1 / 37

The Therapeutic I mplications of EML4/ALK, ROS-1 and Other N ew Biomarkers

The Therapeutic I mplications of EML4/ALK, ROS-1 and Other N ew Biomarkers . Lyudmila Bazhenova , MD Associate Clinical Professor Lung Cancer Unit Leader UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center. Objectives. Review current state of targetable lung cancer biomarkers

ishi
Download Presentation

The Therapeutic I mplications of EML4/ALK, ROS-1 and Other N ew Biomarkers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Therapeutic Implications of EML4/ALK, ROS-1 and Other New Biomarkers Lyudmila Bazhenova, MD Associate Clinical Professor Lung Cancer Unit Leader UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center

  2. Objectives • Review current state of targetable lung cancer biomarkers • Review and contrast clinical characteristics of patients with EML4-ALK, ROS 1, and KIFB5-RET fusion protein, testing strategies and agents with clinical activity.

  3. Genomic Evolution of Lung Cancer

  4. Mechanism of Action of ALK, ROS1 and RET Fusion Oncogenes • All three are receptor tyrosine kinases (RTK) • ALK and RET are capable of homodimerization and self (ligantindependend) activation • Mechanism of self activation of ROS1 is being debated • Downstream signaling via RAS/ERK (proliferation), and PI3K/AKT and JAK/STAT( resistance to apoptosis)

  5. Testing for Fusion Oncogenes F IHC expression Break apart FISH Amount of protein on the surface of the cell RT-PCR

  6. ALK Fusion Gene

  7. ALK Fusion Gene Echinoderm microtubule associated protein-like 4 N C ? anaplastic lymphoma kinase Adapted from Soda et al. Nature; 2007.

  8. ALK Fusion Variants Sasaki, European Journal of Cancer; 2010.

  9. Methods of ALK Detection • FISH break apart • Pros: independent of FPE • Cons: if inversion involves a small locus of 2p it could be false negative; can not distinguish variants; cut of is 15% of nuclei with split signal; low throughput • RT-PCR • Pros: Rapid detection and identification of each unique variant • Cons: False negatives; Loss of RNA during de parafinization; has to be multiplexed, i.e probes to all known variants. Unknown variants will not be detected. • IHC • Pros: easy • Cons: several antibodies have been developed which look promising as a screening tool. No commercially available IHC in the US. • VENTANA just received an approval in China with 93% concordance with FISH, sensitivity 100%, specificity 98%

  10. EML4-ALK Fusion • Patients:younger, non smokers, with adenocarcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma and rarely SCC • Frequency:4% in all, 33% in EGFR negative never smokers • Biology: 16 EML4-ALK variants have been identified in NSCLC. Clinical significance of each variant is unknown. • Testing:Visys break apart FISH (>15% cells with split signal in 50 nuclei scored). • ALK PCR, IHC • Therapy: crizotinib 1Shaw AT, ASCO; 2010; 2Kris MG. ASCO 2011; abstract CRA7506. 3Rodig SJ, Clin CancerRes; 2009;15 Soda M, et al. Nature; 2007;448

  11. Clinical Efficacy of Crizotinib Some degree of tumor shrinkage 90% ORR - 60.8% DCR - 82.5% at week 8 Median time to response 7.9 weeks (2.1 - 39.6 weeks) Median response duration 49.1 weeks Median PFS 9.7 months (95% CI 7∙7–12∙8) N=149 • Unknown… • How crizotinib compares to chemotherapy 1st line • QOL • OS • TTP Camidge, Lancet oncology 13, 2012

  12. 1stLine or Second Line • No studies examining the best placement of the drug. • FDA approved the drug without mentioning the line of therapy. • One can make a leap of faith from EGFR inhibitors and use it in the first line. • Profile 1007 compared crizotinib to 2nd line chemotherapy • PFS 7.7 m vs. 3 m in favor of crizotinib (HR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.64; P<0.001) • RR 65% vs. 20 % in favor of crizotinib ( p<0.001) • OS not different, 64% of patients in chemotherapy arm received crizotinib • QOL: greater reduction of symptoms and delay in new symptoms on crizotinib arm. • Profile 1014 will compare crizotinib to 1st line chemotherapy. Shaw NEJM ;June 2013

  13. PFS Shaw NEJM; June 2013.

  14. Patient Related Outcomes Shaw NEJM; June 2013

  15. Characteristics of Progression • Patients were allowed to stay on the study post progression if they continued to derive clinical benefi • Median duration of treatment 43.1 m (Range 0.1-136.8) • 69/149 patients had disease progression at the data cut off. • 39 continued to receive crizotinib for at least 2 weeks post progression • 12 of them did that for 6 months • Range of post progression treatment is 21 to 591 days. • Most common new sites of progression were brain ( N=10), lung (n=5), liver ( N=3) Camidge, Lancet oncology 13, 2012.

  16. Duration of Initial Response and Post Progression Therapy

  17. CrizotinibResistance • L1196M • L1152R • C1156Y • F1174L Sasaki Clinical Cancer Research. Epub2011.

  18. Management of CrizotinibResistance • Local treatment with radiation for locally progressing disease • Clonal evolution • Platinum based doublet or triplet • Second generation ALK inhibitors • AP26114 • LDK378 • CH5424802 (RG7853) • HSP 90 inhibitors

  19. Responses to Second Generation Inhibitors in crizotinibResistant Tumors • LDK378( phase I) 58% ORR1 • CNS penetration • CH5424802 ( phase I/II) • 48% ORR2 • CNS penetration • AP26113 ( phase I/II) • 76% ORR3 • CNS penetration 1Shaw. ASCO 2013 abstr 8010. 2Gadgeel, World Lung 2013, O16.06. 3Camidge. World Lung, MO0706

  20. ROS1 Fusion

  21. Oncogenic ROS1 • First described fusion gene FIG-ROS1 was found in glioblastoma • 240kb deletion on 6p21q resulting in a fusion gene coding for oncogenic fusion protein. • Short and long isoforms • Induce tumorigenesis in xenograft mouse models • Also expressed in cholangiocarcinoma in 8.7% and ovarian cancer in 0.5%, gastric and colon, myofibroblastic tumors and angiosarcoma • EZR–ROS1 fusion gene has been shown to promote lung adenocarcinoma when ectopically expressed in lung epithelium Gu TL, PLoS One; 2011. Birch AH, PLoS One; 2011; Lee, Cancer; May 2013 Bergethon et al. JCO; 2012 (30)8.

  22. ROS 1 Fusion Gene Arai, PLOS ONE; February 2013.

  23. ROS 1 Fusion Gene Variants

  24. ROS1 Fusion • Patients:Younger, never smokers, adenocarcinoma, high grade histology • Frequency: 1.2 -1.7% in all • Biology: 9 variants have been identified in NSCLC so far • Clinical significance is unknown. Mechanism of activation is different. • FIG-, CD74-, SCL34A2-, TPM3-, SDC4-, EZR-, LRIG3, KDELR2–, and CCDC6– • Testing:Visys break apart FISH (>15% cells with split signal in 50 nuclei scored) • ROS PCR, IHC • Therapy: crizotinib Shaw AT, JCO 2012;30:(suppl; abstr 7508) Ou, Exprevi. of anticancer therapy 2012,;12 GuTL, PLoSOne. 2011; 6:e15640. Birch AH, PLoSOne. 2011; 6:e28250 Lee, Cancer May 2013 Davis ClinCancer Res . Sep 2012 Bergeron, JCO, 30, 2012

  25. Methods of ROS1 Detection • RT-PCR • Cons: False negatives; 9 variants have been described in a matter of 12 months. Has to be multiplexed, i.e., probes to all known variants. Unknown variants will not be detected. • FISH break apart • Cons: if inversion involves a small locus it could be false negative; can not distinguish variants; cut of is 15% of nuclei with split signal; low throughput • IHC • Cons: not commercially available, several antibodies appear promising

  26. Response of a ROS1 Positive Patient to Crizotinib • 49% homology in the TK domain and ATP binding site • Crizotinib is active in ROS1 fused cell cultures 12 weeks Baseline Bergeron, JCO, 30, 2012.

  27. Clinical Validation of ROS1 as a Therapeutic Target • 14 patients enrolled in phase I study • Safety/efficacy of crizotinib 250mg bid • ROS1 rearrangement by FISH • Negative for ALK rearrangement • Average 54 yo, 13/14 never smokers • 80% received prior therapy • 8/14 responded (57%) Shaw et al. JCO. 2012, 30 (suppl; abstr7508.)

  28. RET FUSION

  29. Methods of RET Detection • RT-PCR • Cons: False negatives; 3 variants have been described in a matter of 12 months. Has to be multiplexed, i.e probes to all known variants. Unknown variants will not be detected. • FISH break apart • Cons: if inversion involves a small locus it could be false negative; can not distinguish variants; cut of is 15% of nuclei with split signal; not widely available; low throughput • IHC • Current IHC antibodies do not correlate with RET fusion

  30. RET Fusion Gene

  31. RET Fusion • Patients:AdenoCAand adenoSCC carcinoma, never or former smokers, poor differentiation ?, earlier LN metastases • Frequency: • 1.4% in all, • 5.6 % in “triple negative”( EGFR, ALK, KRAS) • 6.3% in non smokers negative for EGFR, KRAS, ALK, HER2, BRAF, and ROS1 • 16% in non smokers negative for EGFR, KRAS, ALK, ROS1, NRAS, BRAF, HER2, PIK3CA, MEK1, and AKT • Biology:4variants have been identified in NSCLC so far • Clinical significance is unknown. • KIF5B-, CCDC6-, NCOA4-. TRIM33 Ju YS, Genome Res, 2012 Drilon, CancerDiscoverMarch 2013 Wang R, J ClinOncol 30: 2012 Kohno, Cancer Science Aug 2013

  32. RET Fusion Gene • Testing:Visys break apart FISH (> 15% cells with split signal in 50 nuclei scored) • RET PCR • Therapy: Unknown • Sunitinib, Sorafenib, Vandetanib, Carbozatinib, Ponatinib, and Lenvatinib all have potential for activity • All active in KIF5B-RET–transformed cell lines • Last 4 are in formal clinical trials

  33. Clinical Activity of Carbozatinibin RET Fused Patients 4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks Drilon, Cancer Discover March 2013.

  34. Summary

  35. HER 2 Insertions • Patients:Adenocarcinomas, never smokers • Frequency:Incidence 2.8-4.2% • Biology: • In-frame insertions into exon 20. Transgenic mouse models confirm oncogenicity • Therapy: • Drugs of interest: neratinib, afatinib, dacomitinib • Preclinical models show synergy with mTORinhibitors. • Clinical trial of neratinib + temsirolimusongoing, several PR are reported • Both afatinib and dacomitinib have case reports of responses

  36. BRAF Mutations • Patients: smokers and non smokers • Frequency: 1.6-3% • Biology: majority of the mutations are non V600E (more likely in smokers), V600E ( more likely in never smokers) • Therapy: • One case report or a NSCLC patient with V600E patient responding to vemurafenib • Dabrafenib is being tested in patients with V600E NSCLC • MEK inhibitors are being considered for non V600E patients

  37. Q&A

More Related