Efficacy and Safety of Combidex (NDA 21-115) FDA Oncology Advisory Committee March 3, 2005 Zili Li, MD, MPH Division of Medical Imaging and Radiopharmaceutical.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Clinical Trials What Are They and When Are They Right For You? Maura N. Dickler Assistant Attending Physician Breast Cancer Medicine Service Memorial Sloan-Kettering.
Advertisements

First Efficacy Results of a Randomized, Open- Label, Phase III Study of Adjuvant Doxorubicin Plus Cyclophosphamide, Followed by Docetaxel with or without.
Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee
Diuretic Strategies in Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Diuretic Optimization Strategies Evaluation (DOSE) trial.
Modified Megestrol The Clinical Trials by : Carolina R. Akib
FDA Perspective Sally Loewke, M.D. Acting Division Director
Ibrance® - Palbociclib
Dexmedetomidine vs Midazolam for Sedation of Critically Ill Patients A Randomized Trial Journal Club 09/01/11 JAMA, February 4, 2009—Vol 301, No
Clinical Utility of Combidex in Various Cancers
Clinical Relevance of HER2 Overexpression/Amplification in Patients with Small Tumor Size and Node-Negative Breast Cancer Curigliano G et al. J Clin Oncol.
Presented by Martin H. Cohen, M.D. at the 27 July 2004 meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee.
INVESTIGATIONAL DRUG SERVICES IN THE HOSPITAL Sheree Miller, Pharm.D. University of Washington Medical Center
Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Presentation on Sanofi Pasteur’s H5N1 Vaccine Andrea N. James, M.D. Senior Medical Officer.
1Stopeck A et al. Proc SABCS 2010;Abstract P
GOG 0233/ACRIN 6671 UPDATE & CHALLENGES UTILITY OF PET/CT & USPIO MRI IN DETECTION OF LYMPHADENOPATHY IN LOCOREGINALLY ADVANCED CERVIX CANCER ACRIN 2008.
Yesterday, today, and tomorrow
ODAC SCHERING-PLOUGH RESEARCH INSTITUTE 1 Temozolomide Oncology Drug Advisory Committee March 13, 2003 Craig L. Tendler, M.D. Vice President, Oncology.
1 FDA Review of NDA Valganciclovir for the Treatment of CMV Retinitis in AIDS Joseph Toerner, MD Medical Officer DAVDP.
Hormone Refractory Prostate Cancer A Regulatory Perspective of End Points to Measure Safety and Efficacy of Drugs Hormone Refractory Prostate Cancer Bhupinder.
1 COMBIDEX ® (ferumoxtran-10). Introduction, Combidex, Indication Mark Roessel Vice President Regulatory Affairs, Advanced Magnetics, Inc.
Investigational Drugs in the hospital. + What is Investigational Drug? Investigational or experimental drugs are new drugs that have not yet been approved.
Food and Drug Administration Division of Pulmonary and Allergy Drug Products Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting July 13, 2005 Safety of.
ACRIN 6685 Overview ACRIN 6685 A Multi-center Trial of FDG-PET/CT Staging of Head and Neck Cancer and its Impact on the N0 Neck Surgical Treatment in Head.
Recent Advances in Head and Neck Cancer Robert I. Haddad, M.D., and Dong M. Shin, M.D. The NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL of MEDICINE N Engl J Med 2008;359:
Phase I Study of PLX4032: Proof of Concept for V600E BRAF Mutation as a Therapeutic Target in Human Cancer Flaherty K et al. American Society of Clinical.
1 ENTEREG ® (Alvimopan) Special Safety Section Marjorie Dannis, M.D. Division of Gastroenterology Products Office of Drug Evaluation III CDER, FDA The.
HER2 POSITIVE BREAST CARCINOMA IN THE PRE AND POST ADJUVANT ANTI-HER-2 THERAPY ERA: A SINGLE ACADEMIC INSTITUTION EXPERIENCE IN THE SETTING OUTSIDE OF.
1 Lotronex Postmarketing Experience Ann Corken Mackey, R.Ph., M.P.H. Allen Brinker, M.D., M.S. Zili Li, M.D., M.P.H., formerly of ODS Office of Drug Safety.
FDA Case Studies Pediatric Oncology Subcommittee March 4, 2003.
CI-1 Zelnorm ® (tegaserod maleate) Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting July 14, 2004 Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting July.
Cardiovascular Risk and NSAIDs Arthritis Advisory Committee Meeting November 29, 2006 Sharon Hertz, M.D. Deputy Director Division of Analgesia, Anesthesia,
Phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without irinotecan in the front-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in elderly patients. FFCD
Treatment Regimens of HER2+ Adjuvant Patients (Actuals) Source: Genentech ASCO 2005 (data release) Nov 2006 (Approval)
Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee May 1, 2007 FDA Presentation Advair Diskus 500/50 Carol Bosken, MD, ScM, MPH Medical Officer Division of Pulmonary.
CI-1 Tarceva ® (erlotinib) Tablets in Combination with Gemcitabine as a 1st-line Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer Presentation to the Oncologic Drugs Advisory.
Baran KW August 28, 2000 Kenneth W. Baran MD for the LIMIT AMI Investigators St. Paul Heart Clinic, St. Paul, MN, USA Sponsor: Genentech Inc., South San.
MPH Label: An opportunity Good that FDA is considering a clarification of the MPH label for safety US should invest more in safety monitoring Problems.
The New Drug Development Process (www. fda. gov/cder/handbook/develop
Final Analysis of Overall Survival for the Phase III CONFIRM Trial: Fulvestrant 500 mg versus 250 mg Di Leo A et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract S1-4.
Zometa for Patients with Bone Metastases Overview and Review of Study 010 Grant Williams, M.D. Medical Team Leader Division of Oncology Drug Products.
FDA’s Public Workshop: Innovative Systems for Delivery of Drugs and Biologics: Scientific, Clinical, and Regulatory Challenges Paul Goldfarb, MD, FACS.
Praxbind® - Idarucizumab
IN-1 Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee Bethesda, Maryland January 31, 2002 C.
1 BLA Sipuleucel-T (APC-8015) FDA Statistical Review and Findings Bo-Guang Zhen, PhD Statistical Reviewer, OBE, CBER March 29, 2007 Cellular, Tissue.
1 Presented at the March 13, 2003 Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting By Stephen Howell, M.D. Skyepharma, Inc.
FDA Review of Clinical Safety Data Omalizumab for treatment of Allergic Asthma Genentech, Inc. FDA/Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
CV-1 Trial 709 The ISEL Study (IRESSA ® Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer) Summary of Data as of December 16, 2004 Kevin Carroll, MSc Summary of Data.
CB-1 Background of Pancreatic Cancer & NCIC CTG PA.3 Study Design Malcolm Moore, MD Professor of Medicine and Pharmacology Princess Margaret Hospital Chair,
OVERTURE FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting July 19, 2002 Milton Packer, M.D., FACC Columbia University College of Physicians.
Zelnorm ® (tegaserod) Division of Gastrointestinal and Coagulation Drug Products Division of Drug Risk Evaluation Gary Della’Zanna, D.O., M.Sc., F.A.C.O.S.
Agency Review of sNDA SE-006 DOXIL for Ovarian Cancer Division of Oncology Drug Products Office of Drug Evaluation 1 Center for Drug Evaluation.
SNDA # GLIADEL® WAFER (Polifeprosan 20 with Carmustine Implant) APPLICANT: GUILFORD PHARMACEUTICALS ODAC: December 6, 2001 Medical Reviewer: Alla.
REGULATORY HISTORY of ZOMETA and AREDIA JAW OSTEONECROSIS (ONJ) Oncologic Drug Advisory Committee March 4, 2005 Nancy S. Scher, M.D.
CON - 1 Conclusions C David R. Parkinson Vice President, Global Head, Clinical Research and Development Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
Zometa for Prostate Cancer Bone Metastases Protocol 039 Amna Ibrahim, M.D. Oncology Drug Products FDA.
The Cancer Registry of Norway Jan F Nygård Head of the IT-department.
Surgery for Metastatic Brain Tumor from Breast Cancer
Angela Aziz Donnelly April 5, 2016
Clinical Trials.
R2 김재민 / Prof. 정재헌 Journal conference 1.
A Single-Arm Phase IIIb Study of Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab with a Taxane as First-Line Therapy for Patients with HER2-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer.
S1207: Phase III randomized, placebo-controlled trial adding 1 year of everolimus to adjuvant endocrine therapy for patients with high-risk, HR+, HER2-
Swain SM et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract P
RTOG 0126 A Phase III Randomized Study of High Dose 3D-CRT/IMRT versus Standard Dose 3D-CRT/IMRT in Patients Treated for Localized Prostate Cancer Bijoy.
Barrios C et al. SABCS 2009;Abstract 46.
Dr T P E Wells 13 July 2018 Breast SSG Bath
Effect of Obesity on Prognosis after Early Breast Cancer
Treatment Overview: The Multidisciplinary Team
Badwe RA et al. SABCS 2009;Abstract 72.
Prognosis of angiosarcoma at different anatomic sites
Presentation transcript:

Efficacy and Safety of Combidex (NDA ) FDA Oncology Advisory Committee March 3, 2005 Zili Li, MD, MPH Division of Medical Imaging and Radiopharmaceutical Drug Products, FDA

2 FDA Reviewers  Chemistry: David Place and Eldon Leutzinger  Pharmacology: Tushar Kokate and Adebayo Laniyonu  Clinical Pharmacology: Alfredo Sancho and Young-Moon Choi  Statistical: Mahboob Sobhan and Mike Welch  Medical: Robert Yaes, Melanie Blank, Barbara Stinson and Zili Li  Project Management: James Moore, Thuy Nguyen and Pat Stewart  Internal Consultants: Charles Lee, Ann Corken Mackey, Janos Bacsanyi and Kathy Robie-Suh and Kathy Robie-Suh

3 Combidex  Drug Class: An Iron-based MR Contrast Agent  Proposed Clinical Dose: 2.6 mg Fe/Kg  Methods of Administration:  Diluted in 100 ml/slow infusion  Diluted in 50 ml/slow infusion  Undiluted/direct bolus injection

4 Sponsor Proposed Indication “Combidex can assist in the differentiation of metastatic and non-metastatic lymph nodes in patients with confirmed primary cancer who are at risk for lymph node metastases.” Is this an MR contrast agent for all cancers?

5 Efficacy and Safety Studies Efficacy: Efficacy:  US Phase 3 study (n=152)  Three European Phase 3 studies (n=181)  New England Journal Of Medicine (NEJM) study (n=80) Safety: Safety:  Multiple Phase 1, 2 & 3 clinical studies (n=2061)

6 NEJM Study – A pooled subgroup analysis of prostate cancer patients from two ongoing clinical studies US IND Study N=158 (single site) European Non-IND Study N=306 NEJM Study N=80 N=40

7 Efficacy and Safety Conclusions (FDA vs. Sponsor) Efficacy: Efficacy:  Sponsor: Combidex offers high sensitivity AND high specificity  FDA: Generalizibility and validity of study findings are still issues Safety: Safety:  Sponsor: No death or life- threatening AEs were associated with dilution and slow infusion  FDA: Dilution and slow infusion are not entirely risk free

8 Issues to Be Discussed  Efficacy Issues  Study sample size  Representation of different tumor types  Study inclusion/exclusion criteria  Development and use of Combidex Imaging Guidelines  Safety Issues  Hypersensitivity reactions  Comparison with iodinated contrast agents  Risk/Benefit Ratio  Sponsor’s risk management program  Need to define the conditions of use

9 Issue #1: Small Number of Patients Included In the Primary Analysis US StudyEuropean Studies (N=181) (Multiple Cancer types) 3-2-A (Head & neck) 3-7-A (Pelvis) 3-10-A (Breast) Number of Patients Received Combidex Included in Primary Analysis (n) (%) Blinded Reader #1 Blinded Reader #2 97 (64%) 99 (65%) 37 (41%) 36 (40%) 11 (20%) 9 (16%) ----

10 Issue #2: Inadequate Representation of Tumor Types Top 10 Tumor Types In the US* Distribution of New Cancer Cases in the US Total Number of Patients in Primary Analysis US StudyEuropean Studies 1. Prostate Cancer232,090 (17%)55 2. Breast Cancer212,930 (16%) Lung Cancer172,570 (13%) Colon & Rectal Cancer145,290 (11%) Bladder Cancer63,210 (5%)46 6. Melanoma59,580 (4%) Uterus/Cervix51,250 (4%) Head & Neck39,250 (3%) Kidney Cancer36,160 (3%) Pancreatic Cancer32,180 (2%)1-- All other sites328,400 (25%)7-- Total1,372,910 (100%)9948 * Source Data: American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2005.

11 Why Many Cancer Patients Were Not Included in the Primary Analysis All lymph nodes visualized by the site investigators Matched to Pathology Nodes Included in Primary Analysis Visualized by blinded readers

12 Number of Lymph Nodes Included in the Primary Analysis (N = number of patients)US StudyEuropean Studies (N=181) (N=152) 3-2-A (N=90) 3-7-A (N=56) 3-10-A (N=35) Nodes Visualized by Site Investigators on MR images (n) Nodes Matched to Pathology Results (n) (%) 276 (74%) 86 (10%) 65 (20%) 144 (62%) Nodes Included in the Primary Analysis (n) (%) Reader 1 Reader (45%) 154 (42%) 47 (6%) 46 (6%) 11 (3%) ----

13 Variation in Sensitivity of Combidex by Tumor Type Primary Tumor Sites US StudyEuropean Studies NO. of Cancer Positive Nodes Point Estimate Lower Bound of 95% CI NO. of Cancer Positive Nodes Point Estimate Lower Bound of 95% CI Head & Neck2986%67%3995%82% Lung9100%66% Breast2576%55% Abdomen & Pelvis2181%58%6100%55% Total8483%73%4589%76%

14 Variation in Specificity of Combidex by Tumor Type Primary Tumor Sites US StudyEuropean Studies NO. of Cancer Negative Nodes Point Estimate Lower Bound of 95% CI NO. of Cancer Negative Nodes Point Estimate Lower Bound of 95% CI Head & Neck3491%75%786%42% Lung1844%21% Breast3471%52% Abdomen & Pelvis1362%32%6100%55% Total9972%62%1392%64%

15 Issue #3: Impact of Study Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria Excluded if received  chemotherapy in the past 6 months  radiation treatment in the past 6 months

16 Issue #4: Independence of Combidex Imaging Guidelines Development Original Statement:  “To finalize the Guidelines, the Sponsor looked at the histology results for the images that [consultant] had reviewed to correlate her descriptions and drawings to diagnoses of metastatic and non-metastatic nodes” Revised Statements (February 14, 2005):  “The guidelines and visual diagrams were developed with the Phase II images”  “Images from 16 patients in the Phase III study were reviewed by [consultant]”  “No pathologic information regarding the nodes was provided to [consultant]”

17 Correlation Between European Guidelines and Combidex Imaging Guidelines European Guidelines: European Guidelines: Combidex Imaging Guidelines Combidex Imaging Guidelines

18 Combidex-Induced Hypersensitivity Reactions Hypersensitivity-Related Death  70 year-old male with history of allergy to contrast  Received undiluted bolus injection  Reaction began 1-2 minutes post injection  911 was called  Patient was pronounced dead in ER 35 minutes post-dosing  Autopsy revealed no evidence of MI or PE  Cause of Death: Combidex-induced anaphylactic shock

19 The Size of Safety Database: Patient Exposure by Dose and Administration Dose (mg Fe/kg)Method of AdministrationTotal Direct Bolus Injection 50 mL dilution/ slow infusion 100 mL dilution/ slow infusion 0.3 – Total

20 Risk and Severity of Hypersensitivity Reactions Type of Hypersensitivity Reactions Risk of Hypersensitivity Reactions by Method of Administration At all doses and methods of administration (N=2061) At proposed dose and administration (N=1236) At direct bolus injection (n=131) All Hypersensitivity Reactions 111 (5.4%)66 (5.3%)8 (6.1%) Death1 (0.04%)01 (0.7%) Serious non-fatal adverse event 6 (0.3%)2 (0.16%)3 (2.3%) Hypersensitivity reaction involving at least two body systems 20 (1.0%)13 (1.1%)3 (2.3%) Treated with antihistamine 48 (2.8%)27 (2.4%)3 (2.3%) Treated with steroids21 (1.0%)19 (1.5%)0

21 Presenting Symptoms of Hypersensitivity Reactions Presenting Symptoms (not mutually exclusive) Distribution of Presenting Symptoms by Method of Administration At all doses and methods of administration (N=111) At proposed dose and administration (N=66) At direct bolus injection (N=8) Rash, urticaria or pruritus 95 (86%) 56 (85%) 5 (63%) Dyspnea with vasodilation, hypotension or syncope 14 (13%)10 (15%)2 (25%) Facial, laryngeal or generalized edema 9 (8%)5 (8%)2 (25%)

22 Comparison with Iodinated Contrast Agents Hypersensitivity Reactions in the Clinical Trials Three Iodinated Contrast Agents Combidex Death0/45451/2061 (All) 0/1236 (Infusion) Serious non-fatal0/45456/2061 (All) 2/1236 (Infusion) Uriticaria Rash Pruritus 0.3 to 0.8% 0.6% 0.1 to 1.6% 2.2% 2.8% 2.4%

23 Improving the Risk/Benefit Ratio Risk Benefit

24 Sponsor’s Risk Management Program Use of Dilution and Slow Infusion  Labeling (Warnings & Precautions)  Physician Education  Target launch to academic centers and monitor first 1,000 patients

25 FDA: To Enhance the Benefit to the Patients  Need to better understand Combidex performance by tumor type and nodal size  Need to define the conditions of use

26 Sensitivity and Specificity by Size (US Study Only) Size of Lymph Nodes ReadersSensitivitySpecificity < 10 mmReader 1 Reader 269%66% 81% 78% > 10 mmReader 1 Reader 293%98% 56% 71%

27 Prevalence of Histologically Positive Nodes by Nodal Size Nodal Size from Pathology US Study European Studies 3-2-A3-7-A3-10-A < 10 mm33/329 (10%) --46/696 (7%) 99/466 (21%) > 10 mm56/167 (34%) 85/129 (66%) 17/87 (20%) 26/50 (52%)

28 Predictive Values of a Positive or Negative Combidex Test Lymph Nodes: Size < 10 mm Sensitivity 68%, Specificity 80% Lymph Nodes: Size > 10 mm Sensitivity 95%, Specificity 64% PrevalencePPVNPVPrevalencePPVNPV 1%3%99%25%47%98% 10%27%96%50%73%93% 25%53%88%75%89%81% 50%77%71%90%96%59%

29 To Define the Conditions of Use Uses that may not be helpful  Patient with a low risk for metastasis  Patients with a lymph node (> 10 mm) visualized from non-contrast MR imaging  Substitute for pathology confirmation  Surveillance for tumor recurrences in treated patients Key question: How will Combidex results be benefit to patients ? Key question: How will Combidex results be benefit to patients ?  Prostate Cancer  Bladder Cancer  Breast Cancer  Head & Neck Cancer