φexp(−d•t)+(1−Φ)exp(g•t) (4)

where f(t) represents tumor burden at time t (in days), relative to a quantity of 1 for radiographic measurements at t = 0. g (in days−1) is the rate of growth and is related to tumor doubling time (Td) by the formula Td = 0.693/g, where 0.693 is the natural logarithm of 2. d (in days−1) is the rate of decay. φ is the treatment-sensitive fraction of tumor and (1–φ) is the fraction absolutely or relatively resistant to treatment.

The basic model gd is described in eqn (1). In cases where the data demonstrate only an increase in tumor burden from the beginning of therapy (ie, only g differs significantly from 0 with P < .1), d is eliminated, and tumor growth rate is estimated using the gx equation (eqn (2)). Similarly, in cases where the data demonstrate only a reduction in tumor burden from the beginning of therapy (ie, only d differs significantly from 0 with P < .1), g is eliminated, and tumor decay rate is estimated using the dx equation (eqn (3)). ϕ represents the proportion of tumor that is sensitive to therapy. In cases where the data allow the estimation of 3 parameters, ϕ can be estimated using the gdϕ equation (eqn (4)). Incorporation of time (t) in the equations renders the analysis indifferent to time (ie, intervals of assessment used by the study).

Drug Information

Generic/working name	Entinostat	
Company name	Syndax	
Drug type	Small molecule	
Drug class	HDAC inhibitor	
Dose	5 mg	
Unit	N/A	
Route	PO	
Schedule of administration	Once weekly	

Patient Characteristics

Number of patients, male	4	
Number of patients, female	1	
Stage	IV	
Age: median (range)	75 (59-82) years	
Number of prior systemic therapies: median (range)	1.5 (1-2)	
Performance status: ECOG	1: 4
2: 0
3: 0
4: 0
5: 0	
Cancer types or histologic subtypes	Small bowel NET, 2; pancreatic NET, 2	

Primary Assessment Method: Clinical Response

Number of patients screened	5	
Number of patients enrolled	5	
Number of patients evaluable for toxicity	4	
Number of patients evaluated for efficacy	4	
Evaluation method	RECIST 1.1	
Response assessment, SD	4 (100%)	
Median duration assessments, PFS	381 + days (232+, 253+, 510+, 754)	
Median duration assessments, OS	1,422 + days (1163+, 1240, 1603+, 1611+)	
Duration of treatment	409 days (154+, 243, 574, and 741)	
Outcome notes	With each patient as his/her own control, rates of tumor growth on entinostat were 20, 33, 54, and 68 percent of rates prior to enrollment on study, with tumor doubling times of 297, 724, 1149, and 2214 days (Figure 1)	

Figure 1. Tumor growth rates.

Assessment, Analysis, and Discussion

Completion	Study terminated prior to completion	
Investigator’s assessment	Active and should be pursued further	

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are derived from neuroendocrine cells and include a heterogenous group of rare neoplasms that often affect organs of the GEP tract.1 Associated symptoms depend on the location of disease and are caused by mass effect or release of biogenic amines and peptides.2 Multiple studies have reported an increase in the incidence and prevalence of NETs in the US, the largest of which used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Result registry to report a 6-fold age-adjusted incidence rate increase from 1.09 to 6.98 per 100 000 between 1973 and 2012.1 Up to 27%1 of NETs (and as many as 40%3 of GEP-NETs) present with metastatic disease, and up to 42%5 recur following surgical resection, thus many patients require systemic therapy during the course of their disease. Somatostatin analogs such as octreotide or lanreotide have shown significant prolongation of progression-free survival among patients with metastatic GEP-NETs and typically constitute first-line therapies.6,7

Among mechanisms implicated in cancer transformation and progression, epigenetic changes can alter gene expression without alteration of the DNA sequence.8 Multiple post-translational modifications on amino acid residues have been described affecting the 5ʹ region of histone proteins that form the octamer around which DNA is wrapped. One of the most widely studied is histone acetylation. According to the canonical mechanism, post-translational acetylation of lysine residues in histone “tails” impairs the electrostatic interaction between histones and DNA, leading to DNA relaxation and increased gene transcription. Two families of enzymes—the histone acetyltransferases (HATs) and histone deacetylases (HDACs)—modulate epigenetic histone acetylation.9 Alterations in the balance between HATs and HDACs can lead to changes in gene expression that in turn affect cell proliferation and survival and have made these enzymes attractive targets for cancer therapy.10

Entinostat, also known as MS275 or SNDX-275, is an orally available synthetic pyridylcarbamate HDAC inhibitor that has demonstrated antitumor efficacy in vitro and in vivo through multiple proposed mechanisms including activity as an HDAC inhibitor leading to hyperacetylation of nucleosomal histones. Treatment of cancer cell lines with entinostat at concentrations ranging from 0.0415 to 4.71 μM resulted in accumulation of hyperacetylated histones and an antiproliferative effect in a variety of models including leukemia (K562, HL-60), ovarian cancer (A2780), and colorectal cancer (HCT-15).11 Similar results have been found in vivo for a wide spectrum of cancer xenograft models including melanoma, prostate, breast, NSCLC, pancreas, colon, ovarian, gastric, head and neck, and glioblastoma.12 Entinostat has also been shown to modify the phenotype of breast cancer cells from a mesenchymal to an epithelial one, with a corresponding reduction in metastatic potential.13

Pre-clinical data suggest that compared to other HDAC inhibitors, entinostat may have greater efficacy in the treatment of GEP-NETs. For example, entinostat led to greater in vivo tumor growth inhibition (112%) when tested in the H-STS GEP-NET xenograft model compared to the pan-HDAC inhibitor belinostat (8%).4 A major difference between entinostat and other HDAC inhibitors is its pure class I HDAC activity. The lack of acetylation of proteins in the cytoplasm may mean that at therapeutic doses the drug has a mainly epigenetic effect. Consistent with this, entinostat’s efficacy was predicted based on its ability to inhibit the activity of master regulator proteins representing mechanistic determinants of the transcriptional state of GEP-NET liver metastasis cells.4 While we understand “epigenetic” to mean alteration in gene expression, other effects of histone hyperacetylation may also be invoked. There may also be an important role for histone hyperacetylation resulting in depletion of acetyl CoA thereby inducing metabolic vulnerability, and stress14 which may be in part the basis of synergy observed in combination with NAMPT inhibitors.15 Additionally, persistently open chromatin appears to lead to DNA damage with the formation of RNA-DNA hybrids during gene transcription.16

Support for entinostat as a safe and effective therapeutic approach includes the FDA approvals of other HDAC inhibitors in the treatment of T-cell lymphomas.17 It also includes data from the large randomized trial of entinostat and exemestane in breast cancer that, while not showing efficacy beyond exemestane alone, confirmed safety of the agent in 608 patients.18 Additionally, early phase studies of entinostat in solid tumors such as non-small cell lung cancer have demonstrated tolerability at doses up to 10 mg, with the most commonly reported adverse events (AEs) including fatigue and gastrointestinal disturbances.19 A phase I study with belinostat, cisplatin, and etoposide that focused on small cell lung cancer and neuroendocrine cancers showed an objective response in 7 of 15 (47%) patients, suggesting that the combination should be pursued further.20

The present study examining entinostat given as a 5 mg oral dose every week or 10 mg every other week in patients with relapsed or refractory abdominal NETs showed an acceptable safety profile with no dose-limiting toxicity. Grade 2/3 adverse events possibly or definitely related to entinostat were consistent with prior clinical studies of its use in solid tumors and included fatigue, neutropenia, and hypophosphatemia (Table 1).19,21 All evaluable patients achieved best response of stable disease per RECIST, with 3 of 4 maintaining this response at study closure, resulting in a median progression-free survival of 381 + days. Use of a novel method of efficacy analysis that allowed each patient to serve as his/her own control demonstrated a reduction in the rate of tumor growth (ie, an increase in tumor doubling time) in all patients and may serve as a valuable metric of drug activity for small trials (Figure 1). A best RECIST tumor response of −20% was achieved in a patient with a small bowel NET metastatic to the liver previously treated with surgical resection and 7 months of lanreotide (Table 2). Entinostat’s ability to achieve clinical activity in a cohort of pre-treated patients suggests that further study is warranted, particularly with regard to longer-term outcomes. Additionally, its oral route of intake provided a convenient treatment option for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, the sponsor deprioritized development of entinostat, and slow patient accrual during the pandemic made more sophisticated analyses impractical due to lack of statistical power. In summary, further study of entinostat and other HDAC inhibitors in treatment-refractory GEP-NETs is warranted.

Figure 2. Theory for regression and growth. 

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by NCI U54CA274506 (Center for Cancer Systems Therapeutics, CaST), NCI U54CA209997 (Cancer Systems Biology Consortium), the NCI Office of Cancer Target Discovery and Development (CTD2) awards U01CA272610 and U01CA217858, and the NIH Shared Instrumentation Grants S10 OD012351, S10 OD021764 and S10OD032433, all to Andrea Califano. Antonio Tito Fojo is the principal investigator.

Conflicts of interest

Andrea Califano is founder, equity holder, and consultant of DarwinHealth Inc., a company that has licensed some of the algorithms used in this manuscript from Columbia University. Columbia University is also an equity holder in DarwinHealth Inc. The other authors indicated no financial relationships.

Data availability

The data underlying this article cannot be shared publicly due to patient confidentiality. The data will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
==== Refs
References

1. Dasari A , ShenC, HalperinD, et al . Trends in the incidence, prevalence, and survival outcomes in patients with neuroendocrine tumors in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3 (10 ):1335-1342. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0589 28448665
2. Vinik AI , ChayaC. Clinical presentation and diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumors. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2016;30 (1 ):21-48. 10.1016/j.hoc.2015.08.006 26614367
3. Stiefel R , LehmannK, WinderT, SiebenhünerAR. What have we learnt from the past – would treatment decisions for GEP-NET patients differ between 2012 to 2016 by the new recommendations in 2022? BMC Cancer. 2023;23 (1 ):148. 10.1186/s12885-023-10567-1 36782152
4. Alvarez MJ , SubramaniamPS, TangLH, et al . A precision oncology approach to the pharmacological targeting of mechanistic dependencies in neuroendocrine tumors. Nat Genet. 2018;50 (7 ):979-989. 10.1038/s41588-018-0138-4 29915428
5. Chouliaras K , NewmanNA, ShuklaM, et al . Analysis of recurrence after the resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. J Surg Oncol. 2018;118 (3 ):416-421. 10.1002/jso.25146 30259518
6. Caplin ME , PavelM, ĆwikłaJB, et al ; CLARINET Investigators. Lanreotide in metastatic enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2014;371 (3 ):224-233. 10.1056/NEJMoa1316158 25014687
7. Rinke A , MüllerHH, Schade-BrittingerC, et al ; PROMID Study Group. Placebo-controlled, double-blind, prospective, randomized study on the effect of octreotide lar in the control of tumor growth in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine midgut tumors: a report from the PROMID Study group. JCO. 2009;27 (28 ):4656-4663. 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.8510
8. Bates SE. Epigenetic therapies for cancer. Longo DL, ed. N Engl J Med. 2020;383 (7 ):650-663. 10.1056/NEJMra1805035 32786190
9. Glozak MA , SetoE. Histone deacetylases and cancer. Oncogene. 2007;26 (37 ):5420-5432. 10.1038/sj.onc.1210610 17694083
10. Verdone L , AgricolaE, CasertaM, Di MauroE. Histone acetylation in gene regulation. Brief Funct Genomic Proteomic. 2006;5 (3 ):209-221. 10.1093/bfgp/ell028 16877467
11. Saito A , YamashitaT, MarikoY, et al . A synthetic inhibitor of histone deacetylase, MS-27-275, with marked in vivo antitumor activity against human tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96 (8 ):4592-4597. 10.1073/pnas.96.8.4592 10200307
12. Hess-Stumpp H. Histone deacetylase inhibitors and cancer: from cell biology to the clinic. Eur J Cell Biol. 2005;84 (2-3 ):109-121. 10.1016/j.ejcb.2004.12.010 15819394
13. Shah P , GauY, SabnisG. Histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat reverses epithelial to mesenchymal transition of breast cancer cells by reversing the repression of E-cadherin. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;143 (1 ):99-111. 10.1007/s10549-013-2784-7 24305977
14. Basseville A , VioletPC, SafariM, et al . A histone deacetylase inhibitor induces acetyl-CoA depletion leading to lethal metabolic stress in RAS-pathway activated cells. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14 (11 ):2643. 10.3390/cancers14112643 35681624
15. Safari M , ScottoL, LitmanT, et al . Novel therapeutic strategies exploiting the unique properties of neuroendocrine neoplasms. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15 (20 ):4960. 10.3390/cancers15204960 37894327
16. Safari M , LitmanT, RobeyRW, et al . R-Loop-Mediated ssDNA breaks accumulate following short-term exposure to the HDAC inhibitor romidepsin. Mol Cancer Res. 2021;19 (8 ):1361-1374. 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-20-0833 34050002
17. Zhang Q , WangS, ChenJ, YuZ. Histone Deacetylases (HDACs) guided novel therapies for t-cell lymphomas. Int J Med Sci. 2019;16 (3 ):424-442. 10.7150/ijms.30154 30911277
18. Connolly RM , ZhaoF, MillerKD, et al . E2112: Randomized phase III trial of endocrine therapy plus entinostat or placebo in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. A trial of the ECOG-ACRIN cancer research group. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39 (28 ):3171-3181. 10.1200/JCO.21.00944 34357781
19. Witta SE , JotteRM, KonduriK, et al . Randomized phase II trial of erlotinib with and without entinostat in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who progressed on prior chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30 (18 ):2248-2255. 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.9411 22508830
20. Balasubramaniam S , RedonCE, PeerCJ, et al . Phase I trial of belinostat with cisplatin and etoposide in advanced solid tumors, with a focus on neuroendocrine and small cell cancers of the lung. Anticancer Drugs. 2018;29 (5 ):457-465. 10.1097/CAD.0000000000000596 29420340
21. Xu B , ZhangQ, HuX, et al . Entinostat, a class I selective histone deacetylase inhibitor, plus exemestane for Chinese patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Acta Pharmaceut Sin B. 2023;13 (5 ):2250-2258. 10.1016/j.apsb.2023.02.001
