The 45th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) was held from 29th May to 2nd June, in Orlando, FL. Whilst a previous editorial published in Cancer Drug News (see Issue No. 364 - "Looking ahead to ASCO") noted that the 4,000 study abstracts for this year's meeting had drawn a mainly disappointing response, there were numerous encouraging results reported. Of particular note were positive Phase III data with Roche's Herceptin (trastuzumab) in aggressive gastric cancer (GC), Phase II results with AstraZeneca's olaparib in breast (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC), and final results from a Phase II trial of OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals' OGX-011 in prostate cancer (PCA).
Specifically, trastuzumab showed unprecedented survival in aggressive GC. Data from the international, Phase III ToGA study demonstrated that adding the drug to standard chemotherapy increases average survival by 26 per cent in patients with HER2-positive advanced and inoperable GC compared to chemotherapy alone. This combination is also particularly beneficial to GC patients whose tumours express higher levels of HER2, increasing their median survival to 16 months. Trastuzumab is already well established as the foundation of care for patients with HER2-positive BC and now, based on the ToGA results, Roche is to seek regulatory approvals for its use in HER2-positive advanced GC.
Separately, olaparib showed potential to make significant impact on outcomes of patients with BRCA-deficient BC and OC. Phase II data for the novel, oral poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor demonstrated that it is effective and well tolerated in women carrying the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation with BC or advanced OC. PARP inhibition is being explored as a new therapeutic approach in cancers with impaired DNA repair pathways, one example of which is cancers with BRCA deficiency. Indeed, both studies were selected for inclusion in the 'Best of ASCO' scientific programme.
Finally, it was reported that OGX-011 provides survival benefit to PCA patients. OncoGenex presented final results from a Phase II trial, with analyses indicating a survival benefit in PCA patients treated with the compound in combination with docetaxel compared to docetaxel alone. Patients treated with OGX-011 had a rate of death 51 per cent lower than those treated with docetaxel alone. Scott Cormack, President and CEO of OncoGenex, noted that a 39 per cent reduction in death, consistent with the previously-disclosed preliminary analysis, would be a significant advancement for treatment in this patient population, adding: "the multivariate analysis shows an even greater reduction in death rate than our preliminary data and increases our confidence that we are seeing a real and meaningful survival benefit for patients treated with OGX-011...these data clearly justify advancing to Phase III development, and we expect these data will be key in our partnering discussions for future clinical development and potential commercialisation."
Alice Rossiter - Cancer Drug News Editor
Showing posts with label AstraZeneca. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AstraZeneca. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Early collaboration: a sign of the times?
Touted as a first-of-its-kind deal, Merck & Co and AstraZeneca have teamed up to research a novel combination anticancer regimen composed of two investigational compounds, MK-2206 and AZD6244 (ARRY-886). The collaboration, which is unusual as it involves two drugs so far from approval, will investigate the agents in a Phase I safety and tolerability trial.
Most combination regimens are investigated once the compounds have either progressed to late-stage development or are already commercially available. This new agreement breaks from that mould as the companies appear to have overcome many of the sticking points that have previously prevented this type of interaction between big pharma. The reason that few development agreements between large companies are signed is that they are extremely complicated. Issues concerning control, valuation and overlap with other projects all present hurdles. Then there is the question of working with your competitor, something that is not encouraged.
But it appears that this deal was struck not because the companies were actively seeking such collaboration, rather a chance encounter at an airport in November 2007 led to it happening. Reports suggest that two scientists, one from Merck and the other from AstraZeneca, got talking at airport security about their respective programmes and the rationale for combining them.
Merck's MK-2206 is the most advanced AKT inhibitor in development. AKT acts downstream of PI3K in the PI3K/PTEN/AKT signalling pathway. AstraZeneca's AZD6244 targets MEK, which plays an important role in a parallel signalling pathway. Laboratory evidence has suggested that the two compounds given in combination could have a much more potent affect against tumours than each agent separately. Even though AstraZencea was also working on its own AKT inhibitor and Merck was developing a drug to block MEK, the companies determined that collaborating would offer a quicker route to market.
So, how will the partnership progress? The companies have agreed to jointly fund a Phase I trial, after which they will consider further clinical development. If the two companies wish to eventually develop a fixed-dose combination then they may have to expand their relationship to possibly include multiple compounds or entire pathways. It could be that an initial goal would be to have each company move a drug through development to market with an approved label supporting use of the other agent in combination. Indeed, if this deal works, then it may pave the way for future similar collaborations.
Sadly, this will be my last issue as Editor of Cancer Drug News as I am moving on to pursue new challenges within the pharma news industry. I hope that you have found the service a valuable information source and I am sure that the new Editor, Alice Rossiter, will continue to uphold the standards of coverage that you as a reader are used to.
Matthew Dennis - Editor, Cancer Drug News
Most combination regimens are investigated once the compounds have either progressed to late-stage development or are already commercially available. This new agreement breaks from that mould as the companies appear to have overcome many of the sticking points that have previously prevented this type of interaction between big pharma. The reason that few development agreements between large companies are signed is that they are extremely complicated. Issues concerning control, valuation and overlap with other projects all present hurdles. Then there is the question of working with your competitor, something that is not encouraged.
But it appears that this deal was struck not because the companies were actively seeking such collaboration, rather a chance encounter at an airport in November 2007 led to it happening. Reports suggest that two scientists, one from Merck and the other from AstraZeneca, got talking at airport security about their respective programmes and the rationale for combining them.
Merck's MK-2206 is the most advanced AKT inhibitor in development. AKT acts downstream of PI3K in the PI3K/PTEN/AKT signalling pathway. AstraZeneca's AZD6244 targets MEK, which plays an important role in a parallel signalling pathway. Laboratory evidence has suggested that the two compounds given in combination could have a much more potent affect against tumours than each agent separately. Even though AstraZencea was also working on its own AKT inhibitor and Merck was developing a drug to block MEK, the companies determined that collaborating would offer a quicker route to market.
So, how will the partnership progress? The companies have agreed to jointly fund a Phase I trial, after which they will consider further clinical development. If the two companies wish to eventually develop a fixed-dose combination then they may have to expand their relationship to possibly include multiple compounds or entire pathways. It could be that an initial goal would be to have each company move a drug through development to market with an approved label supporting use of the other agent in combination. Indeed, if this deal works, then it may pave the way for future similar collaborations.
Sadly, this will be my last issue as Editor of Cancer Drug News as I am moving on to pursue new challenges within the pharma news industry. I hope that you have found the service a valuable information source and I am sure that the new Editor, Alice Rossiter, will continue to uphold the standards of coverage that you as a reader are used to.
Matthew Dennis - Editor, Cancer Drug News
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Iressa set to make it at second asking
The EMEA's CHMP has issued a positive opinion supporting the approval of AstraZeneca's targeted oral anticancer drug, Iressa (gefitinib), for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Specifically, the CHMP has recommended approval of Iressa for adults with locally-advanced or metastatic NSCLC with activating mutations of EGFr-tyrosine kinase, in all lines of therapy. However, AstraZeneca will be required to conduct a follow-up measure study to generate further data in a Caucasian NSCLC patient population. The company is in discussion with the CHMP to finalise the study design and endpoints.
The opinion was based on a submission package including two pivotal Phase III studies, IPASS (IRESSA Pan-ASia Study) and INTEREST (IRESSA Non-small-cell lung cancer Trial Evaluating REsponse and Survival against Taxotere). The IPASS trial exceeded its primary objective, demonstrating superior progression-free survival (PFS), greater objective response rate (ORR), improved tolerability and significant quality-of-life benefits for Iressa, compared to carboplatin+paclitaxel doublet chemotherapy (CT) in clinically-selected first-line patients in Asia. However, the treatment effect was not constant over time, with the probability of being progression-free in favour of carboplatin+paclitaxel in the first six months and in favour of Iressa in the following 16 months. This was likely due to the different effect of Iressa in subgroups defined by EGFr tumour mutation status. PFS was significantly longer for Iressa than doublet CT in patients with EGFr mutation-positive tumours, and significantly longer for doublet CT than Iressa in patients with EGFr mutation-negative tumours.
The INTEREST study met its primary objective, demonstrating equivalent overall survival (OS) and significant quality-of-life benefits for Iressa, compared to standard CT (docetaxel) in the pretreated setting. Preplanned subgroup analyses showed a significant improvement in PFS and ORR for Iressa over docetaxel in patients with EGFr mutation-positive tumours.
In 2005, AstraZeneca withdrew its EU marketing authorisation application for Iressa following data from the Phase III ISEL (IRESSA Survival Evaluation in Lung cancer) study in pretreated patients not eligible for further CT. ISEL did not meet its primary objective of a statistically significant improvement in OS for Iressa compared to placebo, but did confirm a number of important clinical benefits, including tumour shrinkage and a significant improvement in time-to-treatment failure. The refractory nature of the ISEL population is the most likely explanation for the magnitude of the survival improvement with Iressa, compared to placebo, not reaching statistical significance.
But what sort of a comeback will Iressa be making? Only a day after the CHMP decision, Roche announced that it is collaborating on a trial to investigate Tarceva (erlotinib) in LC patients with genetic mutations in EGFr. The results from the EURTAC trial, if positive, will support a submission by Roche to the EMEA to seek an additional new indication for use of Tarceva, putting it in direct competition with Iressa. Tarceva is already approved, and unlike Iressa, has been shown to benefit all patients, whether or not they have a mutated version of EGFr. Based on this, it looks likely that Iressa will become a niche product. However, a launched product is better for AstraZeneca than one sat on the shelf.
Matthew Dennis - Editor, Cancer Drug News
The opinion was based on a submission package including two pivotal Phase III studies, IPASS (IRESSA Pan-ASia Study) and INTEREST (IRESSA Non-small-cell lung cancer Trial Evaluating REsponse and Survival against Taxotere). The IPASS trial exceeded its primary objective, demonstrating superior progression-free survival (PFS), greater objective response rate (ORR), improved tolerability and significant quality-of-life benefits for Iressa, compared to carboplatin+paclitaxel doublet chemotherapy (CT) in clinically-selected first-line patients in Asia. However, the treatment effect was not constant over time, with the probability of being progression-free in favour of carboplatin+paclitaxel in the first six months and in favour of Iressa in the following 16 months. This was likely due to the different effect of Iressa in subgroups defined by EGFr tumour mutation status. PFS was significantly longer for Iressa than doublet CT in patients with EGFr mutation-positive tumours, and significantly longer for doublet CT than Iressa in patients with EGFr mutation-negative tumours.
The INTEREST study met its primary objective, demonstrating equivalent overall survival (OS) and significant quality-of-life benefits for Iressa, compared to standard CT (docetaxel) in the pretreated setting. Preplanned subgroup analyses showed a significant improvement in PFS and ORR for Iressa over docetaxel in patients with EGFr mutation-positive tumours.
In 2005, AstraZeneca withdrew its EU marketing authorisation application for Iressa following data from the Phase III ISEL (IRESSA Survival Evaluation in Lung cancer) study in pretreated patients not eligible for further CT. ISEL did not meet its primary objective of a statistically significant improvement in OS for Iressa compared to placebo, but did confirm a number of important clinical benefits, including tumour shrinkage and a significant improvement in time-to-treatment failure. The refractory nature of the ISEL population is the most likely explanation for the magnitude of the survival improvement with Iressa, compared to placebo, not reaching statistical significance.
But what sort of a comeback will Iressa be making? Only a day after the CHMP decision, Roche announced that it is collaborating on a trial to investigate Tarceva (erlotinib) in LC patients with genetic mutations in EGFr. The results from the EURTAC trial, if positive, will support a submission by Roche to the EMEA to seek an additional new indication for use of Tarceva, putting it in direct competition with Iressa. Tarceva is already approved, and unlike Iressa, has been shown to benefit all patients, whether or not they have a mutated version of EGFr. Based on this, it looks likely that Iressa will become a niche product. However, a launched product is better for AstraZeneca than one sat on the shelf.
Matthew Dennis - Editor, Cancer Drug News
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Last chance for Iressa?
Results from the Phase III INTEREST (IRESSA Non-small-cell lung cancer Trial Evaluating REsponse and Survival against Taxotere) study, published in the 22nd November edition of The Lancet (2008;372:1809-1818), have shown that patients with pretreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received the oral anticancer drug, Iressa (gefitinib), had comparable survival to those treated with intravenous docetaxel. In addition, gefitinib had a more favourable tolerability profile than docetaxel and significantly more gefitinib-treated patients had an improvement in quality of life.
These results follow previous disappointing data for the drug in the ISEL (IRESSA Survival Evaluation in Lung cancer) study, where gefitinib failed to demonstrate a survival advantage versus placebo in NSCLC patients. This led to a severe restriction on the use of the drug in the US and also to AstraZeneca withdrawing its MAA in Europe. As such, gefitinib is not currently licensed in the EU, however on 2nd May, AstraZeneca submitted an MAA to the EMEA seeking approval as a treatment for locally-advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients pretreated with platinum chemotherapy (CT). The application is based on data from the INTEREST study and is the first time a targeted therapy, an EGFr tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has proven non-inferiority for overall survival (OS) relative to CT in patients with pretreated advanced NSCLC.
The INTEREST study was a randomised, open-label, parallel-group trial evaluating survival with gefitinib versus docetaxel in 1,466 patients with locally-advanced or metastatic recurrent NSCLC who had previously received platinum-based CT. Patients were randomly assigned to receive gefitinib (250mg/day; n=733) or docetaxel (75mg/m2; n=733). The primary objective was to compare OS between the groups with co-primary analyses to assess non-inferiority in the overall per-protocol population and superiority in patients with high EGFr-gene-copy number in the intention-to-treat population.
In the study, 1,433 patients were analysed per protocol (723 in the gefitinib group and 710 in the docetaxel group). Non-inferiority of gefitinib compared with docetaxel was confirmed for OS (593 vs 576 events; hazard ratio [HR]=1.02; 96% CI, 0.905 to 1.150, meeting the predefined non-inferiority criterion; median survival 7.6 vs 8.0 months). Superiority of gefitinib in patients with high EGFr-gene-copy number (85 vs 89 patients) was not proven (72 vs 71 events; HR=1.09; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.51; p=0.62; median survival 8.4 vs 7.5 months).
Will these new data signal a resurrection for the drug? With such mixed results for gefitinib, it is hard to imagine doctors altering their prescribing habits on the basis of the INTEREST data alone, especially when there are many of other options available for treating LC patients. Tarceva (erlotinib), another EGFr inhibitor, is available, as is Avastin (bevacizumab), with more on the horizon, including Erbitux (cetuximab). One thing that could save gefitinb is the use of pharmacogenomics and a test to predict which patients would be suitable for treatment with the drug. However, this is an expensive and time-consuming undertaking, one that AstraZeneca may not see as financially rewarding or competitive as there are already EGFr inhibitors available, such as cetuximab and Vectibix (panitumumab), that are marketed alongside companion diagnostics. As such, INTEREST could be gefitinib’s final chance of success.
Matthew Dennis - Editor, Cancer Drug News
These results follow previous disappointing data for the drug in the ISEL (IRESSA Survival Evaluation in Lung cancer) study, where gefitinib failed to demonstrate a survival advantage versus placebo in NSCLC patients. This led to a severe restriction on the use of the drug in the US and also to AstraZeneca withdrawing its MAA in Europe. As such, gefitinib is not currently licensed in the EU, however on 2nd May, AstraZeneca submitted an MAA to the EMEA seeking approval as a treatment for locally-advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients pretreated with platinum chemotherapy (CT). The application is based on data from the INTEREST study and is the first time a targeted therapy, an EGFr tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has proven non-inferiority for overall survival (OS) relative to CT in patients with pretreated advanced NSCLC.
The INTEREST study was a randomised, open-label, parallel-group trial evaluating survival with gefitinib versus docetaxel in 1,466 patients with locally-advanced or metastatic recurrent NSCLC who had previously received platinum-based CT. Patients were randomly assigned to receive gefitinib (250mg/day; n=733) or docetaxel (75mg/m2; n=733). The primary objective was to compare OS between the groups with co-primary analyses to assess non-inferiority in the overall per-protocol population and superiority in patients with high EGFr-gene-copy number in the intention-to-treat population.
In the study, 1,433 patients were analysed per protocol (723 in the gefitinib group and 710 in the docetaxel group). Non-inferiority of gefitinib compared with docetaxel was confirmed for OS (593 vs 576 events; hazard ratio [HR]=1.02; 96% CI, 0.905 to 1.150, meeting the predefined non-inferiority criterion; median survival 7.6 vs 8.0 months). Superiority of gefitinib in patients with high EGFr-gene-copy number (85 vs 89 patients) was not proven (72 vs 71 events; HR=1.09; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.51; p=0.62; median survival 8.4 vs 7.5 months).
Will these new data signal a resurrection for the drug? With such mixed results for gefitinib, it is hard to imagine doctors altering their prescribing habits on the basis of the INTEREST data alone, especially when there are many of other options available for treating LC patients. Tarceva (erlotinib), another EGFr inhibitor, is available, as is Avastin (bevacizumab), with more on the horizon, including Erbitux (cetuximab). One thing that could save gefitinb is the use of pharmacogenomics and a test to predict which patients would be suitable for treatment with the drug. However, this is an expensive and time-consuming undertaking, one that AstraZeneca may not see as financially rewarding or competitive as there are already EGFr inhibitors available, such as cetuximab and Vectibix (panitumumab), that are marketed alongside companion diagnostics. As such, INTEREST could be gefitinib’s final chance of success.
Matthew Dennis - Editor, Cancer Drug News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)