GRACE :: Lung Cancer

HSP 90 Inhibitors: Another Rational Choice for Patients with Acquired Resistance to EGFR Inhibitors

Continuing Dr. West’s theme discussing new therapies for patients with acquired resistance, I’d like to answer a few questions about HSP 90 inhibitors that have caught my attention on GRACE over the past few weeks, and in particular, highlight my “pet” targeted agent, AUY922. HSP 90 inhibitors are drugs that many of you already know about-they are being studied in patients with ALK(+)lung cancer and as a 2nd line therapy option for all patients with lung cancer with Taxotere. But what you might not have known previously is that there is pre-clinical evidence that they may be also useful for patients with EGFR (+) lung cancer, with acquired resistance to Tarceva.

HSP 90 proteins are “chaperone proteins“-they form partnerships with other proteins-“client proteins”-- in order to guide the folding or bending of client proteins into the shapes necessary for normal protein activity. Although many, many proteins require HSP 90 chaperones for normal metabolism (ie., making a cell’s world “go round”), in particular those proteins which activate cancer development (“onco-client proteins“) can form complexes with HSP 90 chaperones -and they stay bound 100x more tightly once snuggled into their chaperone-client complexes. As a result, the onco-clients can remain “stable”, or focused on their mission of driving malignant cells to form tumors.

hsp90-client-proteins (click on image to enlarge)

Above you’ll see a cartoon illustrating a number of different proteins responsible for driving cancer cell survival and metastasis. All the proteins shown in red are onco-clients that require HSP 90 chaperones. You’ll notice that both EGFR and MET require HSP 90 chaperones (ALK does too, though not illustrated here) in order to fold and function. Therefore, you might ask “what happens if you get rid of that chaperone?”

Enter HSP 90 inhibitors. There are many HSP 90 inhibitors in development that you may have heard of: AUY922, IPI504, STA9090, SS-2248 to name a few. (Geldanamycin, 17 AAG, and 17 DMAG are older “parent” compounds of the same thing). When mice with EGFR (+) tumors with T790M or EGFR (+) tumors with MET amplification were treated with HSP 90 inhibitors, the tumors shrunk. We thought it would be interesting to study HSP 90 inhibitors and Tarceva in humans, and Novartis agreed to partner with us to study their HSP 90 inhibitor AUY922 in patients with acquired resistance.

Why continue the Tarceva in patients with acquired resistance? There are lots of anecdotal reports (and a couple of published papers) describing a disease “flare” for patients who stop their Tarceva after developing acquired resistance-either in terms of worsening clinical symptoms or in rapid radiographic progression of disease. The current hypothesis of acquired resistance is that it is a heterogenous syndrome that develops in different patients at difference places in the body, and not likely all of a sudden, but more gradually. As a result, many of us lung oncologists will continue Tarceva even as we start a 2nd line treatment in patients who have developed acquired resistance– to avoid any disease flare, and to capitalize on any remaining benefit from Tarceva.

For this reason, I wanted to test AUY922 added to Tarceva. However, this combination had not been tested before in humans. Therefore, the first step was to submit an IND (Investigational New Drug) application to the FDA for permission to study AUY922 and Tarceva in combination. Next, we opened the dose-escalation phase I study to find the “best” dose of each drug when given at the same time.

auy922-with-erlotinib

Currently, we’ve treated 3 patients at each of the 1st and 2nd dose levels. We’re hoping to step up to the 3rd dose level in mid-November. One of the side effects we were most worried about was the diarrhea– since both AUY922 and erlotinib can cause this. It was out of concern for causing horrible diarrhea that we had to start each drug at a lower dose than it would have been given individually. Fortunately, all diarrhea patients have reported has been manageable so far.

Based on prior experience with other HSP 90 inhibitors, we were also worried about whether AUY922 would cause any abnormalities in the heart’s electrical “firing”, or conduction system, and whether AUY922 would cause visual changes such as “floaters”, and/or difficulties accommodating (going from light places to dark places). No problems yet with anybody’s heart rates. The first hint of visual changes came just last week in one patient—and so we’ll be watching that closely going forward.

In order to be enrolled in this trial, patients all undergo a re-biopsy at a site of disease that has grown while on Tarceva alone. This tumor tissue will be tested for T790M, MET amplification and HGF (a partner with MET in cancer cells). This “side-car” project will help us figure out which mechanism of acquired resistance is/are being affected with inhibition of HSP 90.

This trial is open at Northwestern University in Chicago and at Memorial Sloan-Kettering in NYC. I am excited to say that accrual has been going really well, considering only three patients can be enrolled at once– on a dose-escalation trial, safety is the paramount focus. If the phase I study continues like it’s going now, I am hopeful that we’ll open a larger phase II study more focused on efficacy sometime next year. Stay tuned!


Afatinib vs. Placebo in EGFR-TKI Treated Patients: Efficacy in the Eye of the Beholder

It was almost exactly a year ago that I described the basic results of the global LUX Lung-1 trial that enrolled 585 patients with advanced NSCLC who had gone at least 12 weeks without progression on Tarceva (erlotinib) or Iressa (gefitinib) in a 2:1 fashion to either the oral targeted therapy afatinib (an irreversible inhibitor of the human epidermal receptor (HER) family, of which EGFR and HER2/neu are members, also known as a “pan-HER inhibitor”) or placebo. This trial was intended to enroll patients who had developed acquired resistance to an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) like Tarceva or Iressa, but the eligibility criteria were frankly a little too loose to really have enrolled a uniform population of patients who we think of as classic “acquired resistance” patients, who should have an EGFR activating mutation and would often have a very good response in terms of tumor shrinkage, or at least very prolonged stable disease. Requiring just stable disease for at least three months of an EGFR TKI allows the study to become a combination of 1) people with true acquired resistance after a very strong clinical benefit, and 2) people with slowly progressing cancer that didn’t happen to meet criteria for progression within 12 weeks on an EGFR TKI.

To review the highlights, the median age of patients was 58-59 years old, 60% of the patients were women, nearly two thirds were never-smokers, the median duration of response was about 10 months, and the objective response rate to prior EGFR TKI was about 45%. This is lower than the response rate to EGFR TKIs that is typically 60-75% for trials exclusively of patients with an EGFR mutation, and the median duration of response is a little on the low side, so my estimate is that only about one of every three or four patients squeaked into the trial but wasn’t really the target patient for the population that this trial was intending to study. However, this study was designed just before trial results like IPASS made it clear that molecular selection (identifying patients for trials based on the presence of a particular mutation) is clearly superior to clinical selection (identifying a patient based on clinical characteristics like race, sex, and smoking status).

Continue reading


Talactoferrin: Where are we now and what can we expect?

Thank you fortmyr for bringing our attention to the recent publication of exciting data on talactoferrin. We’ve talked about talactoferrin before on GRACE. This is an exciting new drug that both Dr. West and I feel has a lot of promise.

When you eat food, you ingest a lot of bacteria with your food and so it’s not surprising that there are a lot of immune cells in the gut. Appropriately this system is called GALT, or gut-associated lymphoid tissue. In the simplest terms, talactoferrin is a chemical that activates GALT in the hopes that this will activate the immune system to better fight the cancer. The drug is not absorbed and does not travel in the bloodstream the way that chemotherapy and even most targeted agents do. Rather, we believe that it activates GALT, and then the body’s own immune cells go off to better fight the cancer. Dr. West has described the proposed mechanism of action in much greater detail, and I refer the curious to his post. Talactoferrin is found in several body fluids. Poetically, its concentration is highest in breast milk, where it is believed to support development of the infant’s immune system, thus the term, “mother’s milk.” Cycles are fourteen days in length. For twelve weeks, the patient takes this pill twice per day, and then there are two weeks off before starting the next cycle.

Two major studies started the clinical work on talactoferrin. One randomized patients to who were previously treated with chemo to talactoferrin or placebo. Dr. West has reported on these results in 2008. All patients were previously treated with at least one and up to two lines of chemotherapy. In other words, these were 2nd line or 3rd line patients. In the US, I would not have opened this study for my patients because of the randomization to placebo. Since alimta, docetaxel and erlotinib all have proven efficacy in the second line, I would have felt ethically uncomfortable. As a rule, I believe that investigators should only open trials that they believe are very promising compared to the standard of care and that they would feel comfortable putting themself or a loved-one on if they had cancer. In fairness, the trial was conducted in India. The little that I know about lung cancer care in India is only from GRACE members’ postings. If 2nd line chemotherapy is not universally available in India, making placebo equivalent to the standard of care, then this trial would seem more acceptable to me. Regardless, the comparison to placebo does provide quality information about the efficacy of talactoferrin.

This was a randomized phase II study. This means that like any phase II study the goal was not to definitively prove the efficacy of talactoferrin, but rather to see if the agent was worthy of further evaluation in a larger phase III study. This design has gained favor because without a control arm, single-arm studies can be made to look very promising just by using strict inclusion criteria. This problem has resulted in too many patients being enrolled on phase III studies that were ultimately proven not to help. Just to be clear what I’m talking about, I’ll make up an example. If I designed an uncontrolled (single-arm) phase II study of dark chocolate for 2nd line treatment of lung cancer and wanted to artificially make it positive, I could require all patients to have PS0, ideal renal function, absolutely normal bone marrow function, minimal burdens of cancer and to have had dramatic response to their first line of chemotherapy. Even if dark chocolate did nothing to stop cancer growth, these patients would live longer than historic controls, leading to a “positive” study. We would then proceed to phase III study, where dark chocolate would get trounced by a standard second line agent, because it is not actually active and patients on both arms would have the same requirements to enter the study. Of course, the major confounder here would be the massive improvement in quality of life that comes with dark chocolate.

Continue reading


Lymph Node Occult Metastatic Spread: Predictive of Worse Outcomes in Early Stage NSCLC Patients After Surgery

We’ve discussed the potential importance of micrometastatic disease or circulating tumor cells, but another way to assess them is to check for the presence of occult (and microscopic) metastases (OMs) in bone marrow or lymph nodes. The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group recently reported their results on a trial called Z0040 that looked for occult metastases in washings of the pleural space at the time of surgery, from bone marrow collected from a rib, and from lymph nodes that appeared to be negative for cancer involvement by basic pathology review. The key questions were:

1) how common is it to see OMs in the pleural space, marrow, and “negative” lymph nodes?

2) Do patients who test positive for occult metastases (OMs) fare worse than patients who don’t have them?

To test this question, from 1999 to 2004, ACOSOG enrolled 1047 patients with resectable stage I-III NSCLC, including 50% with adenocarcinoma, 66% stage I, nearly 50/50 split by patient sex, and median age 67. They underwent surgery in which they underwent “pleural lavage”, in which sterile fluid was added to the cavity outside of the lung, then recollected, with a pathologist doing a close search for cancer cells, using immunihistochemistry (IHC), a special staining technique that can identify cells that have proteins consistent with cancer. Patients also had a 3-4 cm piece of rib sent off for bone marrow to be extracted, with a pathologist also doing a careful search for cancer cells, using IHC, and all lymph nodes that were reviewed and found to be negative for cancer involvement by standard evaluation were also reviewed via IHC. All of these tests were done at a single lab at the University of Southern California (USC). Patients were then followed for a minimum of five years to follow their cancer status and survival.

Continue reading


Q&A Session from Webinar with Dr. Lilenbaum on Managing Elderly Patients with Lung Cancer

Following the excellent podcast by Dr. Rogerio Lilenbaum, lung cancer expert and now Chair of Cleveland Clinic Florida in Weston, on Considerations and Challenges of Treating Elderly Patients with Lung Cancer, he fielded questions from me and the folks in the live audience who attended. Here’s that question and answer session, provided in audio and with the associated transcript. There isn’t really any video/figures for this one.

dr-lilenbaum-qa-on-treating-lung-cancer-in-elderly-pts-transcript

Continue reading

Play

Less is More: High Dose Radiation Not Better When Given Concurrent with Chemo for Locally Advanced NSCLC

lucy_football Like Charlie Brown always thinking that this time will be different when he tries to kick the football without Lucy pulling it away, we get lulled into thinking that we know the intuitive, obvious answer in medicine without really testing it, only to find that our assumption was wrong yet again. This time, the important new result comes from the annual meeting of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiation and Oncology (ASTRO), which is just ending in Miami. There, investigators from the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) released some important early results from a study, RTOG 0617, that will impact the way stage III (locally advanced) NSCLC is managed.

While in many older studies the dose of radiation was in the 60-61 Gray (Gy) range (Gy being the units of radiation dose) over 6-6.5 weeks, there has been a drift in routine practice to often higher doses, to 63-66 Gy pretty routinely and even up to 70-74 Gy in some places, and not just in clinical trials. This isn’t really based on the proven value of a higher dose over a lower dose, but rather based on the concept that the 60-61 Gy level wasn’t found to be the clear best dose in the past, but rather was what was considered to be more or less safe and feasible at the time, while there is really a dose-response effect beyond that. Then, over the past 10-15 years, certain centers have done research using more refined radiation techniques to deliver chest radiation up to doses in the range of 74 Gy or even higher, with concurrent chemotherapy. Since then, more and more radiation oncologists have followed, using conformal radiation techniques to routinely push what is perceived as a “standard dose” of chest radiation with concurrent chemotherapy, as many of us in the field came to view radiation to 60-61 Gy as potential under-dosing of treatment for concurrent chemoradiation today.

Continue reading


Dr. Rogerio Lilenbaum on Lung Cancer in the Elderly

slide02 Here’s the presentation by my friend and colleague Dr. Rogerio Lilenbaum, a great medical oncologist now serving as Director of Hematology/Oncology at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in South Florida (Weston, FL). Though he’s been renowned in lung cancer in general for many years, he’s best known for his particular knowledge and leadership on the topic of managing lung cancer in elderly and frail (variably referred to as poor risk or poor performance status) patients.

Here is his talk, in audio and video podcast format, along with the associated figures and transcript:

dr-lilenbaum-on-treating-lung-cancer-in-elderly-pts-audio-podcast

dr-lilenbaum-on-treating-lung-cancer-in-elderly-pts-figs

dr-lilenbaum-on-treating-lung-cancer-in-elderly-pts-transcript

Continue reading

PlayPlay

Preliminary Results from the AVAPERL Study: The Alimta/Avastin Combo in Maintenance Looks Favorable

I’m at Swedish Hospital, not in Stockholm, Sweden now, where the European Multidisciplinary Cancer Congress is going on. But there, the preliminary results of the AVAPERL phase III randomized trial were just reported, and they certainly look encouraging for the combination of Alimta (pemetrexed) and Avastin (bevacizumab) as a maintenance therapy for patients with Avastin-eligible advanced NSCLC who hadn’t progressed after four cycles of cisplatin/Alimta/Avastin, compared with maintenance Avastin alone.

avaperl-summary (click on image to enlarge)

As I mentioned, I don’t have all of the details from the presentation, really just the press release, which at least conveys some highlights. As shown above, a total of 362 patients who hadn’t progressed after first line chemo/Avastin were randomized to either of the two maintenance therapy arms, and the combination arm showed a significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) counting from the beginning of all treatment, at 10.2 vs. 6.6 months (HR 0.50, p < 0.001), but also a numeric result for PFS that far exceeded the numbers we’ve seen from other first line trials, where PFS has generally been in the 5-7 month range. There were no unexpected safety issues, but otherwise, I don’t have other details.

Continue reading


Stage IV Non small cell Lung Cancer in the Elderly: Review of Data and update on the Published results of the French IFCT-0501 (Quoix) trial

Introduction

When I wrote my first review article on the treatment of the elderly, I entitled it, “NSCLC in the elderly—the legacy of therapeutic neglect.” Dr. Corey Langer and I chose the title to directly criticize the major mistake that we perceive in the treatment of the fit elderly—a therapeutic nihilism that leads oncologists to not give sufficiently aggressive treatment to the fit elderly. Lung cancer is a terrible cancer and failure to suppress it with sufficiently active therapy leads to great suffering. This is as true in the older patient as in the younger patient. However, there is great misunderstanding about the efficacy of therapy in the fit elderly patient, the subject of this post. I will seek to summarize coverage of this topic on GRACE previously, highlighting the now published French data on 1st line treatment of the elderly. You may have noted the repeated use of the word, “fit.” Not all elderly patients are as fit as younger patients—aging brings with it more medical problems and more pills; not all elderly patients are as fit as younger patients with lung cancer. I will address this topic in a follow up post dedicated to this important topic.

Continue reading


ASCO vs. NCCN: Very Different Views on Molecular Testing in Advanced NSCLC

A couple of weeks ago, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) released a set of revised guidelines for stage IV NSCLC. While grounded in good evidence, they are striking for the contrast they offer with the recommended strategy from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for this population. Most notably, the difference is related to molecular testing and subsequent individualized treatment based on this. As many of you who follow the discussions here have observed, the question of who to test and what to test for is currently among the most timely, evolving, and still somewhat controversial questions in the practice of lung cancer today. This is especially true in the setting of the approval of the ALK inhibitor XALKORI (crizotinib) by the FDA just a few weeks ago, since this agent is only going to be made commercially available to the 4-5% of patients with NSCLC who test positive for an ALK rearrangement at the one designated central lab approved along by the FDA along with the drug. So here, the approval of the drug is actually predicated on molecular testing for patients who would hope to receive this agent.

Continue reading


Lung/Thoracic Cancer Expert Content

Archives

Breast Cancer Blog
Pancreatic Cancer Blog
Head/Neck Cancer Blog

Recent Lung Blog Comments

Other Resources