update nsclc
Post on 07-May-2015
3.413 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Clinical Update and Advances in the Treatment of NSCLC
2
Program Overview
• Incidence and epidemiology Subtypes Staging
• Adjuvant therapy for resectable disease Management of treatment-related toxicities Neoadjuvant therapy
• Treatment of metastatic disease• Treatment of the elderly and poor PS patients• Targeted therapy
Anti-EGFR targeted agents Antiangiogenic agents
• Summary and future directions
Lung CancerIncidence and Epidemiology
4
Leading Causes of Cancer-related Deaths
564,830 cancer deaths;162,460 (29%) due to lung cancer
174,470 new cases of lung cancer
MEN
Lung and bronchus 31%†
Colon and rectum 10%
Prostate 9%
Pancreas 6%
Leukemia 4%
WOMEN
Lung and bronchus 26%†
Breast 15%
Colon and rectum 10%
Pancreas 6%
Ovary 6%
Leading Sites* by Sex, United States, 2006 Estimates
*Excludes basal and squamous cell skin cancer and carcinoma in situ, except urinary bladder. †Includes both non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures, 2006.
5
Lung Cancer: High Incidence, High Mortality
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Breast Colon andrectum
Lung Prostate
IncidenceMortality
American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures, 2006.
6
Risk Factors for Lung Cancer
• Environmental factors Smoking/second-hand smoke Air pollution Lung disease (tuberculosis) Asbestos Radon
• Genetic predisposition Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• Prevention
NCCN Guidelines. Version 2.2006; April 2006.
7
Lung Cancer Subtypes
Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
~85%
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
Small Cell Lung Cancer
~15%
Large Cell Carcinoma10%-15%
Adenocarcinoma35%-40%
Squamous Cell Carcinoma25%-30%
8
Squamous Cell Carcinoma
• Occurs most frequently in men and older people of both sexes
• Strongly associated with smoking
• Prominent EGFR over-expression and increased gene copy number per cell
McDoniels-Silvers A. Clinical Cancer Research. 2002;8:1127-1138; Movsas B, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Management: A Multidisciplinary Approach. CMP Media LLC, Lawrence KS, 2005, 111-154.
9
Adenocarcinoma
• Most common type of lung cancer
• Includes bronchioaveolar carcinoma (BAC) as a subtype
McDoniels-Silvers A. Clinical Cancer Research. 2002;8:1127-1138; Movsas B, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Management: A Multidisciplinary Approach. CMP Media LLC, Lawrence KS, 2005, 111-154.
10
Prognostic Factors in NSCLC
• Stage at presentation
• Performance status
• Weight loss
• Sex
• Age
• Molecular markers associated with poor prognosis ras mutations Overexpression of EGFR
Ciardiello F. Curr Opinion Oncology. 2004;16:130-135.
11
Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Stages: TNM Staging System
Tumor
Nodes T1 T2 T3 T4
N0 IA IB IIB IIIB
N1 IIA IIB IIIA IIIB
N2 IIIA IIIA IIIA IIIB
N3 IIIB IIIB IIIB IIIB
Stage IV=M1
T, primary tumor; N, regional lymph nodes; M, distant metastasis.
12
NSCLC Stages at Presentation
31%Stage III
38%Stage IV
24%Stage I
7%Stage
II
Mountain CF. Semin Surg Oncol. 2000;18:106-115.
13
NSCLC Survival
StagePathologic
TNM 5-y Survival
Stage IA T1N0M0 67%
Stage IB T2N0M0 57%
Stage IIA T1N1M0 55%
Stage IIB T2N1M0
T3N0M0
39%
38%
Stage IIIA T1-2N2M0
T3N1-2M0
23%
23%-25%
Stage IIIB T4N0-3M0T1-4N3M0
5%5%
Stage IV Any T, Any N, M1 <1%
Mountain CF. Semin Surg Oncol. 2000;18:106-115; Fry WA, et al. Cancer. 1996;77:1949-1995.
14
NSCLC: Stage IA/B
2 cmStage IAStage IA
N0: No lymph node involvement
M0: No distant metastasis
Stage IBStage IB
T: T <3 cm; no lobar bronchus involvement
Any of the following • T >3 cm• Main bronchus
involvement 2 cm distal to carina
• Tumor invades visceral pleura
• Tumor with distal atelectasis
15
NSCLC: Stage IIA/B
Stage IIAStage IIA
T: T <3 cm; no lobar bronchus involvement
N1: Ipsilateral peribronchial and/or hilar nodes involved
M0: No distant metastasis
Stage IIBStage IIB2 cm
• Any of the following • Tumor with main
bronchus involvement <2 cm distal to carina
• Tumor that invades chest wall, diaphragm, mediastinal pleura, parietal pericardium
• Tumor with distal atelectasis
16
NSCLC: Stage IIIA
N1: Ipsilateral
peribronchial and/or
hilar nodes involved
N2: Ipsilateral
mediastinal and/or
subcarinal nodes
involved
M0: No distant
metastasis
<2 cm 2 cmT3N1-2M0
Tumor that invades
chest wall, diaphragm,
mediastinal pleura,
parietal pericardium
T1-2N2M0
T >3 cm Tumor invades
visceral pleura
Tumor with distal
atelectasis
T 3 cm; no lobar-bronchus involvement
17
Current Treatment Approaches
Stage Standard Treatment
Stage IA Surgical resection
Stage IB Surgical resection +/- adjuvant chemotherapy*
Stage IIA Surgical resection/adjuvant chemotherapy
Stage IIB Surgical resection/adjuvant chemotherapy
Stage IIIA Surgical resection/adjuvant chemo and/or RT
Concurrent chemotherapy/RT
Stage IIIB Concurrent chemotherapy/RT
Stage IV Doublet chemotherapy**
*Strauss GM, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7007.
**Single-agent chemotherapy recommended for the elderly and individuals with poor performance status (PS 2).
Adjuvant Therapy for Resectable Non-small
Cell Lung Cancer
19
Adjuvant Chemotherapy Rationale
• Adjuvant treatment decisions are based on determining the relative benefit of a treatment
• Reducing the risks for relapse and mortality vs potential side effects and complications
20
Adjuvant Therapy for Resectable NSCLC: Recommendations
Stage Recommended Treatment
Stage IA Surgical resection + observation
Stage IB Surgical resection +/- cisplatin-based* chemotherapy
Stage II Surgical resection + cisplatin-based chemotherapy
Stage IIIA Surgical resection in select patients + cisplatin-based chemotherapy
*Strauss GM, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7007.
21
Common Adjuvant Therapy Combinations
• Drug combinations most frequently used in first-line chemotherapy for NSCLC Vinorelbine and cisplatin Gemcitabine and cisplatin Paclitaxel and cisplatin Docetaxel and cisplatin
22
Meta-analysis of Prior Adjuvant Chemotherapy Studies
Overall Survival by Therapy Type
Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P-value
Absolute Benefit
at 5 Years
Meta-analysis of
cisplatin-based drugs
0.87 (0.74-1.02) 0.08 5%
Efficacy of Adjuvant Chemotherapy vs Observation Alone
Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. BMJ. 1995;311:899-909.
23
No. at risk:Surgery plus chemotherapy 706 649 590 526 462 419 371 330 295 255 206Surgery 688 633 648 482 433 382 353 307 258 215 177
Meta-analysis of Prior Adjuvant Chemotherapy Studies (cont.)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Time from randomization (months)
Per
cen
tag
e su
rviv
al
Surgery pluschemotherapy
Surgery
Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. BMJ. 1995;311:899-909.
HR=0.86 [0.74-1.02]P=0.08
24
Randomized Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trials
• IALT Cisplatin-based chemotherapy vs observation
• BR.10 Cisplatin/vinorelbine vs observation
• CALGB 9633 Carboplatin/paclitaxel vs observation
• ANITA Cisplatin/vinorelbine vs observation
25
IALT Schema: Cisplatin-based Adjuvant Chemotherapy
RANDOMIZE
Cisplatin-based chemotherapy+ etoposide or vinorelbine
(as prespecified by treating center)(n=935)
Observation(n=932)
Follow-upanalysis
N=1867• Completely resected stage I-III NSCLC
• Age >18• PS 0-1
Le Chevalier T, et al. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:351-360.
26
IALT: Patient Characteristics
Le Chevalier T, et al. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:351-360.
Outcome Chemotherapy Control
N 932 935
Median age 59 59
Sex (M/F) 81%/19% 80%/20%
PS 0
1
2
54%
38%
8%
53%
40%
7%
27
IALT: Effects of Cisplatin on Overall Survival
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 1 2 3 4 5Years
Chemotherapy
Control
Arriagada R, et al. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:351-360.
At risk:Chemotherapy 932 775 624 450 308 181Control 935 774 602 432 286 164
HR=0.86 [0.76-0.98]P<0.03
• Absolute benefit at 5 years: 4.1%• 7,000 lives saved per year worldwide
28
IALT Survival Rates and Toxicities
• Survival OS at 5 years: 44.5% vs 40.4% (P<0.03)
• 4.1% absolute benefit DFS at 5 years: 39.4% to 34.3% (P<0.003)
• 5.1% absolute benefit ERCC1 may predict benefit of cisplatin-based adjuvant
chemotherapy• Toxicities
0.8% risk of treatment-related death with chemotherapy (7 patients)
23% risk of grade 4 toxicity, primarily neutropenia
Arriagada R, et al. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:351-360; Soria J, et al. ASCO. 2006. Abstract 7010.
29
JBR.10 Schema: Phase III Trial of Adjuvant Chemotherapy
RANDOMIZE
Vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 every week for 16 weeks +
cisplatin 50 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8every 4 weeks for 4 cycles
(n=242)
Observation(n=240)
Follow-upanalysis
N=482• Completely resected stage IB/II NSCLC
• Age ≥18• PS 0-1• +/- K-ras mutations
Winton T, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2589-2597.
30
JBR.10: Effects of Vinorelbine and Cisplatin Adjuvant Chemotherapy
OutcomeChemotherapy
GroupObservation
Group P-value
Median overall survival 94 months 73 months 0.009
5-year survival 69% 54% 0.03
Efficacy of Adjuvant Chemotherapy vs Observation Alone
Winton T, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2589-2597.
31
JBR.10: Effects of Vinorelbine and Cisplatin Adjuvant Chemotherapy
P=0.006
Winton T, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2589-2597.
Overall Survival, All Patients
0
20
40
100
0 2 4 6 8 10Years
Pro
bab
ilit
y (%
)
Vinorelbine plus cisplatin
Observation
60
80
Hazard ratio for death: 0.69 (P=0.04)
69%
54%
32
No. at risk:Observation 108 91 57 29 8 0
Vinorelbine 111 91 65 27 6 0 plus cisplatin
JBR.10: Survival for Stage IB and Stage II Subsets
Winton T, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2589-2597.
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 2 4 6 8 10
ObservationVinorelbine plus cisplatin
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 2 4 6 8 10
ObservationVinorelbine plus cisplatin
Years
Pro
bab
ilit
y (%
)
Overall Survival, Patients with Stage IB Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
Overall Survival, Patients with Stage II Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
No. at risk:Observation 112 91 57 18 5
0Vinorelbine 111 100 54 24 6
0 plus cisplatin
P=0.79 P=0.004
Years
Pro
bab
ilit
y (%
)
33
JBR.10: Adjuvant Chemotherapy in the Elderly
Pepe C, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7009.
All randomized patients N=482
Observation N=240
*18 patients who received vinorelbine 30 mg/m2/week excluded
Prognostic factors
Dose intensity (N=150 vs 63
Chemotherapy toxicities (N=150 vs 63)
Elderly (>65)N=67
Young (<65)N=157
*Chemotherapy N=224
34
JBR.10: Adjuvant Chemotherapy in the Elderly
Pepe C, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7009.
0 2 4 6 8 1012
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
H-R=0.61Log-rank, P=0.04
Overall Survivalby Treatment Arm, Age >65
Observation N=78Chemotherapy N=77
66%
46%
Time in years
0 2 4 6 8 1012
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
H-R=0.66Log-rank, P=0.13
Disease Specific Survivalby Treatment Arm, Age >65
Observation N=78Chemotherapy N=77
73%
46%
Time in years
Pro
bab
ility
Pro
bab
ility
35
JBR.10 Survival Rates and Toxicities
• Survival OS at 5 years was 69% vs 54% (P=0.012) RFS at 5 years was 61% vs 48% (P=0.012)
• Toxicities Febrile neutropenia occurred in 7% of patients Neurotoxicity (paresthesias, numbness, and hearing
problems) was also observed
RFS, relapse-free survival.
36
CALGB 9633 Schema: Randomized Trial of Adjuvant Chemotherapy
RANDOMIZE
Paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 over 3 hours+ carboplatin AUC 6
both on day 1 every 3 weeks for 4 cycles
(n=173)
Observation
(n=171)
Follow-upanalysis
N=384• Completely resected stage IB NSCLC
• Age >18
CALGB, cancer and leukemia group B.Strauss GM, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:7019; Strauss GM, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7007.
37
CALGB 9633: Overall Survival - ASCO 2004 vs ASCO 2006
Strauss GM, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:7019; Strauss GM, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7007.
ASCO: 2004 ASCO: 2006
0 2 4 6 8Survival Time (Years)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pro
ba
bil
ity
ObservationChemo
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90 2 4 6 8
Survival Time (Years)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pro
ba
bil
ity
ObservationChemo
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
HR=0.62; 90% CI: 0.44-0.89 P=0.01
HR=0.80; 90% CI: 0.60-1.07 P=0.10
ObservationChemo
ObservationChemo
Survival time (years) Survival time (years)
38
CALGB 9633: Disease-free Survival – ASCO 2004 vs ASCO 2006
ASCO: 2004 ASCO: 2006
0 2 4 6 8
Survival time (years)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pro
bab
ility
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ObservationChemo
0 2 4 6 8
Survival time (years)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pro
ba
bil
ity
ObservationChemo
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
HR=0.69; 90% CI: 0.51-0.92 P=0.02
HR=0.74; 90% CI: 0.57-0.96 P=0.03
Strauss GM, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:7019;Strauss GM, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7007.
39
CALGB 9633 Survival Rates and Toxicities
• Study was closed early after an interim analysis showed a P-value for OS less than pre-specified stopping boundary DFS improved in intent to treat analysis with adjuvant
chemotherapy Trend toward improvement in OS but not significant (P=0.10) 3-year survival (79% vs 70%, P=0.45) compared with 5-year
survival (60% vs 57%, P=0.32) • Toxicities
No treatment-related deaths were observed Myelosuppression was the most common grade 3 or 4
toxicity Grade 3 neuropathy occurred in 5% of patients
Strauss GM, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:70192; Strauss GM, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;Suppl. 22:621a; Strauss GM, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7007.
40
ANITA Schema: Randomized Phase III Trial of Adjuvant Chemotherapy
RANDOMIZE
Vinorelbine 30 mg/m2/weekfor 16 weeks
+ cisplatin 100 mg/m2
on day 1 every 4 weeks for 4 cycles
(n=407)
Observation(n=433)
Follow-upanalysis
N=840• Completely resected stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC
• PS 0,1, or 2• Age 18-75
Douillard J, et al. ASCO 2005. Abstract 7013.
41
ANITA: Effects of Vinorelbine and Cisplatin Adjuvant Chemotherapy
OutcomeChemotherapy
GroupObservation
GroupHazard Ratio
(95% CI) P-value
Median overall survival
65.8 months 43.8 months 0.79 (0.66-0.95)
0.013
7-year survival 45.2% 36.8%
Efficacy of Adjuvant Chemotherapy vs Observation Alone
Douillard J, et al. ASCO 2005. Abstract 7013.
42
Stage I (p T2N0)
ANITA: Effects of Vinorelbine and Cisplatin in Stage I (p T2N0) Disease
Douillard J, et al. ASCO 2005. Abstract 7013.
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
OBSNVB + CDDP
Months
Stage I (p T2N0)
OBSn=155
NVB + CDDPn=146
Death 61 58
Median months
99.7 Not reached
Su
rviv
al d
istr
ibu
tio
n f
un
ctio
n
Overall Survival
120
43
ANITA: Effects of Vinorelbine and Cisplatin in Stage II Disease
Stage II
Douillard J, et al. ASCO 2005. Abstract 7013.
Stage IIOBS
n=114NVB + CDDP
n=89
Death 70 46
Median months
36.5 65.8
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
OBSNVB + CDDP
Months
Su
rviv
al d
istr
ibu
tio
n f
un
ctio
n
120
44
ANITA: Effects of Vinorelbine and Cisplatin in Stage IIIA Disease
Stage IIIA
Douillard J, et al. ASCO 2005. Abstract 7013.
Stage IIIAOBS
n=159NVB + CDDP
n=166
Death 118 99
Median months
24.1 38.6
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
OBSNVB + CDDP
Months
Su
rviv
al d
istr
ibu
tio
n f
un
ctio
n
120
45
ANITA Survival Rates and Toxicities
• Survival Median survival was 65.8 months vs 43.7 months (P=0.0131) OS at 2 years was 68% vs 63% OS at 5 years was 51% vs 43% OS at 7 years was 45% vs 37%
• Toxicities Grade 3/4 toxicities
• Neutropenia 86%
• Febrile neutropenia 8.5%
• Peripheral neuropathy 3% 5 patients (1%) died of drug-related toxicity
46
Summary: Randomized Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trials
• IALT Supported platinum-based chemotherapy, results were
moderately significant
• BR.10 Statistical advantage in prolonging overall survival
demonstrated
• CALGB 9633 Risk of death found to be significantly lower
• ANITA Overall survival and relapse rate significantly improved
47
LACE: Adjuvant Cisplatin-based Chemotherapy Improves Survival
• Meta-analysis of individual patient data collected and pooled from the 5 largest trials (ALPI, ANITA, BLT, IALT and JBR10) of cisplatin-based therapy in completely resected patients
• Compared cisplatin-based CT vs no CT, or cisplatin-based CT + radiotherapy vs postoperative radiotherapy
• Primary endpoint Overall survival
Pignon JP, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7008.
48
LACE: Overall Survival By Trial
Trials (associated drug(s)): ALPI, MTC+VDS; ANITA, NVB; BLT, NVB/VDS/MTC+VDS/MTC+IFM; JBR10, NVB; IALT, NVB/VDS/VLB/VP16. Pignon JP, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7008.
OS by Trail
TrailNo. Deaths/No. Entered
Hazard Ratio(Chemotherapy/Control) HR [95% CI]
ALPI 569/1088 0.95 [0.81; 1.12]
ANITA 458/840 0.82 [0.68; 0.98]
BLT 152/307 1.00 [0.72; 1.38]
IALT 980/1867 0.91 [0.80; 1.03]
JBR10 197/482 0.71 [0.54; 0.94]
Total 2356/4584 0.89 [0.82; 0.96]
Tests for heterogeneity: P=0.34 Chemotherapy effect: P=0.004
Chemotherapy better Control better0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
49
LACE: Benefit Appears to Be Stage Dependent
Pignon JP, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7008.
CT Effect and Stage
CategoryNo. Deaths/No. Entered
Hazard Ratio(Chemotherapy/Control) HR [95% CI]
Stage IA 102/347 1.41 [0.96; 2.09]
Stage IB 509/1371 0.92 [0.78; 1.10]
Stage II 880/1616 0.83 [0.73; 0.95]
Stage III 865/1247 0.83 [0.73; 0.95]
Tests for trend: P=0.051CT may be detrimental for stage IA, but stage IA patients were generally not given the potentially best combination cisplatin+vinorelbine (13% of stage IA patients vs ~43% for other stages)
Chemotherapy better Control better0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
50
LACE: Summary
• Cisplatin-based chemotherapy improves overall and disease-free survival in patients with NSCLC
• Multi-variant analyses were not able to study the role of the associated drug and cisplatin dose, despite the large number of patients
• Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is effective in stage II and III NSCLC
Pignon JP, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7008.
51
CISCA: Cisplatin vs Carboplatin Meta-analysis
• Randomized trials comparing cisplatin- and carboplatin-based chemotherapy Primary endpoint
• Overall survival Secondary endpoints
• Response rate and toxicity• 2,968 patients were randomized to receive CT with
cisplatin (1,489) or with carboplatin (1,479), respectively RR was 30% (cisplatin) vs 24% (carboplatin)
• Carboplatin was associated with a relative risk of death 7% higher compared with cisplatin, P=0.101)
Ardizzoni A. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7011.
52
Adjuvant Chemotherapy: Summary
• Adjuvant chemotherapy in the setting of completely resected NSCLC is a subject of controversy
• Statistically significant survival benefit to such chemotherapy
• Toxicities related to treatment call into question whether this apparent clinical benefit warrants the risk
Management of Treatment-related Toxicities
54
Common Symptoms/Side Effects in NSCLC
• Symptoms related to disease Dyspnea Pain Fatigue
• Symptoms related to treatment Myelosuppression Pain Fatigue
55
Management of Dyspnea
• Assessment challenging, subjective; based on patient’s responses
• Activity planning to avoid symptoms and allow relief
• Medications Corticosteroids Opioids Oxygen therapy
• Nontraditional/investigational therapies Acupuncture Massage Exercise
Bruera E, et al. Principles and Practice of Supportive Oncology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1998:295-308.
56
Management of Pain
• Assessment Must identify etiology for effective treatment
• Medications Opioids NSAIDs Corticosteroids
• Nonpharmacologic interventions Heat/cold Topical agents Massage Behavioral therapy
National Cancer Institute. Pain (PDQ) Health Professional Version. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/supportivecare/pain/Patient/page4. Accessed January 30, 2006.
57
Myelosuppression
• Most common side effect of chemotherapy Neutropenia Anemia
• Neutropenia is the primary dose-limiting toxicity of chemotherapy Often results in dose reductions or delays in treatment
Rivera E. Breast Cancer Res. 2003; 5(5): R114-R120; Crawford J. J Support Oncol. 2004;2(suppl 2):36-39.
58
Neutropenia
• Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia can lead to febrile neutropenia
• Febrile neutropenia (FN) ANC >1.0×109/L with a temperature >100.6°F ~30% of patients receiving CT for NSCLC Regimens with an intermediate risk of FN (10%-20%)
• Cisplatin, paclitaxel Regimens with a high risk of FN (>20%)
• Docetaxel, carboplatin
• Gemcitabine, ifosfamide, vinorelbineANC, absolute neutrophil count; CT, chemotherapy.Rivera E. Breast Cancer Res. 2003; 5(5): R114–R120; Kuderer NM, et al. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2002;21:250a; Bonadonna G, et al. BMJ. 2005;330:217.
59
Neutropenic Complications and Considerations
• Febrile neutropenia, severe neutropenia, or dose delay or reduction due to neutropenia
• Prophylactic use of colony-stimulating factors can reduce the risk, severity, and duration of severe and FN
• Maintaining chemotherapy dose intensity in the initial cycles may be associated with improved outcomes
Caggiano V, et al. Cancer. 2005;103:1916-1924; Kuderer NM, et al. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2002;21:250a; Bonadonna G, et al. BMJ. 2005;330:217.
60
Assessment of Febrile Neutropenia
• Assessment Risk factors predictive for febrile neutropenia
Increasing age Active tissue infection Preexisting neutropenia from prior myelosuppressive therapy
Poor performance status
History of recurrent chemotherapy-induced
neutropenia
Preexisting neutropenia from radiation therapy to bone marrow
Bone marrow involvement
Comorbid disease
Ozer H, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3558-3585. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Myeloid Growth Factors in Cancer Treatment. v2.2005. 2005.
61
2005 NCCN Guidelines: Decision Tree for Primary Prophylaxis
Disease
Intermediate10%-20%
Risk
Consider
G-CSF
Use G-CSF
No Routine G-CSF
1. Evaluate1. Evaluate 2. Assess Risk*2. Assess Risk* 3. Intervene3. Intervene
Chemotherapy Regimen
Patient Risk Factors
Treatment Intent
High >20% Risk
Low<10% Risk
*Risk of FN or neutropenic event compromising treatment.
62
Clinical Benefit of Pegfilgrastim in First and Subsequent Cycles
S CR E E NING
C H EMO T H E RA P Y *
RANDOM I Z A T I ON
Febrile Neutropenia
Febrile Neutropenia
Placebon = 465
Placebon = 465
Pegfilgrastimn = 463
Pegfilgrastimn = 463
Double-blind Phase
Docetaxel+
Pegfilgrastim
OR
Docetaxel Alone
Docetaxel+
Pegfilgrastim
OR
Docetaxel Alone
Open-label Phase
**Docetaxel 100 mg/m2 IV given on day 1 and blinded product given on day 2. Four 21- day cycles were planned.Vogel C, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1178-1184.
63
Clinical Benefit of Pegfilgrastim in First and Subsequent Cycles (cont.)
Efficacy of Pegfilgrastim for Preventing Febrile Neutropenia
OutcomePegfilgrastim
(n=463)Placebo (n=465)
% Reduction P-value
Febrile neutropenia 1% 17% 94 <0.001
Hospitalization for febrile neutropenia
1% 14% 93 <0.001
Use of IV anti-infectives 2% 10% 80 <0.001
Vogel C, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1178-1184.
64
Use of Pegfilgrastim in NSCLC
• 2 small trials performed in NSCLC patients A single pegfilgrastim dose per cycle maintains
neutrophil counts after docetaxel and gemcitabine chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC1
A single pegfilgrastim dose per cycle of dose-dense carboplatin/vinorelbine protects against FN2
1. Fortner BV, et al. 2003 ASCO Annual Meeting. Abstract 2799; 2. Riedel R, et al. Abstract 2826.
65
Prevention of FN: Growth Factor Support
Misset JL, et al. Ann Oncol. 1999;10:553-560; Green MD, et al. Ann Oncol. 2003;14:29-35; Holmes FA, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:727-731.
Pegfilgrastim
Control
Filgrastim
1820
38
9
13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
FN
rat
e (%
)
(n=42) (n=80) (n=77) (n=156) (n=154)
Misset et al. Green et al. Holmes et al*.
N=42
N=157 N=310
66
Colony Stimulating Factor Support: Summary
• Dose delay and dose reduction can result in care that is less than optimal
• Reductions in total dose and dose intensity have an adverse effect on DFS and OS
• Prophylactic growth-factor support appears to decrease treatment-related morbidity and to increase the likelihood of the administration of full-dose chemotherapy on time
Crawford J. J Support Oncol. 2004;2(suppl 2):36-39.
67
Growth Factor Support: Unanswered Questions
• If growth factor support is provided, would the dose intensity delivered increase and by how much?
• Would the rate of neutropenic complications increase because of the higher chemotherapy dose delivered?
Crawford J. J Support Oncol. 2004;2(suppl 2):36-39.
68
Anemia
• Anemia defined as hemoglobin <11 g/dL
• Anemia is a common complication of cancer and cancer treatment 50%-60% patients will develop anemia Severity of anemia increases with the use of platinum
combination chemotherapy
• Anemia treatment can improve quality of life (QOL) and clinical outcomes
Okamoto, et al. Ann Oncol. 1992;3:819-824; Langer C. Chemotherapy Foundation Symposium XXI 2003.
69
Causes of Cancer-related Anemia
• Disease-related anemia Tumor type Stage and duration of disease Presence of infection
• Treatment-related anemia Regimen and intensity of therapy
• Chemotherapy• Radiation therapy• Surgical intervention
Prior cancer treatment
70
Hemoglobin and Performance Status
• A significant correlation was found between poor performance status score and low Hb level breast cancer (P<0.001)
Barrett-Lee P. Oncologist, 2005;10:743-757.
WHO Performance Score
0
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
13.0
12.5
0 1 2 3 4
Hb
leve
l (g
/dL
)
Breast cancer
Gynecologic cancer
95% CI: WHO 0, 12.654-12.785; WHO 1, 12.423-12.587; WHO 2, 11.878-12.222; WHO 3, 11.484-12.223; WHO 4, 8.613-13.634
71
Clinical Consequences of Anemia
Decreased Quality of Life
Reduced Treatment Success
Decreased Survival
Cella D. Semin Oncol. 198;25(suppl 7):43-46; Ludwig H, et al. Semin Oncol. 198;25(suppl 7):2-6; Grogan M, et al. Cancer. 1999;86:1528-1536; Dubray B, et al. Radiology. 1996;201:553-558; Lee W, et al. Int. J. Radiol. Oncol Biol. Phys. 1998;42:1069-1075.
• Chemotherapy may be more toxic or less effective when patients are anemic Fatigue “Full dose on time”
72
Patient-reported Areas Negatively Affected by Fatigue
Vogelzang NJ, et al. Semin Hematol. 1997;34(suppl 2):4-12.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Concerns about mortality and survival
Relationships with family and friends
Ability to take care of family
Intimacy with partner
Emotional well-being
Ability to enjoy lifein the moment
Physical well-being
Ability to work
Patients (%)
61
60
57
51
44
42
38
33
73
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Lung Head andneck
Prostate Lymphoma Overall
Re
lati
ve
ris
k o
f d
ea
th (
%)
Anemia and Risk of Death
Stasi R, et al. Oncologist. 2005;10:539-554.
74
Management of Anemia
• Iron supplementation
• Change in chemotherapy regimen
• RBC transfusion
• Erythropoietic-stimulating agents Recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO)
• eg, epoetin alfa, epoetin beta
• Only 50%-60% of patients respond Darbepoetin alfa (erythropoiesis-stimulating protein)
• 2 to 3 times longer serum half-life than rHuEPO
Dicato M. Oncologist. 2003;8:19-21. Gordon MS. Oncologist. 2002;7:331-341; NCCN. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Cancer- and Treatment-Related Anemia. v1.2006. 2006.
75
Erythropoietin Therapy
• Advantages Avoids risks of transfusion therapy
• Allergic/febrile reactions
• Transfusion-associated immunosuppression
• Formation of alloantibodies
• Disadvantages Response not as rapid as therapy via transfusion
• Response can take >4 weeks Can cause hypertension or splenomegaly
Dicato M. Oncologist. 2003;8:19-21. Goodnough LT, et al. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:438-447;Ludwig H, et al. Semin Oncol.1998;25(suppl 7)2-6.
76
Erythropoietic Agents for Treatment of Anemia in Cancer Patients
• Recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) eg, epoetin alfa, epoetin beta Has the same biological effects as erythropoietin Only 50%-60% of patients respond
• Darbepoetin alfa Erythropoiesis-stimulating protein 2 to 3 times longer serum half-life than rHuEPO
77
Erythropoietic Therapy Recommendations
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Initiate erythropoietic therapy in patients with
Hg <11 g/dL
• American Society of Hematology (ASH) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Initiate erythropoietic therapy in patients with
Hg <10 g/dL RBC transfusion should be considered depending on
the severity of anemia or clinical consequences
NCCN Practice Guidelines in Oncology – v.1.2006. Rizzo JD, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20: 4083-4107.
78
Erythropoietic Intervention
Late Intervention/ Hb Correction
Transfusion
Chemotherapy treatment
Hem
og
lob
in (
g/d
L)
12
11
13
10
6
8.5
Erythropoietic Treatment
12
13
8.5
Early Intervention/ Hb Maintenance
11
10
Erythropoietic Treatment
Transfusion?
Chemotherapy treatment
6
Hem
og
lob
in (
g/d
L)
Adapted from Rearden, TP. J Clin Oncol, 2004 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition). Vol 22, No 14S (July 15 Supplement), 2004: 8064.
79Schwartzberg LS, et al. Oncologist. 2004;9:696-707.
Clinical Benefit of Darbepoetin alfa and Epoetin alfa
RANDOMIZE
Darbepoetin alfa200 g q2 wk
END
OF
TREATMENT
2 weeks after last dose of
darbepoetin alfa
or
1 week after last dose of epoetin alfa
Epoetin alfa40,000 U q wk
END
OF
STUDY
2 weeks after
end-of-treatment
visit
Concurrent chemotherapy
1 5 9 13 17 19
(Baseline) Study week
80Schwartzberg LS, et al. Oncologist. 2004;9:696-707.
Clinical Benefit of Darbepoetin alfa and Epoetin alfa
Individual Analysis by Tumor Type
6%
27%
21%
16%18% 17%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Breast Lung Gyn
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f p
atie
nts
re
qu
irin
g a
tra
ns
fusi
on
Q2W Darbepoetin alfa
QW Epoetin alfa
n= 72 69 51 51 34 35
Combined Analysis by BaselineHemoglobin and Overall
21%
14% 16%
42%
9%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
<10 g/dL >10 g/dL Overall
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f p
atie
nts
re
qu
irin
g a
tra
ns
fusi
on
n= 38 38 119 117 157 155
Q2W Darbepoetin alfa
QW Epoetin alfa
81
Clinical Benefit of Darbepoetin alfa and Epoetin alfa
Darbepoetin alfa vs Epoetin alfa for Treating Anemia
Outcome
Darbepoetin alfa
(n=157)
Epoetin alfa
(n=155)
Patients achieving target hemoglobin ≥11 g/dL
82% 86%
Median time to target hemoglobin
5 weeks 4 weeks
Mean duration of treatment 9.3 weeks 10.1 weeks
Mean hemoglobin level after achieving target
12.1 g/dL 12.2 g/dL
Schwartzberg LS, et al. Oncologist. 2004;9:696-707.
82
Noninferiority Study of Darbepoetin alfa (DA) and Epoetin alfa (EA)
• Randomized, open-label, active-controlled, multicenter study DA at a starting dose of 200 µg Q2W over 16 weeks
for the treatment of anemia in patients receiving multicycle chemotherapy
The active control arm received EA at a starting dose of 40,000 U QW
• After the 16-week treatment period, patients were monitored for 2 weeks for adverse events, concomitant medications, and transfusions received
Glaspy J, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2290-2297.
83
Incidence of RBC Transfusions and Sensitivity Analyses
A: Percentages of patients receiving ≥ one transfusionB: Sensitivity analyses—adjusted by screening hemoglobin category (<10 g/dL vs 10 g/dL) and type of chemotherapy administered (platinum-based vs nonplatinum-based) Glaspy J, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2290-2297.
Mean (95% CI) Difference between Treatment Groups
In favor of darbepoetin alfa In favor of epoetin alfa
Per protocol analysis set(16 week cohort)
Primary transfusion analysis set/primary analysis set
(16 week cohort)
Per protocol analysis set(all cohorts)
-16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16
Noninferiority margin 11.5%
1.3%
5.0%
3.6%
In favor of darbepoetin alfa In favor of epoetin alfa
-16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16
11.5%
0.4%
3.0%
4.4%
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Darbepoetinalfa
Epoetin alfa Historical(placebo)
Historical(epoetin alfa)
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f p
atie
nts
(95%
CI)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Darbepoetinalfa
Epoetin alfa Historical(placebo)
Historical(epoetin alfa)
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f p
atie
nts
(95%
CI)
21%16%
45%
26%27%
22%
51%
25%
84
Effect of Darbepoetin alfa and Epoetin alfa on Hemoglobin
Glaspy J, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2290-2297.
Hemoglobin (Hb) Concentration over Treatment Period
Achievement of Target Hemoglobin Range (11 g/dL to 13 g/dL) by Study Week
10.18
11.4411.75
10.21
11.7611.85
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Baseline Week 9 Week 17
Me
an
(u
pp
er
95
% C
I) H
b l
ev
els
(g
/dL
)
Darbepoetin alfa
Epoetin alfa
Target range
n=606 n=603 n=433 n=431 n=278 n=245
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 1415 16 17
Time (weeks)
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f p
ati
en
ts
Darbepoetin alfa
Epoetin alfa
Patients at risk:Darbepoetin alfa 606 606 586 521 395 360 290 266 220 194 164 150 122 116 98 86 69 42Epoetin alfa 603 603 577 515 344 302 220 195 147 132 106 97 66 57 48 38 30 21
85
Darbepoetin alfa and Epoetin alfa Provide Comparable Outcomes
• Safety profiles of DA and EA were consistent with adverse events in anemic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with no differences observed between groups
• The ability to extend dosing intervals represents an important potential benefit for patients and their caregivers
Glaspy J, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2290-2297.
Overall health
Daily activity
Energy
FACT-anemia
FACT-fatigue
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mean (95% CI) Difference between Treatment Groups
In favor of epoetin alfa In favor of darbepoetin alfa
86Boccia R, et al. Oncologist. 2006;11:409-417.
Darbepoetin alfa 300 g Q3W: Study Schema
Key Eligibility Criteria
Patients ≥18 years old with nonmyeloid malignancies Baseline Hb ≥11 g/dL No RBC transfusion within 2 weeks of screening
No erythropoietic agent within 4 weeks of screening At least 8 additional weeks of chemotherapy Adequate renal and liver function
N=1225, 29% breast cancer
SCREENING
ENROLLMENT
END
OF
STUDY
7 days max
4 daysmax
2 3 4 5 6 7* 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Darbepoetin alfa300 g Q3W
Darbepoetin alfa administration
Study week
Darbepoetin alfa300 g Q3W500 g Q3W
87
Darbepoetin alfa (DA) 200 g Q2W vs 300 g Q3W
• DA 200 g Q2W has been shown to be as effective as epoetin alfa 40000 U QW for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia1
• DA 300 g Q3W is well-tolerated and effective for achieving and maintaining evidence-based target Hb levels, allowing for synchronous administration with common chemotherapy regimens2
1. Schwartzberg LS, et al. Oncologist. 2004;9:696-707; 2. Boccia R, et al. Oncologist. 2006; 11:409-417.
88
500 g Darbepoetin alfa Q3W for Chemotherapy-induced Anemia
• Chemotherapy-induced anemia can be treated with a fixed dose of 500 g Q3W of darbepoetin alfa with comparable efficacy to 2.25 g/kg weekly dosing
• Patients receiving Q3W dosing received fewer blood transfusions than in the weekly arm
• 84% of Q3W patients achieved the target hemoglobin levels (>11 g/dL) compared with 77% QW patients
• Synchronous administration of darbepoetin alfa Q3W with many chemotherapy schedules would be convenient to patients and their healthcare providers
Canon JL et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(4):273-284.
89
Anemia and Erythropoietic Therapy: Summary
• Cancer-related anemia is common but under-recognized and under-treated
• Anemia is associated with reduced survival
• Darbepoetin alfa has an approximate threefold longer half-life than epoetin alfa and is effective at weekly, Q2W, and Q3W dosing intervals
• Less frequent dosing schedules that have equal efficacies are an obvious benefit to patients
Neoadjuvant Therapy
91
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
• Preoperative chemotherapy may improve the prognosis and survival
• Goal Downstage the tumor before surgery, increasing the
chances for resection
92
Neoadjuvant Therapy Plus Surgery vs Surgery Alone
• Survival improves significantly with neoadjuvant therapy
Treatment (N=60) Induction CT surgery Surgery alone P-value
Median overall survival 26 months 8 months
5 months
74 months
<0.001
Disease-free survival
Rate of recurrence
20 months
56 months
<0.001
0.65
Rosell R, et al. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(3):153-158.
93
SWOG 9900 Trial: Schema
RANDOMIZE
Paclitaxel carboplatin x 3 cycles
Surgery
SurgeryELIGIBLE
N=600• Clinical stage: T2N0,
T1-2N1, T3N0-1
Pisters K, et al. ASCO 2005. Abstract 7012.
94
SWOG 9900: Induction Chemotherapy
Pisters K, et al. ASCO 2005. Abstract 7012.
HR=0.84 [0.60-1.18]P=0.32
Median 1 y 2 y
Preop 47 mo 82% 68%
Control 40 mo 79% 64%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 12 24 36 48 60
Months
Preop
Control
95
SWOG 9900: Induction Chemotherapy (cont.)
• Overall survival favors and the role of preoperative chemotherapy
TreatmentMedian Overall
Survival P-value
SWOG 9900 Induction CT surgery 47 months 0.32
Surgery alone 40 months
Pisters K, et al. ASCO 2005. Abstract 7012.
96
Treatment-related Toxicities and Induction Therapy
• Death
• Neutropenia
• Esophagitis
• Nausea/emesis
• Pneumonia
97
Adjuvant vs Neoadjuvant Therapy: Summary
• Preoperative treatment may have a favorable effect on outcome
• Aggressive neoadjuvant approaches may be accompanied by treatment-related toxicities, including death
Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
99
Stage IV Disease: Goals of Therapy
• Stage IV NSCLC Indicates presence of metastatic disease Largely incurable Properly selected patients may benefit from
chemotherapy with regard to survival and palliation
• Goals of treatment are To prolong survival Palliative To improve quality of life
100
Best Supportive Care vs Chemotherapy in Advanced Patients
Socinski M. Chest. 2003;123:226S-243S.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 6 12 18 24
Time from randomization (months)
Pe
rce
nta
ge
su
rviv
al
Best supportive care (BSC)+ chemotherapy
Supportive care
No. at risk:BSC + chemotherapy 416 219 98 47 28Supportive care 362 125 55 28 14
101
Best Supportive Care and Chemotherapy Prolong Survival
Socinski M. Chest. 2003;123:226S-243S.
0
10
20
30
40
BSC CT+BSC BSC CT+BSC
1-y
surv
ival
%
5
10
15
20No. of patients alive in the US at 1 year
102
Current Treatment Guidelines for Metastatic NSCLC
• BSC, best supportive care
Stage IV NSCLCPS 3, 4 PS 0-2
BSC 1st Line Platinum-based Chemotherapy
ProgressionPS 3, 4 PS 0-2
BSC 2nd Line Platinum-based Chemotherapy
Progression
PS 3, 4 PS 0-2
BSC Gefitinib or Phase I/II Clinical TrialAdapted from NCCN Practice Guidelines in Oncology v.2.2006.
103
ECOG E1594 Schema: Efficacy in Comparable Platinum-based Regimens
RANDOMIZE
Paclitaxel 175 mg/m2/week over 24 hours, day 1Cisplatin 75 mg/m2 day 2,
every 3 weeks (n=288)
Fo
llow
-up
ana
lysi
s
N=1155• Stage IIIB/IV
• PS 0-2 • Weight loss• Brain metastases (+/-)
Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 day 1, 8, 15Cisplatin 100 mg/m2 day 1,
every 4 weeks (n=288)
Docetaxel 75 mg/m2 day 1Cisplatin 75 mg/m2 day 1,
every 3 weeks (n=289)
Paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 over 3 hours, day 1Carboplatin AUC=6 day 1,
every 3 weeks (n=289)
104
ECOG E1594: Comparable Efficacy in Platinum-based Regimens
Cis/PaclitaxelCis/GemcitabineCis/DocetaxelCarbo/Paclitaxel
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
MonthsSchiller JH, et al. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:92-98.
Survival by Treatment Group
105
ECOG 1594: Regimens and Efficacy
RegimenResponse
Rate
Median Survival (weeks)
1-year Survival
Time to Progression
(months)
Paclitaxel 175 mg/m2
Cisplatin 75 mg/m2 21% 7.8 31% 3.5
Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2
d1, 8, 15
Cisplatin 100 mg/m2 d121% 8.1 36% 4.5
Docetaxel 75 mg/m2
Cisplatin 75 mg/m217% 7.4 31% 3.6
Paclitaxel 225 mg/m2
Carboplatin AUC=6 15% 8.2 38% 3.3
Schiller JH, et al. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:92-98.
106
ECOG 1594 Findings
• Survival curves demonstrate comparable efficacy between various platinum-based regimens
• No difference in long-term survival was observed
107
“Modern Agents” for Treatment of Advanced NSCLC
• Paclitaxel-based regimens
• Docetaxel-based regimens
• Vinorelbine-based regimens
• Gemcitabine-based regimens
• Irinotecan-based regimens
108
Comparison of Advanced NSCLC Therapies
Survival Supportive CarePlatinum-based Chemotherapy
Modern Doublet Chemotherapy
Median survival time
4 months 6 months ~10 months
1 year 10% 20% 30%
2 years 0% <5% 10%
Wakelee H, Belani CP. Oncologist. 2005;10(suppl 3):1-10.
109
First-line Chemotherapy in Advanced Disease: Summary
• Platinum-based therapy is standard first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC
• Non-platinum regimens have similar efficacy and prolong survival to similar extents as platinum-based therapy
• Non-platinum regimens do not show substantially decreased toxicity but may be better tolerated
1. Georgoulias V, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2937-2945; 2. Pujol JL, et al. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:602-610; 3. Kosmidis PA, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:621s; 4. Gridelli C, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3025-3034.
110
Stage IV Disease: Second-line Therapy
Study Treatment
OverallResponse
RateMedian Survival
Time P-value
Hanna et al.1 Pemetrexed 9.1% 8.3 monthsNS
Docetaxel 8.8% 7.9 months
Shepherd et al.2 Erlotinib 8.9% 6.7 months<0.001
Placebo <1.0% 4.7 months
Shepherd et al.3 Docetaxel 7.0 months0.047
Best supportive care
4.6 months
Second-line Treatment for Advanced NSCLC
1. Hanna N, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1589-1597; 2. Shepherd FA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:123-132; 3. Shepherd FA, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:2095-2103.
111
Second-line Therapy vs BSC: Shepherd et al.
Shepherd FA, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:2095-2103.
RANDOMIZE
Docetaxel 100 mg/m2
(n=49)
Best supportive care(n=100)
N=204• Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC
• Failed/intolerant to ≥1 prior chemotherapy regimen
• PS 0-2
Primary endpoint• Overall survival
Secondaryendpoints• Objective tumor response
• Duration of response
• Changes in quality of life
Docetaxel 75 mg/m2
(n=55)
112
Chemotherapy Still Shows Benefits vs BSC as Second-line Therapy
Shepherd FA, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:2095-2103.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Survival time (months)
Cu
mu
lati
ve p
rob
abil
ity
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Survival time (months)
Cu
mu
lati
ve p
rob
abil
ity
Docetaxel 100 mg/m2 (n=49)
BSC100 (n=51)
Log-rank test, P=0.780 Log-rank test, P=0.010
Docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (n=55)
BSC75 (n=49)
113
Chemotherapy Still Shows Benefits vs BSC as Second-line Therapy (cont.)
Shepherd FA, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:2095-2103.
Outcome ArmsBest Supportive
Care P-value
Median overall survival 7.0 months 4.6 months 0.047
1-year survival 29% 19%
114
Hematologic Toxicities Associated with Treatment
Toxicity
Docetaxel *
Overall 75 mg/m2 100 mg/m2
No. % No. % No. %
Total no. of patients 104 55 49
Anemia 11 10.6 3 5.5 8 16.3
Neutropenia 79 76.0 37 67.3 42 85.7
Thrombocytopenia 1 1.0 0 0 1 2.0
Febrile neutropenia 12 11.5 1 1.8 11 22.4
Septic deaths 3 2.9 0 0 3 6.1
*Incidence of grade 3/4 toxicity per patient.Shepherd FA, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:2095-2103.
115
Phase III Pemetrexed vs Docetaxel for Second-line NSCLC
Hanna N, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1589-1597.
RANDOMIZE
Pemetrexed 500 mg/m2
+ Vitamin B12
+ Folic acid + Dexamethasone
(n=283)
Docetaxel 75 mg/m2 +Dexamethasone
(n=288)
N=571• Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC
• Failed/intolerant to 1 prior chemotherapy regimen
• PS 0-2
Primary endpoint• Overall survival
Secondaryendpoints
• Toxicity
• Objective response rate
• Progression-free survival
• Time to progression
• Quality of life
116
Phase III Pemetrexed vs Docetaxel for Second-line: Survival
Hanna N, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1589-1597.
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0 5 10 15 20
Survival time (months)
Su
rviv
al d
istr
ibu
tio
n f
un
ctio
n
Pemetrexed (n=265)
Docetaxel (n=276)
Patients at risk:Pemetrexed 283 189 78 16 0Docetaxel 288 177 78 19 1
MST 1-y OS
47 mo
40 mo
29.7%
29.7%
HR=0.99 (95% CI, 0.8 to 1.2)
117
Stage IV Disease: Current Questions
• In which patients is chemotherapy appropriate?
• What is the optimal chemotherapeutic approach? Regimen? Duration?
• Does second-line chemotherapy improve survival?
• How do outcomes and adverse effects associated with chemotherapy compare with the natural history of the disease?
Treatment in the Elderly Population and Poor
Performance Status Patients
119
Elderly and Poor Performance Status Patients
• Cisplatin regimens provide a slight advantage over supportive care but can induce severe toxic effects
• Consequently, treatment is frequently contraindicated in the elderly and patients with poor PS Reduction in the functional reserve of many organs
and comorbid conditions
120
CALGB 9730: Monotherapy vs Combination Therapy
Lilenbaum RC, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:190-196.
Outcome Paclitaxel Paclitaxel + Carboplatin P-value
Response rate, % 17 30 <0.0001
Median failure-free survival, mo 2.5 4.6 0.0002
1-year survival, % 32 27 NS
121
CALGB 9730: Age >70
Paclitaxel + Carboplatin Paclitaxel
Response rate 36% 21%
Median survival 8.0 5.8
1-year survival 35% 31%
Lilenbaum RC, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:190-196.
122
CALGB 9730: PS 2
Paclitaxel + Carboplatin Paclitaxel
n 40 50
Response rate 24% 10%
Median survival 4.7 2.4
1-year survival 17% 14%
Lilenbaum RC, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:190-196.
123
Efficacy of Platinum-based Doublets: STELLAR 3
Outcome
Paclitaxel Poliglumex + Carboplatin
(n=199)Paclitaxel + Carboplatin
(n=198)
Median overall survival, months 7.9 8.0
1-year overall survival 31% 31%
Grade 3/4 neuropathy 17% 10%
Grade 3/4 neutropenia* 28% 17%
Arthralgia/myalgia* (all grades) 17% 31%
All cardiac events* 2% 6%
Alopecia* 14% 43%
*P<0.05. Langer CJ, et al. ASCO 2005. Abstract 7011.
• Efficacy and tolerability similar in older vs younger patients and poor vs good PS patients
124
SWOG 9308 and 9509: Retrospective Analysis in Advanced NSCLC
SWOG 9308: Vinorelbine + cisplatin vs cisplatin.SWOG 9509: Paclitaxel + carboplatin vs vinorelbine + cisplatin.Kelly K, et al. ASCO 2001. Abstract 1313.
SWOG 9509 SWOG 9308
Paclitaxel/Carbo(N=202)
Vinorelbine/Cis*(N=406)
Total(N=608)
Age <70 164 (82%) 327 (81%) 491 (71%)
Age >70 38 (18%) 79 (19%) 117 (19%)
125
SWOG 9308 and 9509: Results
<70(n=491)
70(n=117) P-value
TTP (mo) 4.2 3.9 0.62
Median survival (mo) 8.6 6.9 0.06
1-y OS 40% 30% 21%
2-y OS 16% 10% 22%
Kelly K, et al. ASCO 2001. Abstract 1313.
126
Poor Performance Status Patients
Treatment Arm
Grade 3/4 Toxicity, %
PS 0-1 PS 2
Paclitaxel + cisplatin 20%-68% 30%-60%
Gemcitabine + cisplatin 20%-69% 8%-67%
Docetaxel + cisplatin 22%-61% 12%-59%
Paclitaxel + carboplatin 28%-53% 27%-33%
Death due to drug toxicity 4% 3%
Sweeney CJ, et al. Cancer. 2001;92:2639-2647.
• ECOG E1594 adverse events High number of adverse events in PS 2 and PS 0-1 groups Events and shorter survival in PS 2 patients (n=64) related to disease process rather than treatment
127
ECOG 1594: Outcome Based on Age
<70 y 70 y
n=912 n=227 P- value
Grade 4 toxicity 66% 71.2% 0.04
OR(%) 22.1 24.5 0.76
PFS (mo) PS 0-1 3.71 3.75
PFS 1-y (%) 6.5 8.6 0.37
PFS 2-y (%) 0.5 2.2 0.04
MS (mo) 8.15 8.25
1-y OS(%) 32.8 35.2 0.53
2-y OS(%) 10.6 13.7 0.24
Langer CJ, et al. ASCO 2003. Abstract 2571.
128
ELVIS (Elderly Lung Cancer Vinorelbine Italian Study)
Vinorelbine BSC
Response rate 19.7 0
Median survival 28 wk 21 wk
1-y survival 32% 14%
• Statistically significant benefit for patients receiving vinorelbine
Gridelli C. J Nat Cancer Inst. 1999;85:365-376.
129
Efficacy of Nonplatinum Single-agent vs Doublet Chemotherapy
Outcome Vinorelbine GemcitabineVinorelbine + Gemcitabine
Overall survival 38% 28% 30%
Median time to progression, weeks 18 17 19
Tumor response rate 18% 16% 21%
Overall survival among patients with PS=2 20% 18% 22%
MILES Comparison of Single-agent vs Double-agent Chemotherapy
Gridelli C, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:362-372.
Targeted Therapy for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
131
Targeted Therapy Goals
• Identify drug targets that Are responsible for tumor growth Are key mechanisms in cancer progression Are reversible by inhibition Are dispensable to normal cells Can be measured in tumor tissue
• Identify tumor-specific molecules to minimize risk to other cells Increased specificity leads to reduced toxicity
Thomas M. Chemotherapy Foundation Symposium and Online Education Program. Advances In Research and Practice. November 15, 2003.
132
Tumorigenic Pathways in the Cell Are Complex
Sigma Aldrich, Inc., St. Louis, MO
133
Targets for Drug Development
• Angiogenesis VEGF VEGFR FGF Integrin
• Apoptosis Bcl-2 Survivin XIAP p53 Clusterin
• Signaling Ras Raf kinase MEK mTOR PKC
• HER family EGFR HER-2
• Cell cycle Cdks
• Extracellular MMP
• Receptors/kinases c-Kit PDGFR Abl
• Other DNA MTase HDAC Proteasome
EGFR Targeting Strategies in NSCLC
135
• EGFR is a tyrosine kinase growth factor receptor
• Activated by binding of natural ligands– TGF-– EGF
• Activated EGFR signals through multiple pathways
• Potential to block at various steps in the pathway– Extracellular surface– Intracellular targets
Invasion/metastasis
ProliferationSurvival/anti-apoptosis
Angiogenesis
MAPK
MEK
Gene transcriptionCell-cycle progression
PI3K
RafRas
SOS
Grb2
PTEN AktSTAT
pY
K KpY
M
G1S
G2
EGF
pY
p27
XXXXXX
EGFR Anti-EGFR(+)XX
Perez-Soler R. Oncologist. 2004;9:58-67.
XX
EGF-induced Signal Transduction and Tumorigenesis
136
Anti-EGFR Targeted Agents: Biological Rationale
• Activation of EGFR linked with Increased cell proliferation Angiogenesis Metastasis
• Agents that selectively target EGFR could inhibit and prevent the pathogenesis of various cancers
• EGFR expression correlates with Poor response to treatment Disease progression Poor survival
137
Anti-EGFR Strategies
Signal transduction
mAbs TKIsLigand
TKIKK
Ligand
Survivaland metastasis
mAb
Cetuximab
Gefitinib
Erlotinib
Ligand
Cell death
Ligand
Protein synthesis
KK KKKK
Toxinconjugates Antisense
Panitumumab
mAb, monoclonal antibody; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.Adapted from Raymond E, et al. Drugs. 2000;60(suppl 1):15-23.
Monoclonal Anti-EGFR Antibodies
139
Monoclonal Anti-EGFR Antibodies
Pao W, Miller VA. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2556-2568.
EGFR
140
Monoclonal Antibodies
Monoclonal Antibodies
Under developmentmAb 80
Under developmenth-R3 (TheraCIM)
Under developmentMDX-447 (HuMab-Mouse)
Under developmentEMD-72000 (matuzumab)
Under developmentABX-EGF (panitumumab)
Approved, refractory metastatic CRC, pancreatic, head and neckCetuximab
StatusAgent
141
Phase I/II EGFR Antibodies
• Cetuximab competes with endogenous ligands for binding at EGFR, functioning as an EGFR antagonist at EGFR
• Once bound to EGFR, cetuximab induces the internalization of EFGR
Compound Class Phase Treatment
Panitumumab Humanized, chimeric monoclonal antibody
II Previously treated metastatic CRC
Cetuximab Human monoclonal antibody
II Treatment-naive and previously treated
NSCLC
Ng M, Cunningham D. Int J Clin Pract. 2004;58:970-976.
142
Phase II Trials of Cetuximab in Advanced NSCLC
No Prior Chemotherapy
Study Treatment Patients, n PRMedianSurvival
Rosell et al.1 Cetuximab + cisplatin + vinorelbine
43 31.7% 8.3 months
Cetuximab + vinorelbine
43 20% 7.0 months
Robert et al.2 Cetuximab + gemcitabine + carboplatin
35 28.6% 10.3 months
Thienelt et al.3 Cetuximab + paclitaxel + carboplatin
31 26% 11.0 months
PR, partial response.1. Rosell R, et al. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2004;23:618a; 2. Robert F, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:9089-9096; 3. Thienelt CD, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8786-8793.
143
Prior Chemotherapy
Study TreatmentNo. Prior Chemo Patients, n PR
MedianSurvival
Lynch et al.1 Cetuximab >1 29 7%
Kim et al.2 Cetuximab + docetaxel
>1 47 28% TTP 3 months
PR, partial response; TTP, time to progression.1. Lynch TJ, et al. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2004;23:634a; 2. Kim ES, et al. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2003;22:642a.
Phase II Trials of Cetuximab in Advanced NSCLC
144
Phase III Trial of Cetuximab in Advanced NSCLC
RANDOMIZE
Cetuximab + cisplatin
+ vinorelbine
Cisplatin +vinorelbine
N=1037• Stage IIIB/IV• EGFR-expressing NSCLC
Primary endpoint• Overall survival
Secondaryendpoints• Progression-freesurvival
• Tumor response• Disease control• Safety• Quality of life
Von Pawel J, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7109.
EGFR-targeted Agents: Small Molecule Tyrosine
Kinase Inhibitors
146
Class Agent Status
Small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors
Gefitinib Approved for advanced NSCLC
Erlotinib Approved for advanced NSCLC
EKB-569 Under development
CI-1033
HKI 272
BIBW2922
Under development
Under development
Under development
Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors
147
EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: Gefitinib and Erlotinib
• Gefitinib and erlotinib selectively inhibit EGFR tyrosine kinase (aka HER-1 or ErbB-1)
Pavletich N. Structural Biology Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
Gefitinib Molecular Structure Erlotinib Molecular Structure
148
EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Recurrent NSCLC
ParameterGefitinib
Monotherapy1
Gefitinib Monotherapy2
Erlotinib Monotherapy3
Study population N=210 N=216 N=57
Overall response rate 18.7% 10.3% 12.3%
Median overall survival 7.8 months 8.4 months
Median progression-free survival 2.75 months
Phase II Trials Assessing Second-line Treatment
1. Fukuoka M, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2237-2246; 2. Kris MG, et al. JAMA. 2003; 290:2149-2158; 3. Perez-Soler R, et al. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001;20:310a. Abstract.
149
Patient Characteristics Associated with Response
Response Rate Symptom Improvement
Characteristic (%) Rate (%)
PS 0-1 9 40
PS 2 14 36
2 prior regimens 8 39
3 prior regimens 10 44
>4 prior regimens 15 32
Women 19 49
Men 3 31
Adenocarcinoma 13 43
Other 4 30
Response to Second-line Treatment with Gefitinib
Fukuoka M, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2237-2246.
150
ISEL Trial 709: Phase III Gefitinib in Second- or Third-line NSCLC
RANDOMIZE
Gefitinib 250 mg/day + best supportive care
(n=1129)
Placebo +best supportive care
(n=563)
N=1692• Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC
• Failed/intolerant to prior chemotherapy regimen
Primary endpoints• Survival in overall population
• Survival in those with adenocarcinoma
ISEL, Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer. Thatcher N, et al. Lancet. 2005;366:1527-1537.
151
Adenocarcinoma
All patients
Female
PS 0,1
1 prior chemo
Refractory
Never smoked
Non-adenocarcinoma
Ever smoked
Intolerant
2 prior chemos
PS 2,3
Male
Hazard ratio and 95% CIFavors gefitinib Favors placebo
11.4%
7.7%
14.0%
8.3%
7.4%
7.8%
17.2%
4.6%
5.2%
7.2%
8.0%
6.6%
4.9%
Survival Response Rate
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.5
ISEL Trial 709: Phase III Gefitinib in Second- or Third-line NSCLC (cont.)
Thatcher N, et al. Lancet. 2005;366:1527-1537.
152
Gefitinib Efficacy and Somatic Mutations in EGFR
• Gefitinib and erlotinib target the ATP cleft within the tyrosine kinase EGFR
• Only about 10% of patients have a rapid and dramatic clinical response to gefitinib
• Most NSCLC patients do not respond to gefitinib
• Efficacy may be attributed to somatic mutations in EGFR gene
Lynch TJ, et al. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2129-2139.
153
Characteristics of Patients Responding to Gefitinib
Patient Sex Age Pathological
TypePrior
Regimens Smoker?
Duration
of Therapy
Overall Survival
(mo)EGFR
Mutation Response
1 F 70 BAC 3 Never 15.6 18.8 Yes Major
2 M 66 BAC 0 Never >14.0 >14.0 Yes Major
3 M 64 Adeno 2 Never 9.6 12.9 Yes Partial
4 F 81 Adeno 1 Former >13.3 >21.4 Yes Minor
5 F 45 Adeno 2 Never >14.7 >14.7 Yes Partial
6 M 32 BAC 3 Never >7.8 >7.8 Yes Major
7 F 62 Adeno 1 Former >4.3 >4.3 Yes Partial
8 F 58 Adeno 1 Former 11.7 17.9 Yes Partial
9 F 42 BAC 2 Never >33.5 >33.5 No Partial
Lynch TJ, et al. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2129-2139.
154
Response to Gefitinib May Be Due to Somatic Mutation of EGFR
• Majority of patients responding to gefitinib were Women Had never smoked Had BAC
• Heterozygous mutations were detected in 8/9 patients 4 mutations were in frame deletions No mutations were detected when matched with
normal tissue
• Diagnostic testing may identify patients for gefitinib therapy
Lynch TJ, et al. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2129-2139.
155
EGFR Somatic Mutation: Summary
• A subgroup of patients have specific mutations in the EGFR gene that Correlate with clinical responsiveness Lead to increased growth factor signaling Confer susceptibility to gefitinib
• Screening for such mutations may identify patients who will respond to gefitinib therapy
156
Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) Testing
• FISH testing can detect amplification (high gene copy number) of EGFR in NSCLC tumors
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/GG/fish.html
157
Anti-EGFR Targeted Agents: EGFR Copy Number in NSCLC
OutcomeEGFR-FISH
PositiveEGFR-FISH
Negative P-value
Median overall survival Not yet reached 8 months 0.042
Median progression-free survival
9 months 4 months 0.072
Hirsch FR, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6838-6845; Cappuzzo F, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:643-655.
158
FISH and EGFR Summary
• FISH may allow for informed treatment decisions based on patient characteristics
• Recent data suggest an association between high EGFR gene copy number and favorable clinical benefit
159
JBR.21 Trial: Phase III Erlotinib in Second- or Third-line NSCLC
Shepherd FA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:123-132.
RANDOMIZE
Erlotinib 150 mg/day
(n=488)
Placebo
(n=243)
N=731• Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC
• Failed/intolerant to >1 prior chemotherapy regimen
• PS 0-3
Primary endpoint• Overall survival
Secondaryendpoints• Time to symptom deterioration
• Progression-free survival
• Tumor response rate
160
Overall Survival
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 6 12 18 24 30
Months
Pat
ien
ts (
%)
BR.21 Trial: Overall Survival
Shepherd FA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:123-132.
No. at risk:Placebo 243 107 50 9 0 0Erlotinib 488 255 145 23 1 0
HR=0.70 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.85)P<0.001 by stratified log-rank test
Erlotinib
Placebo
161
Progression-free Survival
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 6 12 18 24 30
Months
Pat
ien
ts (
%)
BR.21 Trial: Progression-free Survival
Shepherd FA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:123-132.
No. at risk:Placebo 243 20 3 0 0 0Erlotinib 488 115 27 2 1 0
HR=0.70 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.85)P<0.001 by stratified log-rank test
Erlotinib
Placebo
162
BR.21 Trial: Outcomes
Outcome Erlotinib Placebo P-value
Median overall survival, mo 6.7 4.7 <0.001
Response rate 8.9% <1.0% <0.001
Median PFS, mo 2.2 1.8 <0.001
Shepherd FA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:123-132.
163
Survival in EGFR-negative Patients
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0 6 12 18 24 30
Survival time (months)
Su
rviv
al p
rob
abil
ity
Survival in EGFR-positive Patients
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0 6 12 18 24 30
Survival time (months)
Su
rviv
al p
rob
abil
ity
BR.21 Trial: Survival in Expressing vs Nonexpressing EGFR Patients
Shepherd FA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:123-132.
HR: 1.01 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.57
Erlotnib (N=74)
Placebo (N=37)
HR: 0.65 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.97
Erlotinib (N=78)
Placebo (N=49)
164
BR.21 Trial: Survival in EGFR Unmeasured Patients
Shepherd FA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:123-132.
HR: 0.76 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.93
Survival in EGFR Unmeasured Patients
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0 6 12 18 24 30
Survival time (months)
Su
rviv
al p
rob
abil
ity
Erlotinib (N=336)
Placebo (N=157)
165
BR.21 Trial: K-ras Mutations Can Predict Outcome
• K-ras analysis from 206 patient samples Oncogenic missense mutations on codon 12 or 13 in
30 samples (14.6%) 22 (erlotinib) vs 8 (placebo)
• Overall response rates were 5% in K-ras mutant patients vs 10.2% in K-ras wild type patients
• Patients with K-ras mutations do not appear to derive any survival benefit from erlotinib therapy
Tsao C, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7005 .
166
Treatment-related Toxicities
• Skin rash was seen in 76% of treated patients (9% grade 3)
• 55% of treated patients experienced diarrhea (6% grade 3)
• Pneumonitis was noted in 3% of patients
• Mild ocular toxicities were reported in 28% of patients
Shepherd FA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:123-132.
167
EGFR Inhibitor-associated Rash
• Rash associated with superior responses to treatment
• Rash may be surrogate marker of activity
• Presence of any rash conferred significant survival benefit (P=0.02) Trend toward improved survival with increasing
severity of rash
• Cause of correlation currently unknown
Cunningham D, et al. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:337-345.
168
EGFR Inhibitor-associated Rash
Acneform rash on face
Acneform rash on chest
Paronychial inflammation
169
Type Severity Treatment
Macular rash Grade 1 Hydrocortisone cream 1%
Grade 2 Topical steroids: fluticasone propionate
Grade 3/4 Oral steroids: methylprednisolone
Pustular/ papular rash
Grade 1 Antibiotics: clindamycin gel for limited single areas; clindamycin lotion for multiple scattered areas
Grade 2/4 Antibiotics: minocycline hydrochloride 200 mg bid, d1; then 100 mg bid OR trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole bid
Dry skin Grade 1 NA
Grade 2/4 Perfume-, alcohol-, dye-free lotion applied bid
Consider dermatology consultation for grade 3/4 symptoms. Kim ES. ASCO 2005 Poster Session. Abstract 5546.
MD Anderson Prospective Treatment Algorithm
170
MD Anderson Prospective Treatment Algorithm (cont.)
Type Severity Treatment
Pruritus Grade 1 NA
Grade 2 Antihistamine: topical or oral diphenhydramine 25-50 mg q6 h prn OR
hydroxyzine hydrochloride 25-50 mg PO q6 h prn
Grade 3/4 Antihistamine: diphenhydramine 25-50 mg PO q6 h prn OR
hydroxyzine hydrochloride 25-50 mg PO q6 h prn
Ulcerative lesions
Grade 1/2 NA
Grade 3 Petroleum jelly or silver sulfadiazine ointment
Grade 4 Silver sulfadiazine ointment
Consider dermatology consultation for grade 3/4 symptoms. Kim ES. ASCO 2005 Poster Session. Abstract 5546.
171
Rash Management: Recommendations for Patients
• Moisturizer Emollients to alleviate skin dryness
• Sunlight Appropriate sunscreens
• OTC products Acne medications are not recommended
• Makeup Dermatologist-approved cover-up Skin-friendly liquid cleansers
Perez-Soler R, et al. Oncologist. 2005;10:345-356.
172
EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Plus Chemotherapy
Trial Agent ChemotherapyStudy
Population Outcome
INTACT 11 GefitinibGemcitabine +
cisplatinN=1093 Negative
INTACT 22 GefitinibPaclitaxel + carboplatin
N=1037 Negative
TRIBUTE3 ErlotinibGemcitabine +
cisplatinN=1059 Negative
TALENT4 ErlotinibPaclitaxel + carboplatin
N=1172 Negative
Phase III Trials Assessing First-line Treatment
1. Giaccone G, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:777-784; 2. Herbst RS, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:785-794; 3. Herbst RS, et al. ASCO 2004;23:617; 4. Gatzemeier U, et al. ASCO 2004;23:617.
173
Additional TKIs of Interest
Compound Class Phase Treatment
EKB-569 Small-molecule EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor
II Previously treated advanced CRC
CI-1033 Small-molecule EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor
II Previously treated advanced ovarian cancer
Lapatinib Small-molecule ErbB-1 and ErbB-2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor
II Previously treated breast cancer, locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract
or liver cancer, metastatic prostate cancer
Angiogenesis-targeted Agents in NSCLC
175
Rationale for Targeting Angiogenesis in NSCLC
• Angiogenesis is key to the metastatic process
• VEGF is the most potent regulator of angiogenesis
• Binds to the extracellular domain of the VEGF inhibitor
• VEGF binds to VEGFR2
• Anti-VEGF therapy may increase the efficacy of chemotherapy and have direct antitumor effect
Duff SE, et al. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:112-117.
176
VEGF Family and Its Receptors
RTK, receptor tyrosine kinase.Dvorak HF. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:4368; Ferrara N, et al. Nat Med. 2003;9:669.
VEGFR-3(Flt-4)
VEGFR-2(Flk-1/KDR)VEGFR-1
(Flt-1)
Angiogenesis(RTK)
Angiogenesis,lymphangiogenesis
(RTK)
Lymphangiogenesis(RTK)
PIGF VEGF-A VEGF-B VEGF-C VEGF-D
NRP-1(Neuropilin)
Unclear, but likely involved in tumor
growth(non-RTK)
177
Ligand sequestration: mAbs, soluble receptors
(eg, bevacizumab)
Receptor-blockingmAbs (eg, IMC-1121)
Tyrosine kinase inhibition: TKIs
(eg, SU11248)
p85
PLC GRB2 SOS
ras
Transcriptionfactor inhibition
VEGF Signal Inhibition
VEGF
VEGFR
178
Inhibition of VEGF
• Increases killing of established tumors Improves chemotherapy delivery to entire tumor,
including center of tumor
• Inhibits metastasis Blocks VEGF-induced increase in peritumor lymph
drainage Blocks VEGF(-A)-induced dysfunctional angiogenesis Maintains endothelial cell barrier function; inhibits
invasion of circulation by the tumor Decreases vascular density of tumor
Dafni H, et al. Cancer Res. 2002;62:6731-6739; Nagy JA, et al. J Exp Med. 2002;196:1497-1506; Weis S, et al. J Cell Biol. 2004;167:223-229.
179
VEGF Overexpression in Select Tumors
Tumor Type% of Tumors with VEGF
Overexpression Correlation
NSCLC 45%-55% Recurrence, survival
Colorectal 40%-60% Recurrence, survival
Breast 30%-60% Recurrence, survival
Prostate 30% Recurrence, survival, vascular density
Renal cell 30%-100% Vascular density
180
Class Examples TargetsStage of
Development
Agents Targeting the VEGF Ligand
Antibodies
Bevacizumab VEGF Phase III
HuMV833 VEGF Phase I completed
Soluble
receptors
VEGF-Trap VEGF
PlGF
Phase I
Selected Agents Targeting the VEGF Ligand
181
Class Examples TargetsStage of
Development
Agents Targeting the VEGF Receptors
Antibodies IMC-1121 VEGFR-2 Phase I
Ribozymes Angiozyme VEGFR-1 Phase III
Selected Agents Targeting the VEGF Receptors
182
Bevacizumab
• Recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody to VEGF-A
• Selectively targets, binds to, and inhibits the activity of VEGF
183
Risk Factors of Bevacizumab
• Bevacizumab is associated with an increased risk of serious bleeding Infrequent cases of hemoptysis GI hemorrhage Subarachnoid hemorrhage Hemorrhagic stroke
• Risk factors include pulmonary bleeding and life-threatening hemorrhages
184
Bevacizumab: Patient Selection and Safety Considerations
• Bevacizumab contraindications History of thrombotic or hemorrhagic disorders History of hemoptysis Central nervous system metastases
• Potential predictors of response Treatment-induced reduction in VEGF expression Reduced tumor blood flow on functional CT or MRI Biopsy proof of decreased angiogenesis VEGF molecule/receptor polymorphisms
185
Phase II Bevacizumab Plus Chemotherapy in First-line NSCLC
RANDOMIZE
Bevacizumab* 7.5 mg/kg + PC 200 mg/m2 +
carboplatin AUC 6 on d 1 every 6 weeks
(n=32)
PC 200 mg/m2 +carboplatin AUC 6 on d 1
every 6 weeks(n=32)
N=99• Stage IIIB/IV
nonsquamous NSCLC
• Treatment naive• PS 0-1• Adequate
hematologic, renal, and hepatic function
Primary endpoints• Response rate• Time to progression
*Bevacizumab continued beyond progression with crossover in chemotherapy: PC; paclitaxel.Johnson DH, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2184-2191.
Bevacizumab* 15 mg/kg + PC 200 mg/m2 +
carboplatin AUC 6 on d 1 every 6 weeks
(n=35)
186
Phase II Bevacizumab Plus Chemotherapy in First-line NSCLC
OutcomeBevacizumab 7.5
mg/kgBevacizumab
15 mg/kg Control Arm
Response rate 28.1% 31.5% 18.8%
Median overall
survival
11.6 months 17.7 months 14.9 months
Median time to
progression
4.3 months 7.4 months 4.2 months
Johnson DH, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2184-2191.
187
ECOG 4599: Phase II/III Paclitaxel/Carboplatin +/- Bevacizumab in First-line NSCLC
RANDOMIZE
Bevacizumab 15 mg/kg + paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 +
carboplatin AUC 6 on d 1 every 6 weeks
(n=434)
Paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 +carboplatin AUC 6 on d 1
every 6 weeks
(n=444)
N=878• Stage IIIB/IV
nonsquamous NSCLC
• Treatment naive• PS 0-1• Adequate
hematologic, renal, and hepatic function
Primary endpoint• Overall survival
Secondary endpoints• Response rate• Time to progression• Tolerability
Sandler AB, et al. ASCO 2005. Abstract LBA4.
188
ECOG E4599: Median Survival
Sandler AB, et al. ASCO 2005. Abstract LBA4.
12 mo 24 mo
43.7% 16.9%51.9% 22.1%
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pro
bab
ilit
y
PCPCB
P=0.007
0 6 12 18 24 30 36Months
Medians: 10.2, 12.5
HR: 0.77 (0.65, 0.93)
189
ECOG E4599: Results
Outcome
Bevacizumab + Paclitaxel + Carboplatin
Paclitaxel + Carboplatin P-value
Overall response rate 27.2% 10.0% <0.0001
Median overall survival 12.5 months 10.2 months 0.0075
Median progression-free survival
6.4 months 4.5 months <0.0001
Sandler AB, et al. ASCO 2005. Abstract LBA4.
190
ECOG E4599: Toxicity
Outcome
Bevacizumab + Paclitaxel
+ CarboplatinPaclitaxel + Carboplatin P-value
Grade 3/4 hemorrhage 4.5% 0.7% <0.001
Grade 4 neutropenia 24.0% 16.4% <0.01
Grade 4 thrombocytopenia 1.4% 0.0% <0.01
Hypertension 6.0% 0.7% <0.001
Deaths, n* 8 2
*5 deaths due to hemoptysis, all in bevacizumab-treated arm.Sandler AB, et al. ASCO 2005. Abstract LBA4; Sandler AB, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7068.
191
ECOG E4599: Risk Factors for Pulmonary Hemorrhage
• Severe PH occurred in 2.3% of bevacizumab-treated patients
• Primary radiographic analysis showed cavitation in intrathoracic lesion at baseline may be associated with increased risk of severe early-onset PH Hemoptysis prior to treatment in 2/2 cases with
cavitation
• Tumor cavitation and hemoptysis confirmed as potential risk factors for severe PH
Sandler AB, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7068.
192
ECOG E4599: Prognostic Biomarkers
• VEGF, ICAM, and bFGF were assessed as potential biomarkers
• ELISA measurements of pretreatment and week 7 bFGF, ICAM, and E-selectin and pretreatment of plasma VEGF Low ICAM correlated with a higher response rate (29%
vs 13%, P=0.03) Low ICAM correlated with significantly better overall
survival (P=0.00005) as well as better 1-year survival (65% vs 25%)
• Baseline ICAM levels are strongly prognostic for survival and response to chemotherapy
Dowlati A, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7027.
193
ECOG E4599: Summary
• Addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel-carboplatin provides statistically and clinically significant survival advantage
• Paclitaxel-carboplatin-bevacizumab is the new ECOG reference standard in this patient population
• Other trials evaluating bevacizumab in combination with other chemotherapy doublets ongoing
Sandler AB, et al. ASCO 2005. Abstract LBA4.
194
Combining Bevacizumab and Erlotinib: Rationale
195
Phase I/II Bevacizumab plus Erlotinib
• Study design Patients (34 patients) with nonsquamous stage IIIB/IV
NSCLC with >1 prior chemotherapy regimen Erlotinib 150 mg/day + bevacizumab 15 mg/kg Efficacy, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic parameters
of erlotinib + bevacizumab assessed
Herbst RS, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2544-2555.
196
Phase I/II Bevacizumab plus Erlotinib: Results
• Median overall survival 12.6 months
• Median progression-free survival 6.2 months
• Most common adverse events Mild/moderate rash Diarrhea Proteinuria
Herbst RS, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2544-2555.
197
Efficacy of Bevacizumab in Combination with Chemotherapy or Erlotinib
• Phase II trial Combining bevacizumab with chemotherapy (docetaxel
or pemetrexed) or with erlotinib• Assess the efficacy of combining bevacizumab with
chemotherapy or erlotinib relative to chemotherapy alone End-point
• Progression-free survival • 120 patients were randomized and treated
68/85 PFS events
Fehrenbacher L, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7062 .
198
Antiangiogenic Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors
Target
Inhibitor Company VEGFR-1 VEGFR-2 VEGFR-3 PDGFR c-KIT FGFR
PTK787 Novartis
Schering
+ + + + + ?
AZD2171 AstraZeneca + + + ? ? ?
ZD6474 AstraZeneca - + - ? ? +
GW786034 GSK + + + ? ? ?
SU11248 Pfizer - + - + + +
AG013736 Pfizer + + + + + ?
AMG 706 Amgen + + + + + ?
All agents in early phase I/I development except for PTK787 in phase III.
199
ZD6474: Antiangiogenic Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor
ZD6474 Mode of Action
Image obtained from: http://www.cancerline.com/cancerlinehcp/15602_18171_10_1_1.aspx
Indirect tumour effects through endothelial cell targeting
VEGFR inhibition• Inhibits angiogenesis by decreasing endothelial cell proliferation and migration• Inhibits VEGF-dependent endothelial cell survival• Decreases vascular permeability
Direct effects at the tumour cell• EGFR inhibition• Inhibits cell proliferation• Decreases invasion• Promotes apoptosis• Inhibits metastasis• Decreases VEGF production
RET inhibition:
• Inhibition of proliferation and survival in certain thyroid turmors
200
Phase II Trial of ZD6474 vs Gefitinib
• Study design 168 patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC who had failed ≥1
platinum-based chemotherapy regimen administered
• ZD6474 300 mg/day or
• Gefitinib 250 mg/day
• Adverse events for ZD6474 included diarrhea (grade 3/4, 8.4%), rash (grade 3/4, 4.8%) and asymptomatic QTc prolongation (grade 1, 20.5%)
• There were no unexpected safety findings with gefitinib
Natale R, et al. Chemotherapy Foundation Symposium XXIII 2005. Natale R, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7000.
Outcome ZD6474 Gefitinib
Median time toprogression, weeks
11.0 8.1
201
Phase II Trial of ZD6474 vs Gefitinib: Progression-free Survival
Natale R, et al. Chemotherapy Foundation Symposium XXIII 2005.
HR=0.632 (95% CI=0.44 to 0.90)Two-sided P-value=0.011
Primary Endpoint: Progression-free Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Progression-free survival in part A (months)
Pro
bab
ility
of
rem
ain
ing
P
rog
ress
ion
fre
e
ZD6474Gefitinib
202
ZD6474 +/- Docetaxel: Schema
Heymach R, et al. IASLC 11th World Congress on Lung Cancer. 2005. Abstract 3023; Heymach R, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7016.
RANDOMIZE
ZD6474 100 mg +
Docetaxel 75 mg/m2 q21 d
(n=42)
N=127• Stage IIIB/IV
NSCLC• Failure of 1st-line
platinum-based chemotherapy
Primary endpoint• Progression-free
survival
Secondary endpoints• Overall survival
ZD6474 300 mg +
Docetaxel 75 mg/m2 q21 d
(n=44)
Docetaxel 75 mg/m2 q21 d
(n=41)
203
Kaplan-Meier Curve for Progression-free Survival
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Progression-free survival (days)
Su
rviv
al d
istr
ibu
tio
n
fun
ctio
n
ZD6474 +/- Docetaxel: Progression-free Survival
Heymach R, et al. IASLC 11th World Congress on Lung Cancer. 2005. Abstract 3023.
Placebo + docetaxelZD6474 100 mg + docetaxelZD6474 300 mg + docetaxelCensoredCensoredCensored
204
ZD6474 +/- Docetaxel: Results
• No significant difference in overall survival, however a trend towards shorter survival in ZD6474 300 mg arm
Outcome ZD6474 + Docetaxel Docetaxel P-value
Median TTP, weeks
18.7
(ZD6474 100 mg)
12.0 0.074
17.0
(ZD6474 300 mg)
12.0 0.461
Heymach R, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7016.
205
Sunitinib: Multi-targeted Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor
• Targets VEGF-R, PDGF-R, KIT, FLT3, and RET
• 63 patients treated with 50 mg/day of sunitinib (SU11248) 6 confirmed partial responses (9.5%) Stable disease observed in 12 additional patients
(19.0%) Survival data pending
• Well tolerated
• Provocative single agent activity
Socinski MA, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7001.
206
Sorafenib: Multi-targeted Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor
• Targets the Raf/MEK/ERK pathway at the level of Raf kinase and receptor tyrosine kinases
• 52/54 patients received sorafenib 59% of patients 51 had stable disease (SD)
• Median PFS of 23.7 weeks Median PFS of 11.9 weeks and median OS of 29.3
weeks
• Adverse events: diarrhea (40%), hand-foot skin reaction (37%), fatigue (27%), and nausea (25%)
• 9 deaths within 30 days of discontinuation of sorafenib
Gatzemeier, et al. ASCO 2006. Abstract 7002.
207
Combining Targeting Strategies: VEGF + EGFR Synergy?
• Combining agents targeting 2 critical pathways may be more effective than targeting 1 pathway
• Potential targets Growth factors, hormones, and receptors
• HER-2/neu, EGFR, PDGFR, ER Signaling intermediate
• Ras, Src, MAPK, Akt, Cox2 Nuclear/transcription factors
• p53,VHL
208
Targeted Therapy: Summary and Clinical Implications
• Several new agents recently approved for treatment of NSCLC Gefitinib Erlotinib Bevacizumab
• Therapies targeting EFGR and antiangiogenic agents show promise
• Ongoing investigation provides promise for more effective, less toxic treatment
209
Targeted Therapy: Future Directions
• Combining anti-EGFR agents with cytotoxic agents May achieve additive or even synergistic benefits Potent combinations inhibiting multiple signaling
pathways to achieve greater activity• Signal transduction inhibitors are clinically viable
therapeutic options • Selectively targeting oncogenes for suppression and/or
destruction• Development of vaccines that stimulate the immune
system to recognize cancer-promoting proteins as foreign and mark them for destruction
Summary and Future Directions
211
Summary and Clinical Implications
• NSCLC is difficult to treat due to late diagnosis and high relapse rate
• Current treatment approaches Resectable NSCLC
• Surgical resection + adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy
Metastatic disease
• Platinum- or nonplatinum-based chemotherapy with possible addition of targeted therapy agents
212
Future Directions
• Promising new agents currently under investigation Epothilones New topoisomerase I inhibitors Paclitaxel poliglumex Bortezomib and bexarotene Cetuximab, panitumumab ZD6474
• Possibility of combining EGFR monoclonal antibodies and tyrosine kinase inhibitors to broaden spectrum of activity
• Potential to use targeted agents alone in monotherapy, in combination with chemotherapy, and in combination with other targeted therapies
213
Considerations in Future Directions
• Patient selection Which patients are most likely to benefit from a
particular treatment? Prognostic baseline variables or markers
• Treatment based on tumor biology
• Development of less toxic therapy
• Design of more effective regimens
• Optimal sequence of surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and/or targeted therapy
Appendix
Adjuvant Therapy Supplement
216
ALPI: Effects of Mitomycin, Vindesine, and Cisplatin Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Overall Survival by Therapy Type
Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P-value
Absolute Benefit
at 5 Years
Mitomycin + vindesine + cisplatin
0.96 (0.81-1.13) 0.589 1%
Efficacy of Adjuvant Chemotherapy vs Observation Alone
ALPI, Adjuvant Lung Project Italy. Scagliotti GV, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1453-1461.
217
ALPI: Effects of Mitomycin, Vindesine, and Cisplatin Adjuvant Chemotherapy (cont.)
N=1088 patients with resected stage I, II, or IIIA NSCLC
ALPI, Adjuvant Lung Project Italy. Scagliotti GV, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1453-1461.
HR=0.87 (95% CI=0.81 to 1.13)P=0.589
Events Total
MVP 279 548
Control 289 540
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Years from randomization
Ove
rall
su
rviv
al
Treatment of Advanced NSCLC
Supplement
219
FDA-approved Treatment for Advanced NSCLC
Paclitaxel
Cisplatin
135 mg/m2 over 24 h every 3 weeks 75 mg/m2 after paclitaxel every 3 weeks
Vinorelbine
Cisplatin
30 mg/m2 weekly 120 mg/m2 days 1 and 19, then every 6 weeks
Gemcitabine
Cisplatin
1000 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks 100 mg/m2 after gemcitabine day 1
Gemcitabine
Cisplatin
1250 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks100 mg/m2 after gemcitabine day 1
Docetaxel
Cisplatin
75 mg/m2 day 1 every 3 weeks75 mg/m2 day 1 every 3 weeks
220
Second-line Therapy Studies
Study Dose/Schedule N
Overall Response
Rate (%)
Median Survival (weeks)
Murphy, 1994 Paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 40 3 18
Hainsworth, 1995 Paclitaxel 135 or 200 mg/m2 26 23 NR
Burris, 1993 Docetaxel 100 mg/m2 35 17 NR
Rinaldi, 1994 Vinorelbine 20 mg/m2 18 0 NR
Nakai, 1991 Irinotecan 200 mg/m2 22 14 NR
Gridelli, 1999 Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 30 20 22
Mattson, 1999 Pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 22*
22+
8
35
NR
NR
Targeted Therapy Supplement
222
Anti-EGFR Targeted Agents: Patient Selection
• No factors predict objective response, time to progression, and survival
• EGFR expression levels may be able to select patients who are least likely to derive benefits from treatment
• Subgroup of patients with mutated EGFR may derive great benefit from treatment Patients who are female, nonsmokers, and who have
adenocarcinoma (particularly those of Asian descent) might derive the most benefit from treatment
• Most patients do not fall into categories of patients who might derive benefit; however, these patients should not be excluded from analyses
223
Inhibition of Xenograft Tumor Growth: Gefitinib with Paclitaxel
Control
Paclitaxel
Gefitinib
Gefitinib + paclitaxel
Tu
mo
r m
ass
(mg
)
LX-1 Lung
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Time (days)
Sirotnak FM, et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6:4885-4892.
224
Preclinical Antitumor Activity of EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors
• Growth inhibition/regression observed in multiple tumor types in xenografts
• Enhanced growth inhibition/regression observed with both chemotherapy and radiation
• Activity observed in hormone-resistant tumor cell models
Sirotnak FM, et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6:4885-4892; Ciardiello F, et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6:2053-2063; Ciardiello F, et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2001;7:1459-1465; Williams KJ, et al. Proc AACR. 2001;42:715. Abstract 3840.
225
Anti-EGFR Targeted Agents: Measurement of Response
• Response rate not an appropriate surrogate for survival in studies of agents that target EGFR
Subgroup Analysis Response Rate P-valueHR (95% CI) for
Survival P-value
Overall <0.001
Erlotinib 8.9% 0.7 (0.6-0.9) <0.001
Placebo 0.9%
By gender 0.006
Female 14.4% 0.8 (0.6-1.1) 0.13
Male 6.0% 0.8 (0.6-0.9) 0.01
By pathological subtype <0.001
Adenocarcinoma 13.9% 0.7 (0.6-0.9) 0.008
Other 4.1% 0.8 (0.6-1.0) 0.07
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio. Shepherd FA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:123-132.
226
Antiangiogenic Targeted Agents: Biological Rationale
Herbst RS, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3243-3256.
227
Other Emerging Antiangiogenic Agents
• AMG 706 Multikinase inhibitor that targets all known VEGF receptors, the PDGF
receptor, KIT, and RET• Open-label phase I study of 56 evaluable patients with advanced solid tumors,
refractory to standard therapy or no standard therapy available AMG 706 125 mg/day
• Results Partial response: 2 (4%) Stable disease: 34 (61%)
• 17 patients had up to 29% decrease in sum of longest diameter of target lesions
MRI showed tumor vascular permeability• Reduced by 37% in initial area under curve on day 3• Reduced by 61% in initial area under curve on day 21
Rosen L, et al. ASCO 2005. Abstract 3013.
228
Targeted Therapies for the Elderly and Patients with PS 2
• Targeted therapies have the potential to be less toxic, especially beneficial for elderly/poor PS patients Anti-EGFR
• Gefitinib• Erlotinib• Cetuximab
Anti-VEGF antibodies• Bevacizumab
VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors• ZD6474• ZD2171
Eicosanoid pathway inhibitors• COX-2 inhibitors• LOX inhibitors
Gridelli C, et al. Cancer. 2004;101:1733-1744.
229
Novel Cytotoxic Agents for the Treatment of NSCLC: Epothilones
CompoundPhase of
DevelopmentEfficacy in NSCLC
PatientsOther Cancers
Tested
BMS-247550
(aza-epothilone B)
II 1 CR, 13 PR, and 31 SD in 111 assessable
patients
Metastatic gastric cancer, metastatic
breast cancer, GI tract tumors
BMS-310705 I 1 CR Ovarian, bladder, stomach, and breast
cancers
EPO906 II ND Ovarian, prostate, breast, colorectal, and metastatic renal cell
cancers
KOS-862
(epothilone D)
I ND Testicular, ovarian, pancreatic, and breast
cancers
CR, complete response; ND, not determined; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease. Goodin S, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2015-2025.
230
Novel Cytotoxic Agents for the Treatment of NSCLC: Topoisomerase I Inhibitors
Study Treatment Patients, n
Partial Response,
n (%)
Minor Response/Stable Disease,
n (%)
First-line Treatment
Baka et al.1 Rubitecan 17 0 (0%) 10 (58.8%)
Braybrooke et al.2 Exatecan 39 2 (5.1%) 15 (38.5%)
Sigma Tau Research Gimatecan 30 (planned)
In phase I analysis
Springett et al.3 Polyglutamate camptothecin
(CT-2106)
19 – 4 (21.1%; includes 2 lung cancer
patients)
Second-line Treatment
Miller et al.4 Karenitecin 52 2 (3.8%) 24 (46.1%)
1. Baka S, et al. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41:1547-1550; 2. Braybrooke JP, et al. Lung Cancer. 2003;41:215-219; 3. Springett GM, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(14S):3127; 4. Miller AA, et al. Lung Cancer. 2005;48:399-407; Sigma Tau Research Data on file.
231
Novel Agents: Bortezomib
PR, partial response; SD, stable disease. 1. Stevenson JP, et al. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2004;23:649a; 2. Fanucchi MP, et al. ASCO 2005. Abstract 7034.
Study Treatment Patients, n PR, n (%) SD, n (%)
Stevenson et al.1 Bortezomib 23 1 (4.3%) 9 (39.1%)
Fanucchi et al.2 Bortezomib 30 3 (10.0%) 8 (26.7%)
Bortezomib + docetaxel 32 5 (15.6%) 19 (59.3%)
• Bortezomib is a proteasome inhibitor Interferes with the ubiquitin-proteasome complex Causes breakdown of cell-cycle regulators and
cell-cycle arrest
232
Novel Agents: Bexarotene
RXR, retinoid X receptors.1. Khuri FR, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:2626-2637; 2. Rizvi NA, et al. ASCO 2002; Abstract 1334; 3. Bordoni R. ASCO 2006. Abstract 17070.
Study Treatment Patients, n PR, n (%) SD, n (%)
Khuri et al.1 Bexarotene + cisplatin + vinorelbine 28 7 (25%) 14 (50%)
Rizvi et al.2
Bordoni3
Bexarotene + paclitaxel + carboplatin
Bexarotene + paclitaxel + carboplatin
15
56
1 CR + 5 PR (40%)
30 (58%)
Not given
16 (31%)
top related