Vorinostat (SAHA), an inhibitor of class I and II of histone deacetylases, is the first histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDI) approved for the treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma in 2006. HDIs are promising anticancer agents that inhibit the proliferation of many types of cancer cells including breast carcinoma (BC). BC is a heterogeneous disease with variable biological behavior, morphological features, and response to therapy. Although significant progress in the treatment of BC has been made, high toxicity to normal cells, serious side effects, and the occurrence of multi-drug resistance limit the effective therapy of BC patients. Therefore, new active agents which improve the effectiveness of currently used regimens are highly needed. This manuscript analyzes preclinical and clinical trials data of SAHA, applied individually or in combination with other anticancer agents, considering different histological subtypes of BC.

Reversible Nε-lysine acetylation/deacetylation is one of the most common post-translational modifications (PTM) of histones and non-histone proteins that is regulated by histone acetyltransferases (HATs) and histone deacetylases (HDACs). This epigenetic process is highly involved in carcinogenesis, affecting histone and non-histone proteins’ properties and their biological functions. Some of the transcription factors, including tumor suppressors and oncoproteins, undergo this modification altering different cell signaling pathways. HDACs deacetylate their targets, which leads to either the upregulation or downregulation of proteins involved in the regulation of cell cycle and apoptosis, ultimately influencing tumor growth, invasion, and drug resistance. Therefore, epigenetic modifications are of great clinical importance and may constitute a new therapeutic target in cancer treatment. This review is aimed to present the significance of HDACs in carcinogenesis through their influence on functions of transcription factors, and therefore regulation of different signaling pathways, cancer progression, and metastasis.

Background: Inhibition of androgen receptor (AR) signaling is the main treatment strategy in advanced prostate cancer (PCa). A subset of castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) bypasses the AR blockade by increased fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) signaling. The first‐ and second‐generation, non‐covalent FGFR inhibitors (FGFRis) have largely failed in the clinical trials against PCa. Purpose: In this study, we tested the drug sensitivity of LNCaP, VCaP, and CWR‐R1PCa cell lines to second‐generation, covalent FGFRis (FIIN1, FIIN2) and a novel FGFR downstream molecule inhibitor (FRS2αi).Methods: 2D and 3D mono‐ and co‐cultures of cancer cells, and cancer‐associated fibroblasts (CAFs) were used to mimic tumor‐stroma interactions in the extracellular matrix (ECM). The treatment responses of the FGFR signaling molecules, the viability and proliferation of cancer cells, and CAFs were determined through immunoblotting, migration assay, cell viability assay, and real‐time imaging. Immunofluorescent and confocal microscopy images of control and treated cultures of cancer cells and CAFs, and their morphometric data were deduced.Results: The FGFRis were more effective in mono‐cultures of the cancer cells compared with co‐cultures with CAFs. The FRS2αi was specifically effective in co‐cultures with CAFs but was not cytotoxic to CAF mono‐cultures as in the case of FIIN1 and FIIN2. At the molecular level, FRS2αi decreased p‐FRS2α, p‐ERK1/2, and activated apoptosis as monitored by cleaved caspase‐3 activity in a concentration‐dependent manner in the co‐cultures. We observed no synergistic drug efficacy in the combination treatment of the FGFRi with ARi, enzalutamide, and darolutamide. The FRS2αi treatment led to a decrease in proliferation of cancer cell clusters in co‐cultures as indicated by their reduced size and Ki67 expression.Conclusions: CAFs exert a protective effect on cancer cells and should be included in the in vitro models to make them physiologically more relevant in screening and testing of FGFRis. The FRS2αi was the most potent agent in reducing the viability and proliferation of the 3D organotypic co‐cultures, mainly by disrupting the contact between CAFs and cancer cell clusters. The next‐generation FGFRi, FRS2αi, may be a better alternative treatment option for overcoming ARi treatment resistance in advanced PCa.

Fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFRs) 1–4 are involved in prostate cancer (PCa) regulation, but the role of FGFR-like 1 (FGFRL1) in PCa is unclear. FGFRL1 expression was studied by qRT-PCR and immunohistochemistry of patient tissue microarrays (TMAs) and correlated with clinical patient data. The effects of FGFRL1 knockdown (KD) in PC3M were studied in in vitro culture models and in mouse xenograft tumors. Our results showed that FGFRL1 was significantly upregulated in PCa. The level of membranous FGFRL1 was negatively associated with high Gleason scores (GSs) and Ki67, while increased cytoplasmic and nuclear FGFRL1 showed a positive correlation. Cox regression analysis indicated that nuclear FGFRL1 was an independent prognostic marker for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Functional studies indicated that FGFRL1-KD in PC3M cells increases FGFR signaling, whereas FGFRL1 overexpression attenuates it, supporting decoy receptor actions of membrane-localized FGFRL1. In accordance with clinical data, FGFRL1-KD markedly suppressed PC3M xenograft growth. Transcriptomics of FGFRL1-KD cells and xenografts revealed major changes in genes regulating differentiation, ECM turnover, and tumor–stromal interactions associated with decreased growth in FGFRL1-KD xenografts. Our results suggest that FGFRL1 upregulation and altered cellular compartmentalization contribute to PCa progression. The nuclear FGFRL1 could serve as a prognostic marker for PCa patients.

The cover image is based on the article Targeting the cancer cells and cancer‐associated fibroblasts with next‐generation FGFR inhibitors in prostate cancer co‐culture models by Syeda Afshan et al., https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.70240.