Georgina Speake

Biomarker Analyses and Final Overall Survival Results From a Phase III, Randomized, Open-Label, First-Line Study of Gefitinib Versus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel in Clinically Selected Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Asia (IPASS)

PURPOSE The results of the Iressa Pan-Asia Study (IPASS), which compared gefitinib and carboplatin/paclitaxel in previously untreated never-smokers and light ex-smokers with advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma were published previously. This report presents overall survival (OS) and efficacy according to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) biomarker status. PATIENTS AND METHODS In all, 1,217 patients were randomly assigned. Biomarkers analyzed were EGFR mutation (amplification mutation refractory system; 437 patients evaluable), EGFR gene copy number (fluorescent in situ hybridization; 406 patients evaluable), and EGFR protein expression (immunohistochemistry; 365 patients evaluable). OS analysis was performed at 78% maturity. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess biomarker status by randomly assigned treatment interactions for progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. RESULTS OS (954 deaths) was similar for gefitinib and carboplatin/paclitaxel with no significant difference between treatments overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.02; P = .109) or in EGFR mutation-positive (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.33; P = .990) or EGFR mutation-negative (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.63; P = .309; treatment by EGFR mutation interaction P = .480) subgroups. A high proportion (64.3%) of EGFR mutation-positive patients randomly assigned to carboplatin/paclitaxel received subsequent EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. PFS was significantly longer with gefitinib for patients whose tumors had both high EGFR gene copy number and EGFR mutation (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.67) but significantly shorter when high EGFR gene copy number was not accompanied by EGFR mutation (HR, 3.85; 95% CI, 2.09 to 7.09). CONCLUSION EGFR mutations are the strongest predictive biomarker for PFS and tumor response to first-line gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel. The predictive value of EGFR gene copy number was driven by coexisting EGFR mutation (post hoc analysis). Treatment-related differences observed for PFS in the EGFR mutation-positive subgroup were not apparent for OS. OS results were likely confounded by the high proportion of patients crossing over to the alternative treatment.

Molecular predictors of outcome with gefitinib and docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer: data from the randomized phase III INTEREST trial.

PURPOSE In the phase III INTEREST trial, 1,466 pretreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned to receive gefitinib or docetaxel. As a preplanned analysis, we prospectively analyzed available tumor biopsies to investigate the relationship between biomarkers and clinical outcomes. METHODS Biomarkers included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) copy number by fluorescent in situ hybridization (374 assessable samples), EGFR protein expression by immunohistochemistry (n = 380), and EGFR (n = 297) and KRAS (n = 275) mutations. Results For all biomarker subgroups analyzed, survival was similar for gefitinib and docetaxel, with no statistically significant differences between treatments and no significant treatment by biomarker status interaction tests. EGFR mutation-positive patients had longer progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.49; P = .001) and higher objective response rate (ORR; 42.1% v 21.1%; P = .04), and patients with high EGFR copy number had higher ORR (13.0% v 7.4%; P = .04) with gefitinib versus docetaxel. CONCLUSION These biomarkers do not appear to be predictive factors for differential survival between gefitinib and docetaxel in this setting of previously treated patients; however, subsequent treatments may have influenced the survival results. For secondary end points of PFS and ORR, some advantages for gefitinib over docetaxel were seen in EGFR mutation-positive and high EGFR copy number patients. There was no statistically significant difference between gefitinib and docetaxel in biomarker-negative patients. This suggests gefitinib can provide similar overall survival to docetaxel in patients across a broad range of clinical subgroups and that EGFR biomarkers such as mutation status may additionally identify which patients are likely to gain greatest PFS and ORR benefit from gefitinib.

Phase III Study of Gefitinib Compared With Intravenous Methotrexate for Recurrent Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck

PURPOSE To compare survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) treated with gefitinib 250 or 500 mg/day or standard methotrexate. PATIENTS AND METHODS Four hundred eighty-six patients with recurrent SCCHN were randomly assigned to oral gefitinib 250 mg/day, gefitinib 500 mg/day, or methotrexate 40 mg/m(2) intravenously weekly. Primary end point was overall survival, secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR), safety, symptom improvement, and quality of life (QOL). Exploratory end points included association of efficacy with epidermal growth factor receptor gene copy number and other biomarkers. RESULTS Neither gefitinib 250 nor 500 mg/day improved overall survival compared with methotrexate (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.57; P = .12; and HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.43; P = .39, respectively). In the gefitinib 250 mg/day, 500 mg/day, and methotrexate groups, respectively, median overall survival was 5.6, 6.0, and 6.7 months; ORRs (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) were 2.7%, 7.6% and 3.9%, with no statistically significant difference between either gefitinib arm and methotrexate. No unexpected adverse events were observed, except for tumor hemorrhage-type events with gefitinib (8.9%, gefitinib 250 mg/day; 11.4%, gefitinib 500 mg/day; 1.9%, methotrexate). QOL improvement rates (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head & Neck total score) were 13.4%, 18.0%, and 6.0% for gefitinib 250 mg/day, 500 mg/day, and methotrexate, respectively. CONCLUSION In patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN, while responses with gefitinib were seen, neither gefitinib 250 nor 500 mg/day improved overall survival compared with methotrexate. With the exception of tumor hemorrhage-type events with gefitinib, the adverse event profiles were generally consistent with those previously observed.

Gefitinib Versus Vinorelbine in Chemotherapy-Naïve Elderly Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer (INVITE): A Randomized, Phase II Study

PURPOSE This phase II, open-label, parallel-group study compared gefitinib with vinorelbine in chemotherapy-naïve elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS Chemotherapy-naïve patients (age >or= 70 years) were randomly assigned to gefitinib (250 mg/d orally) or vinorelbine (30 mg/m(2) infusion on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QOL), pulmonary symptom improvement (PSI), and tolerability. Exploratory end points included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene copy number by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). RESULTS Patients were randomly assigned to gefitinib (n = 97) or to vinorelbine (n = 99). Hazard ratios (HR; gefitinib v vinorelbine) were 1.19 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.65) for PFS and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.47) for OS. ORR and disease control rates were 3.1% (95% CI, 0.6 to 8.8) and 43.3% (for gefitinib) and 5.1% (95% CI, 1.7 to 11.4) and 53.5% (for vinorelbine), respectively. Overall QOL improvement and PSI rates were 24.3% and 36.6% (for gefitinib) and 10.9% and 31.0% (for vinorelbine), respectively. In the 54 patients who were EGFR FISH-positive, HRs were 3.13 (95% CI, 1.45 to 6.76) for PFS and 2.88 (95% CI, 1.21 to 6.83) for OS. There were fewer treatment-related grade 3 to 5 adverse events with gefitinib (12.8%) than with vinorelbine (41.7%). CONCLUSION There was no statistical difference between gefitinib and vinorelbine in efficacy in chemotherapy-naïve, unselected elderly patients with advanced NSCLC, but there was better tolerability with gefitinib. Individuals who were EGFR FISH-positive benefited more from vinorelbine than from gefitinib; this unexpected finding requires further study.

EGFR mutation testing in lung cancer: a review of available methods and their use for analysis of tumour tissue and cytology samples

Aims Activating mutations in the gene encoding epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) can confer sensitivity to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as gefitinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Testing for mutations in EGFR is therefore an important step in the treatment-decision pathway. We reviewed reported methods for EGFR mutation testing in patients with lung cancer, initially focusing on studies involving standard tumour tissue samples. We also evaluated data on the use of cytology samples in order to determine their suitability for EGFR mutation analysis. Methods We searched the MEDLINE database for studies reporting on EGFR mutation testing methods in patients with lung cancer. Results Various methods have been investigated as potential alternatives to the historical standard for EGFR mutation testing, direct DNA sequencing. Many of these are targeted methods that specifically detect the most common EGFR mutations. The development of targeted mutation testing methods and commercially available test kits has enabled sensitive, rapid and robust analysis of clinical samples. The use of screening methods, subsequent to sample micro dissection, has also ensured that identification of more rare, uncommon mutations is now feasible. Cytology samples including fine needle aspirate and pleural effusion can be used successfully to determine EGFR mutation status provided that sensitive testing methods are employed. Conclusions Several different testing methods offer a more sensitive alternative to direct sequencing for the detection of common EGFR mutations. Evidence published to date suggests cytology samples are viable alternatives for mutation testing when tumour tissue samples are not available.

AZD8931, an Equipotent, Reversible Inhibitor of Signaling by Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor, ERBB2 (HER2), and ERBB3: A Unique Agent for Simultaneous ERBB Receptor Blockade in Cancer

Purpose: To test the hypothesis that simultaneous, equipotent inhibition of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR; erbB1), erbB2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2), and erbB3 receptor signaling, using the novel small-molecule inhibitor AZD8931, will deliver broad antitumor activity in vitro and in vivo. Experimental Design: A range of assays was used to model erbB family receptor signaling in homodimers and heterodimers, including in vitro evaluation of erbB kinase activity, erbB receptor phosphorylation, proliferation in cells, and in vivo testing in a human tumor xenograft panel, with ex vivo evaluation of erbB phosphorylation and downstream biomarkers. Gefitinib and lapatinib were used to compare the pharmacological profile of AZD8931 with other erbB family inhibitors. Results: In vitro, AZD8931 showed equipotent, reversible inhibition of EGFR (IC50, 4 nmol/L), erbB2 (IC50, 3 nmol/L), and erbB3 (IC50, 4 nmol/L) phosphorylation in cells. In proliferation assays, AZD8931 was significantly more potent than gefitinib or lapatinib in specific squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck and non–small cell lung carcinoma cell lines. In vivo, AZD8931 inhibited xenograft growth in a range of models while significantly affecting EGFR, erbB2, and erbB3 phosphorylation and downstream signaling pathways, apoptosis, and proliferation. Conclusions: AZD8931 has a unique pharmacologic profile providing equipotent inhibition of EGFR, erbB2, and erbB3 signaling and showing greater antitumor activity than agents with a narrower spectrum of erbB receptor inhibition in specific preclinical models. AZD8931 provides the opportunity to investigate whether simultaneous inhibition of erbB receptor signaling could be of utility in the clinic, particularly in the majority of solid tumors that do not overexpress erbB2. Clin Cancer Res; 16(4); 1159–69

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Immunohistochemistry: Comparison of Antibodies and Cutoff Points to Predict Benefit From Gefitinib in a Phase 3 Placebo-Controlled Study in Advanced Nonsmall-Cell Lung Cancer

The ISEL (Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer) clinical trial evaluated the efficacy of gefitinib versus placebo in pretreated nonsmall‐cell lung cancer patients. Two different antibodies, scoring systems, and cutoff points of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) protein expression were compared to predict response and survival of enrolled patients.

Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors: similar but different?

Two small-molecule epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, gefitinib and erlotinib, have been approved for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. Here, we compare the pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of these agents, and reflect on how these properties may affect important clinical questions including the clinical efficacy, optimum dose, and whether there is a relationship between skin rash and clinical outcome for each of these agents. Gefitinib and erlotinib have similar mechanisms of action and pharmacological profiles; however, different molecular structures confer pharmacokinetic differences that may have important clinical implications. Although gefitinib 250 mg/day produces lower mean plasma concentrations and area under the plasma concentration versus time curve compared with erlotinib 150 mg/day, published data suggest that gefitinib significantly accumulates in tumour tissue. This difference may partly explain why it seems possible to achieve maximum clinical efficacy with gefitinib at doses significantly lower than its maximum tolerated dose and, hence, use of an optimal biological dose approach with this agent. We hypothesize that gefitinib is used and is effective at a dose below the maximum tolerated dose as it accumulates in tumour tissue, thus providing the concentration needed at its target to achieve effective epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition in the tumour while causing less skin toxicity than erlotinib; therefore, skin rash is not a useful predictive factor for efficacy with gefitinib.

Identification of biomarkers in human head and neck tumor cell lines that predict for in vitro sensitivity to gefitinib.

Potential biomarkers were identified for in vitro sensitivity to the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib in head and neck cancer. Gefitinib sensitivity was determined in cell lines, followed by transcript profiling coupled with a novel pathway analysis approach. Eleven cell lines were highly sensitive to gefitinib (inhibitor concentration required to give 50% growth inhibition [GI50] < 1 μM), three had intermediate sensitivity (GI50 1–7 μM), and six were resistant (GI50 > 7 μM); an exploratory principal component analysis revealed a separation between the genomic profiles of sensitive and resistant cell lines. Subsequently, a hypothesis‐driven analysis of Affymetrix data (Affymetrix, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) revealed higher mRNA levels for E‐cadherin (CDH1); transforming growth factor, alpha (TGF‐α); amphiregulin (AREG); FLJ22662; EGFR; p21‐activated kinase 6 (PAK6); glutathione S‐transferase Pi (GSTP1); and ATP‐binding cassette, subfamily C, member 5 (ABCC5) in sensitive versus resistant cell lines. A hypothesis‐free analysis identified 46 gene transcripts that were strongly differentiated, seven of which had a known association with EGFR and head and neck cancer (human EGF receptor 3 [HER3], TGF‐α, CDH1, EGFR, keratin 16 [KRT16], fibroblast growth factor 2 [FGF2], and cortactin [CTTN]). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and enzyme‐linked immunoabsorbant assay analysis confirmed Affymetrix data, and EGFR gene mutation, amplification, and genomic gain correlated strongly with gefitinib sensitivity. We identified biomarkers that predict for in vitro responsiveness to gefitinib, seven of which have known association with EGFR and head and neck cancer. These in vitro predictive biomarkers may have potential utility in the clinic and warrant further investigation.

Vandetanib inhibits both VEGFR-2 and EGFR signalling at clinically relevant drug levels in preclinical models of human cancer

Vandetanib is a multi-targeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor that is in clinical development for the treatment of solid tumours. This preclinical study examined the inhibition of two key signalling pathways (VEGFR-2, EGFR) at drug concentrations similar to those achieved in the clinic, and their contribution to direct and indirect antitumour effects of vandetanib. For in vitro studies, receptor phosphorylation was assessed by Western blotting and ELISA, cell proliferation was assessed using a cell viability endpoint, and effects on cell cycle determined using flow cytometry. For in vivo studies, Western blotting, ELISA and immunohistochemistry (IHC) were used to assess receptor phosphorylation. Cell culture experiments demonstrated that anti-proliferative effects of vandetanib resulted from inhibition of either EGFR or VEGFR-2 signalling in endothelial cells, but were associated with inhibition of EGFR signalling in tumour cells. Vandetanib inhibited both EGFR and VEGFR-2 signalling in normal lung tissue and in tumour xenografts. In a lung cancer model expressing an activating EGFR mutation, the activity of vandetanib was similar to that of a highly selective EGFR inhibitor (gefitinib), and markedly greater than that of a highly selective VEGFR inhibitor (vatalanib). These data suggest that at the plasma exposures achieved in the clinic, vandetanib will significantly inhibit both VEGFR-2 and EGFR signalling, and that both inhibition of angiogenesis and direct inhibition of tumour cell growth can contribute to treatment response.