GRACE :: Lung Cancer

ARQ197: Encouraging Results from ASCO 2010

Share
download as a pdf file Download PDF

Continuing with the webinar discussion I had with Dr. Pennell, here is a summary I did of a randomized phase II trial of the novel agent ARQ-197 combined with the EGFR inhibitor Tarceva (erlotinib):

====================================

Dr. West: We’re going to shift gears and move into the metastatic setting, and this is a new agent called ARQ197 that is orally available, which was tested in combination with erlotinib(Tarceva) compared with Tarceva alone. And this was actually in the patients who had received one or more prior lines of chemo and could not have received prior Tarceva or another EGFR inhibitor, directly comparing these two groups that randomized one-to-one. Also, patients who had been assigned to placebo could actually go on the combination at the time of progression, and we did get some interesting information from that.

schiller-arq197-schema (click on image to enlarge)

The study enrolled very quickly: it was a randomized Phase II trial, and I’ll show you the numbers very shortly. My center was one that was planning to be involved, but it actually enrolled so quickly at a few centers that we didn’t even get the chance.

So what is this ARQ197? It’s a MET inhibitor, and MET stands for mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor, and this is involved in the cascades of EGFR and KRAS and others.

met-mechanism-of-action

And it’s actually one of the potential mechanisms for resistance to EGFR-inhibition and in itself is associated with cell proliferation, motility, migration, angiogenesis, this transition from epithelial to mesenchymal that is associated with resistance to EGFR-inhibitors and promotes invasion and metastasis and it’s associated with worse outcomes when it’s over-expressed in patients with lung cancer tumors.

The study involved 167 patients randomized between the two arms and showed an improvement in progression-free survival, which was the primary endpoint of the study.

schiller-arq-197-pfs

It was statistically significant and a really clear difference between the two arms as you can see that its hazard ratio of 0.81 corresponds to a 19% improvement, although it was especially concentrated at the median point which is here at 0.5, you could see a very significant difference.

The overall survival was in favor of the combination, though it was not statistically significant and that’s shown here, a difference of about seven weeks or so.

schiller-arq-197-os

The study also included a breakdown looking at a few different variables, and one was by histology. When they looked at patients with non-squamous tumors, which were the majority — about two thirds — they found that overall survival actually was significantly better with ARQ197.

schiller-arq-197-pfs-and-os-in-non-squamous

This was unplanned, but nowadays we know that histology can be extremely relevant and the differences are even more robust if we concentrated the evaluation at patients with non-squamous histology.

They also looked at a few molecular variables, and what was interesting to see was that there was even more of a pronounced benefit in the patients who were EGFR wild type who we generally think of as not getting as profound a benefit with EGFR-inhibitors like Tarceva.

schiller-arq-197efficacy-by-subgroups

But here there was a really differential effect, admittedly in not incredibly large numbers, but it was still nearly a hundred patients. And also in patients with KRAS mutations, again small, small numbers, but this is a group of patients for whom we have not seen, had very difficult time making gains. Certainly, if this holds up in larger studies, it would represent a major benefit to be able to find something that could actually improve outcomes for the patients who we haven’t been able to serve extremely well with Tarceva alone.

What’s also instructive is to see an improvement in some patients who were assigned to Tarceva alone and then crossed over to the combination, because there were actually two out of 23 evaluable who actually demonstrated significant tumor shrinkage and another nine who had stable disease. So you actually saw some improvement in people who had already been exposed to the same EGFR-inhibitor without the novel agent.

This is going to be moving forward in a larger study that I’m very much hoping to be involved with, and the final design of that is still in the works at this point.

Dr. Pennell: Hopefully, that one will not accrue so quickly that you won’t be able to participate.

Dr. West: Yeah, right — well, it will be a larger study. Overall, I would say this is certainly an encouraging avenue. I’d welcome your thoughts, Nate.

Dr. Pennell: I completely agree. I think this is an exciting avenue. We tend to get caught up with these targeted drugs, looking at the relatively small subpopulation of patients who have really the driving molecular changes like an EGFR mutation or the ALK translocation. We have to remember that the vast majority of patients with non-small cell lung cancer don’t have a single genetic change that’s driving it, but rather a number of different pathways that are active in their cancer cells. And MET is a pathways that is one of the highest of all the tyrosine kinases, and the activities of the MET receptor are among the most important pathways activated in lung cancer — at least in lung cancer cell lines — and probably that’s true in actual lung cancer as well.

It’s probably not a single molecular change causing this, and so inhibition of MET by itself is unlikely to have a whole lot of benefit. But in combination with other drugs such as EGFR inhibitors, I think this is a very promising approach, especially for people who don’t have an EGFR mutation.

The KRAS data is intriguing. We’d caution everyone that there were only 15 patients with KRAS mutation for this analysis, so it’s very hard to say comparing five patients to 10 patients is meaningful, but certainly, it should be looked at in larger studies of similar benefit. So I’m excited, I agree.


5 Responses to ARQ197: Encouraging Results from ASCO 2010

  • kej says:

    Drs. Pennell and West
    Thankyou very much for providing these trial results. I totally agree: the results constitute a major encouragement. They do so as such, and also through the fact that they come from a oral treatment and thus do not put so much of a burden on the patients’ daily life.
    I hope they will move to phase III very soon and to more places in the world so more patients will benefit.
    Thanks again :-)

  • benMcBen says:

    Hi Drs West/Pennell

    Will/when will we see ARQ 197 trials that include those developing resistance to current TKI’s ?

    Many Thanks

    Ben

  • Pingback: MetMAb Looking Very Promising for (About Half of) Patients with Advanced NSCLC | GRACE :: Lung Cancer

  • Mook says:

    Dr. West (or other Dr’s) -
    In your informative post above, the Progression Free Survival graph shows good improvement at the median (0.5), but the “tail” of the graph drops off quickly and actually shows that no one receiving ARQ 197 survived while placebo participants continued to live indefinitely. Am I reading this wrong? (I think I am since the OS graph shows that the ARQ 197 tail substantially above (2x) the placebo tail)

    We’re looking closely at going into the third phase of this trial, but want to be sure that it is as promising for the long term as it is for short term survival.
    Thanks,
    Mook

  • Dr West says:

    No, that’s correct, but those results are really talking about the differences of literally just a couple of patients here or there at the ends of the curves, and that’s progression-free survival, which is a softer endpoint than overall survival. I would caution against reading too much into the differences at the far right of a curve in a phase II trial, just because there are stray patients who are going to be outliers, perhaps because of their unusual cancer and not the treatment. If a few more patients who just happen to have a more indolent cancer end up on the placebo arm, you could see this kind of result without it having anything to do with the treatment difference between the two arms.

Leave a Reply

Ask Us, Q&A
Lung/Thoracic Cancer Expert Content

Archives

Share
download as a pdf file Download PDF

GRACE Website Rebuild

Share
download as a pdf file Download PDF

Watch ALK+ Lung Cancer Forum Videos

Share
download as a pdf file Download PDF

Join the GRACE Faculty

Breast Cancer Blog
Pancreatic Cancer Blog
Kidney Cancer Blog
Bladder Cancer Blog
Head/Neck Cancer Blog
Share
download as a pdf file Download PDF

Subscribe to the GRACEcast Podcast on iTunes

Share
download as a pdf file Download PDF

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon

Subscribe to
GRACE Notes
(Free Newsletter)

Other Resources

Share
download as a pdf file Download PDF

ClinicalTrials.gov


Biomedical Learning Institute

PeerView Press - Curriculum-Based Learning Activities