VEGF -Targeted Therapies: Resistance and Revisiting Our Assumptions
description
Transcript of VEGF -Targeted Therapies: Resistance and Revisiting Our Assumptions
VEGF-Targeted Therapies: Resistance and Revisiting Our
Assumptions
Lee M. Ellis, MDDepts. of Surgical Oncology and Cancer Biology
U.T. M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterHouston, Texas, USA
A reality check now that we have clinical data.
Disclosures• Ad hoc consulting
– Genentech/Roche, sanofi-aventis, Bayer• Most of the data involves bevacizumab as this drug is
approved in more disease types than others in the class
• Thank you for sharing slides– Lillian Siu– Axel Grothey/Eric Van Cutsem– Josep Tabernero/Carmen Allegra
• Data collected from searches on Pubmed, Clinicaltrials.gov, ASCO, and AACR websites
Anti-angiogenic Assumptions: Then and Now
Assumptions 20-40 yrs ago Assumptions 2002-2010 What we know from clinical trial results (in 2012
Angio inhibition would induce dormancy in all tumor types
Angio inhibition would provide benefit across tumor types
Benefit is tumor dependent and context dependent (+/- chemo)
Little discussion of multiplicity of angiogenic factors
Other angiogenic factors are important and may contribute
to resistance
Dual targeting of bypass pathways have not led to major
advancesResistance would not occur Resistance is inevitable Continuation of therapy may be
of some benefit
Did not consider consequences of induction of
hypoxia
VEGF inhibitors may increase tumor aggressiveness
In GBM, VEGF inhibitors may increase invasion and
metastasis, but patients still benefit from therapy
Did not consider consequences of withdraw
Preclinical and anecdotes- Withdraw may lead to “flare”
No hard data to support that withdraw lead to “flare”
Did not think about biomarkers Biomarkers are elusive Maybe? Need validation
Resistance to Anti-VEGF Therapy
• Introduction/Background• Resistance in preclinical studies
– And were these studies confirmed in the clinic• Resistance/Sensitivity Beyond Progression
Almost All Malignancies Are Inherently Resistant To VEGF
Targeted Therapies(Exception-rcc)
To Understand Resistance We Need to Better Understand Mechanisms of
Action
MOA: Do We (I) Have Any Clue?
Ellis, Hicklin. Nat Rev Ca 2008
Proposed MOA 1995 2000 2005 2010 2012 2015?
Anti-angiogenic (EC proliferation)
+++ +++ +++ ++ ?
Anti-angiogenic(Bone Marrow Derived Progenitor Cells)
+ +++ ?
“Normalization” with improved delivery of chemo
+++ ?
Direct effect on tumor + + + ?Vascular “constriction” ++ +++ +++ ?
Offset effects of stress ++ ++ ++ ?
Disrupt the cancer stem cell niche
+ + ?
Immune function + ++ ++ ?
The benefits of a long career is that you can change you mind many, many times
Anti-VEGF Therapy: My Theory on Different Mechanisms of Action in Different Tumor Systems
Renal Cell Carcinoma/NETs Colon Carcinoma
With diverse MOAs, understanding resistance is likely to be tumor dependent, and/or site dependent.
Resistance to Anti-VEGF Therapy
• Introduction/Background• Resistance in preclinical studies
– And were these studies confirmed in the clinic• Resistance/Sensitivity Beyond Progression
Most Resistance Manuscripts and Reviews Focus on Redundant Angiogenic Pathways
Ellis, Hicklin, CCR 2008
c-Met
FGF
FGFs
Hypothesis Generating Clinical Study in CRC
Blood drawn at each cycle and at progression
Cytokines Increased Prior to Progression On FOLFIRI + Bev
Kopetz JCO 2009
Results of a Recently Reported Clinical Trial Targeting FGF-R in CRC
Clinicaltrial.gov search May, 2012The only randomized Phase III trial with FGF
inhibitor
Brivanib
And others at higher IC50s…. Diaz-Padilla, SiuExp Opin Invest Drugs 2011
CO.20 Trial: Cetuximab +/- BrivanibK-Ras WT Chemo-refractory CRC
Cetuximab + Placebo
Cetuximab + Brivanib
P Value
PFS 3.4 5.0 <0.0001 (HR=0.72)
RR 7.2 13.6 0.044 Siu et al
Commentary/Discussion
• This is but a single study-some hints of activity– Biomarker Driven Study:
» Phase II Study of Second-line Irinotecan Plus Brivanib, a Dual Tyrosine Inhibitor of VEGFR and FGFR, in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Enriched for Elevated Levels of Plasma FGF Following Progression on Bevacizumab-based Treatment: Mike Overman, MDACC
• There are numerous bypass pathways• Kopetz/Heymach JCO: B-FGF, HGF, PlGF, Eotaxin, MMP-9, and more
• Not all tumors are p-NETs
VEGFR-1(Flt-1)
NRP-1/NRP-2 NRP-2
VEGF-D
VEGF-C
VEGF-B VEGF-A
PlGF
VEGFR-2(Flk-1/KDR)
VEGFR-3(Flt-4)
VasculogenesisAngiogenesis
Lymphangiogenesis
PlGF
Induction of PlGF by Anti-VEGF Therapy
The PlGF Debate!
VEGFR-1(Flt-1)
NRP-1/NRP-2 NRP-2
VEGF-D
VEGF-CVEGF-B VEGF-A
PlGF
VEGFR-2(Flk-1/KDR)
VEGFR-3(Flt-4)
VasculogenesisAngiogenesis
Lymphangiogenesis
BEVACIZUMAB*
VEGF-TRAP
18F1 1121B
TG-403
Tyrosine Kinase InhibitorsSunitinib*Sorafenib*Pazopanib*
Axitinib*MotesanibCedirinibBrivanib
Many, many others
VEGF Targeted Agents in the Clinic or In Clinical Trials
Ellis, Hicklin Nat Rev Ca. 2008* FDA approved agents
Do we see improved outcomes in patients
treated with agents that target PlGF/VEGFR-1?
VELOUR Study Design
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
RANDOMIZE
Aflibercept 4 mg/kg IV, day 1 + FOLFIRI q2 weeks
Placebo IV, day 1+ FOLFIRIq2 weeks
1:1 Disease Progression Death
600
600Stratification factors:- ECOG PS (0 vs 1 vs 2)- Prior bevacizumab (Y/N)
Primary endpoint: Overall survivalSample size: HR 0.8, 90% power and a 2-sided type I error 0.05 Final analysis of OS: Analyzed at 863th death event using a 2-sided nominal significance level of 0.0466 (α spending function)
Overall Survival, ITT Population
Cut-off date = February 7, 2011; Median follow-up = 22.28 months
Presented at ESMO/WCGC meeting 2011, Barcelona: Abstract O-0024
1.4 mo increase in median OS
FDA Approvals Of VEGF-Targeted AgentsThat Have Been in Clinical Development for “Awhile”
Bevacizumab Aflibercept TKIsCRC Pending
- Neg front line Ph II trial
Pending (Regorafenib)
NSCLC Neg Neg
Breast withdrawn Neg
GBM Neg
RCC
P-NETs
HCC
If PlGF/VEGFR-1 is important in VEGF/VEGFR-2 resistance, Aflibercept and TKIs should be more effective
PlGF/VEGFR-1 Targeting
Commentary/Discussion
• Agents that target VEGF + PlGF are no more efficacious than those that target VEGF
– In the only head-head Phase III study in CRC, Chemo + Bev vs Chemo + TKI (Cediranab), the primary endpoint for Cediranib was not met
C-Met/HGFDrug Class of DrugARQ197 TKI
GSK1363089 (XL880) TKI
AMG 102 MoAB HGF
AMG 208 TKI
AV-299 MoAB HGF
PF-02341066 TKI
PF-04217903 TKI
MP470 TKI
MGCD265 TKI
MetMab MoAB Met
Modified Yap et al. Cancer Drug Targets 2011
Hypothesis: Combination Therapy with a VEGF-R TKI and c-Met TKI Is Better Than Either Therapy Alone
“In conclusion, our study indicates a role for HGF/c-Met pathway in development of resistance to antiangiogenic therapy and suggests a potential strategy to circumvent resistance to vascular endothelial the clinic.”
Combination VEGF/Met Targeted Trials
Other Resistance Pathways Not Discussed
Mostly refuted
Untested in the clinic
Untested in the clinic
Under investigation:Are we targeting ECs or Cancer Stem Cells
or Both?(Notch inhibitors slow in
development)
Resistance to Anti-VEGF Therapy
• Introduction/Background• Resistance in preclinical studies
– And were these studies confirmed in the clinic• Resistance/Sensitivity Beyond Progression
PFS in Patients Receiving TKIs After Prior VEGFR TKIs
2008
Continuation of VEGF-Targeted Therapy After First Line Progression in mCRC
Trial STUDY DESIGN OUTCOME COMMENTS ASCO 2012 Abstract
VELOUR FOLFIRI +/- Aflibercept after
progression
OS HR = 0.817*PFS HR = 0.76
OS HR Prior Bev 0.86
~30% Received Prior
Bev
Abstract #3505
CORRECT Regorafenib vs Placebo in
refractory patients
OS HR= 0.77*PFS HR = 0.49
All Received Prior Bev
Abstract #3502
TML18147 Bev + alternate chemo after
progression on Bev + first line chemo
Primary endpoint of improved OS
met*
All Received Prior Bev
Abstract #CRA3503
* Met primary endpoint
Primary Endpoint
Allegra Abstract
#3505
TML18147-OS*: ITT population(“Bev Beyond Progression”)
*From randomisation
OS
estim
ate
Time (months)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
00 6 12 18 24 30 38 42 48
Number at riskChemo 410 293 162 51 24 7 3 2 0Bev + chemo 409 328 189 64 29 13 4 1 0
Chemo Bev + chemo
9.8 11.2
Arnold, Abstract #CRA3503
Chemo(n=411)
Bev + chemo(n=409)
Median time to event (mos)
9.8 11.2
HR (95% CI) 0.81 (0.69–0.94)
p-value 0.0062
1.00
0.50
0.25
0
0.75
200100500 150 300250 350
Days from randomizationS
urvi
val d
istri
butio
n fu
nctio
n
Placebo N=255 Regorafenib N=505
Regorafenib Placebo
Median 1.9 mos 1.7 mos(95% CI) (1.9–2.1) (1.7–1.7))
Hazard ratio: 0.49 (95% CI: 0.42–0.58)
1-sided p-value: <0.000001
CORRECT: OS and PFSRegorafenib vs BSC
Grothey et al. ASCO GI 2012 (LBA 385).
1.00
0.50
0.25
0
0.75
200100500 150 300250 400350 450
Days from randomization
Sur
viva
l dis
tribu
tion
func
tion
Placebo N=255
Regorafenib N=505
Median 6.4 mos 5.0 mos95% CI (5.9–7.3) (4.4–5.8)
Hazard ratio: 0.77 (95% CI: 0.64–0.94) 1-sided p-value: 0.0052
• Primary endpoint met prespecified stopping criteria at interim analysis (1-sided p<0.009279 at approximately 74% of events required for final analysis)
Regorafenib Placebo
Overall Survival Progression-Free Survival
Conclusions• The more we learn about the tumor vasculature, the less
sure we about the MOA of VEGF-targeted agents• There are numerous redundant pathways that mediate
resistance to VEGF-targeted agents– Will we need to inhibit multiple pathways (>2) to obtain meaningful
clinical benefit? Is this feasible????? (tox) • VEGF inhibition beyond progression provides some degree
of patient benefit…i.e. complete resistance may not occur• Biomarkers of sensitivity and resistance will improve patient
outcomes---in my opinion, the only way to make a major advance at this stage– Michael Maitland to discuss
Thank You for Your Attention
Bev + standard 1L chemo (either oxaliplatin or
irinotecan-based)(n=820)
Standard 2Lchemo (oxaliplatin
or irinotecan-based)*until PD
Bev (2.5mg/kg/wk) + standard 2L chemo
(oxaliplatin or irinotecan-based)*until PD
PD
Key eligibility criteria • Histologically confirmed diagnosis of metastatic colorectal cancer• ≥3 months of standard 1L bev plus chemo• PD <3 months after last bev administration
Primary endpoint OS from randomisationSecondary endpoints PFS, overall response rate (ORR), OS from start of 1L therapy
TML18147 Study Design (Phase III)
* Cross-over:Oxaliplatin → IrinotecanIrinotecan → Oxaliplatin
PD = disease progression
Randomize 1:1
Arnold, Abstract #CRA3503
CORRECT Study Design
• Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III– 2:1 randomization– Strat. factors: prior anti-VEGF therapy, time from diagnosis of mCRC, geographical region
• Global trial: 16 countries, 114 active centers– 1,052 patients screened, 760 patients randomized within 10 months
• Secondary endpoints: PFS, ORR, DCR
Primary Endpoint: OS
90% power to detect 33.3% increase
(HR=0.75), with 1-sided overall
a=0.025
Regorafenib + BSC 160 mg orally once daily 3 weeks on, 1 week off
Placebo + BSC 3 weeks on, 1 week off
R 2:1
mCRC after standard therapy
Grothey et al. ASCO GI 2012 (LBA 385).