/
Novel Biologic Therapies for Novel Biologic Therapies for

Novel Biologic Therapies for - PowerPoint Presentation

olivia-moreira
olivia-moreira . @olivia-moreira
Follow
380 views
Uploaded On 2018-02-08

Novel Biologic Therapies for - PPT Presentation

SecondLine Gastric Cancer Charles S Fuchs MD DanaFarber Cancer Institute Harvard Medical School Boston MA SecondLine Therapy in Gastric Cancer No approved 2 nd line chemotherapy ID: 629424

cancer line therapy gastric line cancer gastric therapy bsc ramucirumab survival patients placebo months vegf 2013 docetaxel gej phase

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Novel Biologic Therapies for" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Novel Biologic Therapies for Second-Line Gastric Cancer

Charles S. Fuchs, MD

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

Harvard Medical School

Boston, MASlide2

Second-Line Therapy in Gastric Cancer

No

approved

2

nd

-line chemotherapy

20-40% patients receiving 1

st

-line therapy receive 2

nd

-

line

Taxanes

and

irinotecan

most commonly used 2

nd

-line therapySlide3

Phase II Studies of Taxanes as Second-Line Therapy for Gastric Cancer

Drug

Author

No. of Pts

RR

PFS (mos)

OS (mos)

Docetaxel

Graziano

21

5%

--

3.5

Docetaxel

Giuliani

30

17%

--

6.0

Docetaxel

Jo (S. Korea)

154

14%

2.6

7.2

Paclitaxel

Hironka (Japan)

38

24%

--

5.0

Vinorelbine

Kulke

29

7%

1.9

7.8Slide4

Second-Line Therapy in Gastric Cancer

Historically, few randomized phase III trials compared to BSC

Numerous

phase II trials:

Variability in response to 1

st

-line therapy

Variability in prior 1

st

-line therapy

Publication bias

Small number of patientsSlide5

Second-Line Therapy in Gastric Cancer

625 pts who received 1

st

-line therapy at 3 centers in Italy

28% (175) received 2

nd

-line therapy

RR = 16%

Median OS = 6 months

Predictors of poor survival: ECOG PS  2 Hgb  11.5 g/l CEA > 50 ng/ml >3 to 4 metastatic sites TTP for 1st-line  6 months

Catalano et al. 2008Slide6

Second-Line Therapy in Gastric Cancer

1,080

patients

in three 1

st

-line phase

III

trials

20% received 2

nd line therapy RR for 2nd-line therapy = 13% Median OS = 5.6 monthsIndependent poor prognostic factors:ECOG PS ≥ 2Liver metsPeritoneal metsSerum alkaline phosphatase ≥ 100 U/LChau et al J Clin Oncol 2004Slide7

Chau

et al J Clin Oncol 2004Slide8

Irinotecan vs. Best Supportive Care in

Second-line Gastric Cancer

Thuss-Patience et al. ASCO 2009

Irinotecan

250 mg/m2

q 3weeks

Best Supportive Care

Median

Survival

4.1 mos 2.4

mos

P = 0.02

HR = 0.48 (95% CI, 0.25-0.92)

N

21

19Slide9

Cougar-02: Randomized Trial of Docetaxel vs. BSC in Relapsed Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma

R

A

N

D

O

M

I

Z

EDocetaxel 75 mg/m2 q 3 weeksBest supportive care

168 patients :

Primary Endpoint:

Overall

SurvivalSlide10

Cougar-02: Randomized Trial of Docetaxel vs. BSC in Relapsed Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma

Docetaxel

BSC

P value

Response rate

7%

NR

Overall survival

5.2 months

3.6 months0.01Cook et al. ASCO 2013Slide11

Metastasis

Proliferation/Maturation

Survival/Apoptosis

Angiogenesis

MAPK

MEK

Gene transcription

Cell-cycle progression

PI3-K

RAS

RAF

SOS

GRB2

PTEN

AKT

STAT

pY

pY

K

K

pY

EGFR Signal Transduction

M

G1

S

G2Slide12

Ongoing Randomized Trials in Advanced Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma

R

A

N

D

O

M

I

Z

E730 patientsEOX

EOX

Panitumumab

REAL-3

Trial

R

A

N

D

O

M

I

Z

E

870

patients

Capecitabine

Cisplatin

EXPAND

Trial

Capecitabine

Cisplatin

CetuximabSlide13

PI3K/Akt/mTOR Pathway in Gastric Cancer

The PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway, a key regulator of cell proliferation, growth, survival

,

metabolism, and angiogenesis, is dysregulated in 50%-60% of gastric cancers

1-3

Everolimus, an oral mTOR inhibitor, showed efficacy in preclinical models of gastric cancer

1,4-6

13

mTOR, mammalian target of rapamycin; PI3K, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase.

1Xu DZ et al. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:536; 2Lang SA et al. Cancer. 2007;120:1803-10; 3Yu G et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:1821-29; 4Taguchi F et al. Invest New Drugs. 2011;29:1198-205; 5Cejka D et al. Anticancer Res. 2008;28:3901-08; 6Jaeger-Lansky A et al. Cancer Biol Ther. 2010;9:919-27; 7Doi

T et al.

J Clin Oncol

. 2010;28:1904-1910

.

In a phase 2 study of 53 patients with previously treated advanced gastric cancer, everolimus showed promising efficacy and acceptable tolerability

7Slide14

Phase 3 GRANITE-1 Study Design

14

Everolimus 10 mg PO daily

+ BSC*

(n = 439)

Placebo

PO daily

+

BSC

(n = 217)

SCREEN

Treatment until disease progression or intolerable toxicity

Stratification by region: Asia vs

rest of world

Stratification by number of

lines

of

previous systemic

chemotherapy (1 vs 2

)

Safety

follow-up

:

EOT

+ 28

d

Survival follow-up

:

every 3 mo

RANDOMIZE

(N = 656)

BSC, best supportive care; EOT, end of treatment; PO, orally.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:

NCT00879333

.

2

1Slide15

Overall Survival (FAS)

15

Probability of overall survival (%)

100

80

60

40

20

0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Time (months)

14

Censoring Times

Everolimus + BSC (n/N = 352/439)

Placebo + BSC (n/N = 180/217)

Kaplan-Meier medians

Everolimus + BSC: 5.39 months

Placebo + BSC: 4.34 months

Hazard ratio: 0.90 (95% CI, 0.75-1.08)

Log-rank

P

value = 0.1244

No. of patients still at risk

Time (months)

Everolimus

Placebo

16

18

20

22

24

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

217

172

1

17

82

60

35

28

16

12

8

4

1

0

439

355

253

195

139

87

52

30

13

6

3

1

0Slide16

Angiogenesis

Tumor growth

VEGF-A

VEGFR2

VEGF-A

VEGFR2

Ligand binding activates VEGFR2 and

p44/p42 MAP kinases

Ramucirumab

No signaling

Inhibit new blood vessel

formation and tumor growth

Ramucirumab

binds to

VEGFR2, blocks VEGF

ligand binding

VEGF binds to

VEGFR2 receptor;

VEGF-C, -D compete

for binding to

VEGFR2

Ramucirumab (IMC-1121B; RAM) is a

recombinant

human IgG1 monoclonal antibody receptor antagonist designed to bind the extracellular domain of VEGF Receptor-2, thereby blocking the binding of VEGF ligands and inhibiting receptor activation.

Role of VEGF Pathway in Tumor Growth

Endothelial cell membrane

VEGF-C

VEGF-D

VEGF-C

VEGF-DSlide17

Ramucirumab 8 mg/kg q2wk

+

BSC (n

= 238)

R

A

N

D

O

MIZE

Placebo q2wk

+

BSC (n

= 117)

S

C

R

E

EN

Treatment

until disease

progression

or

intolerable

toxicity

Tumor assessment, survival, and safety follow-up

N = 355

Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma

Stratification factors: region, weight loss (≥10%

vs. <10% over 3 months),

location of primary tumor (gastric vs. GEJ)

Global:

6 continents, 30

countries,

120 study centers

REGARD Study

Design

2:1

Abbreviations: BSC=best supportive care; GEJ=

gastroesophageal junction

Fuchs et al. Lancet 2013Slide18

Ram

238

154

92

49

17

7

3

0

0

Plcb

117

66

34

20

7

4

2

1

0

No. at Risk

HR (95% CI) = 0.776 (0.603, 0.998)

Log rank P-value (stratified) =

0.0473

Ramucirumab

Placebo

Patients / Events

238

/ 179

117 / 99

Median (mos) (95% CI)

5.2 (4.4, 5.7)

3.8 (2.8, 4.7)

6-month OS

42%

32%

12-month

OS

18%

11%

REGARD:

Overall Survival

Fuchs et al. Lancet 2013Slide19

Tumor Response

Ramucirumab

N=238

Placebo

N=117

P-value

n

(%)

n

(%)

Best Overall Response

Complete response (CR)

1

(0.4)

0

Partial response (PR)

7

(2.9)

3

(2.6)

Stable disease (SD)

108

(45.4)

24

(20.5)

Progressive disease

78

(32.8)

63

(53.8)

Not evaluable / Not assessed

44

(18.5)

27

(23.1)

Response rate: CR + PR

8

(3.4)

3

(2.6)

0.756

Disease control rate: CR + PR + SD

116

(48.7)

27

(23.1)

<0.0001Slide20

Ram

238

213

113

65

61

45

30

18

18

11

5

4

2

1

1

1

1

0

Plcb

117

92

27

11

7

4

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

No. at Risk

HR (95% CI) = 0.483 (0.376, 0.620)

Log rank P-value (stratified) = ≤

0.0001

Ramucirumab

Placebo

Patients / Events

238

/ 199

117 / 108

Median (mos) (95% CI)

2.1 (1.5, 2.7)

1.3 (1.3, 1.4)

12-week PFS

40%

16%

REGARD:

Progression-free Survival

Fuchs et al. Lancet 2013Slide21

Ramucirumab (N=236)

Placebo (N=115)

TEAEs*

Any

Grade

(%)

Grade ≥3

(%)

 

Any Grade

(%)

Grade ≥3

(%)

Fatigue

36

6

40

10

Abdominal pain

29

6

28

3

Decreased appetite

24

3

23

3

Vomiting

20

3

25

4

Constipation

15

<1

23

3

Anemia

15

6

15

8

Dysphagia

11

2

10

4

Dyspnea

9

2

13

6

Treatment Emergent Adverse Events * Slide22

Adverse Events of Special Interest

Ramucirumab (N=236)

Placebo (N=115)

Category of event

Any

Grade

Grade

≥3

 

Any Grade

Grade ≥3

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Hypertension

*

16

8

8

3

Bleeding

/Hemorrhage

13

3

11

3

Arteriothromboembolic

2

1

0

0

Venous

thromboembolic

4

1

7

4

Proteinuria

3

<1

<1

<1

GI

perforation

<1

<1

<1

<1

Fistula (GI and non-GI)

<1

<1

<1

<1

Infusion-related

reaction

<1

0

2

0

Cardiac failure

<1

0

0

0

No Grade 4 hypertension was observed among ramucirumab-treated patients

Fuchs et al. Lancet 2013Slide23

REGARD: Time to Performance Status Deterioration*

Ramucirumab

Placebo

Median

5.1 mos

2.4 mos

*Time to deterioration in ECOG PS score of 2 or worse

Fuchs et al. Lancet 2013Slide24

Median OS in randomized 2

nd

-line gastric cancer studies presented/published in 2009-2013

5.2

3.8

5.2

3.6

Ramucirumab vs PBO (BSC)

1

(n=355)

Docetaxel

vs

ASC

2

(n=131)

CTX [Docetaxel or Irinotecan]

vs

BSC

3

(n=202)

Irinotecan

vs

BSC

4

(n=40)

5.3

1. Fuchs et al. Lancet 2013

2. Ford et al. Proc

Gastrointestinal Cancer Symp 2013. LBA4

.

3. Kang et al.

J Clin Oncol

30:1513-1518, 2012

4. Thuss-Patience

et al. EUR J CANCER

47: (2011) 2306-2314.Slide25

Response Rates in randomized 2

nd

-line gastric cancer studies presented/published in 2009-2013

Ramucirumab vs PBO (BSC)

1

(n=355)

Docetaxel

vs

ASC2 (n=131) CTX [Docetaxel or Irinotecan]

vs

BSC

3

(n=202)

Irinotecan

vs

BSC

4

(n=40)

1. Fuchs et al. Lancet 2013

2. Ford et al. Proc

Gastrointestinal Cancer Symp 2013. LBA4

.

3. Kang et al.

J Clin Oncol

30:1513-1518, 2012

4. Thuss-Patience

et al. EUR J CANCER

47: (2011) 2306-2314.Slide26

Treat until disease progression or intolerable toxicity

Important inclusion criteria:

-

Metastatic or loc. adv. unresectable gastric

or

GEJ* adenocarcinoma

- Progression after 1

st

line platinum/fluoropyrimidine based chemotherapy

Stratification factors

:

-

Geographic

r

egion,

-

Measurable

vs non-measurable disease,

- Time to progression on 1

st

line therapy (<

6

mos

vs. ≥ 6 

mos)

Ramucirumab

8 mg/kg

day 1&15

+ P

aclitaxel

80 mg/m

2

day 1,8 &15

of a 28-day cycle

N = 330

Placebo day 1&15

+

Paclitaxel

80 mg/m

2

day 1,8 &15

N = 335

S

C

R

E

EN

R

A

N

D

O

M

IZE

Survival and safety follow-upRAINBOW: Study Design * GEJ= gastroesophageal junction; gastric and GEJ will be summarized under the term GC

1:1Slide27

ToGA: A Randomized, Open Label Multicenter Phase III Study

27

HER2-positive*

advanced

gastric or GEJ cancer

(n=584)

Capecitabine

1

or iv 5-FU

2†

+

cisplatin

3

(n=290

)

R

*IHC 3+ or FISH+

5-FU=5-fluorouracil; GEJ=gastroesophageal junction; R=randomization;

ECOG PS =Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score.

Capecitabine or iv 5-FU

2†

+ cisplatin

3

+

trastuzumab

(n=294

)

3807 patients screened

810 HER2-positive (22.1%)

Bang YJ

, et al.

Lancet.

2010;376:687-697

.

Stratification factors

Advanced vs. metastatic disease

GC vs. GEJ

Measurable vs. non-measureable

ECOG PS 0-1 vs. 2

Capecitabine vs. 5-FU

Chosen at investigator’s discretion

1

1000 mg/m2 bid

d

1-14 q3w x

6 cycles

2

800 mg/m2/day continuous iv infusion d1-5 q3w x 6 cycles

3

80 mg/m2 q3w x 6

cycles

4

8 mg/kg loading dose followed by 6 mg/kg q3w until disease progressionSlide28

ToGA Primary Endpoint:

Overall Survival

28

Bang YJ

, et al.

Lancet.

2010;376:687-697

.

Events

Median OS (mo)

HR

95% CI

p

-value

FC + Trastuzumab

167

13.8

0.74

0.60, 0.91

0.0046

FC

182

11.1

Time (months)

11.1

13.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Probability

294

290

277

266

246

223

209

185

173

143

147

117

113

90

90

64

71

47

56

32

43

24

30

16

21

14

13

7

12

6

6

5

4

0

1

0

0

0

No.

at risk

F+C+Trastuzumab

F+C

F=fluoropyrimidine (either fluorouracil or capecitabine); C=cisplatin.Slide29

T-DM1 structure

T-DM1 is a novel ADC

Average drug:

antibody ratio ≅3.5:1

Highly potent cytotoxic agent

Monoclonal antibody: Trastuzumab

Systemically stable

Target

expression

: HER2

Cytotoxic agent: DM1

Linker: MCC

T-DM1

TrastuzumabSlide30

Phase III Study of T-DM1 Versus

Taxane in Patients With

HER-2 Gastric

Cancer

R

A

N

D

O

MIZET-DM1q 3 weeksPaclitaxel or Docetaxel

412 HER-2 pts

following first-line therapy:

Primary endpoint:

Overall Survival

T-DM1

weeklySlide31

MET Amplification as a Predictor of Drug Sensitivity in Gastric and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

Graziano

et al J

Clin

Onc 2011:

230 pts: 10% MET amplifications

Worse prognosis

Smollen

et al PNAS, 2006

Yapp et al J Clin Onc 2011:Phase I trial of ARQ197Minor regression in gastric cancerSlide32

Second-Line Therapy for Gastric Cancer: 2014

For all patients, 2

nd

-

line ramucirumab

significantly improves

overall survival

Survival

b

enefit for ramucirumab appears comparable to 2nd-line docetaxel or irinotecanAddition of ramucirumab to 2nd-line paclitaxel significantly improves overall survival

Other novel targeted approaches that may emerge:

HER-2 directed therapy

C-MET

pathway directed

therapy

Ongoing mining of genomic data may generate the next generation of targetsSlide33

Back-up SlidesSlide34

Post-discontinuation Treatment

Ramucirumab (N=238)

Placebo (N=117)

n

(%)

n

%

Patients with any PDT*

75

(31.5)

46

(39.3)

Chemotherapy

69

(29.0)

44

(37.6)

Biologic therapy

6

(2.5)

1

(0.9)

Radiotherapy

4

(1.7)

6

(5.1)

Surgery

2

(0.8)

0

0

*

Each patient may have received more than one regimen.

PDT = Post-discontinuation TreatmentSlide35

238

156

82

169

69

181

39

18

218

20

199

39

99

92

37

201

179

59

165

55

18

41

197

67

171

96

52

90

163

75

64

174

132

65

N

(Ram)

<65

≥65

Male

Female

White

Asian

Other

Yes

No

First-Line

Adjuvant/Neo

Doublets

Triplets

≥10%

<10%

Gastric

GEJ

NA

LA

Asia

Hispanic

Not Hispanic

0

≥1

Diffuse

Intestinal

Unknown

0-2

≥3

Yes

No

<6 months

≥6 months

Subgroup

Age Group

Sex

Overall

Race

Ethnicity

ECOG PS

Measurable

Tumor

Prior Therapy

First-Line Type

Hist. Subtype

# Metastatic

Sites

PeritonealProgression-free Interval

Weight LossPrimary TumorGeo RegionCategory

117

71

467938

9117910611

103

14

633617

100853280

29

8

19983186

44353871

46

45

727428N

(Plcb)REGARD: Subgroup Analysis for OSSlide36

238

156

82

169

69

181

39

18

218

20

199

39

99

92

37

201

179

59

165

55

18

41

197

67

171

96

52

90

163

75

64

174

132

65

N

(Ram)

<65

≥65

Male

Female

White

Asian

Other

Yes

No

First-Line

Adjuvant/Neo

Doublets

Triplets

≥10%

<10%

Gastric

GEJ

NA

LA

Asia

Hispanic

Not Hispanic

0

≥1

Diffuse

Intestinal

Unknown

0-2

≥3

Yes

No

<6 months

≥6 months

Subgroup

Age Group

Sex

Overall

Race

Ethnicity

ECOG PS

Measurable

Tumor

Prior Therapy

First-Line Type

Hist. Subtype

# Metastatic Sites

Peritoneal

Progression-free IntervalWeight LossPrimary Tumor

Geo RegionCategory11771

46

79

389117

91061110314

63

36

1710085

3280298

19

98

31864435

38714645

72

74

28N(Plcb)

REGARD: Subgroup Analysis for PFS