1. 1 Caroline Laboulle Alexandra Mascret Valerio Pilato

2. 2

3. 3 Lung cancers = A need !!!!!

4. 4

5. 5  Lung cancer murderer as 27,000 deaths /year  Incidence in women increases steadily  Incidence increasing linked to smoking 85% attributable to tobacco  Causes 5% of cases Occupational exposure (Such as Asbestos, arsenic, chromic acid, nickel oxide, iron,....)

6.  80% NSCLC - 20% SCLC (histological distinction)  Relatively insensitive to chemotherapy contrary to SCLC Squamous cells carcinoma 40%  3 types Adenocarcinoma 40%  Strategy depends on TNM Classification  Stage I-II : Surgery => Only Curable  Stage III-IV: Chemotherapy and/or Radiotherapy For Locally advanced and Metastasis 6 Large cell carcinoma 20%

7.  Current firstline therapeutic option  A platinum (cisplatin or carboplatin) + 3 rd -generation agent  Second line therapy  Docetaxel Mechanism of oncogeneseMolecular approach MAB Anti-EGFR : Cetuximab MAB Anti-VEGF: Bevacizumab TK Inhibitor : Erlotinib, Gefitinib, Sorafenib. Limits :Selectivity, IV administration,…..

8. The story so far 8

9. 9

10. 2003 US Approval 2002 Japan Approval 2002 Phase III INTACT 1&2 2000 Phase II IDEAL 1&2 1997- 1998 Phase I 1994 Preclinical studies IRESSA Development

11. 11

12. ZD-1839 (Iressa) : p.o. drug quinazoline derivative selectively inhibits the EGFR tyrosine kinase Antiproliferative activity 12 Steady-state plasma [ ] : 7-10 days t 1/2 = 48h (37-65h) Pharmacokinetic:

13. EGFR Signaling pathway

14. 14  Highly specific inhibition of cell lines expressing EGFR  CI50= 0,2-0,4 μM  Competitive inhibitor of ATP (type I)  Cytostatic effect dose proportional

15.  Dose-dependent supra-additive effect  Increase of growth inhibition EGF = survival factor for tumors cells treated by classical cytotoxics 15  Gefitinib  Docetaxel  Carboplatin BUT no clinical interaction Anticancer activity by supressing survival factors Gefitinib + Cytotoxic: Inhibitors of CYP3A4 and CYP2D6

16. 2003 US Approval 2002 Japan Approval 2002 Phase III INTACT 1&2 2000 Phase II IDEAL 1&2 1997- 1998 Phase I 1994 Preclinical studies IRESSA Development

17. OPEN, MULTICENTER, NON-RANDOMIZED, DOSE-ESCALATING STUDIES 17

18. 18

19. 19 1 st causes DLTs

21. -250mg/d > Lowest dose level tumor regression - 500mg/d < Highest dose well tolerated chronically DLT > Therapeutic dose

22. 2003 US Approval 2002 Japan Approval 2002 Phase III INTACT 1&2 2000 Phase II IDEAL 1&2 1997- 1998 Phase I 1994 Preclinical studies IRESSA Development

23. 23

24. Monotherapy

25. 25

26. Symptom improvement benefits by tumor response

27. 27  250mgAE profile

28. = Accelerated approval based on: – a surrogate endpoint or – an effect on a clinical endpoint – other than survival or irreversible morbidity. But with requirement that sponsor: – study the drug further, – to verify and describe its clinical benefit, or the observed clinical benefit to ultimate outcome.

29. 29

30. 2003 US Approval 2002 Japan Approva l 2002 Phase III INTACT 1&2 2000 Phase II IDEAL 1&2 1997- 1998 Phase I 1994 Preclinical studies IRESSA Development

32. 32

33. Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival in each treatment group. (P=0.4560) 33

34.  Antagonism or Drug interactions ?  No preselection EGFR dependant cells  Naïve tumors are not sensitive Only EGFR dependant cells could be sensitive to EGFR TK inhibitor 34

35. 35

36. 2003 US Approval 2002 Japan Approval 2002 Phase III INTACT 1&2 2000 Phase II IDEAL 1&2 1997- 1998 Phase I 1994 Preclinical studies IRESSA Development

37. Approval: 07/09/2002 to treat NSCLC EVEN known Failed in INTACT 1 and 2 Few months later… : 25,000 >200 >60 Ministery : 12/2002 37 Same incidence Placebo groups Same incidence in Iressa ® & Placebo groups ILDDeath rate guidelines (03/2005)01/2005

38. 2003 US Approval 2002 Japan Approval 2002 Phase III INTACT 1&2 2000 Phase II IDEAL 1&2 1997- 1998 Phase I 1994 Preclinical studies IRESSA Development

39. Yes, but:  Controlled study vs placebo to verify Iressa's clinical benefit; 39 INTACT1&2: Failed survival IDEAL 1&2: Tumor shrinkage Few treatments available → 21,000 patients treated ( Expanded Acess Programme) ODAC

40. 2008 Phase III: IPASS 2004-2006 Research biomarkers 2004 Discover EGFR mutations 2004 ISEL7 2003 US approval IRESSA Development

41. 41

42. 42

43. 43

44. 44

45. All hypothesis do not lead to explanations So… We have to search elsewhere

46. 46

47. …Everybody get busy Research potential biomarkers: 2 ways: EGFR expression (Gene copy nb) EGFR mutation Prospective studies: INTEREST; V15-32 ONCOBELL IPASS Never smokers High gene copy number

48. During this time Decision of treatment… IRESSA still available for responsive patients Physicians should consider other treatment options

49. ISEL failed to demonstrate an OS Pulmunory toxicity Restriction in the use of gefitinib in USA and in other countries AstraZeneca does not pursue licensing in Europe 49

50. 50

52. Retrospective study of ISEL :  It seems to be potential biomarker Prospective study INTEREST( Iressa in NSCLC Trial Evaluating Response and Survival versus Taxotere):  Comparaison of OS for Gefitinib and Docetaxel in patients with high EGFR gene copy number Enrollment 2004-2006

53. In patients with high EGFR gene copy number, survival was not longer with Gefitinib than Docetaxel

55. 2008 Phase III: IPASS 2004-2006 Research biomarkers 2004 Discover EGFR mutations 2004 ISEL7 2003 US approval IRESSA Development

56. 56

57. 57

58. 58

59. Increase amount & duration of ligand-dependent activation

60. Increase amount & duration of ligand-dependent activation

61. Increase amount & duration of ligand-dependent activation

62. Increase amount & duration of ligand-dependent activation

63. EXON 20 In frame duplication/insertion EXON 19 In frame deletions EXON 21: L858R Single missense mutation 59 % 41 % Leu WT L858R Arg

64. EGFR GENEEGFR GENE TKDOMAINTKDOMAIN

65. 65 mutant kinase = active conformation WT Conformation

66. 66

67. 67

68. An alternative binding mode of gefitinib 68

69. 69 Higher affinity for gefitinib in the L858R mutant Greater efficacy in treatment of NSCLC patients carrying this mutation “addicted” to the activated EGFR for survival

70. Same mutational patterns FEMALES ADENOCARCINOMA ASIATICS (30-40%NSCLC) NEVER SMOKERS

73. So, we‘ll keep going on with clinical selection…

74. 74

76. 2008 Phase III: IPASS 2004-2006 Research biomarkers 2004 Discover EGFR mutations 2004 ISEL7 2003 US approval IRESSA Development

79. recruted from 2006 to 2007 60% of tumor EGFR M+

81. 81

84. Predictive value of -Ethnic origin, -Smoking status, -Histologic findings for responsiveness

87. Predictive value of EGFR mutations for responsiveness to Gefitinib Objective response rate (%)

88. Importance of preselection of patients Oral agent: Good efficacy, More favourable tolerability profile, Better quality of life Gefitinib = Valid treatment option for pretreated advanced NSCLC.

89. 2008 Phase III: IPASS 2004-2006 Research biomarkers 2004 Discover EGFR mutations 2004 ISEL7 IRESSA Development 2009 Label in EU

90. Iressa is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating mutations of EGFR TK To help diagnostic: EGFR mutation database: http://www.egfr.org/http://www.egfr.org/ (by City of Hope Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory ) LABEL: