Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
DRUG CONJUGATES BIND COVALENTLY TO ALBUMIN: A NEW APPROACH Sant Chawla, M.D. Director, Sarcoma Oncology Center Santa Monica, California Financial Disclosures Advisor, Research Support, and Travel Grant CytRx Threshold Pharmaceuticals GlaxoSmithKline Amgen 1 The Importance of Albumin Most abundant protein in human blood plasma Transports hormones, fatty acids, metal ions, drugs Buffers pH; T ½ = 20 days Advanced cancers are nitrogen and nucleotide “hungry“ Can lead to protein catabolism ALBUMIN IS THE MAJOR SOURCE OF ESSENTIAL AMINO ACIDS FOR CANCER CELLS Utilize the Enhanced Permeability and Retention effect for macromolecules 2 Enhanced Permeation and Retention effect (EPR) Physiological property of solid tumors lymphatic capillary Healthy tissue normaltissue 50 -300 nm molecules allSmall Blood stream bloodstream molecules tumor tissue macromolecules Y. Matsumura, H. Maeda, Cancer Res. 46, 6387, 1986. 3 Factors Affecting the EPR Effect of Macromolecular Drugs in Solid Tumors Active angiogenesis and high vascular density Extensive production of vascular mediators that facilitate extravasation, including Bradykinin, nitric oxide, VPF/VEGF, prostaglandins, matrix metalloproteinases Defective vascular architecture: Lack of smooth muscle layer cells, lack of or reduced receptors for angiotensin II, large gap in endothelial cell–cell junctions, anomalous conformation (branching or stretching etc.). Impaired lymphatic clearance of macromolecules and lipids from interstitial tissue causes retention 4 Tumor relevant albumin-binding proteins gp60 and SPARC Schnitzer JE, Oh P. Antibodies to SPARC inhibit albumin binding to SPARC, gp60, and microvascular endothelium, Am J Physiol. 1992 263:1872-9 Vessel lumen Albumin gp60 receptor Endothelial cell Tumor interstitium SPARC Tumor cells 5 Targeting Tumors Using Endogenous Albumin Acid-sensitive linker coupled to doxorubicin binds covalently to circulating albumin in < 5 minutes Drug Linker Albumin Predetermined Breaking point After infusion, linker forms covalent bond to cysteine-34 on albumin Able to deliver several times more drug because drug is inactive until released at the tumor Linker can be used with many types of cancer drugs: anthracyclines, taxanes, camptothecins, platinums, etc. Presented by: Sant Chawla, M.D. 6 Mechanism of Aldoxorubicin Dox Linker Albumin 2 Linker forms a covalent bond within minutes to the cysteine-34 of serum albumin 1 Dox 3 Linker Drug / linker conjugate is infused into the patient Aldoxorubicin allows for 3.5x the standard dose of doxorubicin at each cycle Tumor cells 4 Albumin transports drug to the tumor and is taken up by the tumor Linker dissolves in the acidic (low pH) environment, releasing the drug payload 7 Linker-dye conjugate binds to albumin and preferentially collects in the tumor Free dye, no linker Albumin bound dye 24 hour post IV infusion in SC colon tumor (LS174T) 8 Aldoxorubicin First-line STS Phase 2b Trial Design Screened N=140 14 screen failures 2:1 Randomization N=123 Aldoxorubicin 350mg/m2 (260mg/m2 dox equiv.) Every 3wk up to 6 cycles N=83 3 subjects randomized but not dosed Doxorubicin 75mg/m2 Every 3wk up to 6 cycles N=40 CT Scans every 6 weeks 9 Patient Characteristics Characteristics Aldoxorubicin Doxorubicin 83 40 Age, median (range) 54.0 (21-77) 54.0 (23-77) Male / Female, n (%) 46 / 54 45 / 55 74 80 1 2.5 Asian 19 15 Other 6 2.5 96 92 4 8 6 (1-6) 4 (1-6) N Race, n (%) Caucasian Black or African American ECOG, n (%) 0-1 2 Completed Cycles, median (range) 10 Disease Characteristics Histopathology Aldoxorubicin N = 83 Doxorubicin N = 40 Leiomyosarcoma, (%) 34 35 Liposarcoma, (%) 16 15 Fibrosarcoma, (%) 14 10 6 10 30 30 (as determined by investigator) Synovial sarcoma, (%) Others, (%) Presented by: Sant Chawla, M.D. 11 PFS Results All Subjects Intent-to-treat P Value Scans Read by Investigator Aldoxorubicin 8.4 months Doxorubicin 4.7 months Improvement over dox Hazard ratio P=0.0004 3.7 mos. (79%) 0.419 (0.25-0.69) P=0.0007 Scans Read by Central Lab Aldoxorubicin 5.7 months Doxorubicin 2.8 months Improvement over dox Hazard ratio P=0.014 2.9 mos. (104%) 0.584 (0.37-0.93) P=0.024 12 K-M Curve - Investigator Assessment 3.7 month improvement HR: 0.419, p=0.0007 13 K-M Curve – Central Lab Assessment 2.9 month improvement HR: 0.584, p=0.024 14 PFS at 6 Months Results All Subjects Intent-to-Treat P Value Scans Read by Investigator Aldoxorubicin 68.1% Doxorubicin 36.6% Improvement over dox P=0.002 86.1% Scans Read by Central Lab Aldoxorubicin 45.7% Doxorubicin 22.9% Improvement over dox P=0.02 99.6% 15 Overall Response Rate Results Aldoxorubicin Doxorubicin 2.4% 0% Partial Response 19.3% 5.0% Overall Response Rate 21.7% 5.0% 0% 0% Partial Response 23.8% 0% Overall Response Rate 23.8% 0% Scans Read by Investigator Complete Response Scans Read by Central Lab Complete Response 16 Waterfall Plot - Investigator Aldoxorubicin 64.5% had tumor shrinkage Doxorubicin 41.2% had tumor shrinkage 17 Waterfall Plot – Blinded Central Lab Aldoxorubicin 60.8% had tumor shrinkage Doxorubicin 39.4% had tumor shrinkage 18 Overall Survival - Preliminary Too early to determine OS due to prolonged survival of patients in study. As of September 15, 2014: % Deaths % Lost to F/U % Still Followed Aldoxorubicin 42 19 39 Doxorubicin 55 18 27 Higher % deaths and lower % still being followed in doxorubicin-treated subjects. Lower % deaths and higher % still being followed in aldoxorubicin-treated subjects. 19 Comparison to Current STS Treatments CytRx Phase 2b Investigator assessed EORTC Phase 3 Dox vs. dox+ ifosfamide Aldox Dox Dox+ ifos Dox N 83 40 215 217 PFS (months) 8.4 4.7 7.4 4.6 P value ORR 0.0004 21.7% 0.003 5.0% 26.5% 13.6% 20 Grade 3/4 TEAEs Aldoxorubicin Doxorubicin N=83 N=40 (%) (%) 40 20 Neutropenic fever 15.7 17.5 Thrombocytopenia 6 5 13.2 20 7.2 0 10.8 2.5 6.0 5.0 Event Neutropenia Anemia Nausea/vomiting Mucositis Fatigue/weakness 21 Cardiac Evaluation Aldoxorubicin Doxorubicin % subjects with ≥15% decrease in LVEF 11% 22% % subjects with ≥15% increase in LVEF 15% 3% % subjects with ≤50% of expected value 0% 9.4% 22 Conclusions Aldoxorubicin significantly increases PFS, PFS at 6 months and ORR compared to doxorubicin therapy for first line STS. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, mucositis and nausea/vomiting are higher in aldoxorubicin-treated patients but are not treatment limiting. The aldoxorubicin patients received more than 5 times the cumulative amount of doxorubicin in this study than the doxorubicin patients without any evidence of clinically relevant decreased LVEF, and in more instances an increase in LVEF, either by MUGA or echocardiogram. A phase 3 pivotal trial under a SPA is ongoing for relapsed/refractory STS. Presented by: Sant Chawla, M.D. 23 Aldoxorubicin Clinical Development Program Aldoxorubicin Preclinical Phase 1 2nd-line Soft Tissue Sarcoma (STS) Phase 3 on-going 1st- Line Soft Tissue Sarcoma Phase 2b on-going Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) Phase 2 on-going Kaposi’s Sarcoma Phase 2 on-going Small Cell Lung Cancer Phase 2b to start 2H 2014 Pharmacokinetic Study Phase 1 completed Combo with gemcitabine Ph 1b in planning Combo with ifosfamide Ph 1b in planning Phase 2 Phase 3 Top-line Data announced 24 Phase 3 Trial Design: 2nd-line STS Soft tissue sarcoma patients that have relapsed or are refractory to prior chemotherapy 1:1 Randomization N=400 Aldoxorubicin 350mg/m2 (260mg/m2 dox equiv.) Every 3weeks until disease progression N=200 Physicians Choice: Doxorubicin Dacarbazine Ifosfamide Gemcitabine+docetaxel Pazopanib N=200 CT Scans every 6 weeks 25 Ending Remark Aldoxorubicin has the potential to replace doxorubicin in the chemotherapy armamentarium to treat both adult and pediatric cancers. 26