Pharma Strategy Blog

Commentary on Pharma & Biotech Oncology / Hematology New Product Development

Posts by MaverickNY

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) held their annual symposium on Gastrointestinal cancers over the weekend in Fort Lauderdale, FL.  I was unable to attend the meeting, but it was interesting to follow it remotely via various people at the event. 

In 2008, van Cutsem first presented the interim phase III data from the front line trial of cetuximab
(Erbitux) with FOLFIRI in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a plenary session at the ASCO annual meeting.  The data demonstrated that biomarker data suggested that the presence of wild type rather than mutant type KRAS predicted response to cetuximab in mCRC.

The updated CRYSTAL data was
probably the most anticipated abstract at this meeting.  Here's a snapshot from the abstract:

Picture 200The data above clearly shows a superior response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in favour of cetuximab in wild type KRAS.

What was also interesting is that BRAF, another mutation that has been shown to increase resistance to EGFR inhibitors, was not predictive of cetuximab activity, based on pooled data from the CRYSTAL and OPUS trials presented by Prof Kohne.

Overall, these data indicate that testing for KRAS mutational status is a valid way of deciding which patients should receive EGFR inhibitors such as cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.  Patients with mutant KRAS or BRAF mutations are less likely to do well on such therapy.

It will be interesting to see whether future trials with a RAS/RAF inhibitor such as sorafenib (Nexavar) with cetuximab are being considered in combination to overcome resistance.

{Updated: I should clarify that the wt KRAS effect is an EGFR class effect as you can see from similar data on panitumumab (Vectibix) in the second line setting in this abstract

The presenter, Peeters, noted that in patients with wild type KRAS:

  • PFS was 5.9 months for panitumumab plus FOLFIRI
    vs. 3.9 months for FOLFIRI alone (HR=0.73). 
  • Median OS was
    14.5 months for the study arm vs. 12.5 months for FOLFIRI alone
    (HR=0.85). 
  • Response rate for the panitumumab arm was
    35% compared with 10% for patients assigned to FOLFIRI alone. 

As with cetuximab, there was no difference in PFS, OS or
response rate in patients with mutant KRAS tumours.  The study met its primary endpoint, so it will be interesting to see if regulatory approval will be forthcoming in the second line setting for panitumumab.}

Acknowledgement:  Many thanks to Kerri Wachter who was at the meeting and provided information and tips that lead to this post.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
2 Comments

One of the great things about travelling to scientific conferences around the world, is catching up with old friends, meeting new people, learning new things and also seeing some wonderful sights when least expected.

IMG_6038 Here's a quick shot I took at dusk on my 3G iPhone took walking from
the bus stop to the hotel I was staying in for the recent AACR meeting
on molecular origins in lung cancer. 

It was nice to get out at the end
of the day for some fresh air, but the sunset was certainly an added bonus and a heartening welcome after the chill of the East coast winter!

Some meetings you can get a decent flavour of what's going on from the press releases and reports coming out from good science writers, reporters and analysts such as Brooke Wang, Kerri Wachter, Mike Huckman and Roxanne Nelson.  You can't attend every conference, but you can trust in a few good men (and women) to tell the stories in a straightforward and accurate way.

After a while, I can tell who is actually reporting live from the meeting and who is just rehashing a press release or media briefing – the quality of the reporting and analysis shines through beyond mere data repetition :>}.

One of the biggest things I personally gain from being on the spot is the chance to interact with key opinion leaders and ask them questions.  Of course, you can do this by email or phone too, assuming you can track them down in a timely fashion, but checking the nuances on the spot is extremely valuable both for greater understanding and immediacy.

Right now, I'm following the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancer Symposium from Fort Lauderdale on Twitter via the #GICaSymp hashtag.  Kerri is tweeting and reporting from there and several Pharma buddies are also attending and sending updates by email.  I'm particularly keen to hear what Dr Eric van Cutsem has to say in his update about KRAS and biomarkers from the CRYSTAL trial in colorectal cancer.

"Researchers have developed a novel immunoassay for detecting early-stage pancreatic cancer that identifies and quantifies blood levels of the PAM4 protein – a unique antigen present in almost 90 percent of pancreatic cancers and precancers."

ASCO GI Cancer Symposium, 2010

Wow, that little snippet from the ASCO press releases from the Gastrointestinal symposium in Florida woke me up while sipping coffee this morning!

The reason is that pancreatic cancer is an insidious disease and most patients are diagnosed late, usually in stage IV when there is little that can be done to successfully attentuate the cancer.  For years, researchers have struggled with ways of detecting the cancer earlier when treatments are more likely to be effective without confusing cancer from pancreatitis.

Approximately 7% of pancreatic cancer cases are detected at an
early stage, before the cancer has spread to other parts of the body. 
The survival rate for early stage pancreatic cancer is around 20%, compared with just 1.8% for those diagnosed when the disease has metastasized.

The PAM4 antibody, also called clivatuzumab, from Immunomedics ($IMMU) used in the assay reacts with a protein produced by pancreatic cancer cells.  It appears that the protein is not detectable in normal pancreatic cells and is rarely detected in pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas), making it potentially highly specific for pancreatic cancer.

The researchers evaluated an immunoassay for the PAM4 protein in 68 patients who had pancreatic cancer surgery and 19 healthy controls.  They found that the test was 62% sensitive for detecting stage 1 pancreatic cancer (disease confined to the pancreas), 86% sensitive for stage 2 disease (disease which has spread to nearby organs) and 91% sensitive for stage 3/4 cancers (local and distant spread).  Overall, the assay was 81% sensitive for detecting all stages of pancreatic cancer; while not perfect, it would represent an enormous improvement on current detection rates.

The obvious next step is to validate the test on a larger scale with more patients to determine if it has utility as a diagnostic tool to detect people at risk for pancreatic cancer such as patients with a history of tobacco use, or those with genetic or other medical factors on a yearly basis, to enhance the chance of early detection.

The investigators also suggested that the clivatuzumab antibody may also prove useful for treating the disease by acting as a carrier for agents (such as radioactive isotopes labelled with Y90) that can target and kill cancer cells, but this idea is pure supposition at present and as yet, unproven.  Immunonomedics have a phase I trial ongoing with clivatuzumab in pancreatic cancer

At the ASCO GI symposium there was, however, some interesting new data in the treatment of pancreatic cancer as Pfizer announced the final results from a randomized Phase III
trial of sunitinib (Sutent) in patients with advanced pancreatic
neuroendocrine tumors, a type of cancer which originates in the
hormone-producing area of the pancreas. 

Sunitinib appeared to more than double the
time the patients with lived without
disease progression compared with patients treated with placebo; results showed that median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.4
months in patients treated with sunitinib compared with 5.5 months in
patients treated in the placebo arm.  Overall survival was also prolonged. 
Adverse events were similar to those observed in other sunitinib
studies.

The sunitinib results are particularly interesting, not only because they improve survival beyond the six months typically seen with the disease, but also because other VEGF inhibitors such as bevacizumab (Avastin) previously did not appear to be effective in slowing the disease.  Sunitinib, though, is a multi-kinase inhibitor that also targets other pathways other than VEGF, including c-KIT, PDGF, FLT3 and RET, suggesting that dual inhibition of perhaps VEGF and PDGF is necessary in this disease.

On the basis of these results, Pfizer filed supplemental applications
for approval in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours with the US, EU and
Canadian authorities, so help for patients may well be coming sooner than expected.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Updated Survival Analysis of a Randomized Study of Lapatinib Alone or in Combination with Trastuzumab in Women with HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Progressing on Trastuzumab Therapy. 

Blackwell KL, Burstein HJ, Sledge GW, Stein S, Ellis C, Casey M, Baselga J, O'Shaughnessy J

Background: The synergistic interaction of lapatinib combined with trastuzumab was established in HER2-positive preclinical models, hence providing the rationale to evaluate this combination in a clinical setting. Progression-free survival (PFS) from study EGF104900 revealed the combination of lapatinib plus trastuzumab was superior to lapatinib alone in women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) that progressed on multiple lines of trastuzumab-based therapy. Preliminary data showed a trend in overall survival (OS) favoring the combination therapy; however, data were not mature. Updated OS analyses are reported. 

Methods: Women with HER2-positive MBC progressing on prior trastuzumab-containing regimens were randomized to receive either lapatinib 1500 mg once daily or lapatinib 1000 mg once daily in combination with trastuzumab 2 mg/kg (after a 4-mg/kg loading dose). If objective disease progression occurred on or after 4 weeks of lapatinib alone, crossover to the combination arm was permitted. OS was summarized using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared between treatment arms using stratified log-rank tests. Analyses adjusting for baseline prognostic factors and crossover were also performed. 

Results: 296 women were randomized (148 per arm). The median number of prior trastuzumab-containing regimens for MBC treatment was 3. Of the women randomized to lapatinib alone, 52% (77/148) crossed over to the combination arm. At data cut-off for updated OS, 218 deaths (74%) had occurred. Median OS following treatment with lapatinib plus trastuzumab was 60.7 weeks compared with 41.4 weeks for lapatinib alone. A significant improvement in OS was demonstrated with combination therapy compared with lapatinib monotherapy (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.57, 0.97; P=.026). The survival benefit was maintained after adjusting for baseline prognostic factors (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.54, 0.93; P=.012). A trend toward a clinically relevant 25% reduction in risk of death (P=.080) was also observed after adjusting for crossover.

Conclusion: A statistically significant OS benefit was observed in women with heavily pretreated, HER2-positive MBC treated with lapatinib in combination with trastuzumab compared with those treated with lapatinib alone. The actual survival benefit of the combination therapy may be underestimated due to the high frequency of crossover.

Source: SABCS.org

This data from the Sam Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium last month showed that heavily pre-treated patients including prior trastuzumab (Herceptin) who received a combination of two HER-2 inhibitors, trastuzumab and lapatinib (Tykerb) improved their survival by 4.5 months over lapatinib alone:

Picture 160

The EGF104900 study included 296 women and resulted in an overall survival rate of 56% in patients randomized to lapatinib (1,000mg/day) plus trastuzumab compared to 41% in those assigned to lapatinib (1,500mg/day) alone.

Presently, trastuzumab is approved for first treatment of HER-2 positive breast cancer and lapatinib is given in second line once Herceptin fails.  It is interesting that there wasn't a Herceptin only arm, only a lapatinib only arm, but then the patients had previously progressed on trastuzumab therapy.

Previous studies with Herceptin and anthracyclines have shown an increase in cardiotoxicity associated with mainly with doxorubicin.  There was no suggestion of a cardiac safety issue with the HER-2 combination therapy in this study.

Lapatinib and trastuzumab target HER-2 through different mechanisms, which may account for the apparent additive effect in combination.  Previous preclinical and animal studies have suggested synergistic benefits for the combination, including enhanced apoptosis, anti-proliferative effects and downregulation of survivin.

This is the first study to show a survival improvement for any anti-HER2 agent taken beyond first line therapy.  It validates the concept that trastuzumab is an important drug to maintain through disease progression beyond initial therapy in patients who have previously done well on combined chemotherapy and HER-2 regimens before developing disease progression.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

It’s been a bit of a long week on lung cancer articles and while I was planning on talking about something else today, this new article in my database caught my eye:

Picture 157
Part of the reason is nostalgia – it’s 20 years ago since I finished my doctorate on early detection of preclinical lung disease and while I was interested in the methods of detecting changes in breathing patterns associated with smoking, part of me wished I’d done research on molecular biology at the time rather than applied physiology.

The reason is that I realised while doing the literature search is that biochemical and physiological changes in the airways would ultimately tell us more about early detection.

In the article above, the researchers suggest a potential mechanism by which the tobacco-specific carcinogen NNK promotes lung tumour formation and development. Now, bearing in mind that most solid tumours take years to develop from hyperplasia to full aggressive carcinoma, finding how it actually happens and why is still an inexact science, as are methods for early detection given not all smokers get lung cancer and non-smokers are not immune from the disease.

Lin et al., suggest that NNK induces the accumulation of a protein known as DNMT1 in the nucleus and that this protein silences genes that suppress tumour formation.  They offered evidence to support their hypothesis, including the observation that DNMT1 accumulates in both lung adenomas from NNK-treated mice and tumours from lung cancer patients that were smokers.  DNMT1 overexpression in lung cancer patients who smoked continuously correlated with poor prognosis.

However, the interesting part of their abstract to me was:

“We determined that in a human lung cell line, glycogen synthase kinase 3β (GSK3β) phosphorylated DNMT1 to recruit β-transducin repeat–containing protein (βTrCP), resulting in DNMT1 degradation, and that NNK activated AKT, inhibiting GSK3β function and thereby attenuating DNMT1 degradation.”

Ah, our friend AKT.  

The potential role of AKT in lung cancer came up repeatedly at last week’s AACR lung cancer meeting. The researchers there had begun to realise that blocking EGFR or IGF-1R and c-MET or AKT (either directly or indirectly via PI3K inhibition) might cut off an escape route for the cancer cell and reduce drug resistance:

Picture 159
Source:
Vivanco and Sawyers

Drs Jeffrey Engelman (MGH) and David Carbone (Vanderbilt) covered excellent quick reviews at AACR on the latest findings related to EGFR inhibition relating to c-MET and proteomics respectively.  As our knowledge of various mutations and biologic pathways improves, so does our understanding of how we can better target aberrations and treat patients with NSCLC more effectively.

Engelman’s group has just published a paper on c-MET and EGFR inhibition (see references).  They noticed that rare MET-amplified cells exist in some EGFR-mutant lung cancers before treatment. What makes the research relevant to this overview is that MET amplification activates ERBB3/PI3K/AKT signaling in EGFR mutant lung cancers and causes resistance to EGFR kinase inhibitors. They demonstrated that MET activation by its ligand, HGF, induces drug resistance through GAB1 signaling. Using high-throughput FISH analyses in both cell lines and in patients with lung cancer, they identified subpopulations of cells with MET amplification prior to drug exposure.

The concept that HGF induces resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in EGFR-addicted cancers is a novel one.  They saw that HGF accelerates MET amplification by expanding preexisting MET-amplified cells. What was particularly relevant though was that analysis of pretreatment cancers identified those poised to become MET amplified, thereby offering a way to segment NSCLC patients for more personalised treatment, increasing the chances of better response rates, longer overall survival and improved patient outcomes.

Then came the killer statement:

“EGFR kinase inhibitor resistance, due to either MET amplification or autocrine HGF production, was cured in vivo by combined EGFR and MET inhibition.”

Oh my.  This leaves us seriously wondering what will happen in practice by combining erlotinib (Tarceva) or gefitinib (Iressa) with a MET inhibitor in patients with NSCLC?  Tang et al., reported some promising preclinical work in 2008 (see references) but solid data in human patients has yet to be reported.

 

I can’t wait for ASCO this year to find out!

References:

ResearchBlogging.orgLin, R., Hsieh, Y., Lin, P., Hsu, H., Chen, C., Tang, Y., Lee, C., & Wang, Y. (2010). The tobacco-specific carcinogen NNK induces DNA methyltransferase 1 accumulation and tumor suppressor gene hypermethylation in mice and lung cancer patients Journal of Clinical Investigation DOI: 10.1172/JCI40706

Vivanco, I., & Sawyers, C. (2002). The phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase–AKT pathway in human cancer Nature Reviews Cancer, 2 (7), 489-501 DOI: 10.1038/nrc839 

Massion, P. (2004). Early Involvement of the Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase/Akt Pathway in Lung Cancer Progression American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 170 (10), 1088-1094 DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200404-487OC

Turke, A., Zejnullahu, K., Wu, Y., Song, Y., Dias-Santagata, D., Lifshits, E., Toschi, L., Rogers, A., Mok, T., & Sequist, L. (2010). Preexistence and Clonal Selection of MET Amplification in EGFR Mutant NSCLC Cancer Cell, 17 (1), 77-88 DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2009.11.022

Tang, Z., Du, R., Jiang, S., Wu, C., Barkauskas, D., Richey, J., Molter, J., Lam, M., Flask, C., Gerson, S., Dowlati, A., Liu, L., Lee, Z., Halmos, B., Wang, Y., Kern, J., & Ma, P. (2008). Dual MET–EGFR combinatorial inhibition against T790M-EGFR-mediated erlotinib-resistant lung cancer British Journal of Cancer, 99 (6), 911-922 DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604559

1 Comment

After writing the first two posts in the series, I was much amused to see this tweet in my Twitter stream from one of buddies:

Picture 155
When you've been blogging on science, marketing, PR and cancer topics for several years you begin to wonder if it actually beneficial to anyone, so today's post is dedicated to Miguel in Barcelona for making me smile :-).  If you're on Twitter, please do
follow him because he's a great guy and shares a lot of very interesting pharma related links.  Give him some Twitter love!

Today's topic is about a new generation flavanoid, ASA-404, from Novartis.  Of course, under FTC guidelines, I should disclose that as many of you know, I'm a former employee and have also done consulting work for the company, but not on this particular product.

ASA-404 is an interesting agent in phase III development.  It's a vascular disrupting agent (VDA) with a tubulin dependent mechanism of agent.  Unlike taxanes, which target the microtubulin in DNA, this agent is also part anti-angiogenic agent because it selectively disrupts the tumour vasculature with both direct and indirect effects.  In simple terms, I think of it as a kind of hybrid cross between an anti-angiogenic such as bevacizumab (Avastin) and a taxane such as paclitaxel or docetaxel.

Dr Mark McKeage presentation at the AACR lung cancer meeting was focused on the phase II that has been published to date, including a publication in the British Journal of Cancer (see bottom of article). 

The drug was well tolerated in phase I trials, achieving an MTD of 3700 mg/m2.

In a phase II trial, paclitaxel and carboplatin (pc) therapy was used as the reference arm, and ASA-404 added to the standard chemotherapy in the other arm to determine if the agent added any extra benefit for newly diagnosed patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with either a squamous or non-squamous histology. They looked at 2 different doses of ASA-404 – 1200mg/m2 was used in the randomised comparison with carbo-tax and 1800mg/m2 with out the comparator arm but in combination as before. 36 patients were accrued into the reference pc arm, 37 in the lower dose ASA-404 arm and 31 in the higher dose ASA-404 arm.  This gave a total of 104 patients in the pooled phase II study.

Overall, similar rates of adverse events (AE's) were seen in the squamous and non-squamous patients, except for a slight increase in AE's related to blood/lymphatic effects.  No serious AE's associated with vascular effects of bleeding, hemorrhage or hemoptysis were seen.  There was an increase in hematologic toxicities (anemia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia) but these were not significant and none rose above 20%.  There was no apparent increase in neutropenia related sepsis.

In terms of efficacy and median overall survival, McKey reported:

PCA  vs. PC

14.0 vs. 8.8 mos for 1200mg/m2

14.9                  for 1800mg/m2

Thus we can clearly see that adding ASA-404 to standard carboplatin-paclitaxel therapy improved median overall in frontline NSCLC by 5 months.

Recently, the FDA has approved several therapies in NSCLC in different histologies, due to either issues with side effects (bevacizumab and bleeding issues) or lack of efficacy (pemetrexed), while others such as erlotinib have been shown to be particularly effective in non-smoking female asians with an adenocarcinoma histology, although the approval is not based on histology.

Let's take a look at the ASA-404 histology data:

                Squamous:                Non-Squamous:          Overall:               

                PCA         PC             PCA         PC              PCA          PC

ORR (%)    40.0        14.3          31.7        25.0           34.4          22.2

One third of the patients had a squamous histology, but experienced no bleeding issues seen with VEGF agents.

While the results are higher for those with a squamous histology, there was also a trend towards higher efficacy in the non-squamous patients.  The positive results provided support and evidence for the drug's effectiveness and rationale for beginning the phase III triala, ATTRACT-1 in first line and ATTRACT-2 in second line NSCLC without restriction on histology.

To put the 5 months improvement in median OS with ASA-404 in context, I checked out the PI for other therapies.  Bevacizumab was approved on the basis of 12.3 months vs. 10.3 months, ie a 2 month improvement, while pemetrexed was approved on the basis of non-inferiority when comparing pemetrexed plus cisplatin to gemcitabine plus cisplatin (ie 10.3 months of overall survival in each arm).

The front-line trial has completed accrual and is ongoing, but the ATTRACT-2 trial for patients who have had prior chemotherapy is still enrolling.  You can find it here: ATTRACT-2.

Of course, these are early days yet and positive phase II data does not always translate to phase III success, but they are a hopeful sign of good things to come.  If the data are repeated, it will be good news for patients with NSCLC.  


ResearchBlogging.org
McKeage, M., Von Pawel, J., Reck, M., Jameson, M., Rosenthal, M., Sullivan, R., Gibbs, D., Mainwaring, P., Serke, M., Lafitte, J., Chouaid, C., Freitag, L., & Quoix, E. (2008). Randomised phase II study of ASA404 combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel in previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer British Journal of Cancer, 99 (12), 2006-2012 DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604808

1 Comment

Whoa, that was a fascinating news release I saw float through my Twitter stream 2 hours ago:

Picture 87
 

As CNBC's Mike Huckman pointed out, the link appeared Twitter before the press release alert dropped in our inboxes.  Nice one, Genentech!

Anyway, after the very negative ODAC hearing last month where only one panel member voted in favour of approval, it seems that OSI and Roche/Genentech have be granted a reprieve and a chance to address any concerns the FDA may have with the data.

Genentech posted the following statement:

"… the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has extended the review period for the supplemental New Drug Application (sNDA) for Tarceva® (erlotinib) as a first-line maintenance therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by an additional 90 days. The extension follows OSI's submission of further data in support of the application. The original Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) date was January 18, 2010. The companies now anticipate FDA action on the sNDA by April 18, 2010."

It will be interesting to see what information and requests the FDA mandates as the story unfolds, but basically, I think many of us were surprised a complete response was not issued after the extensive roasting at ODAC.  Perhaps there is some meta analysis that will evolve from further subset analysis, time will tell.

Sometimes it's a good to be lucky!

As part of a four part series on personalized therapy for lung cancer, here is the second summary in the series based on some fascinating lectures at the AACR meeting on the molecular origins in lung cancer this week.

The second presentation I really enjoyed on biomarkers and personalized therapy looked at the ‘blind alley’ that
many are still using to distinguish patients.  Histology, as Dr David Gandara aptly
described it, is a rather ‘crude form of molecular selection’ that is likely to
be a transient one.  He provided a
telling example of two patients with a different case history:

  1. 65 yo
    male who smokes, has a squamous histology, KRAS mutation, low ERCC1 and low
    RRM1
  2. 39 yo
    female who is a non-smoker with a adenocarcinoma, EGFR mutation and high ERCC1
    and high RRM1

He then posed the question to the audience of whether it is still
appropriate to treat these two patients the same way?

What was abundantly clear at this meeting to me is that the
answer would be an emphatic ‘no’ based, not on their physical characteristics
and histology, but on the underlying biology.  Whether that is a view held by the majority of community
oncologists, I’m not so sure though. 

Excision repair cross-complementing gene (ERCC1) is an interesting biomarker that was first mooted nearly ten years ago and has received little attention, but is now coming back to the fore as clinical trials and modeling techniques catch up with basic biology. It encodes a nucleotide excision repair protein that repairs a range of lesions, including UV-induced thymine dimers and other photoproducts, and also lesions caused by a variety of chemical agents including the platinums.

Dr Gandara noted that low
levels are prognostic in early stage I/II NSCLC and predictive of a
poor response in metastatic disease, thus suggesting that platinum chemotherapy
would be optimal, e.g using a gemcitabine-cisplatin combination, whereas early
stage patients with high levels of ERCC1 would have a good prognosis and likely
do better without chemotherapy.  ERCC1 has also been shown to play a role in DNA repair after cisplatin damage.  Interestingly, high tumour tissue levels of ERCC1 mRNA in ovarian and gastric cancer patients have been associated with cisplatin resistance.

Similarly, RRM1 is useful for predicting response to
gemcitabine and TS for pemetrexed. Although pemetrexed is approved for use in treating non-squamous
patients, what about TS expression in lung cancer?  Gandara noted the general trend towards high TS in SCLC and
squamous cell carcinoma and low TS in patients with adenocarcinoma. Knowing this kind of information about
the tumour biology (ERCC1, RRM1
and TS) can therefore be potentially useful in deciding which chemotherapy
regimen to use.

What this AACR meeting really brought to the fore to me is
the gradual move from rather crude methods to more sophisticated ways of
defining patient subsets as our knowledge and understanding of biology
improves.  

Sometimes though, the
gap between published research and clinical trials also lags, mainly because of
either the cost of tumour biopsy and biomarker studies in large scale trials or
the development of new inhibitors designed to target the molecular abnormality
identified.  The impression I came
away with is that the next five years may well produce some really big advances in
both basic science and clinical practices that will contribute to a more logical and scientific approach to the treatment of a hard to treat cancer.

Times are a-changin’ and that’s great news for patients with
lung cancer. 

 

ResearchBlogging.org
Dabholkar, M., Vionnet, J., Bostick-Bruton, F., Yu, J., & Reed, E. (1994). Messenger RNA levels of XPAC and ERCC1 in ovarian cancer tissue correlate with response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 94 (2), 703-708 DOI: 10.1172/JCI117388 

Cobo, M., Isla, D., Massuti, B., Montes, A., Sanchez, J., Provencio, M., Vinolas, N., Paz-Ares, L., Lopez-Vivanco, G., Munoz, M., Felip, E., Alberola, V., Camps, C., Domine, M., Sanchez, J., Sanchez-Ronco, M., Danenberg, K., Taron, M., Gandara, D., & Rosell, R. (2007). Customizing Cisplatin Based on Quantitative Excision Repair Cross-Complementing 1 mRNA Expression: A Phase III Trial in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25 (19), 2747-2754 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.7915

There were a number of fascinating talks over the last four
days covering the latest information on biomarkers and personalized
therapy.  The summary that follows
is highly incomplete, but hopefully reflects some key points I’ve learned at
this excellent AACR meeting.  Unpublished
data reported by the presenters, will not, however be discussed and thus
commentary will be limited to general observations based on published data or
hypotheses evolving from them.

The small intimate event of 300 people with a common focus
and a well organized format contributes significantly to the learning and
offline discussions.  That is a
tribute to not only the organizing committee, but also the co-chairs, Drs Roy
Herbst from MD Anderson and David Carbone from Vanderbilt.  Both of these gentlemen, along with Dr
Paul Bunn from the Colorado Cancer Center, were particularly giving of their
time in helping me understand some of the more complex issues and I’m extremely
grateful to their patience with my many questions.  Any inaccuracies that may result in this report are entirely
mine.

First a little bit a history. 

Not so long ago, patients with non-small cell lung cancer
(NSCLC) would be treated with series of chemotherapy doublets or singlets, with
little regard for the underlying biology. 
As such, there is very little (or small) difference reported in the
literature between the various combinations such carboplatin plus paclitaxel,
gemcitaibine or docetaxel with cisplatin, or vinorelbine or pemetrexed  combinations, for example.  It was very much an empirical way of
looking at the options based on physicians choice depending upon patient
characteristics (stage, age, performance status etc) and physician preference
or experience with managing toxicities.

More recently, it was noticed that patients taking erlotinib
(Tarceva), an EGFR inhibitor, tended to do better if they had an EGFR mutation,
were young, female, non-smoker and with an adenocarcinoma histology.  Meanwhile, pemetrexed (Alimta), was
found to have a greater efficacy benefit in non-squamous compared to squamous
patients.

This represents a small advancement in identifying which
patients are most likely to respond to therapy, thereby sparing the exposure to
a drug that is most unlikely to have any benefit.  Four presentations were particularly intriguing to me and deserve some mention in separate blog posts.

In the first one, Dr Herbst presented the BATTLE (biomarker
based targeted therapy for lung cancer elimination) concept being developed and
evolved at MD Anderson across a large multi-functional team involving
researchers, physicians, and nurses. 
Aside from oncologists, intervention radiologists, diagnostic and
molecular pathologists were also heavily involved, as were the research groups
involved with molecular biology and biomarkers. 

The basic concept was that not all patients are the same and
tumour biopsies could be critical in determining the optimal clinical approach
to therapy in a highly heterogeneous disease.  Having biomarker driven clinical trials and understanding
molecular mechanisms of response will help improve knowledge of the underlying
disease for future studies.

BATTLE1 began in November 2006 and enrolled 341 patients
with NSCLC who had received at least one prior chemotherapy, had a good
performance status and biopsy amenable disease.  Eligible patients were randomized to receive one of four
regimens, depending upon their initial biopsy result, i.e. using adaptive
randomization.  Eleven core
biomarkers were used to help stratify patients and also determine the effect of
therapy before and after treatment, with the primary end point being 8 week
disease control rate: 

  • EGFR mutation – Erlotinib
  • Ras/Raf – Sorafenib
  • VEGF – vandetanib
  • Cyclin D1/RXR – Erlotinib plus bexarotene

The trial was closed in October 2009 and 227 patients had
evaluable tumour biopsies.

The concept appears to have proven successful and BATTLE2 is
now underway, with the goal of enrolling over 300 patients being evaluated with
different therapies in four new regimens, ie: 

  • Erlotinib
  • Erlotinib + IGF-1Ri
  • Erlotinib + AKTi
  • MEKi + AKTi

However,
Herbst noted that the IGF-1R combination may need to be reconsidered following the
recent announcement of the figitumumab futility data.

What I like about this approach is that treatment is based upon a logical design with a strong rationale from the underlying biology, rather than just relying on patient characteristics and physicians (sometimes biased) opinion.  

I do think we will see more of the work from translational medicine and research start to impact patient selection in the future.  Right now, we're just scratching the surface of what's possible.

2 Comments
error: Content is protected !!