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.

 

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.

 

 

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.) 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.

 

On June 1, 2011, Cambridge Healthtech Institute’s (CHI’s) Insight Pharma Reports announced the publication of our new book-length report, Multitargeted Therapies: Promiscuous Drugs and Combination Therapies.

In the past 20 years or so, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry R&D has been increasingly aimed at developing drugs to treat complex diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease. However, the one drug-one target-one disease paradigm that has become dominant in the post-genomic era has proven to be inadequate to address complex diseases, which have multiple “causes”, and each of which may be more than one disease. This has been a major cause of clinical failure and the low productivity of the pharmaceutical industry.

Moreover, researchers have found that most of the successful, FDA-approved small-molecule drugs that were developed prior to the year 2000 are promiscuous, i.e., they are single drugs that address multiple targets. In addition, the great majority of kinase inhibitors, one of the most successful drug classes of the early 21st century, are also promiscuous.

The study of small-molecule drug promiscuity has spawned the emerging field of network pharmacology, which can be applied both to study drug promiscuity and to rationally design small-molecule multitargeted drugs. (Researchers can discover or design multitargeted kinase inhibitors without the use of network pharmacology, however.)

Meanwhile, the development of targeted drugs such as kinase inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies has resulted in the need to develop multitargeted combination therapies. This has been especially true in cancer, where disease causation may involve multiple signaling pathways. In particular, the development of resistance to targeted antitumor drugs has spawned the need to develop second-generation treatments, many of which are multitargeted combination therapies.

Our report covers both discovery and design of small-molecule promiscuous/multitargeted drugs, and of multitargeted combination therapies.

The design of multitargeted combination therapies is one of the hottest areas of cancer R&D today, especially with respect to developing means to overcome resistance to targeted therapies. This area was the focus of many key presentations at the 2011 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, which was held in Chicago on June 3-7. For example, treatment with vemurafenib (PLX4032) of metastatic melanoma patients whose tumors carry the B-Raf(V600E) mutation has produced spectacular overall response rates and increased survival. However, in nearly all cases, the tumors relapse. The latest results with vemurafenib were discussed at ASCO 2011, as well as strategies to overcome resistance to therapy. Our new report also discusses strategies for overcoming vemurafenib resistance, all of which involve design of multitargeted combination therapies.

Another topic discussed at ASCO 2011 was antitumor strategies based on synthetic lethality. We discussed this strategy in an earlier article on this blog, especially with respect to poly(ADP) ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors such as KuDOS/AstraZenaca’s olaparib. At a session at the ASCO meeting entitled “PARP Inhibitors, DNA Repair, and Beyond: Theory Meets Reality in the Clinic”, speakers reviewed current progress in developing PARP inhibitors, of which six are now in clinical development.

This session also included a presentation by Michael B. Kastan, MD, PhD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis TN) on other ways of using the synthetic lethally strategy, for example by targeting kinases involved in DNA repair pathways such as ATM (Ataxia-Telangiectasia Mutated) or Chk1 checkpoint kinase, or even utilizing features of the tumor microenviroment such as hypoxia. Such strategies might be used to design multitargeted combination therapies that specifically target cancer cells with defects in DNA repair and/or in hypoxic solid tumors, and/or to sensitize cancer cells to radiation.

Our new report includes a chapter on using the synthetic lethality strategy to design combination therapies of a cytotoxic drug with a chemosensitizing agent, and to develop therapies for p53-negative cancers. (The key tumor suppressor p53 is deleted, mutated, or inactivated in the majority of human cancers).

Although design of multitargeted combination therapies, as well as discovery and design of kinase inhibitors, are of key importance for current oncology R&D and are also being applied to other diseases, design of single small-molecule multitargeted drugs via network pharmacology is an early-stage, and perhaps a premature, technology. Nevertheless, given the current pharmaceutical company R&D business model that emphasizes outsourcing early-stage R&D, academic research groups and biotechnology companies that are active in this area may be able to forge partnerships with pharmaceutical companies.

For more information on Multitargeted Therapies: Promiscuous Drugs and Combination Therapies, or to order it, see the Insight Pharma Reports website.