advantages and disavantages of irreversible egfr-tki lucio crinò, md medical oncology department...
TRANSCRIPT
Advantages and disavantages of irreversible EGFR-TKI
Lucio Crinò, MDMedical Oncology Department
University Hospital Perugia, Italy
Evolution of Knowledge in NSCLCFrom Histology to Molecular Classification
Li, et al. J Clin Oncol 2013
EGFR mutations in NSCLC
Second generation EGFR TKIs
• The second-generation of EGFR TKIs has the advantage of forming covalent, irreversible bonds with the target, which should increase their effectiveness through a prolonged inhibition of EGFR signaling
• Furthermore, the prolonged and irreversible inhibition of the receptor has the potential for further improvement in response to treatment over the first-generation TKIs such as erlotinib and gefitinib
• To date, irreversible oral TKIs that target simultaneously multiple members of the EGFR family are currently in clinical development for NSCLC, including afatinib, dacomitinib and neratinib.
• Preclinical studies showed that irreversible TKIs killed cells with acquired resistance to first-generation TKIs.
Becker K et al., World J Clin Oncol. 2014
Afatinib Is the First Irreversible ErbB Family Blocker
• Afatinib selectively, covalently binds and irreversibly blocks ErbB family receptors EGFR, HER2, and ErbB4
• Afatinib prevents ligand-dependent ErbB3 phosphorylation in preclinical studies
Solca et al. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2012;343:342. Li et al. Oncogene. 2008;27:4702; Köhler J et al. Onkologie 2013;36:510-518
Dacominitinb mechanism of action
• Dacomitinib is an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity against EGFR, HER2 and HER4.
• Preclinical activity against– EGFR sensitising mutations– EGFR T790M– wild-type HER2– mutant HER2
Peters S., Cancer Treatment Review, 2014
Pharmacokinetics of afatinib and dacomitinib
• Afatinib undergoes minimal metabolism by the cytochrome P450 system but is a substrate of p-glycoprotein. P-glycoprotein inducers (rifampicin,carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, St. John’s Wort ) may therefore lower systemic drug concentrations of afatinib.
• Coadministration of a P-glycoprotein inhibitor (ritonavir, cyclosporine, ketoconazole, erythromycin, verapamil, and others) can increase afatinib exposure.
• As oral drugs, gastric contents and pH may also impact bioavailability. Afatinib absorption is reduced when taken with a high fat meal whereas erlotinib absorption is increased and patients are directed to take both medications on an empty stomach
USA: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc Ridgefield 2013.
Potency and inhibition of cell proliferation of oral EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors
Peters S et al. Cancer Treatment Reviews (2014)
Studies of EGFR TKIs versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy in EGFR Act Mut+ NSCLC
Study EGFR TKI
Median PFS in TKI
arm (months)
Median PFS in chemotherapy arm (months)
Median OS in TKI arm
(months)
Median OS in chemotherapy arm (months)
OPTIMAL Erlotinib 13.1 4.6 22.7 28.9
First Signal Gefitinib 8.4 6.3 27.2 25.6
IPASS Gefitinib 9.5 6.3 21.6 21.9
WJTOG 3405
Gefitinib 8.4 5.3 36 39
NEJSG 002 Gefitinib 10.8 5.4 27.7 26.6
EURTAC Erlotinib 10.4 5.2 19.3 19.5
LUX-3 Afatinib 11.1 6.7 28.1 28.2
LUX-6 Afatinib 11.0 5.6Not
reported, immature
Not reported, immature
LUX-Lung 3 and 6: OS in common mutations
Presented By James Yang at 2014 ASCO Annual Meeting
Combined OS analysis: common mutations (n=631)
Presented By James Yang at 2014 ASCO Annual Meeting
Combined OS analysis in common mutations: subgroups
Presented By James Yang at 2014 ASCO Annual Meeting
Combined OS analysis: mutation categories
Presented By James Yang at 2014 ASCO Annual Meeting
LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6:Summary of Adverse Events
aIncludes 3 patients (1%) who discontinued due to diarrhoea, no discontinuations for rash.bIncludes 3 patients (1%) with ILD-like events (1 grade 1, 1 grade 3; 1 grade 5).cIncluding 1 patient with ILD.dPreferred terms: dyspnoea, sepsis, ARDS, death (unknown cause).eSudden death (afatinib) and cardiac failure (Gem/Cis).SAE = serious adverse event; ILD = interstitial lung disease; ARDS = acute respiratory distress syndrome.1. Sequist et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3327; 2.Yang ASCO 2013 ; 3. Wu et al. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:213.
4. Wu YL. et al. 2013 ASCO Annual Meeting. Oral Presentation
% of Patients
LUX-Lung 31,2 LUX-Lung 63,4
Afatinib (n=229)
Pem/Cis(n=111)
Afatinib (n=239)
Gem/Cis(n=113)
Drug-related AEs 100 96 99 99
Drug-related AE grade ≥3 49 48 36 60
Drug-related AEs leading to discontinuation 8a,b 12 6c 40
Discontinuation due to rash 0 0 2.1 (5 pts) 0
Discontinuation due to diarrhoea 1.3 (3 pts) 0 0 0
Drug-related SAE 14 14 5 7
Related SAE leading to death 1.7 (4 pts)d 0 0.4 (1 pt)e 0.9 (1 pt)e
15
LUX-Lung 31, / LUX-Lung 62, %
Afatinib LL3 (n=229) / LL6 (n =239 ) Pem/Cis (n=111) / Gem/Cis (n=113)
All Grades Grade 3 Grade 4 All Grades Grade 3 Grade 4
Rash/acnea 89.1 / 80.8 16.2 / 14.2 0.0 / 0.4 6.3 / 8.8 0 0Diarrhoea 95.2 / 88.3 14.4 / 5.4 0 15.3 / 10.6 0 0Paronychia/nail effecta 56.8 / 32.6 11.4 / 0.0 0 0 / 0 0 0Stomatitis/mucositisa 72.1 / 51.9 8.37 / 5.4 0.4 / 0.0 15.3 / 5.3 0.9 / 0.0 0Decreased appetite 20.5 / 10.0 3.1 / 1.3 0 53.2 / 40.7 2.7 / 1.8 0Vomiting 17.0 / 9.6 3.1 / 0.8 0 42.3 / 80.5 2.7 / 15.9 0.0 / 3.5Fatiguea 17.5 / 10.0 1.3 / 0.4 0 46.8 / 36.3 12.6 / 0.9 0Nausea 17.9 / 7.5 0.9 / 0.0 0 65.8 / 75.2 3.6 / 7.1 0.0 /0.9Dry skin 29.3 / NA 0.4 / NA 0 1.8 / NA 0 0Pruritus 18.8 / 10.9 0.4 / 0.4 0 0.9 / 0.0 0 0Neutropenia 0.9 / 2.1 0.4 / 0.4 0 31.5 / 54.0 15.3 / 17.7 2.7 / 8.8Anemia 3.1 / 5.4 0.4 / 0.4 0 27.9 / 27.4 4.5 / 7.1 1.8 / 1.8Leukopenia 1.7 / 3.3 0.04 / 0.4 0 18.9 / 51.3 8.1 / 13.3 0.0 / 1.8ALT increase 7.4 / 20.1 0.0 / 1.7 0 2.7 / 15.9 0.0 / 1.8 0.0 / 0.9AST increase 5.2 / 15.1 0.0 / 0.4 0 1.8 / 10.6 0.0 / 1.8 0
Most Frequent Treatment-Related Adverse Events (>20% Difference Between Treatment Arms)
aGrouped term for closely related AEs.
ALT = alanine aminotransferase; AST = aspartate aminotransferase.1. Sequist et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3327 2. Wu et al. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:213.
Is response rate improved with irreversible EGFR-TKIs?Comparison of best reported phase II results for EGFR TKIs in patients with EGFR-Mutant
lung cancers (Exon 19 and Exon 21)
Agent Entered, nCR+PR Rate, %
MedianPFS, months
MedianOS, months
Dacomitinib 46 74 17 NRAfatinib1 129a 66 15b 32–39Erlotinib2 33 70 14 31
Gefitinib3 27 59
Weighted pooled analysis median PFS in patients with EGFR-mutant lungcancers4
Erlotinib (95% CI) 365c 13.2 (12.0–14.7)Gefitinib (95% CI) 1069d 9.8 (9.2–10.4)
1Yang JC, et al. Lancet Oncol 2012;3: 539–48.2Janne PA, et al. J Clin Oncol 2012;epub 30April.
3Sequist LV, et al. J Clin Oncol 2008;26: 2442–94Paz-Ares L, et al. J Cell Mol Med 2010;14:51–69.
a51 treated first-line; bmedian PFS: 12 months on blind review; c12 studies; d39 studies
NR, not reached; OS, overall survival
Gefitinib:IPASS
1.00.90.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.1
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Gefitinib: median 9.5 months
HR 0.48, p<0.0001
Afatinib:phase III1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
00 5 10 15 20 25 30
Median 16.8 months
Prog
ress
ion-
free
sur
viva
l (pr
obab
ility
)
Dacomitinib:phase II
HR 0.47, p<0.0001
Afatinib: median 13.6 months
Is PFS improved with irreversible EGFR-TKIs?Indirect comparison in patients with classical EGFR mutations in first-line
Erlotinib: EURTAC
HR 0.37, p<0.0001
Erlotinib: median 9.7 months
Indirect comparison of reversible vs. irreversible EGFR-TKIs
Gefitinib
NEJSG 002n=114
IPASSn=607
First-SIGNALn=159
WJTOG3405n=87
Rash 71.0 (5.3) 66.2 (3.1) 72.3 (1.3) 74 (2)
Diarrhoea 34.2 (0.9) 46.6 (3.8) NR 47(1)
Fatigue 10.5 (2.6) NR 28.3 (0.6) 34 (2)
Anorexia NR 21.9 (1.5) 44.7 (0) NR
Stomatitis 9.6 (0) 17.0 (0.2) NR 19 (0)
Paronychia NR 13.5 (0.3) NR 28 (1)
Vomiting 6.1 (0.9) 12.9 (0.2) NR NR
Erlotinib
OPTIMALn=83
CALGB30406n=81
73.5 (2.4) NR (7.4)
25.3 (1.2) NR (4.9)
4.8 (0) NR (1.2)
NR NR
13.3 (1.2) NR
3.6 (0) NR
NR NR
Afatinib
LUX-3n=229
37 (16.2)
33 (14.4)
3 (1.3)
7 (3.1)
20 (8.7)
26 (11.4)
7 (3.1)
LUX-Lung 7 – Trial Design
LUX-Lung 7A multicentre, randomized, open-label phase IIb of afatinib vs. gefitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring EGFR activating mutations
Patients with:• Adenocarcinoma of the lung• Presence of activating EGFR mutations in the tumor tissue either by local lab or by central lab• Stage IIIB/IV• No prior treatment with chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic disease• No prior treatment with EGFR-inhibitors• ECOG 0 or 1
Oral afatinib 40 mg once daily Oral gefitinib 250 mg once daily
Primary endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS)
Randomize1:1
NCT01466660
Oral daconitinib 45 mg once daily Oral gefitinib 250 mg once daily
Archer 1050 – Trial Design
Archer 1050A multicentre, randomized, open-label phase III, clinicas study comparing dacominitinib vs. gefitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring EGFR activating mutations
Patients with:• Adenocarcinoma of the lung• Presence of activating EGFR mutations in the tumor tissue either by local lab or by central lab. EGFR mutation status•Stage IIIB/IV• No prior treatment with chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic disease• No prior treatment with EGFR-inhibitors• ECOG 0 or 1
Randomize1:1
Primary endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS)
EGFR TKIs and EGFR mutated NSCLC:<br />major mechanisms of resistance to EGFR TKIs (2)
Presented By Daniel Costa at 2014 ASCO Annual Meeting
Modest efficacy of irreversible EGFR-TKIs Against “de novo” and “acquired” T790M
NeratinibRR=0% in T790M+
LUX-LUNG 2-3-6 trials T790M
Response rate (%) 14.3
PFS (months) 2.9
OS (months) 14.9
LUX LUNG 1: RR=7% LUX LUNG 4: RR=8%
Conclusions
• No relevant differences in clinical activity between first and second generation TKIs
• Better preclinical data of irreversible TKIs do not translate in clinical practice
• Similar results in uncommon EGFR mutations• More favorable Gefitinib Erlotinib toxicity profile• Improved efficacy of Afatinib in exon 19
deletion?• Face to Face comparative trials ongoing