CE-1 IRESSA ® Clinical Efficacy Ronald B. Natale, MD Director Cedars Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center Ronald B. Natale, MD Director Cedars Sinai Comprehensive.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee
Advertisements

Modified Megestrol The Clinical Trials by : Carolina R. Akib
Robertson JFR et al. J Clin Oncol 2009;27(27):
Carfilzomib: High Single-Agent Response Rate with Minimal Neuropathy Even in High-Risk Patients 1 Baseline Peripheral Neuropathy Does Not Impact the Efficacy.
Surgical resection of metastatic GIST on imatinib delays recurrence and death: results of a cross- match comparison in the EORTC Intergroup study.
Presented by Martin H. Cohen, M.D. at the 27 July 2004 meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee.
CRC-1 The Need for 3rd-Line Therapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Frances A. Shepherd, MD Scott Taylor Chair in Lung Cancer Research Princess Margaret.
Single-Agent Lenalidomide in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma Following Bortezomib: Efficacy, Safety and Pharmacokinetics from the.
Phase III Study Comparing Gemcitabine plus Cetuximab versus Gemcitabine in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Southwest.
The Effect of Zoledronic Acid (ZOL) on Aromatase Inhibitor-Associated Bone Loss in Postmenopausal Women with Early Breast Cancer Receiving Adjuvant Letrozole:
Experience and Outcomes with Hypofractionated Concurrent Chemoradiation for Stage III NSCLC at NCCC Gregory Webb Medical Student.
1 Phase II trial of sequential gemcitabine and carboplatin followed by paclitaxel as first-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma Presented by.
Effect of Age on Efficacy and Safety Outcomes in Patients (Pts) with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM) Receiving Lenalidomide and Low-Dose Dexamethasone.
Taxane-pretreated metastatic breast cancer (MBC): investigational agents TTP = median time to disease progression OS = median overall survival.
Global Investigation of therapeutic DEcisions in hepatocellular carcinoma and Of its treatment with sorafeNib (GIDEON) study.
Frontline Therapy with Brentuximab Vedotin Combined with ABVD or AVD in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma Younes A et al. Proc.
Hormone Refractory Prostate Cancer A Regulatory Perspective of End Points to Measure Safety and Efficacy of Drugs Hormone Refractory Prostate Cancer Bhupinder.
Thymidine phosphorylase (TP) upregulation Dose- and time-dependent upregulation of TP in human colon cancer xenografts PaclitaxelDocetaxel.
NDA ZD1839 for Treatment of NSCLC FDA Review Division of Oncology Drug Products.
RECIST Overview.
1 SNDA Gemzar plus Carboplatin Treatment of Late Relapsing Ovarian Cancer.
Phase III Trial of Pazopanib in Locally Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Sternberg CN et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract (Oral Presentation)
This house believes that FOLFIRINOX is the best treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma Pro Marc YCHOU Montpellier.
1Bachelot T et al. Proc SABCS 2010;Abstract S1-6.
Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing FOLFIRINOX (F: 5FU/Leucovorin [LV], Irinotecan [I], and Oxaliplatin [O]) versus Gemcitabine (G) as First-Line Treatment.
The treatment of metastatic squamous cell carcinoma (SCCA) of the anal canal: A single institution experience P. Pathak, B. King, A. Ohinata, P. Das, C.H.
Bevacizumab continuation versus no continuation after first-line chemo-bevacizumab therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized.
A Comparison of Fulvestrant 500 mg with Anastrozole as First-line Treatment for Advanced Breast Cancer: Follow-up Analysis from the FIRST Study Robertson.
Epic: A Phase 3 Trial of Ponatinib Compared with Imatinib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase (CP-CML) Lipton JH.
KRAS status and efficacy in the first- line treatment of patients with mCRC treated with FOLFOX with or without cetuximab: The OPUS experience Carsten.
A paradigm shift in the treatment of advanced lung cancer: survival and symptom benefits with Tarceva Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu Cancer Institute Ion Chiricuta.
AVADO TRIAL David Miles Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Middlesex, United Kingdom A randomized, double-blind study of bevacizumab in combination with docetaxel.
Treon SP et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 251.
OCEANS: A Randomized, Double- Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial of Chemotherapy with or without Bevacizumab (BEV) in Patients with Platinum-
Correlation of Hand-Foot Skin Reaction (HFS) with Treatment Efficacy in Pancreatic Cancer (PC) Patients (pts) Treated with Gemcitabine/Capecitabine plus.
. Background Paclitaxel and Irinotecan in Platinum Refractory or Resistant Small Cell Lung Cancer: a Galician Lung Cancer.
Time to Secondary Resistance (TSR) After Interruption of Imatinib: Updated Results of the Prospective French Sarcoma Group Randomized Phase III Trial on.
A Phase 3 Prospective, Randomized, International Study (MMY-3021) Comparing Subcutaneous and Intravenous Administration of Bortezomib in Patients with.
Raafat R. Abdel-Malek, MD, FRCR Ass. Prof Clinical Oncology Cairo University, Egypt Efficacy & Toxicity of Sunitinib in mRCC patients in Egypt.
SNDA Letrozole (Femara®) Indication: First-line therapy in post- menopausal women with advanced breast cancer. Prior approval: Second-line therapy.
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.
1 CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DISTRIBUTE ARIES mCRC: Effectiveness and Safety of 1st- and 2nd-line Bevacizumab Treatment in Elderly Patients Mark Kozloff, MD.
CB-1 Background of Pancreatic Cancer & NCIC CTG PA.3 Study Design Malcolm Moore, MD Professor of Medicine and Pharmacology Princess Margaret Hospital Chair,
A Phase 2 Study with a Daily Regimen of the Oral mTOR Inhibitor RAD001 (Everolimus) in Patients with Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Cancer Amato RJ et.
12 th Annual CTOS Meeting 2006 AP23573 Induced Long-term Stability in 2 Patients with Desmoplastic Small Round Cell Tumor (#561) Scott Schuetze, Warren.
Low Dose Decitabine Versus Best Supportive Care in Elderly Patients with Intermediate or High Risk MDS Not Eligible for Intensive Chemotherapy: Final Results.
Agency Review of sNDA SE-006 DOXIL for Ovarian Cancer Division of Oncology Drug Products Office of Drug Evaluation 1 Center for Drug Evaluation.
Moskowitz CH et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 673.
Phase II Multicenter Study of Single-Agent Lenalidomide in Subjects with Mantle Cell Lymphoma Who Relapsed or Progressed After or Were Refractory to Bortezomib:
Mok TS, Wu SL, Thongprasert S, et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2009;361: Gefitinib Superior.
Erlotinib plus Gemcitabine Compared with Gemcitabine Alone in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Phase III Trial of the National Cancer Institute.
Single-agent nab-Paclitaxel Given Weekly (3/4) as First-line Therapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer (An International Oncology Network Study, #I )
Phase I/II CheckMate 032: Nivolumab ± Ipilimumab in Advanced SCLC
Belani CP et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract CRA8000. (Oral Presentation)
Alessandra Gennari, MD PhD
Gajria D et al. Proc SABCS 2010;Abstract P
Nivolumab in Patients (Pts) with Relapsed or Refractory Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (R/R cHL): Clinical Outcomes from Extended Follow-up of a Phase 1 Study.
Maintenance Lapatinib After Chemotherapy in HER1/2-Positive Metastatic Bladder Cancer CCO Independent Conference Highlights of the 2015 ASCO Annual Meeting*
Phase III Trial (MPACT) of Weekly nab-Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Influence of Prognostic Factors of Survival J Tabernero,
Treatment With Continuous, Hyperfractionated, Accelerated Radiotherapy (CHART) For Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): The Weston Park Hospital Experience.
Vahdat L et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract P
KEYNOTE-012: Durable Efficacy With Pembrolizumab in PD-L1–Positive Gastric Cancer CCO Independent Conference Highlights of the 2015 ASCO Annual Meeting*
Intervista a Lucio Crinò
Krop I et al. SABCS 2009;Abstract 5090.
Domenica 03 giugno Highlight a cura di Filippo de Marinis
LV5FU2-cisplatin followed by gemcitabine or the reverse sequence in metastatic pancreatic cancer: Preliminary results of a randomized phase III trial (FFCD.
1 Verstovsek S et al. Proc ASH 2012;Abstract Cervantes F et al.
Pomalidomide plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Myeloma Refractory to Both Bortezomib and Lenalidomide: Comparison of Two Dosing Strategies in Dual-Refractory.
The efficacy and safety of omalizumab in pediatric allergic asthma
Efficacy of BSI-201, a PARP Inhibitor, in Combination with Gemcitabine/Carboplatin (GC) in Triple Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer (mTNBC): Results.
Presentation transcript:

CE-1 IRESSA ® Clinical Efficacy Ronald B. Natale, MD Director Cedars Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center Ronald B. Natale, MD Director Cedars Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center

CE-2 Outline  Pivotal data from Trial 39  Supportive data from Trial 16  Association between response, disease- related symptoms, and other clinical signs  Conclusions  Pivotal data from Trial 39  Supportive data from Trial 16  Association between response, disease- related symptoms, and other clinical signs  Conclusions

CE-3 IRESSA ® 3rd-Line Program Rationale  No effective treatment following 2nd-line therapy  Disease progression inevitable  Symptom worsening likely  No effective treatment following 2nd-line therapy  Disease progression inevitable  Symptom worsening likely

CE-4 Study Aims Determine for each dose  Objective response rate §  Symptom improvement rate §  Safety profile Randomization  250 mg versus 500 mg daily oral doses Determine for each dose  Objective response rate §  Symptom improvement rate §  Safety profile Randomization  250 mg versus 500 mg daily oral doses Trial 39 §Hypothesis: > 5% response and symptom improvement rate.

CE-5 Rationale for Dose Selection  250 mg –Above the lowest dose at which clinical response seen  500 mg –Highest dose level that is well tolerated chronically by most patients  250 mg –Above the lowest dose at which clinical response seen  500 mg –Highest dose level that is well tolerated chronically by most patients

CE-6 Prior Therapy Inclusion Criteria  Received prior treatment with at least 2 chemotherapy regimens that contained platinum and docetaxel, given concurrently or as separate regimens  Prior regimens must have failed the patient because of disease progression on therapy or unacceptable toxicity  Patients who entered trial due to disease progression on therapy had to have documentation that their most recent dose of chemotherapy was within 90 days prior to this progression  Received prior treatment with at least 2 chemotherapy regimens that contained platinum and docetaxel, given concurrently or as separate regimens  Prior regimens must have failed the patient because of disease progression on therapy or unacceptable toxicity  Patients who entered trial due to disease progression on therapy had to have documentation that their most recent dose of chemotherapy was within 90 days prior to this progression Trial 39

CE-7 3rd-Line NSCLC Patient Eligibility  96% of patients satisfied the inclusion criteria  “Refractory/Resistant” versus “Sensitive” –Not relevant to NSCLC –No precedence in NSCLC  96% of patients satisfied the inclusion criteria  “Refractory/Resistant” versus “Sensitive” –Not relevant to NSCLC –No precedence in NSCLC

CE-8  Investigator assessed  SWOG modified UICC/WHO criteria –Standard, well established –Response categories (CR, PR, SD) required confirmation ≥ 28 days  Tumor assessed: day 28, 56, every 2 months  Investigator assessed  SWOG modified UICC/WHO criteria –Standard, well established –Response categories (CR, PR, SD) required confirmation ≥ 28 days  Tumor assessed: day 28, 56, every 2 months Trial 39 Objective Response Assessment

CE-9 Symptom Improvement Criteria  Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS), a component of FACT-L  Validated, sensitive, reliable  7 scored symptoms –Pulmonary Shortness of breath Cough Tightness in the chest Ease of breathing –Advanced cancer Weight loss Appetite Thinking clearly Trial 39 §Cella et al. J Clin Epid. 2002;55:

CE-10 Symptom Improvement Criteria  Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS), a component of FACT-L  Validated, sensitive, reliable §Cella et al. J Clin Epid. 2002; 55:  Minimum 2-point improvement in patient’s total score required to be considered as improvement  Minimum 2-point improvement in patient’s total score required to be considered as improvement  Minimum group score change known to have statistically significant association with NSCLC patient outcomes including objective response, TTP, PS and body weight § Trial 39

CE-11 Symptom Improvement Criteria  Minimum duration of 4 weeks with no interval worsening of ≥ 2 points from baseline  Clinically significant if expected median survival ≤ 6 months  Reduces likelihood of possible placebo effect  Weekly assessment  Precedes tumor response assessment  Markedly enlarge data base  Minimize impact missing data point(s)  Precedes tumor response assessment  Markedly enlarge data base  Minimize impact missing data point(s) Trial 39 §Cella et al. J Clin Epid. 2002;55:

CE-12 Results of Trial 39

CE-13 Summary of Demographic Characteristics 250 mg N = mg N = 114 Median age, years6162 M:F, %59:4155:45 WHO PS = 2, %1920 Adenocarcinoma, %6964 Metastatic disease, %8592 ≥ 2 sites5970 Median time from diagnosis to entry, months 2417 Trial 39

CE-14 Prior Treatment Summary Patients, n (%) Treatment history 250 mg N = mg N = 114 ≥ 2 prior regimens100 (98)114(100) Prior platinum and docetaxel101 (99)113(99) Most recent therapy Progressive disease ≤ 90 days82 (80)88(77) Unacceptable toxicity15 (15)23(20) Trial 39

CE-15 Highly Symptomatic Patient Population Patients, % Asymptomatic Most severe symptoms Study entry: percent patients at each LCS score Median: 16.0 Range: 2 to 26 Median Eligibility criterion Trial 39

CE-16 Objective Tumor Response Rate by Dose 500 mg250 mg Vertical bars represent 95% CI. Trial 39

CE-17 The 22 IRESSA ® Responders  22 PRs –13 with tumor area 10 to 60 cm 2 –5 with tumor area < 10 cm 2 –4 with nonmeasurable disease  16 achieved PR status by Week 4  All PR achieved by 16 weeks  16 achieved PR status by Week 4  All PR achieved by 16 weeks  Median duration (updated December 2001) –7.4 months at 250 mg –5.8 months at 500 mg  Median duration (updated December 2001) –7.4 months at 250 mg –5.8 months at 500 mg  Responses observed regardless of prior regimens, performance status, age, gender Size Quality Duration Rapidity Trial 39

CE-18 Symptom Improvement Rate LCS data collection: the average weekly compliance was 84% (range, ) N = 102N = 104 Vertical bars represent 95% CI. Trial 39  2-point increase  28 days

CE-19 Mean LCS Change by Week All Patients 16 Vertical bars represent 95% CI. LCS score change Weeks from randomization Trial 39

CE-20 The 84 IRESSA ® Symptom Improvers  Mean change on study 4.5 points on LCS  Greatest improvement: shortness of breath, coughing, ease of breathing, tightness in chest  86% onset of improvement within 4 weeks  75% response at 3 months  65% response at 6 months  Median not reached  75% response at 3 months  65% response at 6 months  Median not reached  Symptom improvement observed regardless of prior regimens, performance status, age, gender  40% had 6 to 7 symptoms improve  1 point  32% received new supportive medications (vs 46% of those without symptom improvement)  Symptom improvement observed regardless of prior regimens, performance status, age, gender  40% had 6 to 7 symptoms improve  1 point  32% received new supportive medications (vs 46% of those without symptom improvement) Size Quality Duration Rapidity Trial 39

CE-21 Summary of Antitumor Effects and Symptom Benefit of IRESSA ®  IRESSA response rate of 10% was achieved in heavily pretreated NSCLC patients  IRESSA symptom improvement rate of 40% was achieved in 3rd-line NSCLC patients  Responses and symptom improvements –Rapid –Durable –Similar for both doses  IRESSA response rate of 10% was achieved in heavily pretreated NSCLC patients  IRESSA symptom improvement rate of 40% was achieved in 3rd-line NSCLC patients  Responses and symptom improvements –Rapid –Durable –Similar for both doses Trial 39

CE-22 IRESSA ® Supportive Trial 16

CE-23 Supportive Trial 16  Same design and methods as Trial 39  Eligibility difference –Maximum 2 prior regimens Prior platinum required Prior docetaxel not required –Progression within 90 days not required –Symptoms not required at entry  Same design and methods as Trial 39  Eligibility difference –Maximum 2 prior regimens Prior platinum required Prior docetaxel not required –Progression within 90 days not required –Symptoms not required at entry Trial 16

CE-24 Results of Trial 16

CE-25 Summary of Patient Characteristics 250 mg N = mg N = 106 Median age, years6160 M:F, %75:2566:34 WHO PS = 2, %13 Adenocarcinoma, %6264 Metastatic disease, %7881 Median time from diagnosis to entry, months Symptom evaluable at entry, % prior regimens, %4443 Trial 16

CE-26 Objective Tumor Response Rate by Dose Vertical bars represent 95% CI. Trial 16

CE-27 The 39 IRESSA ® Responders  39 responders –1 CR –38 PRs 26 with tumor area 10 to 85 cm 2 11 with tumor area < 10 cm 2 1 nonmeasurable  31 achieved PR status by Week 4  39 achieved PR status by Week 16  31 achieved PR status by Week 4  39 achieved PR status by Week 16  Median not reached (1 to 6+, 90% ongoing with followup time 4 to 8 months)  Responses observed regardless of 1 or 2 prior regimens, performance status, age, gender Size Quality Duration Rapidity Trial 16

CE-28 Symptom Improvement Rate by Dose N = 67 N = Vertical bars represent 95% CI. Trial 16

CE-29 Summary of Antitumor Effects and Symptom Benefit  Overall objective response rate 19 % in 2nd- and 3rd-line NSCLC  Overall symptom improvement rate 39%  Results supportive of Trial 39 results  Overall objective response rate 19 % in 2nd- and 3rd-line NSCLC  Overall symptom improvement rate 39%  Results supportive of Trial 39 results Trial 16

CE-30 Tumor Response and Symptom Improvement Association Trial 39

CE-31 Association of Tumor and Symptom Response Partial responseStable diseaseProgressive disease Symptom improvement rate, % 250 mg* 500 mg* 100 n = *P <.0001 Trial 39

CE-32 LCS Mean Change by Week All Patients 16 Trial 39 LCS score change Weeks from randomization –2 –4 –6 –8 –10

CE-33 LCS Mean Change by Week by Objective Response Trial 39 LCS score change Weeks from randomization –2 –4 –6 –8 10 6

CE-34 LCS Mean Change by Week Patients with a Partial Response Baseline17.6 Mean change % CI P-value<.001 Trial 39 Vertical bars represent 95% CI. LCS score change Weeks from randomization –2 –4 –6 –8 10 6

12 months1 month Pre-IRESSA ® Baseline 46-year-old female, Stage IV NSCLC, CNS metastases Carbo/paclitaxel, carbo/docetaxel, gemcitabine, vinorelbine CE-35 Patient 0037 Trial 39

CE-36 Patient 0037 Aggressive, Bulky Disease Weeks from randomization LCS score (–85%) PR 6.3 (–89%) PR 4.8 (–92%) PR 3.3 (–95%) PR 3.3 (–95%) PR Lung, liver: 60 cm 2 CNS: nonevaluable 60 (0) Craniotomy Most improved Cough Appetite Chest tightness –2 Trial 39

CE-37 Patient 0166: PS 2 “Non-Bulky” Disease Weeks from randomization LCS score (–56%) PR 2.0 (–67%) PRNM nodes 1.0 (–84%) PR Pneumonia Liver: 6.1 cm 2 Nodes, bone, lung: nonmeasurable PS 1 Most improved Breathing Cough Appetite 6.1 (0) –2 PS 2 Trial 39

CE-38 Association of Tumor Response and PS Improvement Trial 39

CE-39 Summary of Association Between Tumor Response and Symptom Improvement  Responders derive clinical benefit  Significant symptom improvement  Rapid and durable symptom improvement  Responders derive clinical benefit  Significant symptom improvement  Rapid and durable symptom improvement

CE-40 Overall Efficacy Conclusions  IRESSA ® provides a meaningful 10% tumor response rate in 3rd-line NSCLC  IRESSA provides 40% symptom improvement rate in 3rd-line NSCLC  IRESSA efficacy findings are consistent in 2 separate but similar trials  Responders derive clinical benefit  Comparable efficacy with 250-mg and 500-mg daily dose  IRESSA ® provides a meaningful 10% tumor response rate in 3rd-line NSCLC  IRESSA provides 40% symptom improvement rate in 3rd-line NSCLC  IRESSA efficacy findings are consistent in 2 separate but similar trials  Responders derive clinical benefit  Comparable efficacy with 250-mg and 500-mg daily dose