Diapositiva 1

Report
ONCOLOGY
OFONCOLOGY
TORINO––DEPARTMENT
UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITYOFOFTORINO
DEPARTMENTOF
State-of-the-art of the
management of advanced stage
adenocarcinoma
Giorgio V. Scagliotti
University of Torino
Department of Oncology
[email protected]
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
First-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC
in 2012
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
First-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC
in 2012
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
Disease segmentation based
on oncogenic events
From an organ-based disease to
a molecular classifications
of rare diseases
« Druggable » genomic alterations
4
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
2002-2012 – Changes in the therapeutic
landscape of stage IV lung cancer
HER2
EGFR mutants
ALK
ROS/RET
b-raf
K-ras
K-ras
Adeno
LCC/NOS
SCC
SCLC
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
Chipping away at the lung cancer
genome
Lung Adenocarcinoma
Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the lung
Pao W. Nat. Med. 2012 ;
Sos M. and Thomas R. Oncogene 2012
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
EGFR-TKIs and EGFR Mutation -Directed
Front - Line Studies
Study
Entry Criteria
HR for PFS
(EGFR mut +)
HR for OS
(EGFR mut +)
IPASS
Mok
NEJM 2009
Asiatic, never- & light –
smokers, adenocarcinoma
(EGFR mut + 59.7%)
0.48
(0.36-0.66)
0.91 *
(0.76-1.10)
*overall population
First – SIGNAL
Proc. IASLC
2009
Adenocarcinoma, Neversmokers
(EGFR mut + 44%)
0.61
(0.30-1.22)
0.82
(0.35-1.92)
NEJ002
NEJM 2010
Proc. ASCO 2011
EGFR Mutation + (all)
0.35
(0.25-0.50)
0.887
(0.634-1.241)
WJTOG3405
Lancet Onc. 2010
EGFR Mutation + (all)
0.520
(0.378-0.715)
1.185
(0.767-1.829)
EURTAC (EU)
EGFR Mutation + (all)
0.42 (0.27-0.64)
?
OPTIMAL (China)
EGFR Mutation + (all)
0.16 (0.10-0.26)
1.04 (0.69–1.58)
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
Clinical characteristics do not completely predict
EGFR mutation status
Spanish Lung Cancer Group trial in advanced NSCLC patients
with EGFR mutations (n=350)1
Patients
100%
Female
Never
smoker
80%
60%
40%
20%
Adenocarcinoma
Significant segment of EGFR M+ population
fall outside
typical subgroups
30
Male
26
Former
smoker
0%
Gender
BAC, bronchioloalveolar carcinoma
Smoking
status
9
Non-adeno /
BAC
Histology
1Rosell
et al 2009
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
EGFR Targeted Therapeutics in NSCLC
Matuzumab
Cetuximab
Panitumumab
Necitumumab
(IMC-11F8)
K
EGFR
K TKI
EGFR
Gefitinib
Erlotinib
Lapatinib
Afatinib
Dacomitinib
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
EGFR-TKIs and EGFR Mutation -Directed
Front - Line Studies
Study
Entry Criteria
HR for PFS
(EGFR mut +)
HR for OS
(EGFR mut +)
IPASS
Mok
NEJM 2009
Asiatic, never- & light –
smokers, adenocarcinoma
(EGFR mut + 59.7%)
0.48
(0.36-0.66)
0.91 *
(0.76-1.10)
*overall population
First – SIGNAL
Proc. IASLC
2009
Adenocarcinoma, Neversmokers
(EGFR mut + 44%)
0.61
(0.30-1.22)
0.82
(0.35-1.92)
NEJ002
NEJM 2010
Proc. ASCO 2011
EGFR Mutation + (all)
0.35
(0.25-0.50)
0.887
(0.634-1.241)
WJTOG3405
Lancet Onc. 2010
EGFR Mutation + (all)
0.520
(0.378-0.715)
1.185
(0.767-1.829)
EURTAC (EU)
EGFR Mutation + (all)
0.42 (0.27-0.64)
?
OPTIMAL (China)
EGFR Mutation + (all)
0.16 (0.10-0.26)
1.04 (0.69–1.58)
LUX-LUNG 3
EGFR Mutation + (all)
0.58 (0.43–0.78)
?
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
FLEX : HRs for death in pre-specified
subgroup analysis of the ITT population
Pirker R. et al. Lancet 2009; 373:1525-31
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
Clinical Profile of ALK-positive NSCLC
• Gene fusions involving the ALK gene within chromosome 2 have been
identified in 0.6‒11.6% of NSCLC tumors1,2
– Incidence rates are influenced by sample size, screening methods and
enrichment prior to pre-selection
• ALK is associated with adenocarcinoma histology
– Incidence of 2.4–5.6%3–5
– In squamous cell patients incidence of ALK <1%1
• Trend for ALK patients to be non/light smokers2–4
• ALK mutations appear to occur in the absence of EGFR/KRAS mutations2,3,7
• Possible correlation between signet ring carcinoma and ALK status3
1Boland
et al. Human Pathol 2009;40:1152–8; 2Zhang et al. Mol Cancer 2010;9:188
et al. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:5216–23; 4Wong et al. Cancer 2009;115:1723–33
5Takahashi et al. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17:889–97
6Horn and Pao J Clin Oncol 2009;27:4232‒35; 7Shaw et al. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:4247–53
3Rodig
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
Erlotinib in EGFR mutant NSCLC
Vemurafenib in BRAF mutant melanomas
Crizotinib in ALK rearranged NSCLC
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
ROS1 Rearrangement in NSCLC
• 18/1073 tumors (1.7%) rearranged by FISH.
• ROS1 re-arranged pts significantly younger
and more likely to be never smokers (p
<0.001)
• All adenocarcinoma, higher grade
• ROS1+ vs. ROS1 – no difference in survival
• Sensitive to crizotinib
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
RET gene fusion in lung adenocarcinoma
• 11,294,741-bp pericentric inversion on chromosome 10 generating a new
gene fusion joining exons 1-15 of KIF5B to exons 12-20 of RET
• Mutually exclusive with EGFR, HER2, KRAS, BRAF mutations and with ALK
or ROS1 translocation
• Exclusively identified in adenocarcinomas, never or light smokers
Lipson et al. Nature Med. 2012
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
Kinase oncogene dependence and
principles of drug resistance
Wagle N. et al. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011;
29:3085
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
Genotypic Evolution of Lung Cancer Acquiring
Resistance to EGFR and ALK Inhibitors
ALK
ALK
EGFR
KRAS
ALK
ALK
ALK
Sequist L. et al. Sci. Transl. Med. 2011; 3 (75) 75ra26
Doebele R. et al. Proc. ASCO 2012
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
How to improve results in EGFR mutants ?
EGFR TKI + HD 2nd-gen EGFR TKI
EGFR TKI + BCL-2i
Chemo-naïve
advanced
NSCLC
EGFR TKI + IGF-1Ri
EGFR mutant
EGFR TKI + METi
EGFR TKI + HCQ
EGFR TKI (diff dosing schedules)
EGFR TKI + chemo
Potent 2nd-gen EGFR TKI
EGFR mutant NSCLC
with acquired resistance*
2nd-gen EGFR TKI + cetuximab
Chemo  EGFR TKI
2nd-gen EGFR TKI + METi
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
K-ras mutation & NSCLC
• Is k-ras mutation prognostic or predictive ?
• Is there any evidence for excluding k-ras mutants
from receiving chemo?
K-ras
K-ras
K-ras mutation not predictive or prognostic in resected early stage NSCLC treated
with adjuvant chemotherapy (Shepherd F. et al. Proc. ASCO 2012)
Meta-Analysis of 881 Cases - Stages I-IV - RR of 2.35 (1.6-3.2) at 2 years
k-ras mutation may be associated with shortened survival but need to be
confirmed in well designed multivariate analyses addjusted for known prognostic
factors (Huncharek M et al., Carcinogenesis 1999)
K-RAS mutational status does not predict benefit from the anti-EGFR monoclonal
antibody cetuximab (O’ Byrne Lancet Oncology 2011)
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
First-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC
in 2012
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
Cis/Pem vs. Cis/Gem in Advanced NSCLC
Scagliotti GV et al. J. Clin. Oncol 2008; 26:3543
p<0.0001
Adenocarcinoma
Relative expre. levels
Relative expre. levels
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
Squamous cell carcinoma of the lung compared with other histotypes shows
higher messenger RNA and protein levels for thymidylate synthase
P<0.001
Squamous
P<0.001
Ceppi et al. Cancer 2006
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
Summary of the Effect of Pemetrexed in Patients with
Advanced NSCLC by ALK Status
• Reports from three small, retrospective analyses suggest pemetrexed given as a
single agent or in combination with chemotherapy may be effective in ALK-positive
NSCLC1–3
Report
Camidge et al2
Lee et al3
Altavilla et al1
Treatment
Pemetrexed single
agent or combination
therapy, any line
Second-line or later
single-agent
pemetrexed
Pemtrexed + cisplatin
TTP, time to progression
Study populations and
comparator populations
N
ORR
(%)
Time to event, months
(95% CI)
ALK-positive NSCLC
19
42
PFS, 9.0
(95% CI: 3–12)
ALK/EGFR/KRAS-triple
negative NSCLC
37
14
PFS, 4.0
(95% CI: 3–5)
ALK-positive NSCLC
15
47
TTP, 9.2
(95% CI: 4.7–13.7)
EGFR wild-type NSCLC
37
ALK-positive NSCLC,
adenocarcinoma
8
25
TTP, 9.0
ALK-negative NSCLC
32
–
TTP, 6.2
TTP, 2.9
1. Altavilla G, Santarpia M, Arrigo C, et al. J Clin Oncol 2010;28 (Abstract 7610)
2. Camidge DR, Kono SA, Lu X, et al. J Thorac Oncol 2011;6:774–780
3. Lee JO, Kim TM, Lee SH, et al. J Thorac Oncol 2011;6:1474–1480
TS Expression
N
Median
ALK+ Patients
63
2.02
1.60-2.11 0.55-19.44
3.32
3.15-3.45 0.36-53.51
ALK- Patients 1698
95% CI
Range
p Value
<0.0001
60
20
50
15
10
All ALK-neg TS2
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
TS Expression in ALK+ versus ALK- NSCLC
40
30
20
5
10
0
0
TS in patients with ALK+ cancers
TS in patients with ALK- cancers
Gandara D. et al. Proc. ASCO 2012
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
Agents Targeting the VEGF Pathway
Anti-VEGF
Antibodies
Soluble VEGFRs
(bevacizumab)
(VEGF-Trap)
VEGF
Anti-VEGFR
Antibodies
(IMC-1121b)
P
P
P
P
P
P
VEGFR-1
P
P
VEGFR-2
Endothelial Cell
Small-molecule VEGFR
inhibitors:
•
•
•
•
•
Vatalanib (PTK 787)
Sunitinib (SU11248)
Sorafenib (Bay 43-9006)
Vandetanib (ZD6474)
AZD 2171
Podar K, Anderson KC. Blood 2005;105:1383–1395
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
Targeting angiogenesis in NSCLC
the rationale
Need to improve outcomes
for patients with NSCLC:
late diagnosis and poor
prognosis1,2
Angiogenic factors, including
growth factor overexpression, are found in more
than 46% of NSCLC tumours3,4
Why inhibit angiogenesis
in NSCLC?
The growth of new blood
vessels and the presence of
angiogenic growth factors are
associated with poor
prognosis in NSCLC5
1Yang
Anti-angiogenic therapy in
NSCLC may slow or reverse
tumour growth and prevent
metastases5
P, et al. Chest 2005; 128:452–462; 2Cancer Research UK 2010 3Shou Y, et al. Br J Cancer 2001:85:1706–1712;
4O’Byrne KJ, et al. Br J Cancer 2000;82:1427–1432; 5Bremnes RM, et al. Lung Cancer 2006;51:143–158.
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
Phase III studies of VEGF antibody
inhibition in NSCLC
Trial
Treatment line
Treatment arms
Primary endpoint
Trial outcome
ECOG 45991
First line
Paclitaxel/carboplatin
+ bevacizumab
OS
12.3 months*
Positive
Paclitaxel/carboplatin
10.3 months
Cisplatin/gemcitabine
+ bevacizumab
PFS
High dose: 6.5 months*
Low dose: 6.7 months*
Cisplatin/gemcitabine
+ placebo
6.1 months
Bevacizumab + erlotinib
OS
9.3 months
Erlotinib + placebo
9.2 months
Bevacizumab + erlotinib
PFS
4.8 months*
Bevacizumab + placebo
3.7 months
AVAiL2
BETA3
ATLAS4,5
First line
Second line
First line
maintenance
Positive for
primary
endpoint
Negative
Positive for
primary
endpoint
*Significantly different from comparator.
1Sandler
A, et al. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2542–550; 2Reck M, et al. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1227–1234;
3Hainsworth J, et al. J Thor Oncol 2008;3:S302; 4Miller VA, et al. J Clin Oncol 2009;27(suppl 1):Abstract LBA8002 and
presentation; 5Kabbinavar FF, et al. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:7526.
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
ECOG 4599: Survival by Histology Subtype
Baseline
Characteristics
PC
(n = 444)
PCB
(n = 434)
Median
N Months
Median
N Months
878
444
10.3
434
- Adenocarcinoma
602
302
10.3
- Large Cell
48
30
8.7
- Squamous
3
2
- BAC
23
- NSCLC,NOS
- Other
All patients
Total
N
Hazard
Ratio
95% CI
12.3
0.80
0.69-0.93
300
14.2
0.69
0.58-0.83
18
10.0
1.15
0.60-2.24
12.3
1 22.4
0.00
0.00-
11
17.7
12 10.0
1.48
0.57-3.69
165
86
10.0
79
9.5
1.16
0.84-1.61
34
11
12.6
23
8.4
0.92
0.43-1.98
Histologic type
Sandler A. et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2008;3(11 Suppl 4): Abstract 133.
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
Progress in the treatment of
metastatic lung cancer
Pao W. et al. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2010; 10;760
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
Bevacizumab biomarker trial in NSCLC
ABIGAIL (BO21015): phase II biomarker trial
Previously untreated stage
IIIB/IV non-squamous NSCLC
(n=300)
Bevacizumab 7.5mg/kg +
carboplatin/gemcitabine or
carboplatin/paclitaxel
Bevacizumab
q3w until
progression
PD
Bevacizumab 15mg/kg +
carboplatin/gemcitabine or
carboplatin/paclitaxel
Bevacizumab
q3w until
progression
PD
• Primary endpoint: correlation of biomarkers with response rate
• Conclusion
– After adjustment for multiple testing, none of the candidate
biomarkers correlated with overall response rate according to baseline
plasma level
Mok, et al. ESMO 2011
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
Targeting alternative pathways to VEGF:
FGF and PDGFR
FGF, PDGFR
& others
• After blockade of VEGF pathway, there is compensatory up-regulation of
FGF, PDGFR, EGFR, others
• Additional blockade of FGF, PDGFR suppresses angiogenesis
FGF(R)=fibroblast growth factor (receptor); PDGF(R)=platelet-derived growth factor (receptor); VEGF(R)=vascular growth factor (receptor).
Casanovas O, et al. Cancer Cell 2005;8:299–309.
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
Many multi-targeted anti-angiogenic agents are
already failed Phase III development in NSCLC
Agent
Description
Target
NSCLC
Sunitinib1
Small-molecule TKI
VEGFR-1,-2, 3; PDGFRβ; c-kit; Flt-3
Phase III (terminated)
Sorafenib2
Small-molecule TKI
b-Raf; VEGFR-2, -3; PDGFRβ; Flt-3;
c-kit
Phase III (terminated)
Cediranib3
Small-molecule TKI
VEGFR-1, -2, -3; PDGFR; FGFR-1; ckit
Phase III (terminated)
Vandetanib4
Small-molecule TKI
VEGFR-2, -3; EGFR
Phase III (terminated)
Aflibercept5
VEGF-trap
Fusion protein that binds to binds
to VEGFR-1 and VEGFR-2
Phase III (terminated)
Vadimezan
(ASA 404)6
Vascular disrupting
agent
Motesanib7
Small-molecule TKI
VEGFR-1, -2, -3; PDFGR; c-kit
BIBF 11208
Small-molecule TKI
VEGFR-1, -2, -3; PDGFRα, -β; FGFRPhase III (terminated)
1,-2, -3
1Christensen
Phase III (terminated)
Phase III (terminated)
JG, et al. Ann Oncol 2007;Suppl 10; 2Wilhelm SM, et al. Cancer Res 2004;64:7099–7109; 3Wedge SR, et al.
Cancer Res 2005;65:4389–4400; 4Ryan AJ, et al. Br J Cancer 2005;92(Suppl 1):S6–S13; 5Hsu JY, Wakelee HA. BioDrugs
2009;23:289–304; 6Baguley BC, et al. Future Oncol 2010;6:1537–1543; 7Rosen LS, et al. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:2369–2376;
8Hilberg F, et al. Cancer Res 2008;68:4774–4782.
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO – DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY
Summary
• EGFR Mut+ lung cancer should be treated with and EGFR TKI
and ALK translocated tumors with crizotinib.
• Therapeutic choices based on histology are the current
standard of care for the majority of our patients
• In non-squamous histology cisplatin plus pemetrexed or
platinum-doublet chemotherapy plus bevacizumab are
effective treatment choices. The efficacy/toxicity ratio favors
cisplatin and pemetrexed.
• The definition of homogeneous genetic subgroups of tumours
and the search for individualised approaches is the way to
substantially increase survival expectancy in this disease
1. NCCN NSCLC guidelines 2012

similar documents