Geoffrey Kim

FDA Approval: Palbociclib for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Patients with Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer

On February 3, 2015, the FDA granted accelerated approval to palbociclib (IBRANCE, Pfizer Inc.), an inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4 and CDK6), for use in combination with letrozole for the treatment of postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer as initial endocrine-based therapy for their metastatic disease. The approval is based on a randomized, multicenter, open-label phase I/II trial (PALOMA-1) in 165 patients randomized to palbociclib (125 mg orally daily for 21 consecutive days, followed by 7 days off treatment) plus letrozole (2.5 mg orally daily) or letrozole alone. The phase II portion of the trial was divided into two cohorts: cohort 1 enrolled 66 biomarker-unselected patients and cohort 2 enrolled 99 biomarker-positive patients. The major efficacy outcome measure was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). A large magnitude of improvement in PFS was observed in patients receiving palbociclib plus letrozole compared with patients receiving letrozole alone (HR, 0.488; 95% confidence interval, 0.319–0.748). Multiple sensitivity analyses were supportive of clinical benefit. The most common adverse reaction in patients receiving palbociclib plus letrozole was neutropenia. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting accelerated approval based on PALOMA-1 that may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in the ongoing and fully accrued confirmatory trial PALOMA-2. Clin Cancer Res; 21(21); 4760–6. ©2015 AACR.

FDA Approval Summary: Vemurafenib for Treatment of Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma with the BRAFV600E Mutation

On August 17, 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vemurafenib tablets (Zelboraf, Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc.) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma with the BRAFV600E mutation as detected by an FDA-approved test. The cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.) was approved concurrently. An international, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial in 675 previously untreated patients with BRAFV600E mutation–positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma allocated 337 patients to receive vemurafenib, 960 mg orally twice daily, and 338 patients to receive dacarbazine, 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks. Overall survival was significantly improved in patients receiving vemurafenib [HR, 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33–0.59; P < 0.0001]. Progression-free survival was also significantly improved in patients receiving vemurafenib (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.20–0.33; P < 0.0001). Overall response rates were 48.4% and 5.5% in the vemurafenib and dacarbazine arms, respectively. The most common adverse reactions (≥30%) in patients treated with vemurafenib were arthralgia, rash, alopecia, fatigue, photosensitivity reaction, and nausea. Cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas or keratoacanthomas were detected in approximately 24% of patients treated with vemurafenib. Other adverse reactions included hypersensitivity, Stevens–Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, uveitis, QT prolongation, and liver enzyme laboratory abnormalities. Clin Cancer Res; 20(19); 4994–5000. ©2014 AACR.

FDA Approval of Palbociclib in Combination with Fulvestrant for the Treatment of Hormone Receptor–Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer

On February 19, 2016, the FDA approved palbociclib (Ibrance, Pfizer) for use in combination with fulvestrant (Faslodex, AstraZeneca) for the treatment of women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with disease progression following endocrine therapy. The approval was based on the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 521 pre- and postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced or MBC. Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive palbociclib plus fulvestrant (n = 347) or placebo plus fulvestrant (n = 174). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). A statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS (9.5 months vs. 4.6 months) was observed in patients receiving palbociclib plus fulvestrant [HR 0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.36–0.59; P < 0.0001]. Safety data confirmed the known adverse reaction profile of palbociclib. The most common adverse reactions (>20%) in patients treated with palbociclib were neutropenia, leukopenia, infections, fatigue, nausea, anemia, stomatitis, headache, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia. This approval was granted in the context of a prior accelerated approval for palbociclib in combination with letrozole in patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer as initial endocrine-based therapy. Clin Cancer Res; 22(20); 4968–72. ©2016 AACR.

Successes and Challenges of PARP Inhibitors in Cancer Therapy

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerases (PARPs) are a family of enzymes involved in cellular homeostasis, including DNA transcription, cell-cycle regulation, and DNA repair (1, 2). PARPs can detect DNA damage and bind to DNA single strand breaks (SSBs) through their N-terminal zinc finger domains. DNA binding activates the C-terminal catalytic domain, which hydrolyzes NAD+ to attach poly ADP-ribose (PAR) polymers covalently to nuclear proteins, including PARP itself. Negatively charged PAR polymers promote recruitment of DNA repair proteins, and auto-PARylation causes dissociation of PARPs from DNA, allowing completion of DNA repair. In the absence of PARP activity, unrepaired SSBs can lead to more deleterious double strand breaks (DSBs), which require high fidelity, homologous recombination (HR) or low fidelity, non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) for repair. In vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated that tumor cells harboring defects in DNA repair are highly sensitive to PARP inhibitors, leading to genomic instability and cell death. Two publications demonstrated the concept of synthetic lethality in BRCA-deficient cells treated with PARP inhibitors (3, 4). Cells lacking functional alleles of BRCA are defective in HR repair and have an increased susceptibility to cause tumor development. Loss of BRCA or inhibition of PARP alone has little effect on in vitro and in vivo tumor growth; however, loss of function of both proteins enhances anti-tumor activity. Restoring BRCA expression blocks the cytotoxic effects of PARP inhibitor treatment. Several clinical PARP inhibitors are under investigation in Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials as monotherapy in cancers with DNA repair defects or in combination with radiation, chemotherapy, or other targeted agents (Table ​(Table1).1). Progress in PARP inhibitor development has led to the recent accelerated approval of Lynparza (olaparib) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (5). Lynparza is currently indicated as monotherapy for patients with advanced germline BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer who have received three or more prior lines of chemotherapy. Lynparza was approved with a companion diagnostic test to select patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious BRCA mutations. PARP inhibitors are anticipated to have a much broader clinical application in additional tumor types, particularly those with DNA repair defects and in combination with chemotherapy and other targeted agents. In light of renewed interest in PARP inhibitors and the recent approval of Lynparza, this review will highlight data of PARP inhibitors in in vitro and in vivo cancer models and explore some of the clinical applications and challenges of PARP inhibitor therapy. Table 1 PARP inhibitors in Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical developmenta. Mechanisms of Anti-Tumor Effect of Parp Inhibitors Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are structurally similar in that they contain a nicotinamide moiety and mimic the NAD+ substrate. PARP inhibitors competitively bind to the catalytic domain of PARPs and inhibit PAR synthesis with half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) values in the low nanomolar range (6–8). PARP inhibitors were developed to block the enzymatic activity of PARPs and prevent SSB repair by inhibiting the base excision repair (BER) pathway, and initial clinical development focused on potentiating the effects of chemotherapy and radiation (6, 9, 10). Subsequent studies demonstrated that PARP inhibitors alone were cytotoxic in HR-deficient cells (3, 4, 11). Based on these findings, a model was proposed in which PARP inhibition causes unrepaired SSBs, which are subsequently converted to DSBs, leading to synthetic lethality in HR-deficient cells (4). However, knockdown of XRCC1, the protein immediately downstream of PARP in the BER pathway did not lead to synthetic lethality (12), suggesting that loss of PARP activity is critical for synthetic lethality, but the loss of BER is not. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerases function in other aspects of DNA repair, and emerging data suggest other mechanisms of action for the anti-tumor activity of PARP inhibitors in HR-deficient cells (13, 14). One potential mechanism proposes that PARP inhibition activates NHEJ in HR-deficient cells, leading to genomic instability and cell death (12). In vitro studies have demonstrated that PARPs can regulate components of the NHEJ machinery, including DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK), Ku70, and Ku80 (15–18). In HR-deficient cells, PARP inhibitor treatment induced the activation of DNA-PK and phosphorylation of downstream substrates and increased NHEJ of a reporter plasmid containing a DSB (12). Pharmacological blockade or loss of NHEJ proteins reduced chromosomal aberrations and the cytotoxic effects of PARP inhibition, indicating a role for NHEJ in PARP inhibitor activity. In vitro studies have demonstrated that the activity of PARP inhibitors may also involve formation of deleterious PARP–DNA complexes, which hinder DNA replication and repair (19–21). Avian cells lacking PARP1 and PARP2 were resistant to olaparib treatment and remained viable at concentrations greater than 10 μM (19). In contrast, olaparib caused significant cytotoxicity in wild type cells and increased levels of γ-H2AX, a marker of DNA damage. PAR polymers were undetectable by ELISA in both olaparib-treated wild type cells and PARP-deficient cells, suggesting that PARP inhibition is distinct from genetic deletion of PARP. A comparison of PARP inhibitors demonstrated comparable inhibition of PAR synthesis by Western blot and ELISA (19, 20). In contrast, each PARP inhibitor showed varying ability to induce PARP–DNA complexes in the presence of alkylating agent. In the absence of PARP inhibitor, PARP1 was detected in the nuclear soluble fraction by Western blot and accumulated in the chromatin-bound fraction following PARP inhibitor treatment. In tumor cells, BMN 673 (talazoparib) induced greater accumulation of PARP1 and PARP2 in the chromatin-bound fraction compared to olaparib and rucaparib. Niraparib induced greater PARP–DNA binding than olaparib, and veliparib was the least effective enhancer of PARP–DNA binding at concentrations that maximally inhibited PARP enzymatic activity. PARP–DNA binding was detected at pharmacologically relevant concentrations and correlated with the cytotoxicity of each agent in vitro. In vivo, enhanced PARP–DNA binding did not correlate with better anti-tumor activity but resulted in increased toxicity (22). The significance of differential PARP–DNA binding on efficacy and tolerability requires further investigation in the context of different tumor types and different PARP inhibitor and chemotherapy regimens. The complex role of PARPs in cellular homeostasis, including DNA repair, highlights the need to evaluate PARP inhibitors for modulating other biological functions of PARPs.

L‐asparaginase inhibits invasive and angiogenic activity and induces autophagy in ovarian cancer

Recent work identified L‐asparaginase (L‐ASP) as a putative therapeutic target for ovarian cancer. We suggest that L‐ASP, a dysregulator of glycosylation, would interrupt the local microenvironment, affecting the ovarian cancer cell—endothelial cell interaction and thus angiogenesis without cytotoxic effects. Ovarian cancer cell lines and human microvascular endothelial cells (HMVEC) were exposed to L‐ASP at physiologically attainable concentrations and subjected to analyses of endothelial tube formation, invasion, adhesion and the assessment of sialylated proteins involved in matrix‐associated and heterotypic cell adhesion. Marked reduction in HMVEC tube formation in vitro, HMVEC and ovarian cancer cell invasion, and heterotypic cell‐cell and cell‐matrix adhesion was observed (P < 0.05–0.0001). These effects were associated with reduced binding to ß1integrin, activation of FAK, and cell surface sialyl LewisX (sLex) expression. No reduction in HMVEC E‐selectin expression was seen consistent with the unidirectional inhibitory actions observed. L‐ASP concentrations were non‐toxic to either ovarian cancer or HMVEC lines in the time frame of the assays. However, early changes of autophagy were observed in both cell types with induction of ATG12, beclin‐1, and cleavage of LC‐3, indicating cell injury did occur. These data and the known mechanism of action of L‐ASP on glycosylation of nascent proteins suggest that L‐ASP reduces of ovarian cancer dissemination and progression through modification of its microenvironment. The reduction of ovarian cancer cell surface sLex inhibits interaction with HMVEC and thus HMVEC differentiation into tubes, inhibits interaction with the local matrix reducing invasive behaviour, and causes cell injury initiating autophagy in tumour and vascular cells.

Regulatory watch: From big data to smart data: FDA's INFORMED initiative

Figure 1 | Conceptual map of technical and organizational capacity for biomedical big data. Big data can be defined as having four dimensions: volume (data size), variety (data type), veracity (data noise and uncertainty) and velocity (data flow and processing). Currently, FDA approval decisions are generally based on data of limited variety, mainly from clinical trials and preclinical studies (1) that are mostly structured (2), in data sets usually no more than a few gigabytes in size (3), that are processed intermittently as part of regulatory submissions (4). The expansion of big data in the four dimensions (grey lines) calls for increasing organizational and technical capacity. This could transform big data into smart data by enabling a holistic approach to personalization of therapies that takes patient, disease and environmental characteristics into account. BIOBUSINESS BRIEFS N E W S & A N A LY S I S

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Approval Summary: Atezolizumab for Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

On October 18, 2016, the FDA approved atezolizumab (TECENTRIQ; Genentech, Inc.) for treatment of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) whose disease progressed during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy. Approval was based on demonstration of clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival (OS) and an acceptable safety profile in two randomized clinical trials (OAK and POPLAR). Median OS in OAK, a phase III trial, was 13.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 11.8–15.7] in the atezolizumab arm compared with 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.6–11.2) in the docetaxel arm [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63–0.87; P = 0.0004]. Median OS in POPLAR, a phase II trial, was 12.6 months (95% CI, 9.7–16.0) and 9.7 months (95% CI, 8.6–12.0; HR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52–0.92) for the atezolizumab and docetaxel arms, respectively. In patients treated with atezolizumab, the most common (≥20%) adverse reactions were fatigue, decreased appetite, dyspnea, cough, nausea, musculoskeletal pain, and constipation; the most common (≥2%) grade 3 to 4 adverse events were dyspnea, pneumonia, hypoxia, hyponatremia, fatigue, anemia, musculoskeletal pain, aspartate aminotransferase increase, alanine aminotransferase increase, dysphagia, and arthralgia. Clinically significant immune-related adverse events for patients receiving atezolizumab included 1.4% incidence each of grade 3 to 4 pneumonitis, hepatitis, colitis, and thyroid disease. Clin Cancer Res; 23(16); 4534–9. ©2017 AACR.

FDA Approval Summary: Rucaparib for the treatment of patients with deleterious BRCA mutation-associated advanced ovarian cancer

On December 19, 2016, the FDA granted accelerated approval to rucaparib (RUBRACA; Clovis Oncology, Inc.) for the treatment of patients with deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic)–associated advanced ovarian cancer who have been treated with two or more chemotherapies. The FDA also approved the FoundationFocus CDxBRCA test (Foundation Medicine, Inc.), the first next-generation sequencing-based companion diagnostic, for identifying patients with advanced ovarian cancer eligible for treatment with rucaparib based on detection of deleterious BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations in tumor tissue. Rucaparibs approval was based primarily on efficacy data from 106 patients with BRCA mutation–associated ovarian cancer who had prior treatment with two or more chemotherapies and safety data from 377 patients with ovarian cancer treated with rucaparib 600 mg orally twice daily on two open-label, single-arm trials. Investigator-assessed objective response rate was 54% [57/106; 95% confidence interval (CI), 44–64], and median duration of response was 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.6–11.7). The approved companion diagnostic verified tumor BRCA mutation status retrospectively in 96% (64/67) of patients. Common adverse reactions (≥20%) to rucaparib were nausea, fatigue, vomiting, anemia, abdominal pain, dysgeusia, constipation, decreased appetite, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, and dyspnea. This article summarizes the FDA review and data supporting rucaparibs accelerated approval. Clin Cancer Res; 23(23); 7165–70. ©2017 AACR. See related commentary by Kohn et al., p. 7155

FDA Approval: Uridine Triacetate for the Treatment of Patients Following Fluorouracil or Capecitabine Overdose or Exhibiting Early-Onset Severe Toxicities Following Administration of These Drugs

On December 11, 2015, the FDA approved uridine triacetate (VISTOGARD; Wellstat Therapeutics Corporation) for the emergency treatment of adult and pediatric patients following a fluorouracil or capecitabine overdose regardless of the presence of symptoms, and of those who exhibit early-onset, severe, or life-threatening toxicity affecting the cardiac or central nervous system, and/or early onset, unusually severe adverse reactions (e.g., gastrointestinal toxicity and/or neutropenia) within 96 hours following the end of fluorouracil or capecitabine administration. Uridine triacetate is not recommended for the nonemergent treatment of adverse reactions associated with fluorouracil or capecitabine because it may diminish the efficacy of these drugs, and the safety and efficacy of uridine triacetate initiated more than 96 hours following the end of administration of these drugs has not been established. The approval is based on data from two single-arm, open-label, expanded-access trials in 135 patients receiving uridine triacetate (10 g or 6.2 g/m2 orally every 6 hours for 20 doses) for fluorouracil or capecitabine overdose, or who exhibited severe or life-threatening toxicities within 96 hours following the end of fluorouracil or capecitabine administration. Ninety-six percent of patients met the major efficacy outcome measure, which was survival at 30 days or survival until the resumption of chemotherapy, if prior to 30 days. The most common adverse reactions were vomiting, nausea, and diarrhea. This article summarizes the FDA review of this New Drug Application, the data supporting approval of uridine triacetate, and the unique regulatory situations encountered by this approval. Clin Cancer Res; 22(18); 4545–49. ©2016 AACR.

Adhesion molecule protein signature in ovarian cancer effusions is prognostic of patient outcome

Ovarian cancer cells in malignant effusions lack attachment to solid‐phase matrix substrata and receive survival stimuli through cell–cell and cell–soluble matrix molecule interactions. We hypothesized that adhesion‐related survival and proliferation pathway signals can inform clinical outcomes and guide targeted therapeutics.