Biotech Strategy Blog

Commentary on Science, Innovation & New Products with a focus on Oncology, Hematology & Cancer Immunotherapy

Posts tagged ‘Dr Maha Hussain’

This is part 2 of my interview with Dr Maha Hussain, Professor of Medical Oncology at the University of Michigan.  You can read part 1 about cabozantinib and pain here.

Cabozantinib-Prostate-Cancer-Bone-Effect

At the 2011 ASCO annual meeting, Dr Hussain presented data from a non-randomized phase 2 trial with cabozantinib that showed dramatic improvements in bone scans before and after treatment.

Bones are living tissues that are constantly being remade, a dynamic process that involves formation of new bone and taking up of old bone, a process known as bone resorption.  Cancer cells can interfere with bone remodeling, resulting in increased new bone formation (osteoblastic response) or excessive bone resorption (osteoclastic response).

Bone scans involve the injection of radioactive tracers such as technetium-99m-MDP. In simple terms, the radioactive material detects bone turnover and areas of high bone metabolism.  These show up as darker “hot spots” where the tracers accumulate.

Bone scans have poor specificity because tumors, fractures and infection all lead to hot spots. Also, not all tumors or lesions are detected by a bone scan.  Bone scans have a sensitivity of around 62-89%.

At the 2011 Society for Translational Oncology Prostate Cancer Symposium, Professor Johann de Bono (The Institute for Cancer Research) noted that bone scans do not accurately reflect the activity of the disease in men with prostate cancer.

This raises the question as to what we should conclude from the bone scans seen with cabozantinib.  I put this question to Professor Hussain.

BSB: What is the significance of the bone scans that we see and what should we interpret from them given that bone scans don’t accurately reflect the disease?

Dr Hussain: I will refer you back to my presentation at ASCO originally and my recent AACR presentation.

I have specifically put a slide (together) to address, is what we are seeing a fluke, a function of a technique issue because you are targeting the osteoblasts?  Consequently if you inhibit osteoblastic function, you are not going to see much changes on the scan, or is there more too it?

Dr-Maha-Hussain-ASCO-2011-Cabozantinib-Presentation

The specific slide actually puts in columns the (percentage of) patients who had a partial or a complete resolution on the bone scan, versus those who had stable or progressive disease, and then matches it with other evidence of an anti-tumor effect as in target lesion regressions, progression free survival at I think the 6 month mark if I recall correctly, as in the pain improvement, narcotic use.

Recognizing that by the way the pain and narcotic use, both of these were post-hoc assessments that were done.  Once we saw the observation, the sponsor went back and began asking all the investigators to record these things.  Clearly, the ALK phosph going down, the bone turnover markers going down.

The short audio clip below expands on Dr Hussain’s viewpoint about cabozantinib and bone. Click here if you can’t see the SoundCloud audio player.

Dr Hussain’s conclusion is interesting from a marketing strategy perspective.  She does not position cabozantinib as a bone targeted drug such as Xgeva or a bone targeted radiopharmaceutical such as Alpharadin.  Instead, her view is that cabozantinib should be developed as a “prostate cancer specific drug that does have the added advantage of significant anti-tumor effect in the bone” ie an anti-cancer tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI).

This is at odds with how Exelixis appear to be positioning it.  The corporate presentation at the Cowen Annual Healthcare Conference on March 6, 2012 had a strong focus on bone metastases: “Cabozantinib demonstrates unique ability to resolve bone metastases and decrease bone pain in CRPC,” one slide said.

If Dr Hussain is correct and we should consider cabozantinib as a prostate cancer specific drug, then it will need to compete on endpoints with other drugs that have shown an impact on overall survival.

Cabozantinib will likely not obtain regulatory approval on the basis of the bone scans, whatever they may show.

Without demonstrating a significant effect on overall survival, it’s hard to believe that cabozantinib will be able to compete effectively in what is fast becoming a very competitive prostate cancer market.

The final installment of the Biotech Strategy Blog interview with Dr Hussain will cover her perspective on the mechanism of action of cabozantinb, and where the drug, theoretically, might be expected to have most impact in prostate cancer.

1 Comment

Maha Hussain MB ChB is Professor of Medical Oncology at the University of Michigan.  She is an international expert into genitourinary malignancies with a focus on clinical research into prostate and bladder cancer.

Cabozantinib is a new drug in development by Exelixis for multiple indications.  It captured a lot of attention at the ASCO 2011 annual meeting last year, when Dr Hussain presented data from a phase 2 prostate cancer trial that showed a dramatic improvement in bone scans and pain reduction in those men receiving it.

Unlike other new prostate cancer drugs such as abiraterone (Zytiga) or MDV3100 that target the androgen receptor, cabozantinib is a multi-kinase inhibitor of MET and VEGFR.  It has both an anti-tumor effect and an effect on bone metabolism.

At the AACR Advances in Prostate Cancer Research conference last month, chaired by Charles Sawyers (MSKCC) and Arul Chinnayan (Michigan), Dr Hussain gave a presentation on “Cabozantinib (XL-184) and prostate cancer: preclinical and clinical profile of a novel agent.”

I was privileged to have the opportunity to interview Dr Hussain by phone recently and obtain her insight into cabozantinib as a potential new treatment for prostate cancer.

We covered a lot of ground, too much for one blog post, so I’ve broken down the interview into segments that I will be posting separately.

Cabozantinib & Pain

As many readers will be aware, one of the dramatic results presented at ASCO last year, was the impact that cabozantinib had on pain.

AACR-Molecular-Targets-2011-Cabozantinib-Pain-DataAt the AACR Molecular Targets meeting in San Francisco last November, further pain data was presented by Howard Scher’s group at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. They showed in a non-randomized phase 2 trial that:

Cabozantinib treatment resulted in high rates of pain improvement and analgesic reduction or discontinuation in patients with moderate to severe pain at baseline

–  Rapid and durable pain relief

–  Pain relief observed regardless of prior lines of therapy

–  Improvement in pain accompanied by reduced interference with sleep and daily activity

Exelixis has since moved forward with clinical trials focusing on prostate cancer pain.

Pain response is the primary outcome in the phase III trial (COMET-2) of cabozantinib (XL184) Versus Mitoxantrone Plus Prednisone in Men With Previously Treated Symptomatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer (COMET-2 trial formerly known as XL184-306). Overall survival is a secondary endpoint.

The challenge with using pain as a primary endpoint is that all the advanced prostate cancer drugs that have recently been approved by the FDA such as cabazitaxel (Jevtana), abiraterone (Zytiga), and those for whom approval is expected, such as MDV3100 and radium-223 (Alpharadin), have all shown an improvement in overall survival.

I was, therefore, interested to hear Dr Hussain’s perspective on cabozantinib and its effect on pain in prostate cancer.

BSB: Can pain be a surrogate for survival that regulatory agencies might accept?

Dr Hussain: Honestly, I am not the expert on what the regulatory agencies will do. I know what they have done and I would say that pain has been an indication for regulatory approval of prostate cancer. That’s a long story, it’s an old story. Mitoxantrone was approved based on pain, so I don’t think that is going to be an issue.

Whether it is a surrogate for survival remains to be seen, and to be honest with you, I think that it may not be if you are really using it in far advanced cancer. As we have seen with mitoxantrone, it didn’t seem to make an impact on survival and it is really more about disease progression and pain and quality of life type issues. 

I am not aware of a trial that has been done with a primary endpoint being pain, and another key primary endpoint or a secondary endpoint being survival, that has been positive.  Having said that, I think in my view, it is a mistake to just focus on the pain. 

Pain, as far as I can tell from our experience and others, it’s very late in the setting of the disease by a nowadays standard. I would argue that using this drug as a pain only type drug, you could do it cheaper and less toxic with other agents, with morphine for example. 

My point here is, I go back and say to focus it on pain only, my average patient is interested in living longer, not just in controlling their pain. 

You can hear more about this in the SoundCloud audio clip below.  Prostate cancer patients are not just interested in “how will this drug make me feel,” but also “will I live longer?”  Click here if you can’t see the audio file.

Dr Hussain: My point is in a perfect world if the drug delivers, the importance is going to be a totality of effect, that is prolonging life and improving quality of life overall.

BSB: Thank you

The next installment of the Biotech Strategy Blog interview with Dr Hussain will focus on the clinical significance of the dramatic bone scans seen with cabozantinib.

1 Comment
error: Content is protected !!