I’ll get back to the storyline of our growing understanding of the differences of individuals based on pharmacogenomics very soon. But I wanted to give people some breaking news that just came out. The first line ESCAPE trial of chemo with the anti-angiogenic and multi-kinase inhibitor nexavar (introductory post here) or placebo is apparently negative according to a press release, and it even shows a harmful effect of the study drug in patients with squamous cancers, who were included in the trial.
The trial was designed very similar to the ECOG trial with avastin that led to its subsequent FDA approval. Over 900 first line, previously untreated patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive standard carbo/taxol chemotherapy IV every three weeks for up to six cycles, with either nexavar (introductory post here) by mouth twice daily or a placebo on the same schedule. As in the avastin trial, patients who did not progress after six cycles of chemo continued on “maintenance” nexavar or placebo until progression or prohibitive side effects. The trial design is summarized here:
(Click on image to enlarge)
Importantly, the ECOG 4599 trial that tested avastin excluded patients with squamous NSCLC subtype because it appeared from early work with avastin that patients with squamous tumors who received this agent experienced an unacceptably high risk of fatal or near-fatal episodes of pulmonary hemorrhage, coughing up blood (nearly 30% of patients with squamous NSCLC in the phase II study of avastin in NSCLC (abstract here). In the ESCAPE trial, all NSCLC subtypes were included. This way, if the trial was positive, it would be applicable to a broader range of patients than would be recommended for avastin: squamous cell NSCLC patients account for approximately 25-35% of NSCLC in the US.
The trial was conducted worldwide and enrolled very readily, I believe completing accrual mid-year in 2007, primarily drawing from countries where avastin wasn’t readily available (since some patients and oncologists would have misgivings about giving chemo with placebo, and no anti-angiogenic agent, to patients who would be eligible for avastin with chemo). It was looking for a signficant improvement in overall survival with nexavar as the primary endpoint.
What we learned from the press release is that an independent Data Monitoring Committee reviewed the currently available information from the trial and noted that information should now be publicly disclosed because there is apparently no way for the nexavar arm to do significantly better vs. placebo. Moreover, the patients with squamous cancers apparently had higher mortality if they received nexavar compared with placebo.
These results suggest that multikinase inhibitors, or at least nexavar, isn’t a step forward compared with avastin, either in terms of its activity in avastin-eligible patients or in terms of ability to treat a broader range of patients. Importantly, while some might feel that not offering avastin or other anti-angiogenic agents to patients with squamous cancers is overly cautious, the very preliminary information we now have from the ESCAPE trial demonstrates that it may be hard to thread the needle of offering anti-angiogenic agents to broader populations that include squamous cell carcinoma patients without excessive risk.
Back to pharmacogenomics next.
Posted in: Anti-angiogenic agents, Current Clinical Trials, First-line treatment, Lung Cancer, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), Pathology/Lung Cancer Subtypes, Stage IV/Advanced/Metastatic NSCLC, Targeted therapies, TreatmentAny recent news on sorafenib as 2nd line monotherapy?
Nothing yet…
My husband Barry now into year four and after gemzar, irressa, alimta, avastin, vinorelbine is now getting worse. (he was fairly stable and quite well for a long time)
(Never smoker). Sorafenib was our next chance. Is it stil worth a shot or would sutent be worth a go?
many thanks
Jennie(UK)
Jennie,
These results don’t say anything about what sorafenib might do as a single agent. I have no more information about how sorafenib or sutent might do than I did in my posts on the subject (more than a year ago). There is very little reported information in lung cancer on either of these, and not enough to make any meaningful judgment about the relative value of these agents as a treatment in very heavily pretreated patients. It seems he hasn’t received either taxol or taxoter, and taxotere is even well studied and FDA approved in previously treated patients, so it’s not clear to me what would be more appealing about a drug that has such a minimal track record in lung cancer compared with the taxanes that have been among the most commonly used, and often helpful, drugs in NSCLC for more than a decade.
-Dr. West
Many thanks for your reply. Barry feels that he is not physically able to tolerate a conventional chemo and hence the search for a targeted drug. I had thought of a low dose taxane but he is not too keen. Alimta was ok the first time round but when revisted it took its toll.
Jennie
Jennie,
What about Tarceva for your husband? I’m sure there is a reason it has not been offered but just thought I would check as I have read from other caregivers/patients living in the UK that Tarceva is a struggle to get paid for. It’s expensive but well worth it, as to date it has been the best treatment for my husband. Also there is a website started by a woman in the UK who fought to get Tarceva approved for him and they won - he is doing quite well and she helps others go about getting help. I think Dr. West has it listed on his “links” page on the home page of here.
Michele (Canada)
Sorry Jennie, it is under the “Other Resources” heading and the website is LungCancerAction4Life.
Good luck.
Michele
I am sorry but I omitted the tarceva which he went onto after iressa (which worked for over a year) failed. tarceva lasted about 6 months.
Getting low blood counts is another reason he is relutant to try a taxane.
Thanks
Jennie
8 Comments
Login (Must Be Logged In To Comment)