Abstract
Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is the most prevalent soft tissue sarcoma in children, and despite advances in multimodal therapy, progress in improving the survival of high-risk patients has been limited. Increasing evidence indicates that epigenetic dysregulation contributes to RMS pathogenesis and therapeutic resistance, particularly through aberrant activity of histone deacetylases (HDACs). HDAC inhibitors (HDACi) have shown promise in preclinical RMS models, showing enhancing of the efficacy of standard chemotherapies and radiotherapy. This mini-review summarizes recent studies exploring HDAC inhibition in combination with first-line therapies, examines the mechanistic basis for therapeutic synergy, and discusses opportunities and challenges in translating HDACi-based combinations to the clinic. By integrating mechanistic insights with translational evidence, this review outlines current progress and proposes future directions for development of HDACi-enhanced treatment strategies for this aggressive pediatric malignancy.
1 Epigenetic dysregulation and HDAC biology in rhabdomyosarcoma
Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) pathogenesis involves profound alterations in the epigenetic landscape, which sustain proliferative, metastatic, and stem-like phenotypes in both fusion-positive (FP-RMS) and fusion-negative (FN-RMS) subtypes (Gryder et al., 2017; 2019b; 2019a; 2020; Yohe et al., 2018; Marques et al., 2020; Laubscher et al., 2021; Pomella et al., 2021; 2023a; 2023b; Stanton and Pomella, 2024; Ferraro et al., 2025). Histone deacetylases (HDACs), which remove acetyl groups from histone and non-histone proteins, play a central role in shaping chromatin accessibility and transcriptional output (Seto and Yoshida, 2014). The HDAC family comprises 18 enzymes grouped into zinc-dependent Class I, II, and IV HDACs, and the NAD+-dependent Class III sirtuins (Seto and Yoshida, 2014; Park and Kim, 2020). RMS cells exhibit an imbalance between acetylation and deacetylation dynamics, a hallmark of epigenetic deregulation linked to impaired differentiation and sustained oncogenic transcription (Vleeshouwer-Neumann et al., 2015; Phelps et al., 2016; Gryder et al., 2019a; 2019b). While multiple HDAC isoforms are expressed in RMS, converging evidence indicates that Class I HDACs, particularly HDAC1, HDAC2, and HDAC3, are critical for maintaining the malignant state.
Indeed, Class I HDACs are highly expressed in RMS and play a central role in sustaining the malignant phenotype by coordinating cell-cycle regulation, proliferation, and survival of tumor cells (Gryder et al., 2019b). Their oncogenic impact is largely mediated through repression of tumor-suppressor genes and lineage-specific differentiation programs, together with stabilization of transcriptional states that prevent terminal myogenic differentiation (Phelps et al., 2016). Importantly, the overexpression of HDAC1, HDAC2, and HDAC3 observed in RMS is not driven by recurrent genetic alterations but rather reflects transcriptional and epigenetic reinforcement within oncogenic regulatory circuits, underscoring their role as epigenetic dependencies rather than mutational drivers (Gryder et al., 2019a; 2019b).
In FP-RMS, HDAC activity is tightly integrated into the core regulatory transcriptional networks that define tumor identity. Genome-wide chromatin analyses have demonstrated that HDACs are enriched at super-enhancer regions controlling RMS-specific oncogenic programs, where they cooperate with master transcription factors to sustain high-level, fusion-driven transcription (Gryder et al., 2019a; 2019b). HDACs directly participate in the regulation of the oncogenic fusion protein PAX3-FOXO1 (P3F), co-occupying super-enhancer regions and sustaining fusion-driven transcription (Gryder et al., 2019a; 2019b). Among Class I enzymes, HDAC3 plays a particularly prominent role in FP- and FN-RMS biology. HDAC3 is markedly overexpressed in RMS tissues compared to normal skeletal muscle and was identified as the principal HDAC restricting myogenic differentiation in a high-efficiency CRISPR-based phenotypic screen targeting Class I and II HDAC genes (Phelps et al., 2016). Mechanistically, HDAC3 functions through stable association with nuclear receptor corepressor 1 (NCOR1) and nuclear receptor corepressor 2 (NCOR2), forming the catalytically active NCOR/HDAC3 complex. This complex directly interacts with MYOD1 at regulatory regions of myogenic target genes, suppressing MYOD1-dependent transcriptional activation and thereby preventing execution of the myogenic differentiation program (Phelps et al., 2016). Consistently, genetic silencing of HDAC3 enhances H3K9 acetylation at MYOD1-bound enhancers and promoters, leading to chromatin relaxation, reactivation of myogenic gene expression, and induction of differentiation in RMS cells (Phelps et al., 2016). Beyond differentiation control, HDAC3 also contributes to the maintenance of oncogenic transcriptional programs in RMS. In FP-RMS, pharmacological or genetic inhibition of HDAC3 reduces P3F protein abundance through a regulatory cascade involving SMARCA4 downregulation, miR-27a upregulation, and subsequent destabilization of P3F mRNA (Bharathy et al., 2018). More broadly, Class I HDACs are recruited to RMS-specific regulatory regions through interactions with oncogenic and lineage-associated transcription factors, including P3F and MYOD1, as well as components of chromatin remodeling complexes such as NuRD, thereby integrating oncogenic signaling with stable epigenetic repression (Gryder et al., 2019a; 2019b; Marques et al., 2020). Post-translational regulation and signaling pathways active in RMS could further modulate HDAC stability and catalytic activity, contributing to persistent repression of differentiation-associated loci and reinforcement of transcriptional rigidity (Li and Seto, 2016).
Collectively, these regulatory layers position Class I HDACs as central nodes linking oncogenic transcription, differentiation blockade, and epigenetic stability in RMS, providing a strong biological rationale for therapeutic strategies aimed at disrupting HDAC-dependent transcriptional and chromatin regulatory networks. In this mini review, we explore the biological rationale and therapeutic potential of integrating HDAC inhibitors (HDACi) with standard first-line treatments for RMS.
2 HDAC inhibition in RMS: mechanistic insights and preclinical evidence
HDACi have been extensively tested in RMS models (Selim et al., 2023). Both pan-HDACi, such as Vorinostat (SAHA), Trichostatin A (TSA), OPB-801, and Belinostat (PXD-101), and selective Class I inhibitors such as Romidepsin (FK228) and Entinostat (MS-275, ENT), show antitumor activity, although FP-RMS generally displays stronger responses to HDACi, likely due to its dependency on fusion-driven transcription.
In both the RMS subtype, HDACi exert direct cytotoxic and cytostatic effects through coordinated modulation of oxidative stress, cell-cycle regulation, differentiation, and genome integrity. Across RMS subtypes, HDACi promote apoptosis by increasing intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS), activating both intrinsic and extrinsic caspase cascades, and inducing PARP cleavage (Kutko et al., 2003; Hedrick et al., 2015; Selim et al., 2023). Elevated oxidative stress appears to be a key mediator of cytotoxicity, as antioxidant treatment reverses apoptotic effects (Chen et al., 2013; Hedrick et al., 2015; Kasiappan et al., 2019). Beyond apoptosis, HDACi exert cytostatic effects in RMS, most notably through p21-dependent cell-cycle arrest (Tarnowski et al., 2019). Intriguingly, several HDACi, including TSA, also induce myogenic differentiation, supporting their dual cytotoxic and pro-differentiation potential (Vleeshouwer-Neumann et al., 2015; Tarnowski et al., 2019).
A growing body of preclinical evidence indicates that HDACi also interfere with DNA damage response pathways and potentiate genomic instability. (Blattmann et al., 2010; Marampon et al., 2019; Cassandri et al., 2021; Rossetti et al., 2021).
Rather than representing independent phenomena, these effects can be integrated into a working mechanistic hypothesis that may account for the chemosensitizing and radiosensitizing properties of HDACi. In this proposed model, HDAC inhibition triggers a dual-hit response. First, HDACi impair DNA damage repair capacity by downregulating key components of homologous recombination (HR) and non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) repair pathways. Second, HDACi induce intracellular ROS accumulation, generating additional DNA lesions. The concomitant rise in genomic damage and suppression of repair mechanisms is hypothesized to overwhelm cellular stress responses, lower the apoptotic threshold, and ultimately enhance sensitivity to DNA-damaging agents and ionizing radiation. In parallel, HDACi-induced chromatin relaxation and transcriptional reprogramming may relieve repression of myogenic gene networks, promoting partial differentiation. While differentiation alone is insufficient for tumor eradication, it contributes to reduced transcriptional plasticity and cooperates with DNA damage–associated stress to limit tumor cell survival.
These mechanistic insights provide a compelling rationale for integrating HDACi into standard RMS treatment regimens, where their complementary actions can not only enhance therapeutic efficacy but also help overcome intrinsic and acquired resistance.
3 Combining HDACi with standard therapies in RMS
Current RMS treatment relies on a multimodal approach, encompassing surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Despite these advances, survival rates remain unsatisfactory for patients with metastatic or high-risk disease, largely due to the development of chemoresistance (Chen et al., 2019). These challenges underscore the urgent need for more targeted therapeutic strategies that can minimize treatment-related toxicity while improving long-term outcomes.
3.1 HDACi and chemotherapy
Standard chemotherapy regimens, including Vincristine/Actinomycin-D/Cyclophosphamide (VAC) and Ifosfamide/Vincristine/Actinomycin-D (IVA), typically administered over several months in multiple cycles, remain the backbone of RMS treatment but their therapeutic effect is limited by toxicity and the development of chemoresistance (Chen et al., 2019; Zarrabi et al., 2023). Recently, HDACi have emerged as promising chemosensitizers capable of targeting pathways involved in DNA repair, apoptosis, and transcriptional maintenance.
One of the earliest studies demonstrating synergy showed that SAHA and Doxorubicin cooperatively decrease viability and increase apoptosis in FN-RMS cells, with enhanced accumulation of cells in the sub-G1 phase (Dumont et al., 2014). A subsequent study confirmed that SAHA potentiates the cytotoxicity of multiple chemotherapeutic agents, including Doxorubicin, Etoposide, Vincristine, and Cyclophosphamide. The combination with Doxorubicin was particularly effective, promoting caspase activation, downregulation of the anti-apoptotic protein Mcl-1, and increased activity of Bax and Bak, ultimately reducing colony formation in both FP- and FN-RMS cell lines (Heinicke and Fulda, 2014).
TSA has also been shown to potentiate VAC chemotherapy. By promoting terminal differentiation and enhancing drug-induced cytotoxicity, TSA may allow dose reductions without compromising therapeutic benefit (Tarnowski et al., 2019).
The Class I inhibitor ENT has generated significant interest due to its ability to reduce P3F expression. In orthotopic FP-RMS models, ENT combined with Vincristine delays tumor growth more effectively than either agent alone and demonstrates similar efficacy in patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models carrying P3F or PAX7-FOXO1 rearrangements (Bharathy et al., 2018). ENT in combination with Vincristine also reduces tumor volume and induces differentiation in FN-RMS allograft models, although PDX studies remain less conclusive due to hypersensitivity to Vincristine in some models (Bharathy et al., 2019). Furthermore, in an orthotopic allograft model of RMS treated with the chemotherapeutic agent Actinomycin D, the addition of ENT significantly delayed tumor growth compared to treatment with either agent alone or vehicle control, reinforcing its potential to enhance the efficacy of standard chemotherapy (Abraham et al., 2014).
Despite these encouraging findings, not all studies report consistent synergy between HDACi and several chemotherapeutic agents, yielding beneficial outcomes. Notably, antagonistic interactions have been reported between ENT and Vincristine in the RH18 model (FN-RMS) (Kurmasheva et al., 2019). A plausible mechanistic explanation lies in the ability of HDACi to induce p21-dependent cell-cycle arrest, which may reduce the efficacy of phase-specific agents such as vincristine that require active mitosis for maximal cytotoxicity.
These discrepancies underline the importance of optimizing dose, schedule, and RMS subtype selection. They also highlight that HDAC inhibition may protect tumor cells from selected chemotherapies under certain conditions, emphasizing the need for rational, mechanism-driven design of combination regimens rather than empirical pairing. A more recent study evaluating ENT in FP- and FN-RMS PDXs treated with chemotherapy agents employed in the relapse setting (i.e., Vinorelbine, Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Topotecan) showed that synergy is largely restricted to FP-RMS models, further highlighting subtype-specific responses (Chauhan et al., 2024). Table 1 provides a summary of the HDACi, their concentrations, the chemotherapeutic agents used in combination, and the RMS models utilized in the experimental procedures of the studies discussed in this review.
TABLE 1
| HDACi | Class | HDACi dose | Combination agent | Combination dose | In vitro model | In vivo model | Refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SAHA | pan | 0.25–1 µM | Doxorubicin | 0.025–1 µM | RD18 (FN) | NA | Dumont et al. (2014) |
| SAHA | pan | 1–2 µM | Doxorubicin | 0.05–0.25 μg/mL | RH30 (FP); RD (FN) | NA | Heinicke and Fulda (2014) |
| Etoposide | 5–30 μg/mL | ||||||
| VCR | 0.5–1.5 nM | ||||||
| Cyclophosphamide | 3–8 µM | ||||||
| ENT | Class I | 10 mg/kg | Actinomycin D | 0.25 mg/kg | NA | U23674 FP-orthotopic allograft | Abraham et al. (2014) |
| ENT | Class I | 5 mg/kg | VCR | 1 mg/kg | NA | FP-orthotopic allograft; FP-PDX | Bharathy et al. (2018) |
| ENT | Class I | 5 mg/kg | VCR | 1 mg/kg | NA | FN-orthotopic allograft | Bharathy et al. (2019) |
| TSA | pan | 0.5 µM | VCR | 0-1000 pg | RH30 (FP); RD (FN) | NA | Tarnowski et al. (2019) |
| Actinomycin D | 0-0.1 µM | ||||||
| Cyclophosphamide | 0-1.1 µM | ||||||
| ENT | Class I | 0.1 mL/10 g | VCR | 1 mg/kg | NA | FP- xenografts (RH10, RH41, RH65); FN- xenograft (RH18, RH36) | Kurmasheva et al. (2019) |
| Cyclophosphamide | 150 mg/kg | ||||||
| Doxorubicin | 0.275 mg/kg | ||||||
| ENT | Class I | 4 mg/kg | Vinorelbine | 4 mg/kg | NA | FP- and FN-PDX | Chauhan et al. (2024) |
| Cyclophosphamide | 50 mg/kg | ||||||
| Doxorubicin | 2.5 mg/kg | ||||||
| Topotecan | 0.15 mg/kg |
Table summarizing HDACi tested in combination with chemotherapy agents. Doses and in vitro and in vivo RMS models have been reported.
Abbreviations: HDACi, HDAC inhibitors; SAHA, Vorinostat; ENT, Entinostat; VCR, Vincristine; FP, fusion positive RMS; FN, fusion negative RMS; PDX, patient-derived xenograft; NA, not available.
Taken together, these data illustrate the potential for HDACi to enhance chemotherapy efficacy but also underscore the need for meticulous preclinical modeling to define the conditions under which such combinations are most effective.
3.2 HDACi and radiotherapy
Radiotherapy plays a fundamental role in achieving local tumor control in RMS, yet its use is limited by significant long-term toxicity, particularly in pediatric patients. Radiosensitization strategies that selectively enhance tumor cell response to irradiation while sparing healthy tissue are therefore of substantial clinical interest. HDACi represent promising candidates due to their ability to impair DNA damage repair pathways, particularly those involved in resolving double-strand breaks (Groselj et al., 2013).
Several HDACi have demonstrated radiosensitizing potential in RMS models. Indeed, as single agent, SAHA, ENT, Belinostat and Romidepsin have been shown to increase ROS production, the accumulation of DNA double-strand breaks, as measured by elevated γH2AX foci (known marker of DNA damage), and to impair the expression or function of key repair proteins including RAD51 and Ku70/Ku80, suggesting compromised HR and NHEJ repair pathways. SAHA was among the first HDACi tested in this context: pretreatment decreases clonogenic survival after irradiation and increases G2/M arrest in FN-RMS cells (Blattmann et al., 2010). Additionally, SAHA reduces RAD51 and Ku80 expression after irradiation, indicating impaired activation of homologous recombination and non-homologous end joining. Interestingly, radiosensitization occurred without significant induction of apoptosis, suggesting that defects in DNA repair rather than increased cell death underlie its activity (Blattmann et al., 2010).
Similarly, Belinostat exhibits potent radiosensitizing effects in both FP- and FN-RMS. In vitro, it promotes G2/M cell-cycle arrest, increases ROS accumulation, and suppresses c-Myc expression. These effects impair the resolution of radiation-induced DNA damage, leading to enhanced cytotoxicity. Furthermore, in vivo studies demonstrate significant reductions in tumor volume and weight when Belinostat is combined with radiotherapy compared to radiotherapy alone (Marampon et al., 2019).
Romidepsin, despite limited antiproliferative activity as a single agent, increases ROS and induces DNA damage selectively in FP-RMS models, resulting in marked radiosensitization in vitro and in vivo (Rossetti et al., 2021). These results suggest subtype-specific enhancement of radiosensitivity mechanisms and identify FP-RMS as a particularly promising context for Class I HDAC inhibition.
ENT also enhances RMS radiosensitivity by reducing Cyclin A/B/D1 expression, increasing p21, promoting γH2AX accumulation, reducing ATM activation, and increasing ROS levels (Cassandri et al., 2021). ENT completely prevents tumor formation in FP-RMS xenograft models when combined with radiotherapy and substantially slows tumor progression in FN-RMS models (Cassandri et al., 2021). A subsequent work demonstrated that HDAC3 is a key mediator of radioresistance in FP-RMS. Indeed, HDAC3 silencing increases ionizing radiation-induced DNA damage, decreases RAD51 expression and ATM phosphorylation, and triggers apoptosis following irradiation. These findings were recapitulated using a selective HDAC3i, MC4448, which represents a step toward translational development of isoform-specific radiosensitizers (Cassandri et al., 2024). Table 2 summarizes the studies discussed in this review in which HDACi were used in combination with radiotherapy, including the experimental models and drug concentrations employed.
TABLE 2
| HDACi | Class | In vitro dose | In vivo dose | IR dose | In vitro model | In vivo model | Refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SAHA | pan | 0-1 µM | NA | 6 Gy | A-204, RD (FN) | NA | Blattmann et al. (2010) |
| Belinostat | pan | 0.41 µM (RD); 0.23 µM (RH30) | 40 mg/kg | 4 Gy in vitro,12 Gy in vivo (2 Gy × 6 days) | RD (FN) and RH30 (FP) | FP- and FN-xenograft (RD, RH30) | Marampon et al. (2019) |
| Romidepsin | Class I | 1.4 nM (RD); 0.6 nM (RH30) | 1.2 mg/kg | 4 Gy in vitro, 10 Gy in vivo (2 Gy × 5 days) | RD (FN) and RH30 (FP) | FP-xenograft (RH30) | Rossetti et al. (2021) |
| ENT | Class I | 1 µM (RD); 1.9 µM (RH30) | 2.5 mg/kg | 4 Gy in vitro, 6 Gy in vivo (2 Gy × 3 days) | RD (FN) and RH30 (FP) | FP-xenograft (RH30) | Cassandri et al. (2021) |
| MC4448 | HDAC3 selective | 40 nM (RH30); 58 nM (RH4) | NA | 6 Gy | RH4, RH30 (FP) | NA | Cassandri et al. (2024) |
Table summarizing HDACi tested in combination with IR. Doses and in vitro and in vivo RMS models have been reported.
Abbreviations: HDACi, HDAC inhibitors; IR, ionizing radiation; SAHA, Vorinostat; ENT, Entinostat; FP, fusion positive RMS; FN, fusion negative RMS; Gy, Gray; NA, not available.
Together, these studies highlight HDAC inhibition as an attractive strategy to increase radiosensitivity in RMS, particularly in FP-RMS where standard treatments often fail to achieve adequate local control.
4 Conclusion and translational perspectives
HDACi have already entered testing in combination with both chemotherapy and radiotherapy in phase I-II clinical trials across a range of solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, underscoring the translational potential of the strategies outlined above (Sullivan et al., 2022). Early-phase trials have evaluated or are evaluating combinations of HDACi with radiotherapy, including studies of vorinostat or valproic acid administered concurrently with radiation in glioma, pancreatic cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and other solid tumors to assess safety, tolerability, and radiosensitization effects (NCT00838929; NCT00313664).
Likewise, HDACi have been combined with chemotherapeutic regimens in clinical settings. Early phase I/II studies have tested Vorinostat or Abexinostat in combination with DNA-damaging agents including Doxorubicin or with multi-agent chemotherapy backbones for adult advanced sarcoma [NCT01027910 (Choy et al., 2015)].
Collectively, these clinical efforts reinforce the translational rationale that HDACi can modulate therapeutic response and resistance mechanisms to enhance the efficacy and potentially reduce the toxicity of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Such data from ongoing and completed trials in other cancer types offer a valuable framework for designing RMS-specific combination studies.
The collective body of preclinical evidence in this mini review strongly supports the integration of HDACi into RMS treatment strategies. HDAC deregulation contributes to RMS pathogenesis by sustaining oncogenic transcriptional programs, impairing differentiation, and promoting survival pathways. HDAC inhibition disrupts these processes and enhances the efficacy of both chemotherapy and radiotherapy through increased ROS production, impaired DNA damage repair, reinforced apoptotic programs, and modulation of cell-cycle dynamics.
From a translational perspective, emerging data suggest that FP-RMS represent the subtype most likely to benefit from HDACi-based combinations possibly due to its dependence on P3F-driven transcriptional circuits, which correlate with sensitivity to HDAC inhibition (Gryder et al., 2019b; 2019a). Moreover, FP-RMS cells exhibit a selective dependency on Class I HDACs, particularly HDAC3, and targeting HDAC3 enhances DNA damage accumulation and sensitizes cells to chemotherapy and radiotherapy (Bharathy et al., 2019; Gryder et al., 2019b; 2019a; Cassandri et al., 2024). Moreover, the development of more selective HDACi, including HDAC3-specific compounds may offer a path to reduce chemotherapy or radiation dose intensity, thus minimizing long-term toxicity in pediatric patients while preserving or even enhancing antitumor efficacy.
Translation to the clinic will require rigorous optimization of dosing schedules, clarification of subtype-specific sensitivities, and the identification of predictive biomarkers. Indeed, despite preclinical insights, no defined expression threshold or clinically validated molecular signature exists to predict response to HDACi in RMS. Studies in other tumor types suggest potential predictive biomarkers, including RAD23 homolog B (HR23B) expression in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and HDACi-related transcriptional signatures in preclinical models, though none are yet clinically validated (Treppendahl et al., 2014). Prospective studies integrating molecular profiling, such as P3F expression levels, HDAC3 dependency, or ROS- and DNA-damage related molecular signatures, with pharmacologic response will be essential to validate such biomarkers and enable patient stratification in future HDACi-based trials.
Overall, HDACi hold significant potential to improve the therapeutic landscape of RMS. By bridging mechanistic insights with translational research, future studies may refine HDACi-based combination strategies and bring forward more effective, less toxic treatments for children with this challenging disease.
Statements
Author contributions
EM: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. MA: Writing – review and editing. FL: Writing – review and editing. FM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. SP: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Finalizzata GR-2021-12374415 to SP.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author FL declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Abbreviations
RMS, rhabdomyosarcoma; FP-RMS, Fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma; FN-RMS, Fusion-negative rhabdomyosarcoma; HDAC, Histone deacetylase; HDACi, Histone deacetylase inhibitor; IR, Ionizing radiation; ROS, Reactive oxygen species; P3F, PAX3–FOXO1; VCR, Vincristine, VAC, Vincristine–actinomycin D-cyclophosphamide; PDX, Patient-derived xenograft; ATM, Ataxia-telangiectasia mutated; γH2AX, Phosphorylated H2AX; ENT, Entinostat; TSA, Trichostatin A; SAHA, Vorinostat.
References
1
Abraham J. Nuñez-Álvarez Y. Hettmer S. Carrió E. Chen H.-I. H. Nishijo K. et al (2014). Lineage of origin in rhabdomyosarcoma informs pharmacological response. Genes. Dev.28, 1578–1591. 10.1101/gad.238733.114
2
Bharathy N. Berlow N. E. Wang E. Abraham J. Settelmeyer T. P. Hooper J. E. et al (2018). The HDAC3–SMARCA4–miR-27a axis promotes expression of the PAX3:FOXO1 fusion oncogene in rhabdomyosarcoma. Sci. Signal.11. 10.1126/scisignal.aau7632
3
Bharathy N. Berlow N. E. Wang E. Abraham J. Settelmeyer T. P. Hooper J. E. et al (2019). Preclinical rationale for entinostat in embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma. Skelet. Muscle9, 12. 10.1186/s13395-019-0198-x
4
Blattmann C. Oertel S. Ehemann V. Thiemann M. Huber P. E. Bischof M. et al (2010). Enhancement of radiation response in osteosarcoma and rhabomyosarcoma cell lines by histone deacetylase inhibition. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys.78, 237–245. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.03.010
5
Cassandri M. Pomella S. Rossetti A. Petragnano F. Milazzo L. Vulcano F. et al (2021). MS-275 (Entinostat) promotes radio-sensitivity in PAX3-FOXO1 rhabdomyosarcoma cells. Int. J. Mol. Sci.22, 10671. 10.3390/ijms221910671
6
Cassandri M. Porrazzo A. Pomella S. Noce B. Zwergel C. Aiello F. A. et al (2024). HDAC3 genetic and pharmacologic inhibition radiosensitizes fusion positive rhabdomyosarcoma by promoting DNA double-strand breaks. Cell. Death Discov.10, 351. 10.1038/s41420-024-02115-y
7
Chauhan S. Lian E. Habib I. Liu Q. Anders N. M. Bugg M. M. et al (2024). Entinostat as a combinatorial therapeutic for rhabdomyosarcoma. Sci. Rep.14, 18936. 10.1038/s41598-024-66545-5
8
Chen X. Stewart E. Shelat A. A. Qu C. Bahrami A. Hatley M. et al (2013). Targeting oxidative stress in embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma. Cancer Cell.24, 710–724. 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.11.002
9
Chen C. Dorado Garcia H. Scheer M. Henssen A. G. (2019). Current and future treatment strategies for rhabdomyosarcoma. Front. Oncol.9, 1458. 10.3389/fonc.2019.01458
10
Choy E. Flamand Y. Balasubramanian S. Butrynski J. E. Harmon D. C. George S. et al (2015). Phase 1 study of oral abexinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, in combination with doxorubicin in patients with metastatic sarcoma. Cancer121, 1223–1230. 10.1002/cncr.29175
11
Dumont S. N. Yang D. Dumont A. G. Reynoso D. Blay J.-Y. Trent J. C. (2014). Targeted polytherapy in small cell sarcoma and its association with doxorubicin. Mol. Oncol.8, 1458–1468. 10.1016/j.molonc.2014.05.016
12
Ferraro E. Macrì E. Zwergel C. Lambona C. Barillari G. Marchese C. et al (2025). Inhibition of bromodomain and extra-terminal motif (BET) proteins in pediatric sarcoma: a systematic review of in vitro and in vivo studies. Drug Discov. Today30, 104516. 10.1016/j.drudis.2025.104516
13
Groselj B. Sharma N. L. Hamdy F. C. Kerr M. Kiltie A. E. (2013). Histone deacetylase inhibitors as radiosensitisers: effects on DNA damage signalling and repair. Br. J. Cancer108, 748–754. 10.1038/bjc.2013.21
14
Gryder B. E. Yohe M. E. Chou H.-C. Zhang X. Marques J. Wachtel M. et al (2017). PAX3–FOXO1 establishes myogenic super enhancers and confers BET bromodomain vulnerability. Cancer Discov.7, 884–899. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-1297
15
Gryder B. E. Pomella S. Sayers C. Wu X. S. Song Y. Chiarella A. M. et al (2019a). Histone hyperacetylation disrupts core gene regulatory architecture in rhabdomyosarcoma. Nat. Genet.51, 1714–1722. 10.1038/s41588-019-0534-4
16
Gryder B. E. Wu L. Woldemichael G. M. Pomella S. Quinn T. R. Park P. M. C. et al (2019b). Chemical genomics reveals histone deacetylases are required for core regulatory transcription. Nat. Commun.10, 3004. 10.1038/s41467-019-11046-7
17
Gryder B. E. Wachtel M. Chang K. El Demerdash O. Aboreden N. G. Mohammed W. et al (2020). Miswired enhancer logic drives a cancer of the muscle lineage. iScience23, 101103. 10.1016/j.isci.2020.101103
18
Hedrick E. Crose L. Linardic C. M. Safe S. (2015). Histone deacetylase inhibitors inhibit rhabdomyosarcoma by reactive oxygen species–dependent targeting of specificity protein transcription factors. Mol. Cancer Ther.14, 2143–2153. 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-15-0148
19
Heinicke U. Fulda S. (2014). Chemosensitization of rhabdomyosarcoma cells by the histone deacetylase inhibitor SAHA. Cancer Lett.351, 50–58. 10.1016/j.canlet.2014.04.021
20
Kasiappan R. Jutooru I. Mohankumar K. Karki K. Lacey A. Safe S. (2019). Reactive oxygen species (ROS)-Inducing triterpenoid inhibits rhabdomyosarcoma cell and tumor growth through targeting Sp transcription factors. Mol. Cancer Res.17, 794–805. 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-18-1071
21
Kurmasheva R. T. Bandyopadhyay A. Favours E. Del Pozo V. Ghilu S. Phelps D. A. et al (2019). Evaluation of entinostat alone and in combination with standard‐of‐care cytotoxic agents against rhabdomyosarcoma xenograft models. Pediatr. Blood Cancer66, e27820. 10.1002/pbc.27820
22
Kutko M. C. Glick R. D. Butler L. M. Coffey D. C. Rifkind R. A. Marks P. A. et al (2003). Histone deacetylase inhibitors induce growth suppression and cell death in human rhabdomyosarcoma in vitro. Clin. Cancer Res.9, 5749–5755.
23
Laubscher D. Gryder B. E. Sunkel B. D. Andresson T. Wachtel M. Das S. et al (2021). BAF complexes drive proliferation and block myogenic differentiation in fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma. Nat. Commun.12, 6924. 10.1038/s41467-021-27176-w
24
Li Y. Seto E. (2016). HDACs and HDAC inhibitors in cancer development and therapy. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med.6, a026831. 10.1101/cshperspect.a026831
25
Marampon F. Di Nisio V. Pietrantoni I. Petragnano F. Fasciani I. Scicchitano B. M. et al (2019). Pro-differentiating and radiosensitizing effects of inhibiting HDACs by PXD-101 (belinostat) in in vitro and in vivo models of human rhabdomyosarcoma cell lines. Cancer Lett.461, 90–101. 10.1016/j.canlet.2019.07.009
26
Marques J. G. Gryder B. E. Pavlovic B. Chung Y. Ngo Q. A. Frommelt F. et al (2020). NuRD subunit CHD4 regulates super-enhancer accessibility in rhabdomyosarcoma and represents a general tumor dependency. Elife9. 10.7554/eLife.54993
27
Park S.-Y. Kim J.-S. (2020). A short guide to histone deacetylases including recent progress on class II enzymes. Exp. Mol. Med.52, 204–212. 10.1038/s12276-020-0382-4
28
Phelps M. P. Bailey J. N. Vleeshouwer-Neumann T. Chen E. Y. (2016). CRISPR screen identifies the NCOR/HDAC3 complex as a major suppressor of differentiation in rhabdomyosarcoma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.113, 15090–15095. 10.1073/pnas.1610270114
29
Pomella S. Sreenivas P. Gryder B. E. Wang L. Milewski D. Cassandri M. et al (2021). Interaction between SNAI2 and MYOD enhances oncogenesis and suppresses differentiation in fusion negative rhabdomyosarcoma. Nat. Commun.12, 192. 10.1038/s41467-020-20386-8
30
Pomella S. Cassandri M. D’Archivio L. Porrazzo A. Cossetti C. Phelps D. et al (2023a). MYOD-SKP2 axis boosts tumorigenesis in fusion negative rhabdomyosarcoma by preventing differentiation through p57Kip2 targeting. Nat. Commun.14, 8373. 10.1038/s41467-023-44130-0
31
Pomella S. Danielli S. G. Alaggio R. Breunis W. B. Hamed E. Selfe J. et al (2023b). Genomic and epigenetic changes drive aberrant skeletal muscle differentiation in rhabdomyosarcoma. Cancers (Basel)15, 2823. 10.3390/cancers15102823
32
Rossetti A. Petragnano F. Milazzo L. Vulcano F. Macioce G. Codenotti S. et al (2021). Romidepsin (FK228) fails in counteracting the transformed phenotype of rhabdomyosarcoma cells but efficiently radiosensitizes, in vitro and in vivo, the alveolar phenotype subtype. Int. J. Radiat. Biol.97, 943–957. 10.1080/09553002.2021.1928786
33
Selim O. Song C. Kumar A. Phelan R. Singh A. Federman N. (2023). A review of the therapeutic potential of histone deacetylase inhibitors in rhabdomyosarcoma. Front. Oncol.13, 1244035. 10.3389/fonc.2023.1244035
34
Seto E. Yoshida M. (2014). Erasers of histone acetylation: the histone deacetylase enzymes. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol.6, a018713. 10.1101/cshperspect.a018713
35
Stanton B. Z. Pomella S. (2024). Epigenetic determinants of fusion-driven sarcomas: paradigms and challenges. Front. Cell. Dev. Biol.12, 1416946. 10.3389/fcell.2024.1416946
36
Sullivan J. Feng Z. Fahey P. Agho K. Hurley S. Lim D. (2022). Histone deacetylase inhibitor use as a radiosensitizer in solid organ malignancies: a systematic review protocol. JBI Evid. Synth.20, 2378–2386. 10.11124/JBIES-21-00466
37
Tarnowski M. Tkacz M. Kopytko P. Bujak J. Piotrowska K. Pawlik A. (2019). Trichostatin A inhibits rhabdomyosarcoma proliferation and induces differentiation through MyomiR reactivation. Folia Biol. (Praha)65, 43–52. 10.14712/fb2019065010043
38
Treppendahl M. B. Kristensen L. S. Grønbæk K. (2014). Predicting response to epigenetic therapy. J. Clin. Investigation124, 47–55. 10.1172/JCI69737
39
Vleeshouwer-Neumann T. Phelps M. Bammler T. K. MacDonald J. W. Jenkins I. Chen E. Y. (2015). Histone deacetylase inhibitors antagonize distinct pathways to suppress tumorigenesis of embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma. PLoS One10, e0144320. 10.1371/journal.pone.0144320
40
Yohe M. E. Gryder B. E. Shern J. F. Song Y. K. Chou H.-C. Sindiri S. et al (2018). MEK inhibition induces MYOG and remodels super-enhancers in RAS-Driven rhabdomyosarcoma. Sci. Transl. Med.10. 10.1126/scitranslmed.aan4470
41
Zarrabi A. Perrin D. Kavoosi M. Sommer M. Sezen S. Mehrbod P. et al (2023). Rhabdomyosarcoma: current therapy, challenges, and future approaches to treatment strategies. Cancers (Basel)15, 5269. 10.3390/cancers15215269
Summary
Keywords
chemo-radiotherapy sensitization, epigenetic targeting, HDAC inhibitor (histone deacetylase inhibitor), rhabdomyosarcoma, translational oncology
Citation
Macrì E, Attili M, Locatelli F, Marampon F and Pomella S (2026) From bench to bedside: combining HDAC inhibitors with standard therapies in rhabdomyosarcoma treatment. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 14:1774090. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2026.1774090
Received
23 December 2025
Revised
29 January 2026
Accepted
03 February 2026
Published
13 February 2026
Volume
14 - 2026
Edited by
Elizabeth Vafiadaki, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens (BRFAA), Greece
Reviewed by
Vibhor Mishra, University of Tennessee Health Science Center (UTHSC), United States
Kristbjorn Orri Gudmundsson, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NIH), United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Macrì, Attili, Locatelli, Marampon and Pomella.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Silvia Pomella, silvia.pomella@opbg.net
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.