Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31782583›Full record

ArticleCancer science2020

Phase I study of vorinostat with gefitinib in BIM deletion polymorphism/epidermal growth factor receptor mutation double-positive lung cancer.

Shinji Takeuchi, Tetsunari Hase, Shinobu Shimizu, Masahiko Ando, Akito Hata, Haruyasu Murakami, Takahiro Kawakami, Katsuhiko Nagase, Kenichi Yoshimura, Tadami Fujiwara and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Genes, fuel, and fate in lung cancer.Biochemical Society transactions · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Targeting the Epigenetic Landscape for Lung Cancer Treatment.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.

Shinji TakeuchiDivision of Medical Oncology, Cancer Research Institute, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan.
Tetsunari HaseDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.
Shinobu ShimizuDepartment of Advanced Medicine, Nagoya University Hospital, Nagoya, Japan.
Masahiko AndoDepartment of Advanced Medicine, Nagoya University Hospital, Nagoya, Japan.
Akito HataDivision of Integrated Oncology, Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation, Kobe, Japan.
Haruyasu MurakamiDivision of Thoracic Oncology, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2416-546X
Takahiro KawakamiInnovative Clinical Research Center (iCREK), Kanazawa University Hospital, Kanazawa, Japan.
Katsuhiko NagaseInnovative Clinical Research Center (iCREK), Kanazawa University Hospital, Kanazawa, Japan.
Kenichi YoshimuraInnovative Clinical Research Center (iCREK), Kanazawa University Hospital, Kanazawa, Japan.
Tadami FujiwaraDepartment of Advanced Medicine, Nagoya University Hospital, Nagoya, Japan.
Azusa TanimotoDivision of Medical Oncology, Cancer Research Institute, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan.
Akihiro NishiyamaDivision of Medical Oncology, Cancer Research Institute, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan.
Sachiko AraiDivision of Medical Oncology, Cancer Research Institute, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan.
Koji FukudaDivision of Medical Oncology, Cancer Research Institute, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8544-6244
Nobuyuki KatakamiDivision of Integrated Oncology, Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation, Kobe, Japan.
Toshiaki TakahashiDivision of Thoracic Oncology, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan.
Yoshinori HasegawaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.
Tun Kiat KoCancer and Stem Cell Biology Signature Research Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
S Tiong OngCancer and Stem Cell Biology Signature Research Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
Seiji YanoDivision of Medical Oncology, Cancer Research Institute, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6151-2988
Kanazawa University · JPKanazawa University Hospital · JPNagoya University Hospital · JPShizuoka Cancer Center · JPDuke-NUS Medical School · SGKobe Medical Center · JPNagoya University · JPNational Hospital Organization · JPSingapore General Hospital · SGTakarazuka City Hospital · JP

Funding

Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development 15Aak0101016h0003Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development 15Ack0106113h0002Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development 16ck0106207h0001Kanazawa University Hospital
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring BIM deletion polymorphism (BIM deletion) have poor responses to EGFR TKI. Mechanistically, the BIM deletion induces preferential splicing of the non-functional exon 3-containing isoform over the functional exon 4-containing isoform, impairing TKI-induced, BIM-dependent apoptosis. Histone deacetylase inhibitor, vorinostat, resensitizes BIM deletion-containing NSCLC cells to EGFR-TKI. In the present study, we determined the safety of vorinostat-gefitinib combination and evaluated pharmacodynamic biomarkers of vorinostat activity. Patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC with the BIM deletion, pretreated with EGFR-TKI and chemotherapy, were recruited. Vorinostat (200, 300, 400 mg) was given daily on days 1-7, and gefitinib 250 mg was given daily on days 1-14. Vorinostat doses were escalated based on a conventional 3 + 3 design. Pharmacodynamic markers were measured using PBMC collected at baseline and 4 hours after vorinostat dose on day 2 in cycle 1. No dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were observed in 12 patients. We determined 400 mg vorinostat as the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Median progression-free survival was 5.2 months (95% CI: 1.4-15.7). Disease control rate at 6 weeks was 83.3% (10/12). Vorinostat preferentially induced BIM mRNA-containing exon 4 over mRNA-containing exon 3, acetylated histone H3 protein, and proapoptotic BIM

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBcl-2-Like Protein 11Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungDrug Administration ScheduleErbB ReceptorsFemaleGefitinibHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedMutationSequence DeletionSurvival AnalysisTreatment OutcomeBCL2L11 protein, humanBcl-2-Like Protein 11EGFR protein, humanErbB ReceptorsGefitinibVorinostatBIM deletion polymorphismEGFR-TKINSCLCresistancevorinostat

Identifiers

PMID31782583
PMCPMC7004511
OpenAlexW2991159846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.