Biopharmconsortium Blog

Salinomycin

On November 3, 2011, Cambridge MA biotech firm Verastem announced that it was filing a prospectus for an initial public offering (IPO). At that time, the company was 15 months old.

Verastem is led by Christoph Westphal, MD, PhD, a founder and the former CEO of Sirtris and a veteran entrepreneur and venture capitalist. The IPO has been underwritten by UBS, Leerink Swann, Lazard Capital Markets, Oppenheimer & Co., and Rodman & Renshaw.

On January 27, 2012, Fierce Biotech reported that Verastem had announced the previous night that its IPO raised $55 million from the sale of 5.5 million shares at $10 apiece. This price fell exactly in the middle of its expected $9 to $11 price range, and the company had even increased the offering by a million shares over what had originally been planned.

On the same day, Verastem’s stock opened at $11 a share on the NASDAQ, up from its initial public offering price of $10.

Verastem not only has Christoph Westphal as its Chairman and CEO, but is also based on science from eminent MIT researchers Robert Weinberg, Ph.D. and Eric Lander, Ph.D., and has several other well-respected academic researchers (including Nobelist Phillip Sharp, Ph.D.) plus biotech industry drug discoverers Julian Adams, Ph.D. (MIllennium’s Velcade) and Roger Tung, Ph.D. (Vertex’ Lexiva and Agenerase) on its Scientific Advisory Board. The company has had considerable fundraising success prior to its IPO, including raising $32 million in venture capital  in July 2011.

However, Verastem has not one lone drug in human clinical trials, its most advanced compounds are in the preclinical stage, and the company does not plan to file an IND until 2013! Thus Verastem has successfully gone public, in an era in which even most private biotech companies with drugs in late-stage clinical trials are finding it very difficult to do so, despite its lack of any clinical-stage drugs.

As noted in the Fierce Biotech article, Dr. Westphal as well as other venture capital funders of Verastem agreed to buy up to $16.3 million of the IPO. This in part explains the success of the IPO. As also noted by Fierce Biotech, with over 19 million common shares outstanding, the offering valued Verastem at $192 million.

We discussed Verastem in our August 2, 2011 Biopharmonsortium Blog article entitled “Development of personalized therapies for deadly women’s cancers”. Verastem focuses on discovery and development of drugs to target cancer stem cells. Its technology is based on a strategy for screening for compounds that specifically target cancer stem cells, developed by Drs. Weinberg, Lander, Piyush Gupta (MIT and Broad Institute) and their colleagues.

Cancer stem cells are best known in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), but their existence in other cancers (especially solid tumors) is controversial, as discussed in our article. Whether cancer stem cells are involved in the pathobiology of solid tumors (or a particular type of solid tumor) or not, the biology of the putative cancer stem cell phenotype can be important in certain subtypes of cancer. Cancer stem cells are characterized by the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). In the Cell paper, the researchers screened for compounds that specifically targeted breast cancer cells that had been experimentally induced into an EMT, and which as a result exhibited an increased resistance to standard chemotherapy drugs.   They identified the compound salinomycin (now being marketed as a generic veterinary antibiotic) as a drug that specifically targeted these cells, as well as putative cancer stem cells from patients.

As we discussed in our article, triple-negative (TN) breast cancer cannot be treated with standard receptor-targeting breast cancer therapeutics (e.g., tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, trastuzumab) but must be treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy. It is generally more aggressive than other types of breast cancer, and even treatment with aggressive chemotherapy typically results in early relapse and metastasis. However, TN breast cancer includes two experimentally defined subtypes that have gene expression signatures related to the EMT. One or both of these subtypes might therefore be expected to be sensitive to compounds that specifically target putative breast cancer stem cells. This may be true whether the cancer stem cell hypothesis applies to TN breast cancer or not. Verastem is focusing on TN breast cancer as its first therapeutic target.

Verastem’s VS-507, a proprietary formulation of salinomycin, is being developed to treat TN breast cancer. The company is also screening for additional compounds, including New Chemical Entities (NCE) that can achieve stronger intellectual property protection than a salinomycin formulation. Verastem had not chosen a lead compound as of the middle of 2011. The company is now reported to be doing preclinical studies on three of its compounds, and also plans to create diagnostic tests to identify patients that could benefit from its treatments. (As we discussed in our article, biomarker-based tests will be critical in making such therapies work.)

As one can discern from our blog article, we are intrigued by Verastem’s approach to cancer treatment, and especially its approach to TN breast cancer. The science behind Verastem’s drug discovery strategy, developed by 2011 ASCO award-winning oncogene and cancer stem-cell pioneer Bob Weinberg, is very compelling. We would love to see Verastem’s therapeutic strategy succeed.

However, as virtually all pharmaceutical and biotechnology R&D researchers well know, it is difficult to translate even the most compelling science developed by the most brilliant researchers into the clinic. Even therapeutic strategies with an excellent scientific rationale that have achieved proof of principle in the best animal models can result in clinical failure, especially with the first compound tested in proof-of-concept studies in human patients. The cancer stem cell hypothesis remains controversial. Moreover, diseases such as TN breast cancer are complicated, they may have mechanisms of resistance to a new experiential therapy that no one knows about, and our understanding of disease biology is limited.

Thus at least until Verastem’s therapies achieve proof of concept in human studies, purchase of Verastem stock is risky indeed. Moreover, there are other risks involved other than technical and clinical risk–especially competition for developing cancer stem cell-based therapies by other biotech/pharma companies. Venture capitalists (and certain knowledgeable individual investors and funds) are in the business of taking on high-risk investments for the sake of potential large rewards, but ordinary retail investors in the public markets are not. Therefore, it seems too early for Verastem to go public, even if it has founders and investors with enough clout to make an IPO successful.

Expert analysts in the IPO field, as stated in the Fierce Biotech article, are puzzled by the rationale for Verastem going public at this time. The financial news and services website “TheStreet.com” agrees. Our own sense of puzzlement is symbolized by the interobang (‽) in the title of this article.

__________________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company, please click here. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

http://bit.ly/dGrWW3

In recent months, there have been quite a few articles on the need to fix the clinical trial system. Among the most recent articles is the one by Boston-based Nature writer Heidi Ledford, Ph.D. published as a News Feature in the 29 September issue of Nature. In my humble opinion, this is the best article on the subject among those that have been published recently.

The pharmaceutical/biotechnology industry is frustrated with the increasing expense and the low output of the clinical trial system. This low productivity is economically unsustainable. The current clinical trial paradigm is over 50 years old. Back in the 1960s, the norm was to conduct single trials at single sites, each designed to answer a single question.

Nowadays, the norm is the large, multicenter clinical trial, especially for Phase 3 trials. “Multicenter” means that a trial is conducted at multiple sites, often in different countries, and could involve thousands of investigators and staff members. As pointed out in Dr.Ledford’s article, the large trials are mandated by the need in our more risk-adverse world to detect safety issues that occur in only a small percentage of patients, and to obtain good statistics for drugs that confer only a small benefit over the standard of care. However, certain major diseases require large trials of long duration even for drugs that may confer large benefits. For example, because the percentage of patients per year in cardiovascular disease (CVD) trials who experience cardiovascular events is small, these trials must be large and multiyear, in order to see any benefit even for a breakthrough drug.

The advent of personalized medicine–developing drugs and combinations of drugs that are specific for the molecular mechanism behind a patient’s disease–has put additional burdens on the clinical trial system. A disease may be found to be a collection of rare diseases in terms of mechanistic subtypes, each of which affects only a small number of people. This makes patient recruitment difficult.

As stated by Dr.Ledford, “Solving the problem may require fundamental changes to the clinical-trial system to make it faster, cheaper, more adaptable and more in tune with modern molecular medicine.”

Don’t use an “e-commerce” approach to determining drug efficacy!

Other commentators have recently noted the need to make clinical trials “faster, cheaper, and more adaptable.” Several of them have suggested bringing in strategies from other industries, especially e-commerce and social media.

For example, in an editorial published in the 23 September issue of Science, Andrew Grove, the former Chief Executive Officer of Intel, proposes moving towards an “e-trial” system, based on such large-scale e-commerce platforms as that of Amazon.com. Under the proposed e-trial system, the FDA would ensure safety only, not efficacy, and would continue to regulate Phase 1 trials. Once Phase 1 trials have been successfully completed, patients would be able to obtain a new drug through qualified physicians.

Patients’ responses to a drug would be stored in a database, along with their medical histories. There would be measures to protect a patient’s identity, and the database would be accessible to qualified medical researchers as a “commons.” The response of any patient or group of patients to a drug or treatment could then be tracked and compared to those of others in the database who were treated in a different manner or were untreated. These comparisons would provide insights into a drug’s efficacy, and how individuals or subgroups (perhaps defined in part via biomarkers) respond to the drug. This would liberate clinical trials from the “tyranny of the average” that characterize most trials today. As the database grows over time, analysis of the data would also provide information needed for postmarketing studies and comparative effectiveness studies.

Dr. Grove’s proposal is one of several in which the mandate of the FDA (and regulatory agencies in Europe, Japan, etc.) is to regulate safety only (via Phase 1 clinical trials) not efficacy. Efficacy is then determined via some sort of open system, with information gathered and provided to patients and physicians electronically, via systems reminiscent of e-commerce or social media.

We are opposed to removing efficacy from the oversight of the FDA and other regulatory agencies. There are two reasons for this, both of which are illustrated graphically in Box 1 of Dr. Ledford’s article, entitled “the clinical trial cliff”. Approximately half of Phase 2 clinical trials between 2008 and 2010 failed due to inability to demonstrate efficacy. (Around one-third of Phase 2 failures were due to safety, and the remaining failures were mainly due to strategic decisions to terminate a drug.) Among Phase 3 failures between 2007 and 2010, around two-thirds were due to efficacy, and around one-quarter were due to safety. These results indicate that the majority of drugs entered into clinical trials lack efficacy.

The second reason is that many safety problems–especially the rarer safety issues that occur in only a small percentage of patients–are typically not detected in Phase 1, but in Phase 3 and even the postmarking period.

Reduce clinical attrition with new trial designs and improved animal models

Dr. Ledford’s proposals for fixing clinical trials leave regulatory agencies in charge of overseeing both safety and efficacy. They mainly focus on improving clinical trials by reducing “attrition”–i.e., failure of drugs in the clinic, especially in Phase 2 and Phase 3, and on improving patient recruitment. Haberman Associates has produced publications–as well as articles on this blog–during the 2009-2011 period that provide a more in-depth discussion of strategies for reducing attrition than is possible in a 3-page article such as Dr. Ledford’s.

Two of Dr. Ledford’s strategies involve modifications of clinical trial design. Both of these are discussed in Chapter 6 of our book-length Cambridge Healthtech Institute (CHI) Insight Pharma Report, Approaches to Reducing Phase II Attrition. The first is the “Phase 0″ trial. This is a type of pre-Phase 1 clinical trial, which uses microdoses of a drug to assess such parameters as pharmacokinetics and target occupancy. As Dr. Ledford suggests, in some cases Phase 0 trials can reduce or eliminate pharmacological testing in animals, and allow researchers to get human data more quickly.

The other trial design strategy mentioned in Dr, Ledford’s article is the use of adaptive clinical trials. This type of trial allows researchers to change the course of a trial in response to trial results. For example, this may mean assigning new patients to specific doses, changing the numbers of patients assigned to each arm of a trial, and changes in hypotheses or endpoints. Monitoring and changing the trial is typically done by an independent data monitoring committee [DMC] so that ideally, double-blind conditions are maintained.

As Dr. Ledford states, adaptive clinical trials may result in shortening the time and cost of the clinical trial process. But, as with Phase 0 microdosing trials, there are many controversies surrounding adaptive clinical trials. Both of these strategies are works in progress.

The other strategy for reducing attrition discussed in Dr. Ledford’s article is to use improved animal models (i.e., animal models designed to more faithfully model human disease) in preclinical studies. We discussed this strategy in Approaches to Reducing Phase II Attrition, and in greater detail in another book-length report, Animal Models for Therapeutic Strategies. I also recently led the workshop “Developing Improved Animal Models in Oncology and CNS Diseases to Increase Drug Discovery and Development Capabilities” at Hanson Wade’s 2011 World Drug Targets Summit.

Several articles on our Biopharmconsortium Blog also focus on improved animal models for predicting efficacy of drug candidates in discovery research and in preclinical studies. Our April 15, 2010 blog post, based on an article in The Scientist, focused on “co-clinical mouse/human trials”. This type of clinical trial was developed by Pier Paolo Pandolfi, MD, PhD (Director, Cancer and Genetics Program, Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center Cancer Center and the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center) and his colleagues.

These trials utilize genetically engineered transgenic mouse strains that have genetic changes that mimic those found in specific human cancers. These mouse models spontaneous develop cancers that resemble the corresponding human cancers. In the co-clinical mouse/human trials, researchers simultaneous treat a genetically engineered mouse model and patients with tumors that exhibit the same set of genetic changes with the same experimental targeted drugs. The goal is to determine to what extent the mouse models are predictive of patient response to therapeutic agents, and of tumor progression and survival. The studies may thus result in validated mouse models that are more predictive of drug efficacy than the currently standard xenograft models.

The new Ledford Nature article discusses co-clinical trials as a means to develop more predictive animal model studies–not only using improved, potentially more predictive animal models, but also treating these animals in similar way (in terms of doses, formulations, schedules of medication, etc.) to the humans in the parallel human clinical trial.

The Ledford article mentions the animal-model portion of a co-clinical trial, which was published in January 2011. This trial utilized two genetically-engineered PDGF (platelet-derived growth factor)-driven mouse models of the brain tumor glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), one of which has an intact PTEN gene and the other of which is PTEN deficient.

Unlike the “standard” mouse xenograft models, these models more closely mimicked the human disease, including growth of tumors within the brain, not subcutaneously. Thus any drug administered to these mice systemically (e.g., intraperitoneally, as was done in this study) had to cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB), as in the case of human clinical trials. This would not be the case with a standard xenograft model, which is one deficiency of these models for brain tumors such as GBM.

GBM is both the most common and the most malignant primary brain tumor in adults. It has a poor prognosis. PDGF-driven GBMs, which results from deregulation of the PDGF receptor (PDGFR) or overexpression of PDGF, account for about 25-30% of human GBMs. These mutations result in the activation of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway. These tumors may also exhibit mutation or loss of heterozygosity of the tumor suppressor PTEN, which also upregulates the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway.

The researchers tested the Akt inhibitor perifosine (Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, an alkylphospholipid) and the mTOR inhibitor CCI-779 (temsirolimus; Pfizer’s Torisel; originally developed by Wyeth prior to the Pfizer merger and approved for treatment of renal cell carcinoma), both alone and in combination, in vitro and in vivo. Specifically, the drugs and drug combinations were tested in cultured primary glioma cell cultures derived from the PTEN-null and PTEN-intact mouse PDGF-driven GBM models, and in the animal models themselves.

The studies showed that both in vitro and in vivo, the most effective inhibition of Akt and mTOR activity in both PTEN-intact and PTEN-null cells or animals was achieved by using both inhibitors in combination.  In vivo, the decreased Akt and mTOR signaling seen in mice treated with the combination therapy correlated with decreased tumor cell proliferation and increased cell death; these changes were independent of PTEN status. The co-clinical animal study also suggested new ways of screening GBM patients for inclusion in clinical trials of treatment with perifosine and/or CCI-779.

According to Dr. Ledford’s Nature article, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) invested $4.2 million in Dr. Pandolfi’s co-clinical trials in prostate and lung cancer in 2009. In addition to the co-clinical trials with genetically-engineered mouse models run by Dr. Pandolfi and others, researchers at the Jackson Laboratory are conducting co-clinical trials with mouse xenograft models that receive tumor cells from patients to be treated in human clinical trials.

Use patient registries in recruitment of patients for clinical trials

In Dr, Ledford’s article, she discusses a crucial factor other than clinical attrition that hinders progress in conducting clinical trials–patient recruitment. According to the article, at least 90% of trials are extended by at least six weeks because of failure to enroll patients on schedule. Only about one-third of the sites involved in a typical multicenter trial manage to enroll the expected number of patients. As a result, clinical trials are longer and more expensive, and some of them are never completed.

Personalized medicine, in which researchers use biomarkers or other criteria to determine what fraction of patients with a particular disease are eligible for a trial (e.g., cancer patients with an activating mutation in a kinase that is the target of the drug to be tested), makes recruitment harder. That is because researchers must screen large numbers of patients to identify the fraction of patients that would be eligible for the trial. So they need to recruit (and screen) a much larger number of patients than in conventional clinical trials with no patient stratification.

Therefore, researchers, “disease organizations”, and patient advocates are devising new strategies to facilitate recruitment of eligible volunteers. Dr. Ledford cites the example of the Alpha-1 Foundation (Miami, Florida), a “disease organization” that focuses on the familial disease alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. (This disease renders patients susceptible to lung and liver diseases.) This foundation has  created a registry of patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency who are willing to be contacted about and to participate in clinical trials.

There are also cancer registries. Dr. Ledford mentions the Total Cancer Care program run by the Moffitt Cancer Center (Tampa, Florida). This program, which involves 18 hospitals, compiles medical history, tissue samples (stored for future analysis) and genetic information about each patient’s tumor. Patients can consent to doctors contacting them about trials. There are other similar programs being developed in the Netherlands and elsewhere. Dr.Ledford mentions the difficulty in negotiating agreements between institutions, and the need for adequate, ultra-secure networks to support registries that connect multiple hospitals and research centers.

Patient registries that are designed to proactively support recruitment for clinical trials have some resemblance to a “social media” approach to recruitment. However, there is a big difference–the need to secure the privacy of patient records. The current trend in social media (and in some e-commerce platforms) is anti-privacy. This is yet another important reason why a social media or e-commerce approach to clinical trials or other aspects of biotech/pharma R&D is not a suitable model. (To his credit, Dr. Grove mentions the need to maintain patient privacy and confidentiality. But this is not the norm with e-commerce and social media.)

Cutting red tape for faster and cheaper clinical trials

Dr Ledford also mentions ways to deal with more bureaucratic issues that can slow down or block the progress of clinical trials. The NCI is now initiating a data-management system that will standardize data entry across all 2,000 sites that conduct NCI-sponsored trials. This should help reduce costs and cut down on record-keeping errors and omissions.The FDA is also looking into ways to reduce reporting requirements and paperwork. so that investigators can submit summaries of case reports rather than each individual document.

To adapt to the multicenter nature of clinical trials, the US Office for Human Research Protections (Rockville, Maryland), which oversees NIH-funded human studies, has proposed changes to its guidelines that would require designation of a single review board for each project. This may greatly improve the current situation, in which multicenter trials must get approval from each center’s institutional review board. This can take months or even years. Despite the definite advantages of more centralized review, individual research centers may be reluctant to give up their direct oversight of clinical trials.

Something important was not in Dr. Ledford’s article

The space limitations for Dr. Ledford’s “News Feature” article, plus its strict focus on clinical trials per se, did not permit her to include something of crucial importance to reduce clinical attrition. That is utilizing such strategies as biology-driven drug discovery in the research phase of drug development. These strategies are designed to select the best targets and to discover drugs that are more likely to be efficacious in treating a particular group of patients. These research strategies are then coupled with early development strategies that emphasize designing clinical trials aimed at obtaining rapid proof of concept in humans. Such trials typically involve the use (and often the discovery) of biomarkers.

We discussed these issues extensively in our report, Approaches to Reducing Phase II Attrition, as well as in an article published in Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News (and available on our website) “Overcoming Phase II Attrition Problem“. We also discussed a specific case of the use of this strategy in our October 25, 2010 article on this blog.

Conclusions

Given the low productivity of pharmaceutical R&D, it is tempting to take an envious look at the success of e-commerce and social media, and to attempt to devise strategies that apply methodologies from these industry sectors to the biotech/pharmaceutical industry. We should remember, however, that not so long ago some pharmaceutical executives attempted to apply methodologies from such industries as aerospace, computer hardware, and the auto industry to pharma R&D. Not only did that not work too well for the pharmaceutical industry, but as we all know, the industries that served as a model for these approaches haven’t done very well in recent years either.

In contrast, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that have formulated strategies that embrace the uniqueness of biology, such as Novartis and Genentech (the latter now merged with Roche), have done a lot better.

There are other strategies for making clinical trials faster, cheaper, and better that are now under discussion in the biotech/pharma industry and the FDA.  These strategies are based on clinical experience, not e-commerce. We shall discuss them in further blog posts.

__________________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company, please click here. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

Crizotinib

On Aug. 26, 2011, the FDA approved the kinase inhibitor crizotinib (Pfizer’s Xalkori, originally known as  PF-02341066) for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), in which tumor cells exhibit rearrangements in the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene. These rearrangements of the ALK gene constitute driver mutations that are critical for the malignant phenotype of lung adenocarcinomas that have the mutations.

Most ALK rearrangements in lung adenocarcinoma result from a deletion and inversion in chromosome 2, which produces EML4-ALK fusion genes. (EML4 refers to the echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like 4 gene.) EML4-ALK rearrangements are found in about 4% to 5% of patients with NSCLC. This small percentage of lung cancer patients constitutes about 8,000 to 10,000 patients each year in the United States, and a worldwide patient population of around 40,000.

Crizotinib was approved together with a companion diagnostic, Abbott’s Vysis ALK Break Apart FISH Probe Kit, which is designed to help determine if a patient’s tumors have the abnormal ALK gene. The kit is designed to Identify all ALK gene rearrangements with fusion partners, including but not restricted to: EML4, TFG (TRK-fused gene), and KIF5B (kinesin family member 5B).

Crizotinib is the second targeted kinase inhibitor to be approved together with a companion diagnostic in recent weeks.  The first was vemurafenib (Plexxikon/Roche’s Zelboraf,  PLX4032), which we discussed extensively in this blog, and whose approval we covered in our August 19, 2011 article. Vemurafenib was approved together with Roche’s cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test.

The discovery of crizotinib began with research at Sugen (San Francisco, CA), which had been acquired by Pharmacia which was subsequently acquired by Pfizer. The drug resulted from research aimed at discovery of a kinase inhibitor that targeted c-Met. The resulting drug, PF-02341066 (later known as crizotinib), is indeed a c-Met inhibitor, and was entered into Phase 1 clinical trials.  c-Met, or hepatocyte growth factor receptor, is a receptor kinase that has been implicated in cancer cell growth, migration, invasion, and metastasis.

Subsequent studies by Japanese researchers identified the inversion that results in the EML4-ALK fusion gene in a subset of human NSCLCs. They also showed that cultured mouse fibroblasts expressing the EML4-ALK fusion gene generated subcutaneous tumors in nude mice. The researchers hypothesized that the EML4-ALK fusion kinase would be a good therapeutic target, as well as a diagnostic biomarker for a companion diagnostic. Meanwhile,  researchers at Pfizer and the Massachusetts General Hospital found that PF-02341066/crizotinib was a multitargeted kinase inhibitor, which targets ALK in addition to c-Met. Pfizer researchers therefore began preclinical and clinical studies aimed at the commercialization of PF-02341066/crizotinib for treatment of patients with NSCLC carrying activating rearrangements of ALK.

Clinical trials of crizotinib in NSCLC patients with activating rearrangements of ALK

The safety and efficacy of crizotinib in NSCLC patients with activating rearrangements of ALK were established in two multi-center, single-arm studies, including a Phase 2 study (PROFILE 1005) and a Part 2 expansion cohort of a Phase 1 study (Study 1001). The studies enrolled a total of 255 patients with late-stage ALK-positive NSCLC. A sample of each patient’s tumor tissue was tested for ALK gene rearrangements before the patient could be enrolled in the study. The studies were designed to measure objective response rate, i.e., the percentage of patients who experienced complete or partial cancer shrinkage. Most patients in the studies had received prior chemotherapy.

In one study, the objective response rate was 50 percent with a median response duration of 42 weeks. In another, the objective response rate was 61 percent with a median response duration of 48 weeks.

The FDA based its approval of the Vysis ALK Break Apart FISH Probe Kit on data from one of the studies.

As part of the post-marketing requirements, Pfizer continues to evaluate critozinib in two confirmatory, randomized, open-label Phase 3 trials. In these trials, crizotinib is being compared with standard-of-care chemotherapy. One study is being carried out in previously treated patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC; the other trial is being carried out in previously untreated patients with advanced ALK-positive non-squamous NSCLC.

Crizotinib as a multitargeted ALK/c-Met kinase inhibitor

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) kinase inhibitors erlotinib (Genentech/Roche’s Tarceva) and gefitinib (AstraZeneca/Teva’s Iressa) are used for the treatment of patients with NSCLC with activating mutations in the intracellular kinase domain of EGFR. As with  crizotinib and vemurafenib, companion diagnostics are used to determine if a patient is likely to benefit from treatment with erlotinib or gefitinib. Activating mutations in EGFR are found in approximately 10–15% of Caucasian and 30–40% of Asian NSCLC patients.

As with most targeted antitumor drugs, acquired resistance to erlotinib or gefitinib develops in patients treated with these agents. The two most common mechanisms of this acquired resistance are:

• development of a secondary mutation that blocks binding of the inhibitors to EGFR kinase (responsible for about 50% of acquired drug resistance)
• amplification and/or activation of the c-Met kinase, or alternatively high-level expression of the natural ligand of c-Met, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) (responsible for about 20% of acquired drug resistance).

As we discussed in Chapter 5 of our June 2011 book-length report Multitargeted Therapies: Promiscuous Drugs and Combination Therapies, Pfizer researchers and their academic collaborators found in 2010 that one could overcome HGF/c-Met-mediated resistance to erlotinib or gefitinib by combination therapy with an irreversible EGFR kinase inhibitor (such as PF-00299804) and a c-Met inhibitor (such as crizotinib/PF-02341066). The same researchers also developed a rationale for development of a companion diagnostic to identify patients with rare preexisting populations of cells with amplified c-Met genes. Such patients might be treated with the irreversible EGFR kinase inhibitor/c-Met kinase inhibitor combination. This would be expected to bypass the resistance that would develop after standard treatment with erlotinib or gefitinib alone.

Intriguingly, the 2010 Pfizer study thus suggests a second indication for crizotinib–use in combination therapy with an irreversible EGFR kinase inhibitor such as Pfizer’s PF-00299804 to overcome or preemptively circumvent HGF/c-Met-mediated resistance to the approved EGFR kinase inhibitors. However, Pfizer’s PF-00299804 is still in clinical trials, and has not yet been approved by any regulatory agency. Boehringer Ingelheim is also developing an irreversible EGFR kinase inhibitor, and Pfizer has another such agent, neratinib, in clinical trials.

Meanwhile, in addition to crizotinib, there are also other c-Met inhibitors in clinical development, including Daiichi Sankyo/ArQule’s ARQ197 and GSK/Exelixis’ XL880/GSK1363089 (now known as foretinib). ARQ197, which is in Phase 3 trials in NSCLC, is apparently the most advanced compound in development as a c-Met inhibitor.

An important potential use of irreversible EGFR kinase inhibitors is to overcome acquired resistance to first-generation EGFR kinase inhibitors in NSCLC patients due to development of a secondary blocking mutation in EGFR. The development of combination therapies of irreversible EGFR kinase inhibitors with c-Met inhibitors such as crizotinib and ARQ197 would enable their use in overcoming the second major mechanism of acquired resistance to EGFR inhibitors, via HGF/c-Met.

Conclusions

The approval of crizotinib, together with a companion diagnostic, for the treatment of ALK-driven NSCLC represents the newest example of a paradigm shift toward personalized medicine using targeted therapies in the treatment of cancer. Other examples include vemurafenib for the treatment of melanoma, and the original small-molecule targeted kinase inhibitor, imatinib (Novartis’ Gleevec/Glivec) for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) and gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs).

In lung cancer, the use of erlotinib and gefitinib to treat EGFR-driven NSCLC, which represents about 10-15% of cases in the U.S. and Western Europe, is yet another example, even though companion diagnostics for these agents had not yet been developed at the time of their introduction to the market. ALK-driven NSCLC represents yet another 4-5% of cases.

According to researchers at the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium, nearly 60% of patients with lung adenocarcinoma have 1 of 10 genomic abnormalities for which there is an approved or experimental drug. Paul Bunn, M.D., of the University of Colorado School of Medicine (Aurora, CO) asks, “We have 2 drugs approved now for 2 molecular abnormalities. The question is, will we go 10 for 10?”.  Diagnostic technology for testing for these mutations is also moving forward, and according to Dr. Bunn, it is cheaper to test for all ten abnormalities than it used to be to test for one abnormality.

As we discuss in our June 2011 report, and in several articles on this blog, patients treated with targeted agents usually develop acquired resistance to these drugs. Researchers, with some initial success, have been working on developing drugs to overcome this resistance. This is thus an important aspect of the development of personalized medicine for cancer.

Both EGFR-driven and ALK-driven NSCLCs are usually found in non-smokers or light smokers, while most lung cancer is associated with smoking. Physicians who treat lung cancer, as well as patients, await the development of agents that can effectively treat lung cancer in smokers and former smokers. Smoking rates have been going down in many industrialized countries, including the U.S., but that is not uniformly true in all the world. Moreover, there are still large numbers of smokers and former smokers who are at risk for smoking-induced lung cancer, and lung cancer in never-smokers (which accounts for about 10-15% of lung cancer cases) is by no means a solved problem.

__________________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company, please click here. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

Vemurafenib

On August 17, 2011 the FDA announced that it had approved the oral targeted therapy vemurafenib (Daiichi Sankyo/Plexxikon/Roche’s Zelboraf; also known as PLX4032) for first-line treatment of metastatic and unresectable melanomas. The drug is indicated for use in patients whose tumors carry the BRAFV600E) mutation. Approximately 50% of melanoma patients have tumors that carry this mutation.

Vemurafenib  was approved together with a test called the cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test (Roche Molecular Diagnostics). This is a companion diagnostic designed to determine if a patient’s melanoma cells carry the BRAF(V600E) mutation and thus patients can benefit from therapy with the drug.

Vemurafenib and the companion BRAF(V600E) diagnostic test were approved earlier than scheduled. They had been reviewed under the FDA’s priority review program that provides for an expedited six-month review of drugs that may offer major advances in treatment or that provide a treatment when no adequate therapy exists. The original goal PDUFA (Prescription Drug User Fee Act) review dates for vemurafenib and the companion diagnostic were October 28, 2011 and November 12, 2011, respectively.

The Biopharmconsortium Blog has been following the veurafenib story since March 2010. See this January 23, 2011 article, and the links to earlier articles that it contains.

There are now two drugs approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma in 2011 that demonstrate an improvement in progression-free and overall survival, when before there were none. The other drug, the immunomodulator ipilimumab (Medarex/Bristol-Myers Squibb’s [BMS's] Yervoy), was discussed in a March 30, 2011 article on our blog.

The FDA granted early approval for vemurafenib on the basis of the results of the pivotal Phase 3 trial known as BRIM-3. In a previous article on this blog, we discussed a report of an interim analysis of this trial in January 2011. The results of the trial were published in the June 30, 2011 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. Earlier Phase 1 and 2 clinical trails of the drug had show response rates of over 50% in advanced melanoma patients whose tumors bore the BRAF(V600E) mutation.

In the BRIM-3 trial, researchers compared vemrafenib to dacarbazine (the previous standard of care) in 675 patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma that had the BRAF(V600E) mutation. Patients were randomized to receive either vemurafenib or dacarbazine. Co-primary end points were rates of overall and progression-free survival. Secondary end points included the response rate, response duration, and safety.

Patients receiving vemurafenib had a 74% reduction in the risk for progression (or death), compared with patients receiving dacarbazine. Mean progression-free survival was 5.3 months in the vemurafenib group, compared with 1.6 months in the dacarbazine group. At 6 months, estimated overall survival was 84% in the vemurafenib group and 64% in the dacarbazine group. The median survival of patients receiving vemurafenib has not been reached, while the median survival for those who received dacarbazine was 8 months.

Response rates were 48% for vemurafenib and 5% for dacarbazine. Common adverse effects in patients receiving vemurafenib were joint pain, rash, hair loss, fatigue, nausea, and skin sensitivity to the sun. Approximately 26% of patients developed cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, which was managed with surgery. Patients treated with vemurafenib should avoid sun exposure.

FDA approval of the cobas 4800 BRAF V600 mutation test was also based on data from the BRIM-3 trial. Patient tumor samples were tested with the diagnostic in order to select patients for the trial.

The complete response rate seen with vemurafenib has been only 0.9%. The great majority of patients experience tumor regrowth due to drug resistance. As we have discussed in previous article on this blog (for example, our January 23, 2011 article), researchers are hard at work developing combination therapies designed to overcome this resistance. As discussed in our June 8, 2011 blog article, research aimed at developing such combination therapies was extensively discussed at the 2011 ASCO meeting. We have also outlined strategies for overcoming vemurafenib resistance via design of multitargeted combination therapies in our June 2011 book-length report, Multitargeted Therapies: Promiscuous Drugs and Combination Therapies.

2011 has brought good news to patients who have or may develop late-stage melanoma, their families and friends, and to physicians who treat these patients. When previously there had been no FDA approved therapies that can produce improved survival in patients with this deadly disease, now there are two. We hope that research aimed at designing combination therapies to overcome drug resistance will result in even greater ability to control this disease, and that new therapies for still intractable forms of cancer will emerge in the next several years.

Two recent research reports may point the way to developing more effective, personalized therapies for two deadly women’s cancers for which their are currently few treatment options–triple-negative breast cancer and ovarian cancer. The approach followed in both reports is to use gene expression analysis to stratify each of the two diseases into subtypes. Researchers can then use gene expression and order aspects of the biology of each subtype to design subtype-specific targeted therapies, whether single drugs or drug combinations. If the drugs (whether approved or experimental) already exist, they can be tested in clinical trials, stratified by subtype. If no appropriate drugs exist, researchers can discover the drugs based on subtype-appropriate drug targets.

Triple-negative (TN) breast cancer refers to breast cancers that are negative for expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2. [HER2 is the target of trastuzumab (Roche/Genentech's Herceptin) and lapatinib (GlaxoSmithKline's Tykerb/Tyverb)]. Lacking all three receptors, it cannot be treated with standard receptor-targeting breast cancer therapeutics (e.g., tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, trastuzumab) but must be treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy. TN breast cancer is generally more aggressive than other types of breast cancer, and even treatment with aggressive chemotherapy regimens typically results in early relapse and metastasis.

TN breast cancers constitute approximately 25 percent of breast cancers. They are diagnosed most often in younger women, those who have recently given birth, women with BRCA1 mutations, and African-American and Hispanic women.

There is a Triple Negative Breast Cancer Foundation, which was founded in 2006 in honor of a mother in her mid-thirties who died of the disease.

Ovarian cancer, the ninth most common cancer in women, caused nearly 14,000 deaths in the U.S. in 2010. In its earliest stages, its symptoms are usually very subtle and mimic other, less serious diseases. As a result, it is usually detected at later stages in which treatment is more difficult and gives poorer outcomes. The 2001 five-year survival rate was 47%, up from 38% in the mid-1970s. This compared to an overall survival rate for cancer of 68% in 2001, up from 50% in the mid-1970s.

Treatment usually involves surgery and chemotherapy, and sometimes radiotherapy. Surgery (preferably by a gynecological oncologist) may be sufficient for earlier-stage tumors that are well-differentiated and confined to the ovary. In this early-stage disease (which represents about 19% of women presenting with ovarian cancer), the five-year survival rate is 92.7%. However, about 75% of women presenting with ovarian cancer already have stage III or stage IV disease, in which the cancer has spread beyond the ovaries. Then the prognosis is much poorer, and the vast majority of patients will have a recurrence.

The triple-negative breast cancer study

The TN breast cancer study was carried out by researchers at the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN), and published in the 1 July 2011 issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. In this study, the researchers analyzed gene expression profiles from 21 publicly available breast cancer data sets, and identified  587 cases of TN breast cancer (by non-expression of mRNAs that encode ER, PR, and HER2). Using cluster analysis, they identified six TN breast cancer subtypes:

• two basal-like subtypes (BL1 and BL2),
• an immunomodulatory (IM) subtype (i.e., expressing genes involved in immune cell processes)
• a mesenchymal (M) subtype
• a mesenchymal stem–like (MSL) subtype
• a luminal androgen receptor (LAR) subtype.

Using gene expression analysis, the researchers identified TN breast cancer model cell lines that were representative of each of these subtypes. On the basis of their analysis, the researchers predicted “driver” signaling pathways, and targeted them pharmacologically as a proof-of-principle that analysis of gene expression signatures of cancer subtypes can inform selection of therapies.

BL1 and BL2 subtypes had higher expression of genes involved in the cell cycle and response to DNA damage, and model cell lines preferentially responded to cisplatin. M and MSL subtypes were enriched for expression of genes involved in the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), and growth factor-related pathways in model cell lines responded to the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor BEZ235 (Novartis, now in Phase 1 and 2 for solid tumors) and to the ABL/SRC inhibitor dasatinib [Bristol-Myers Squibb's Sprycel, currently approved for treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) and Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and under investigation for treatment of solid tumors). The LAR subtype was characterized by androgen receptor (AR) signaling, and included patients with decreased progression-free survival. LAR model cell lines were uniquely sensitive to the AR antagonist bicalutamide (AstraZeneca's Casodex/Cosudex, currently approved for the treatment of prostate cancer and hirsutism, and under investigation for treatment of androgen receptor-positive, ER negative, PR negative breast cancer).

The researchers plan to use the TN breast cancer subtype-specific model cell lines for further molecular characterization, to identify new components of the “driver” signaling pathways for each subtype. These pathways can be targeted in further drug discovery efforts. The subtype-specific cell lines can also be used in preclinical studies with targeted agents, and in identification of subtype-specific biomarkers that can potentially be used in stratifying TN breast cancer patients so that they might be treated with the best agents for their disease.

The ovarian cancer study

The ovarian cancer study was carried out by the Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network [a consortium of academic researchers jointly funded and managed by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)], and published in the 30 June 2011 issue of Nature. In this study, the researchers analyzed mRNA expression, microRNA expression, promoter methylation and DNA copy number in 489 high-grade serous ovarian adenocarcinomas, as well as the DNA sequences of exons from coding genes in 316 of these tumors. Serous adenocarcinoma is the most prevalent form of ovarian cancer, accounting for about 85 percent of all ovarian cancer deaths.

The researchers found that nearly all of the high-grade serous ovarian cancers (HGS-OvCa) studied had mutations in the TP53 gene, which encodes the p53 tumor suppressor protein. On the basis of their gene expression (mRNA) signatures, the researchers divided the population of HGS-OvCa into four subtypes:

• an immunoreactive subtype (i.e., expressing genes involved in immune cell processes)
• a differentiated subtype (high expression of markers of differentiated female reproductive tract epithelia)
• a proliferative subtype (high expression of markers of cell proliferation)
• a mesenchymal subtype (high expression of HOX genes and of markers of mesenchymal-derived cells)

The researchers also determined subtypes on the basis of microRNA expression and promoter methylation. microRNA subtype 1 overlapped the mRNA proliferative subtype and miRNA subtype 2 overlapped the mRNA mesenchymal subtype. Patients with miRNA subtype 1 tumors survived significantly longer that those with tumors of other microRNA subtypes.

Although the researchers found no significant difference in survival between the four transcriptional subtypes, they did identify a 193-gene expression signature that was predictive of overall survival. 108 genes were correlated with poor survival and 85 were correlated with good survival.

The researchers identified cancer-associated pathways in the HGS-OvCA population; this is equivalent to the prediction of “driver” signaling pathways in the TN breast cancer study. They found that 20% of the HGS-OvCA samples had germline or somatic mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2, and that 11% lost BRCA1 expression through DNA hypermethylation. As we discussed in an earlier article on this blog, BRCA1- or BRCA2-negative tumor cells cannot repair their DNA via homologous recombination. They are dependent on an alternative pathway of DNA repair, which involves the enzyme poly(ADP) ribose polymerase (PARP). These tumors are thus sensitive to a class of drugs known as PARP inhibitors, such as KuDOS/AstraZenaca’s olaparib. There are now six PARP inhibitors, including olaparib, in clinical development.

The researchers found genetic alterations in several other genes involved in homologous recombination. Altogether, defects in homologous recombination may be present in approximately half of HGS-OvCa cases, and these tumors may be sensitive to PARP inhibitors. This provides a rationale for clinical trials of PARP inhibitors in women with ovarian cancers with defects in homologous recombination-related genes.

Olaparib and other PARP inhibitors are in clinical trials in women with advanced with BRCA-1 or -2 mutations and with other defects in homologous recombination. As discussed in the 2011 ASCO meeting, early Phase 2 results indicate that olaparib gives dramatic improvements in progression-free survival in these women. (See this article and this video.) In these studies, in addition to tumors with genetic defects in homologous recombination, olaparib or another PARP inhibitor, Abbott’s ABT-888, appears to give improved progression-free survival in women who have previously been treated with chemotherapy drugs that result in DNA damage. This suggests that oncologists may be able to use a “one-two punch”, consisting of a DNA-damaging drug [such as the alkylating agent temozolomide [Merck's Temodar]) followed by a PARP inhibitor, to treat advanced ovarian cancer.

In addition to BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 mutations and other genetic alterations that result in defects in homologous recombination, the HGS-OvCa population exhibited genetic changes that would result in deregulation of several other cancer related pathways. These pathways included the RB1 (67% of cases), RAS/PI3K (45% of cases), and NOTCH (22% of cases) pathways, as well as the FOXM1 transcription factor network (87% of cases). All of these pathways represent opportunities for target identification and drug discovery. FOXM1 (Forkhead box protein M1) was named the Molecule of the Year for 2010 by the International Society for Molecular and Cell Biology and Biotechnology Protocols and Research (ISMCBBPR) because of “its growing potential as a target for cancer therapies.” FOXM1 overexpression results in destabilization of the cell cycle, which can lead to a malignant phenotype.

The researchers also identified 22 genes that were frequently amplified or overexpressed in HGS-OvCA tumors (other than genes that are involved in homologous recombination). Inhibitors (including approved and experimental compounds) already exist for the products of these genes, and researchers might assess these compounds in HGS-OvCa cases in which target genes are amplified.

Can Verastem develop new therapeutics for triple negative breast cancer?

The private biotechnology company Verastem (Cambridge, MA) focuses on discovery and development of drugs to target cancer stem cells. The company was founded in 2010, and is based on a strategy for screening for compounds that specifically target cancer stem cells. This strategy, published in the journal Cell in 2009, was developed by Drs. Robert Weinberg (MIT Whtehead Institute), Eric Lander (Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard University), and Piyush Gupta (MIT and Broad Institute) and their colleagues. Drs. Weinberg, Lander, and Gupta are on the Scientific Advisory Board of Verastem.

On July 14, 2011, Verstem announced that it had raised $32 million in a Series B financing. Verastem had previously raised $16 million from a group led by former Christoph Westphal’s Longwood Founders Fund. Dr. Westphal (formerly of Sirtris) is now Chairman of Verastem.

Cancer stem cells are best known in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), but their existence in other cancers (especially solid tumors) is controversial. The cancer stem cell hypothesis asserts that a small subpopulations of cells in a leukemia or solid tumor have characteristics that resemble normal adult stem cells, such as self renewal, the ability to give rise to all the cell types found in the leukemia or cancer, and stem cell markers. The hypothesis further asserts that most cancer treatments fail to knock out cancer stem cells, which can repopulate a tumor cell population, resulting in treatment relapses. Cancer stem cell researchers therefore propose developing cancer stem-cell specific therapeutics that can be used to eliminate these cells, which can block these relapses.

Whether cancer stem cells are involved in the pathobiology of solid tumors or not, the biology of the putative cancer stem cell phenotype can be important in certain subtypes of cancer. Cancer stem cells are characterized by the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), and in the Cell paper the researchers screened for compounds that specifically targeted breast cancer cells that had been experimentally induced into an EMT, and which as a result exhibited an increased resistance to standard chemotherapy drugs.   They identified the compound salinomycin as a drug that specifically targeted these cells, as well as putative cancer stem cells from patients.

As discussed earlier in this article, TN breast cancer includes two subtypes that have gene expression signatures related to the EMT: the mesenchymal (M) subtype and the mesenchymal stem–like (MSL) subtype. One or both of these subtypes might be sensitive to compounds that specifically target putative breast cancer stem cells. This may be true whether the cancer stem cell hypothesis applies to TN breast cancer or not. Verastem recognizes this, and is thus focusing on TN breast cancer as its first therapeutic target. The Vanderbilt TN breast cancer study suggests that trials of any “cancer stem cell-specific” therapeutics for TN breast cancer should be guided by subtype-specific biomarkers.

Hope for treatment of TN breast cancer and advanced ovarian cancer

Researchers and oncologists have made great strides in increasing the percentage of breast cancers that are treatable or even curable in recent years. For example, prior to the FDA approval of trastuzumab in 1998, HER2 positive breast cancer carried a grim prognosis. But the advent of trastuzumab (and later, lapatinib) has had a major impact on treatment of this once uniformly deadly type of breast cancer.

We hope that the new, personalized medicine-based approach to TN breast cancer and advanced serous ovarian adenocarcinoma will also result in successful new therapeutic strategies for these deadly women’s cancers.

__________________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company, please click here. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

PLX4032

On January 19, 2011, Plexxikon and Roche announced the results of an interim analysis of a large multicenter Phase 3 clinical study (the BRIM3 trial) of the targeted anticancer drug PLX4032 (which Roche has designated as RG7204). PLX4032 is a kinase inhibitor that is exquisitely specific for B-Raf carrying the V600E mutation [B-Raf(V600E)]. This is the most common somatic mutation found in human melanomas (accounting for approximately 50% of cases of this disease), and is a “driver mutation” that is particularly critical for the malignant phenotype of human metastatic melanomas that carry the mutation.

According to the Plexxikon and Roche press releases, the Phase 3 trial met its prespecified criteria for co-primary endpoints of overall survival and progression-free survival, as compared to a control arm, in which patients were treated with the current standard of care, dacarbazine. The safety profile was consistent with previous clinical studies of the drug.

Based on the results of the interim analysis, patients in the dacarbazine arm of the study will have the option to crossover to receive PLX4032. Moreover, the Expanded Access Program will be opened to previously untreated melanoma patients whose tumors carry the B-Raf(V600E) mutation. As the companies announced in November 2010, as the result of widespread demand from patients, oncologists, and patient advocates, they had been in discussion with global regulatory authorities regarding an Expanded Access Program for PLX4032. In late December 2010, the Expanded Access Program for PLX4032 was initiated. A cofounder of one of the patient advocate organizations pushing for expanded access to PLX4032 prior to its FDA approval, the Abigail Alliance, commented on this issue on our blog in November 2010.

The big news in Plexxikon and Roche’s report on the BRIM3 trial is that treatment with PLX4032 gave enhanced overall survival as companied with dacarbazine in previously untreated metastatic melanoma patients carrying the B-Raf(V600E) mutation. Although previous studies showed tumor shrinkage and enhanced progression-free survival (by approximately seven months) in the majority of PLX4032-treated patients as compared to dacarbazine, this is the first report that PLX4032 give enhanced overall survival. However, the companies did not report the extend of the enhanced overall survival. They plan to present comprehensive data from the BRIM3 trial at a major scientific meeting later this year. We expect that in due course the researchers that have been conducting the trial will publish the results in a peer-reviewed medical journal, as in the case of the published Phase 1 trial.

On November 8, 2010, Plexxikon and Roche reported preliminary results of a parallel open-label Phase 2 trial (designated BRIM2) of PLX4032 in previously treated metastatic melanoma patients whose tumors carried the B-Raf(V600E) mutation. Researchers who had been conducting that trial presented the data at the Seventh Annual International Melanoma Research Congress of the Society for Melanoma Research (SMR) in Sydney, Australia. Consistent with earlier Phase 1 trials, the BRIM2 trial showed that of the 132 patients enrolled, 3 patients had complete responses, and 66 had partial responses (i.e., tumor shrinkage of over 30 percent). The overall response rate was 52 percent, with a median duration of response of 6.8 months. At the time the results were reported, it was too early to gauge overall survival.

The Biopharmconsortium Blog has been following the PLX4032 story since March 2010. We have published several articles on the drug and on related scientific, clinical trial strategy, and business issues:

http://biopharmconsortium.com/blog/2010/03/02/bringing-targeted-therapy-of-metastatic-melanoma-into-the-clinic-the-crucial-role-of-translational-researchers/

http://biopharmconsortium.com/blog/2010/03/10/plexxikon’s-discovery-of-plx4032-a-selective-targeted-therapeutic-for-metastatic-melanoma/

http://biopharmconsortium.com/blog/2010/08/27/phase-i-trial-of-plx4032-a-selective-therapeutic-for-metastatic-melanoma-published-in-nejm/

http://biopharmconsortium.com/blog/2010/10/13/translational-research-in-cancer-makes-a-big-splash-in-nature-part-1/

http://biopharmconsortium.com/blog/2010/10/25/translational-research-in-cancer-makes-a-big-splash-in-nature-part-2/

The last two articles discuss the novel personalized medicine (or “stratified medicine”) hypothesis-testing clinical trial strategy, which is especially applicable to highly targeted oncology drugs (such as PLX4032) for which the relevant biomarkers are available.

The dramatic results of the Phase 1 trials of PLX4032 (now confirmed by Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials) led some oncologists, as well as patient advocates, to question the ethics of conducting standard controlled Phase 3 trials in which some patients were placed in a dacarbazine arm.  This question might apply to other drugs for cancer and other very serious diseases for which personalized medicine hypothesis-testing clinical trials indicate superior performance as compared to the standard of care. Such cases would at least call for establishment of  Expanded Access Programs for such drugs, on a case-by-case basis.

The clinical trial community, as well as regulatory agencies such as the FDA and the European Medicines Agency, also need to continue to monitor and study the progress of the personalized medicine hypothesis-testing clinical trial strategy. This may led to modifications in clinical trial standards for approval if they deem they are warranted. We can also expect that patient advocates (including M.D. and non-physician advocates), as well as other stakeholders (e.g., third party payers) would be participating in that process.

In parallel with the development of PLX4032, Plexxikon and Roche Molecular Diagnostics are developing a DNA-based companion diagnostic to identify patients whose tumors carry B-Raf(V600E). The companies plan to launch PLX4032 together with the companion diagnostic, so that oncologists can readily identify patients who would benefit from treatment with the drug.

Despite the dramatic results with PLX4032, so far all patients treated with the drug eventually suffer relapses, and die of their disease. This presumably occurs because a fraction of tuner cells develop resistance to PLX4032. Oncologists, especially those who have been involved in the clinical trials of the drug, therefore advocate using PLX4032 as the basis for potentially still more effective treatments, especially combination therapies.

With respect to combination therapies, on January 6, 2011, Plexxikon announced that it had signed an agreement with Genentech (a member of the Roche group) to co-promote PLX4032 (RG7204) in the United States. Plexxikon will also codevelop PLX4032 with Genentech in addition to Roche. Plexxikon and Genentech are planning, beginning in the first quarter of 2011, to begin a Phase 1b clinical trial of a combination therapy of PLX4032 and Exelixis/Genentech’s oral, small-molecule MEK inhibitor RG7420/GDC-0973. MEK is downstream from B-Raf in the signaling pathway by which B-Raf(V600E) acts to produce the malignant phenotype. Researchers studying mechanisms by which PLX4032 resistance occurs have found evidence that suggests that combination therapy with PLX4032 and a MEK inhibitor may overcome resistance that occurs via some mechanisms. More generally, studies of mechanisms of PLX4032 resistance may provide means of developing specific combination therapies for different mechanisms of resistance, and of stratifying patients to determine which particular personalized combination therapy will best treat their disease.

______________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company, please click here. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

Olaparib

In Part 1 of this series, we began a discussion of a new, disruptive strategy for clinical trials of oncology drugs, which had been outlined in a Perspective by Drs. Johann S. de Bono and Alan Ashworth, and published in the 30 September 2010 issue of Nature.

This strategy, which these authors call the personalized medicine hypothesis-testing strategy, is aimed at testing targeted drugs that have been developed via biology-driven drug discovery. Such a strategy begins with a strong biological hypothesis that a particular altered molecular target is critical for the malignant phenotype of a particular cancer. Based on this hypothesis, drug discovery researchers develop both targeted drugs that are specific for these altered targets, and biomarkers that can be used to determine which patients have tumors that express the target, and thus are most likely to benefit from treatment with the drug.

Following preclinical studies, clinical researchers test the drug in patients whose tumors express the target, aiming for proof of mechanism and proof of concept in early clinical trials. This involves the use of rapid dose escalation and adaptive trial design. Following these early trials, the researchers go on to conduct Phase 3 clinical trials, aiming at registration. This strategy is designed to reduce clinical attrition and the time and cost of clinical trials, and to develop superior, targeted drugs that provide greater patient benefit (in terms of progression-free survival) than the typical new oncology drugs that reach the market.

In the de Bono and Ashworth article, the authors provide several examples of successful hypothesis-testing clinical trials using this strategy. In this blog post, we discuss three of these examples, one of which is a “classic” that should be familiar to most of you, another which we have discussed in previous articles on this blog, and a third example that is based on Drs. de Bono and Ashworth’s own research.

Imatinib (Novartis’ Gleevec/Glivec)

The “classic” example of the use of a personalized medicine hypothesis-testing strategy is the development of imatinib (Novartis’ Gleevec/Glivec).  This drug was originally designed as a specific inhibitor of the ABL tyrosine kinase, which is stuck in the activated conformation in the BCR-ABL fusion protein. BCR-ABL is the “driver” mutation in Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Imatinib was also found to be specific for two other tyrosine kinases, c-Kit and the platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR); these findings have led to the use of imatinib to treat other cancers, especially gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). We discussed the role of Dr. Brian Druker (Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland) and Nicholas B. Lydon (then at Novartis) in the development of imatinib in an earlier blog post.

The 2001 published Phase 1 clinical trial of imatinib in CML led by Drs. Druker and Lydon, and clinician Charles L Sawyers, M.D. (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center/Howard Hughes Medical Institute) is what Drs. de Bono and Ashworth called “a landmark paper” in the use of a personalized medicine hypothesis-testing strategy to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of a targeted oncology drug. The development of imatinib for CML was made possible by basic research that showed that the BCR-ABL fusion protein (which is generated as the result of the translocation that produces the Philadelphia (Ph) chromosome, the characteristic genetic abnormality of CML) alone was sufficient to cause CML, and that the tyrosine kinase activity of the ABL moiety of the protein was required for its oncogenic activity. Researchers then discovered a compound, imatinib, that was highly specific for BCR-ABL, c-kit, and PDGFR.

The Phase I clinical trial (which took place in 1999) was a dose-escalation trial of imatinib in 83 patients with chronic-phase CML in whom treatment with interferon-alpha had failed. The primary endpoint of the trial was the safety and tolerability of the drug; efficacy was a secondary endpoint. Imatinib was found to be well-tolerated, and a maximum tolerated dose was not identified in this trial. Complete hematological responses (defined by reductions in the white-cell and platelet counts) were seen in 53 of 54 patients who received 300 mg per day or more of imatinib; these responses typically occurred in the first four weeks after initiating treatment. Cytogenetic responses were defined by the percentage of blood cells in metaphase that were positive for the Ph chromosome, ranging from major responses (zero to 35% of Ph chromosome-positive cells) to minor responses (36-65% positive) to no response (over 65% positive). Of the 54 patients treated with doses of 300 mg or more, 29 had cytogentic responses, including 17 with major responses; seven of these patients had complete cytogenetic remissions (durable zero percent Ph chromosome positive).

Blood samples were taken to determine whether BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase activity had been inhibited by in vivo treatment with imatinib. The researchers observed dose-dependent inhibition of BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase activity. This constituted proof of mechanism of the drug, while the antileukemic activity of imatinib in the trial constituted proof-of-concept.

The researchers then conducted Phase 2 clinical trials, which confirmed and extended the results seen in Phase 1. The FDA approved imatinib in May 2001, less than three years after initiation of clinical trials. This rapid approval was made possible by the FDA granting imatinib a Fast Track designation and Accelerated Approval, which allowed approval of the drug based on Phase 2 trials using surrogate markers (in this case, cytogenetic responses).

As imatinib gained approval as frontline therapy for treatment of Ph chromosome-positive CML, resistance to imatinib became an important issue. Researchers found that this resistance was usually due to mutations in BCR-ABL that interfere with imatinib binding. Two companies therefore designed inhibitors that can bind to and inhibit these resistant BCR-ABL proteins and thus successfully treat imatinib-resistant CML–dasatinib (Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Sprycel) and nilotinib (Novartis’ Tasigna). This is an example of the use of reiterative translational studies to determine mechanisms of drug resistance, and the design of second-generation drugs to combat this resistance. This type of follow-up strategy was discussed in the de Bono and Ashworth article and in our previous blog post.

Only a few years ago, many industry commentators were of the opinion that the development of imatinib to treat CML was a unique case, and development of other personalized biology-driven drug discovery-based cancer medicines would not be successful. However, the examples discussed in the de Bono and Ashworth article (and elsewhere) show that that is not true.

Roche/Plexxikon’s PLX4032

The second example of successful use of the hypothesis-testing clinical trial strategy is the development of Roche/Plexxikon’s PLX4032 for metastatic melanoma. This compound is exquisitely specific for B-Raf carrying the V600E mutation B-Raf(V600E). This is the most common somatic mutation found in human melanomas, and is a “driver mutation” that is particularly critical for the malignant phenotype of human metastatic melanomas that carry the mutation.

We have discussed PLX4032 in three articles on this blog in 2010, published on March 2, March 10, and August 27.

As in the case of imatinib, researchers achieved proof-of-mechanism and proof-of-concept for PLX4032 in a dose-escalation Phase 1 trial in patients who were preselected for carriers of the B-Raf(V600E) mutation. The Phase 1 trial took place in 2008/2009. This was followed by an extension phase in which patients were given the maximum tolerated dose of the drug. Patients showed an 81% response rate (i.e, a partial or a complete response). The estimated median progression-free survival among all patients was over 7 months, as compared to less than 2 months in large numbers of advanced melanoma patients as determined by historical analysis. Oncologists had never seen such a dramatic response in treatment of metastatic melanoma.

PLX4032 is on an accelerated path to potential registration, and parallel Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials are in progress in previously treated and previously untreated patients, respectively, all who have metastatic melanoma carrying the B-Raf(V600E) mutation.

Despite the dramatic regressions and increased survival seen in the Phase 1 trials, all the patients apparently eventually suffered relapses. As stated in the article on PLX4032 in the 30 September 2010 issue of Nature, researchers are therefore doing reiterative translational studies to determine the mechanisms of resistance to PLX4032 in cases of tumor regrowth after treatment with the drug. Proposed strategies include the development of combination therapies that include PLX4032 and other targeted drugs, immunotherapeutic agents, or chemotherapy. Given the promising efficacy and safety profile of PLX4032, researchers believe that the drug has the potential to enable the development of such combination therapies.

In conjunction with the early clinical trials of PLX4032, researchers developed a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay to assess B-Raf(V600E) mutation status. The assay has the potential to be used as a companion diagnostic in treatment with PLX4032.  As stated in the 30 September article, researchers are assessing the reliability of the PCR assay In the ongoing concurrent Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials of PLX4032.

A synthetic lethal therapeutic strategy using KuDOS/AstraZeneca’s olaparib

The third example of successful use of the hypothesis-testing clinical trial strategy is taken from Drs. de Bono and Ashworth’s own work. The therapeutic strategy in this example is fundamentally different from the cases of imatinib and PLX4032, both of which are exquisitely targeted drugs that inhibit specific mutated versions of oncogenes. Instead, this example involves the use of synthetic lethality in the design of an anticancer therapeutic strategy. Based on classic studies in yeast and Drosophila, synthetic lethality is defined as a situation in which mutation in either of two genes individually has no effect, but simultaneous mutation in both genes is lethal. In cancer, if one gene in a synthetically lethal pair is defective (and especially if this defect is involved in the malignant phenotype) targeting the other gene with a drug should be selectively lethal to the tumor cells but not to normal cells. If this works, it should result in a large therapeutic window for treatment with the drug.

Women with a germline mutation in one BRCA1 or BRCA2 allele have a high risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer; BRCA1 or BRCA2 carrier status in men also carries an increased risk of developing prostate cancer. Via the process of loss of heterozygosity, cells of carriers of loss-of-function mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 can lose the wild-type allele, resulting in cells that lack BRCA1 or BRCA2 function. The products of the two BRCA genes are both involved in the pathway for DNA repair via homologous recombination. Loss of a functional homologous recombination pathway results in the development of genomic instability that can lead to carcinogenesis. Moreover, since BRCA-negative tumor cells cannot repair their DNA via homologous recombination, they are dependent on an alternative pathway of DNA repair, which involves the enzyme Poly(ADP) ribose polymerase (PARP). Since the average cell must repair its DNA thousands of times a day, researchers hypothesized that BRCA-negative tumor cells should be uniquely vulnerable to drugs that inhibit PARP. In contrast, normal cells are able to utilize the homologous recombination pathway, and should not be affected by PARP inhibitors.

Alan Ashworth and his colleagues developed and published this synthetic lethality strategy for therapy of BRCA-negative breast cancer in 2005. They showed that cells deficient in BRCA1 or BRCA2 were about 1,000-fold more sensitive to a class of PARP inhibitors developed by AstraZeneca (AZ) subsidiary KoDOS Pharmaceuticals (Cambridge, MA) than cells with BRCA1 and BRCA2 function. Treatment of BRCA-deficient cells with the PARP inhibitors resulted in chromosomal instability and cell cycle arrest, followed by apoptosis. The efficacy and specificity of the PARP inhibitors for BRCA-deficient cells also carried over to in vivo studies in mouse models. These cell culture and animal studies constituted the generation of a strong hypothesis that this synthetic lethal therapeutic strategy would be useful in developing antitumor treatments for patients with BRCA-negative breast cancer.

In 2006 and 2007, Drs. Ashworth, de Bono, and their colleagues (including researchers from KuDOS and AZ) conducted a Phase 1, hypothesis-testing clinical trial of KuDOS/AZ’s potent, orally-active PARP inhibitor olaparib (AZD-2281; formerly known as KU-0059436). The study enrolled a total of 60 patients with a variety of types of solid tumors, including 22 who were confirmed BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers and one patient with a strong family history of BRCA-associated cancer but who declined mutation testing. The study was published in July 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine. The trial was a dose-escalation study–the dose was increased from 10 mg daily for two of every three weeks to 600 mg twice daily. A reversible dose-limiting toxicity was seen in one of eight patients receiving 400 mg twice daily, and in two of five patients who received 400 mg twice daily. Based on these results, the researchers established 400 mg twice daily as the maximum tolerated dose. They then enrolled a new cohort of carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation; these patients received a dose of 200 mg twice daily.

As a Phase 1 trial, the primary objectives were to determine safety, adverse effects, the dose-limiting toxicity and maximum tolerated dose, and the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Once these were established, the aim was to test the hypothesis that patients’ BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation-associated cancers would show an objective antitumor response to olaparib as a single agent. In terms of safety, adverse effects were generally mild. There were two patients deaths due to infectious disease that were deemed not to be drug related. There was also no difference in adverse effect profiles between known BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and other patients.

The researchers established three types of biomarkers. The predictive biomarker was the presence of BRCA1 or BRCA2 loss-of-function mutations, as determined by standard sequencing methods in patients with a family history of BRCA-associated cancers. The pharmacodynamic biomarker was the inhibition of PARP enzymatic activity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells and in tumor biopsies taken before and after olaparib treatment, and the formation of double-strand DNA breaks in hair follicle tissue. The intermediate endpoint biomarker consisted of radiological determination of tumor shrinkage and biochemical tests for serum tumor markers.

Using the pharmacodynamic biomarker, the researchers showed that inhibition of PARP was over 90% in peripheral mononuclear cells in patients treated with 60 mg or more of olaparib twice daily. Determination of PARP activity in tumor biopsies before and after 8 days of treatment showed that drug treatment inhibited PARP in tumor tissue. Pharmacodynamic studies in samples of plucked eyebrow hair follicles showed that induction of formation of double-strand breaks occurred within 6 hours of olaparib treatment. These studies constitute proof-of-mechanism of olaparib in humans.

In studies to determine whether olaparib treatment induced antitumor responses, the researchers found that such responses only occurred in patients with confirmed BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carrier status, except for one patient who declined mutational testing but had a strong family history of BRCA mutation-related cancer. 23 patents who were confirmed or (in the one case) deemed to be BRCA mutation carriers were treated. Of these 23 patients, two could not be evaluated. Two of the remaining patients had tumors not typically associated with BRCA mutations, and neither received clinical benefits from drug treatment.

Of the remaining 19 patients (who had ovarian, breast, or prostate cancer), 12 exhibited clinical benefits from olaparib treatment, with either tumor responses (determined radiologically or via serum tumor markers) or stable disease for a period of four months or more. Nine BRCA carriers had a tumor response. Eight patients with advanced ovarian cancer had a partial response (determined by radiology), and six of these had a greater than 50% tumor response based on tumor marker assays. Of the three patients with advanced BRCA2 breast cancer, one had a complete remission lasting for over 60 weeks, and another had stable disease for 7 months. The other breast cancer patient, who had refused mutational testing, had a decline in metastases and an over 50% decline in serum tumor markers. The patient with BRCA2-related castration resistant prostate cancer has an over 50% reduction in PSA levels, and resolution of bone metastases. He had been participating in the study for over 58 weeks at the time of the cutoff date, and for more than 2 years since that date.

The above efficacy data constitutes proof-of-concept, and confirms the hypothesis that BRCA-associated cancers can be addressed by a synthetic lethal therapeutic strategy based on the use of the PARP inhibitor olaparib. Olaparib also has a satisfactory adverse effect profile, and lacks the toxicity typically seen with cancer chemotherapy. Since this Phase 1 clonal trial, AZ had taken olaparib into Phase 2 clinical trials in advanced BRCA-related breast and ovarian cancer. Olaparib has continued to demonstrate efficacy and a relatively mild adverse effect profile in these trials, as shown here and here, and as also discussed in a July 2010 Medscape article.

Dr. Ashworth and his colleagues noted that not all cancers in BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers respond to olaparib. They hypothesize that different BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may result in different defects in homologous recombination, which may cause variations in sensitivity to PARP inhibition. Moreover, certain secondary BRCA2 mutations may restore BRCA function, which may cause resistance to PARP inhibition. They see the need to develop assays for homologous recombination proficiency, which might be used in reiterative translational studies to determine causes of resistance to olaparib.

Synthetic lethal therapy with PARP inhibitors such as olaparib may be applicable to other types of cancers that have defects in DNA repair by homologous recombination. These may include sporadic breast and ovarian cancers that acquire loss of function of BRCA1 or BRCA2 via somatic genetic or epigenetic events, and other sporadic cancers that develop loss of function (via somatic genetic or epigenetic events) of other proteins involved in the homologous recombination DNA repair pathway.

Dr. Ashworth and his colleagues have also shown that loss of function of DNA damage signaling proteins (e.g., ATM, ATR, CHK1, CHK2), and of Fanconi anemia proteins, can induce sensitivity to PARP inhibition. Loss of function in these pathways may be relatively common in other sporadic cancers. It will be essential to develop biomarkers for loss of function of these DNA repair proteins in order to design hypothesis-testing clinical trials to investigate the potential of olaparib (or other PARP inhibitors) to treat this broader class of cancers.

As show by these three examples–and the other examples discussed in the 30 September 2010 de Bono and Ashworth Perspective (see Box 5 in that article)–researchers have been using the personalized medicine hypothesis-testing strategy to develop exciting new oncology drugs to treat disease in specific classes of patients. However, except for the case of imatinib, all of the drugs are still in clinical trials and have not yet achieved registration, which is the real test of the success of this strategy. Moreover, as we discussed in the first article in this series, the personalized medicine hypothesis-testing strategy is a work in progress. For example, biomarker identification and qualification/validation, which is a critical need for further development and utilization of this new clinical trial strategy, is an early-stage area of science and technology. Nevertheless, the personalized medicine hypothesis-testing strategy for cancer drug development provides a means to extend biology-driven drug discovery into the clinic, to decrease the time and cost of clinical trials, and to develop anticancer drugs that should be superior to both conventional chemotherapy and to early-generation targeted drugs.

——————————————————————————————-

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company, please contact us. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

The 30 September issue of Nature included a major emphasis on translational research in cancer. Featured articles included an editorial, a Perspective, and a research report. There was also an online “Specials” archive on translational cancer research, containing many recent research reports, all with free access to nonsubscribers.

The theme of these articles was the development of novel strategies for accelerating the translation of research on cancer biology into safe and efficacious therapies.

The Perspective, entitled “Translating cancer research into targeted therapeutics”, by British researchers Johann S. de Bono, M.D., Ph.D. and Alan Ashworth, Ph.D., outlines a novel disruptive clinical trial strategy for accelerating the translation of biology-driven oncology drug discovery into the clinic, with an early determination of proof of concept. This new strategy is designed  to ameliorate the high levels of Phase 2 and Phase 3 attrition of cancer drugs, as well as to lower the cost of clinical trials and to shorten the time from preclinical studies to the approval and marketing of oncology drugs that successfully emerge from clinical trials. It also is designed to aid in the development of therapies that provide greater patient benefit (in terms of progression-free survival) than the typical new oncology drugs that reach the market.

We have discussed clinical trial strategies of this type in two of our publications–our 2009 book-length report Approaches to Reducing Phase II Attrition (available from Cambridge Healthtech Institute, and our 2009 article published in Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News, “Overcoming Phase II Attrition Problem” (available on our website). The de Bono and Ashworth article provides a more detailed and specific presentation of this strategy with respect to oncology drug development, and provides several examples of its successful application.

In the traditional Phase 1/Phase 2/Phase 3 format of cancer drug development, clinical studies focus on treating patient populations with advanced cancers that have not been characterized in terms of their genetics and molecular biology. The trials culminate in large, pivotal randomized Phase 3 trials that typically last several years, and are aimed at regulatory approval. In most cases, new drugs that emerge from Phase 3 trials and win approval only improve survival by a few months. Patients who participate in Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials usually derive little or no benefit, and a high proportion of drugs fail in Phase 2 or Phase 3. This clinical trial format determines how well a particular drug or drug combination works for the average patient. However, that treatment might not be the best for a given individual patient.

As basic researchers have advanced the study of molecular genetic pathways of cancer, drug discovery researchers have been developing targeted therapies for cancer. These drugs–such as monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) like trastuzumab (Genentech/Roche’s Herceptin) and kinase inhibitors like imatinib (Novartis’ Gleevec/Glivec) work by modulating specific biomolecules (e.g., overexpressed or mutated oncogenic proteins) that are critical for the malignant phenotype. Population-based clinical trials of unselected patients make little or no sense in developing targeted therapies. Instead, clinical researchers need to first select groups of patients whose cancers express the biomolecule to be targeted, and preferably whose cancers are driven by that particular biomolecule. This way of thinking leads to the formulation of a new clinical trial strategy, as outlined in the Perspective.

Drs. de Bono and Ashworth call this strategy a personalized medicine (or “stratified medicine”) hypothesis-testing approach. The first step in this strategy is to develop a strong biological hypothesis that a particular altered molecular target is critical for the malignant phenotype of a particular cancer. This hypothesis is usually generated as the result of laboratory and clinical studies. Researchers need to show that blocking of the function of the altered target results in a lethal or cytostatic effect in cancer cells that express the the target, but not in normal cells that do not. It is also preferred that resistance to agents that block the target is not easily gained.

In the discovery stage of this strategy, researchers need not only to identify and optimize clinical candidate drugs that modulate the target, but also biomarkers that can be used to identify patients whose tumors express the altered target and are therefore likely to benefit from treatment. These biomarkers are called “enrichment biomarkers”, and have the potential to become predictive biomarkers. (Predictive biomarkers may also be the basis for the development of companion diagnostics). It is also important to identify pharmacodynamic biomarkers (biomarkers that can be used to determine target occupancy by the drug) and intermediate endpoint biomarkers (which can assess antitumor activity of the drug–for example, radiological assessment of tumor regression). Identification and qualification/validation of biomarkers is a work in progress, and is a critical need for further development and utilization of the personalized medicine hypothesis-testing clinical trial strategy.

Once targets and drugs that modulate them have been identified, they must be validated in animal models. The issue of the inadequacy of current mouse models of cancer–mainly xenograft models in which human cancer cell lines are transplanted into immune deficient mice–to predict drug efficacy is important both in the traditional cancer drug development strategy and in the novel strategy discussed in the de Bono and Ashworth article. We have discussed development of improved animal models for cancer drug development in an earlier blog post. de Bono and Ashworth note that there is an urgent need to develop such improved animal models. Nevertheless, as discussed in the de Bono and Ashworth article, there are examples of the successful implementation of the personalized medicine hypothesis-testing strategy of cancer drug development that have used traditional animal models in the preclinical phase.

In the personalized medicine hypothesis-testing strategy, clinical trials have the same three phases as in traditional trials. However, the trials involved stratification of patients using biomarkers, such that clinical studies are done in patients whose tumors express the target of the drug. Trial design is also more flexible and adaptive, and is contingent on obtaining key clinical data. The trials focus on determining the following as early as possible:

• Proof of mechanism: determining a dose range and dosing schedule under which the drug achieves sufficient target occupancy for long enough, using biomarker-based pharmacodynamic assays.

• Proof of concept: Determining that once sufficient target occupant is achieved, the drug exhibits antitumor activity, as determined using intermediate endpoint biomarkers.

In first-in-human clinical trials, in addition to determining safety and tolerability and evaluating pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics as in traditional Phase 1 trials, researchers also pursue rapid dose escalation, until proof of mechanism is achieved, using the appropriate biomarkers. Researchers then move on to proof of concept hypothesis testing, at doses and dosing schedules (ideally, the maximum tolerated dose) that are sufficient to address the target for long enough to have a biological effect. Ideally, researchers should move seamlessly from determination of proof-of-mechanism to assessment of antitumor activity, via adaptive trial design and patient selection using enrichment biomarkers.

If the above early-stage strategy results in a strong determination of proof of concept, this provides the basis for moving on to Phase 3 trials in patients selected using enrichment/predictive biomarkers, with the goal of drug registration. Such Phase 3 trials should have a higher probability of success than traditional Phase 3 trials in unselected patient populations, with less than adequate demonstration of proof of concept in Phase 2.

However, in the personalized medicine hypothesis-testing strategy, there is also the need for reiterative translational studies, between the laboratory and the clinic and back to the laboratory. Such studies should be designed as early as possible in clinical development. For example, clinical trials might allow researchers to obtain tumor samples to determine mechanisms of drug resistance. Such studies might form the basis for generating further hypotheses that are relevant to reversing drug resistance, via such means as development of combination therapies or of second-generation drugs.

The personalized medicine hypothesis-testing strategy is a work in progress. However, as we shall discuss in Part 2 of this series, there are examples of its successful implementation. And this strategy provides a means to extend biology-driven drug discovery, arguably the most successful drug discovery strategy of the past decade, into early and mid-stage clinical trials, thus increasing the probability of clinical success.

Nevertheless, it must also be emphasized that our understanding of disease biology (especially cancer biology) is limited, thus limiting our ability to successfully carry out biology-driven drug discovery in all cases. However, as our understanding of disease biology grows–in an incremental manner–as the result of basic research mainly in academic laboratories, we should be able to utilize this research to develop novel, breakthrough treatments via biology-driven drug discovery and personalized medicine hypothesis-testing clinical trials.

B-Raf

In March 2010, we published two articles on this blog relating to Roche/Plexxikon’s PLX4032 for metastatic melanoma. The first article, dated March 2, described a Phase I clinical trial of the drug, based on an article about this trial in the New York Times (NYT). The second article, dated March 10, described Plexxikon’s discovery of PLX4032, using its proprietary “scaffold-based drug design” technology platform. The latter post is among the most popular articles on this blog.

Now the results of the Phase I trial of PLX4032 has been published in the August 26, 2010 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). (A subscription is required to read the full article.)

As we discussed in our previous articles, PLX4032 is a B-Raf (called “BRAF” in the NEJM paper and in some other publications) kinase inhibitor that is exquisitely specific for B-Raf carrying the V600E mutation. B-Raf(V600E) is the most common somatic mutation found in human melanomas. Researchers believe that B-Raf(V600E) is a “driver mutation” that is particularly critical for the malignant phenotype of human metastatic melanomas that carry the mutation. B-Raf(V600E) is constitutively activated, and melanomas carrying this mutation can proliferate independently of growth factor signaling, resulting in the runaway proliferation characteristic of the malignant phenotype.

The clinical trial described in the NEJM article was carried out by researchers at Plexxikon and Roche, in collaboration with academic researchers at five institutions in the United States and Australia. The trial was led by Keith T. Flaherty, M.D. (then at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and now at the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center [where he is Director of Developmental Therapeutics] and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston) and Paul B. Chapman, MD (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center).

As discussed in the NEJM article, the researchers conducted a multicenter Phase I dose-escalation trial of PLX4032 (which is orally available), followed by an extension phase in which patients were given the maximum dose that could be administered without adverse effects (960 mg twice daily). (The latter dose is the recommended Phase II dose.) A total of 55 patients (49 of whom had melanoma) were enrolled in the initial, dose-escalation portion of the trial. 32 additional patients, all of whom had metastatic melanoma with the B-Raf(V600E) mutation, were enrolled in the extension phase. Patients were given the drug twice a day until they had disease progression.

In the dose-escalation phase, among the 16 patients with melanoma carrying the B-Raf(V600E) mutation and who were receiving 240 mg or more of PLX4032 twice daily, 10 had a partial response (i.e., tumor shrinkage of at least 30%) and 1 had a complete response. Among the 32 patients in the extension cohort, 24 had a partial response and 2 had a complete response. The latter figure represents an 81% response rate. The estimated median progression-free survival among all patients was over 7 months.

Dose-limiting adverse effects included rash, fatigue, and joint pain.

The published results of this Phase I trial elicited great enthusiasm in the popular press and in such industry media as Fierce Biotech and BioWorld Online, and by oncologists who were interviewed for these articles. The oncologists said that they had never seen such a dramatic response in treatment of metastatic melanoma.

Because PLX4032 is targeted to a specific oncogenic mutation, Plexxikon and several industry commentators refer to the use of the drug as an example of personalized medicine. In parallel with development of PLX4032, Plexxikon and Roche Molecular Systems are developing a DNA-based companion diagnostic to identify patients whose tumors carry the B-Raf(V600E) mutation.

PLX4032 is on an accelerated path to potential registration. Parallel Phase II and Phase III clinical trials are in progress in previously treated and previously untreated patients, respectively, all who have metastatic melanoma carrying the B-Raf(V600E) mutation.

Meanwhile, the results of a Phase III trial (in 676 patients with advanced melanoma) of Medarex/Bristol-Myers Squibb’s (BMS’s) ipilimumab were published in the August 19, 2010 issue of the NEJM.  Ipilimumab, unlike the targeted therapeutic PLX4032, is an immunomodulator that blocks cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) to potentate an antitumor T-cell response. Ipilimumab is a monoclonal antibody, unlike PLX4032 which is a small-molecule compound. In this NEJM article, the researchers reported that ipilimumab–given with or without the gp100 peptide vaccine–showed a median overall survival of 10 months, as compared to 6.4 months in patients receiving gp100 alone. Ipilimumab treatment also gave improved one-year survival compared with gp100 alone–46% versus 25%. Two-year survival was 24% in the ipilimumab group and 14 percent in the gp100 group. BMS has filed a Biologics License Application (BLA) for ipilimumab, and earlier this month (August 2010) received fast-track status from the FDA for the drug.

Ipilimumab treatment is associated with autoimmune toxicities (especially enterocolitis), which can be severe. These are usually reversible by treatment with high-dose steroids.

Decision Resources published our report on development of immunomodulators in treatment of cancer in 2007. This report includes a discussion of ipilimumab, and provides further information on its mechanism of action, adverse effects, etc., as well as on other immunomodualtors for treatment of cancer, some of which are now on the market.

We believe that it is important to pursue development of both targeted therapies and of immunomodulators for metastatic melanoma. This may provide oncologists a range of therapeutics (and of combinations of therapeutics) to treat this disease, which now has very few treatment options and a very poor prognosis.

The results with both PLX4032 and ipilimumab provide hope for better treatment of at least some classes of metastatic melanoma in the near future. However, as discussed in our March 2010 articles, even in the case of PLX4032 treatment of melanoma carrying the B-Raf(V600E) mutation, it will most likely be necessary to develop combination therapies in order to achieve long-lasting remissions or cures.

In the December 15, 2009 issue of Neurology, a research report by Stephen Salloway and his colleagues at the Butler Hospital and Brown University (Providence, RI) and an editorial by Dan Kaufer and Sam Gandy (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) focus on a Phase II multicenter placebo-controlled clinical trial of Elan/Wyeth’s bapineuzumab (AAB-001) in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease (AD). (Wyeth is now part of Pfizer.) (A subscription is required to read the full text of both of these articles.) Bapineuzumab is a monoclonal antibody (MAb) drug that is specific for amyloid-β (Aβ) peptide. The dominant paradigm among AD researchers and drug developers is that the disease is caused by aberrant metabolism of Aβ, resulting in accumulation of neurotoxic Aβ plaques. This paradigm is known as the “amyloid hypothesis”.

The overall result of the study by Salloway et al. was that there was no difference in cognitive function between patients in the drug-treated and the placebo groups. However, the study did not have sufficient statistical power to exclude the possibility that there was such a difference. About 10% of patients treated with the agent also experienced vasogenic edema (VE), which was reversible. (Cerebral VE is the infiltration of intravascular fluid and proteins into brain tissue, as the result of breakdown of the blood-brain barrier.)

Retrospective analysis of the data suggested that bapineuzumab-treated patients who were not carriers of the apolipoprotein E epsilon4 allele (ApoE4) showed improved cognitive function as compared to placebo treatment, and that they had a lower incidence of VE than ApoE4 carriers. The ApoE4 polymorphism is the only known, well-characterized genetic risk factor associated with the development of late-onset AD. Of the three common isoforms of ApoE, ApoE3 is the most common, followed by ApoE4 and ApoE2, respectively. Unlike ApoE4, the ApoE2 allele appears to protect against development of AD. Some researchers estimate that allelic variations in ApoE may account for over 95% of AD cases.

In the study by Salloway et al., nearly two-thirds of the AD patients carried one or more ApoE4 alleles; thus only the remaining one-third of patients appeared to show positive effects of bapineuzumab treatment according to the retrospective analysis. However, the idea that the drug is efficacious in ApoE4 noncarriers is only a hypothesis, which will require prospective clinical trials to confirm. Elan and Pfizer are now conducting large Phase III clinical trials of bapineuzumab, which have prospectively segregated enrollment into ApoE4 carrier and noncarrier groups.

The hypothesized association of ApoE4 noncarrier status of AD patients with bapineuzumab efficacy and safety has been used as a case study in workshops on stratified medicine sponsored by the FDA, MIT, and industry partners in 2009 and 2010. You can read about the October 2009 workshop here and here. The most recent workshop was held at MIT on January 19, 2010. In these workshops, two case studies were discussed: the use of diagnostic tests for the HER2 receptor in identifying breast cancer patients who are likely to benefit from treatment with trastuzumab (Genentech/Roche’s Herceptin), and the bapineuzumab/ApoE4 case. The HER2/ trastuzumab relationship is well known and well characterized, and is considered to be a paradigm of stratified medicine. This contrasts with the bapineuzumab/ApoE4 association, which remains a hypothesis pending the results of the Phase III prospective clinical studies.

A growing minority of researchers is skeptical that the amyloid hypothesis is sufficient to account for AD pathogenesis in all stages of the disease or in various disease subpopulations, and they are investigating other pathways that may contribute to the disease, either in combination with the amyloid pathway or as alternative mechanisms. We have discussed alternative hypotheses for AD pathogenesis in a 2004 article published in Genetic Engineering News (available on our website), and in book-length reports published by Cambridge Healthtech Institute in 2006 and in 2009.

The search for alternative hypotheses takes on added urgency because of the clinical failure of several AD drugs that had been designed based on the amyloid hypothesis. These include Neurochem’s (now Bellus Health) Alzhemed (3-amino-1-propanesulfonic acid) and Myriad Pharmaceuticals’ Flurizan (tarenflurbil), both of which failed in Phase III clinical trials. Based on the overall results of the Phase II trial of bapineuzumab, most researchers and industry commentators would add bapineuzumab to the list, unless the stratified Phase III trial shows that the drug is significantly efficacious and safe for ApoE4 noncarriers.

Since ApoE4 carrier status is such a prominent risk factor for developing late-onset AD, might ApoE4 itself be a target for drug discovery in AD? Drs. Kaufer and Gandy suggest that such an approach might be fruitful, whatever the outcome of the Phase III trial of bapineuzumab. Several academic laboratories have been investigating mechanisms by which ApoE4 may be involved in the pathobiology of AD. You may read two recent papers on this subject here and here. ApoE4 may contribute to AD pathogenesis via multiple mechanisms, including by causing synaptic deficits and mitochondrial dysfunction in neurons, and by inducing endoplasmic reticulum stress leading to astrocyte dysfunction.

Given the prominence of ApoE4 expression as a risk factor for AD, the study of the mechanistic basis of ApoE4’s role in AD pathobiology needs greater attention. Hopefully, this research will lead to the development of novel therapeutic strategies for AD.