GEN Exclusives

More »

Wall Street BioBeat

More »
Oct 1, 2010 (Vol. 30, No. 17)

Treatment Paradigm Shifting for NSCLC

Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Standards of Care Challenged by a Cornucopia of New Drugs

  • Benefiting from Maintenance

    The strategy of continuing patients who respond to front-line therapy on a maintenance drug regimen until disease progression is supported by data from two randomized trials.

    A deep analysis of data from the JMEN and SATURN studies evaluating pemetrexed and erlotinib, respectively, showed that pemetrexed provided a distinct benefit in patients with nonsquamous disease while erlotinib did not discriminate.

    Importantly, patients with tumor mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) target demonstrated an astounding 10-fold improvement in progression-free survival in erlotinib- vs. placebo-treated patients.

    This data supports the importance of genotypic analysis of NSCLC tumors prior to the initiation of therapy and of offering a small molecule EGFR inhibitor to patients scoring positive as an alternative to chemotherapy.

    While any well-designed randomized oncology trial demonstrating improvements in progression-free and overall survival should be heeded seriously, these trials stop short of addressing whether applying these agents in maintenance is better than postponing their use in a true second-line treatment setting.

    Many oncologists believe that treatment holidays following front-line therapy are important for maintaining quality of life for these patients with no chance of cure. Indeed, a Fidias trial comparing docetaxel administration in a maintenance or second-line setting showed no difference in overall survival, indicating that keeping patients on continuous chemotherapy regimens may be overkill.

    Regardless of treatment regimen, however, the fact that 36% and 33% of placebo-treated patients in the JMEN and SATURN trials, respectively, did not move onto second-line treatment underscores the importance of administering active therapy as early as possible in order to ensure the best possible outcomes.

    Results from the IPASS trial, which was  prospectively designed to compare treatment with single-agent gefitinib or chemotherapy in patients harboring EGFR-activating tumor mutations, indicated that small molecule EGFR antagonists rather than chemotherapy should be the prescribed front-line standard of care for these patients. 

    Roche continues to enroll patients in the maturing EURTAC registration trial, which was designed to evaluate erlotinib as front-line treatment similar to how gefitinib was evaluated in IPASS. 

    In the meantime, data from the randomized Phase II CALGB 30406 trial comparing front-line erlotinib alone or in combination with chemotherapy also supports the importance of EGFR profiling prior to initiation of treatment. While the CALGB trial was designed to compare these two regimens in nonsmokers or light former smokers, 42% of the patients harbored EGFR-activating tumor mutations.

    Based on an intent-to-treat analysis, both regimens showed a comparable benefit illustrating that smoking history should also be considered when designing treatment regimens.

    Most recently, a discrete cohort of NSCLC patients has been identified that harbors a tumor chromosomal translocation resulting in the formation of an EML4-ALK fusion gene product with constitutive ALK activity.

    All patients identified with this translocation so far have wild-type EGFR and, not surprisingly, do not respond particularly well to EGFR inhibitors. Furthermore, these patients exhibit similar response rates to platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens to those who do not carry the translocation. 

    Presumably due to the hypothesis that upregulation of ALK activity is behind NSCLC progression in these patients, the small molecule ALK inhibitor crizotinib (PF-02341066, Pfizer) has demonstrated notable activity in such patients.

    At ASCO earlier this year, data was presented from a Phase I/II trial evaluating crizotinib in 82 treatment-experienced NSCLC patients harboring the EML4-ALK translocation. Interestingly, 96% of patients had adenocarcinoma histology and only one patient was a current smoker.

    All but five of these patients exhibited some degree of tumor shrinkage, while 57% of patients obtained confirmed tumor responses. One patient experienced a complete response to crizotinib therapy.

    A disease stabilization rate of 87% for at least eight weeks was observed, and median progression-free survival had not been reached after a median follow-up of 6.4 months. As a result of the selectivity of this agent, grade 3/4 serious adverse events were extremely rare. Phase III evaluation of crizotinib in patients with the EML4-ALK translocation is under way.

    EGFR-activating and ALK mutations have been observed in only about 15% and 7% of all NSCLC tumors, respectively. Despite these low frequencies, the evidence demonstrating that these mutations are predictive of responses to targeted therapeutics is moving NSCLC treatment in exciting new directions.

    The fact that these mutations tend to cluster in nonsmoking patients, those who have a light smoking history, and in those with nonsquamous histology reinforces the importance of screening all such tumors for these genetic markers. Understanding the implications of other genetic markers on patient treatment could lead to the next wave of guided therapy.


Add a comment

  • You must be signed in to perform this action.
    Click here to Login or Register for free.
    You will be taken back to your selected item after Login/Registration.

Related content

Jobs

GEN Jobs powered by HireLifeScience.com connects you directly to employers in pharma, biotech, and the life sciences. View 40 to 50 fresh job postings daily or search for employment opportunities including those in R&D, clinical research, QA/QC, biomanufacturing, and regulatory affairs.
 Searching...

Unable to get Jobs Listings.

More »

GEN Poll

More » Poll Results »

Biosimilars

Compared to the original biologics, do you think biosimilars run the risks of being less effective and causing more side effects?