FDA drafts rec­om­men­da­tions for study­ing can­cer drugs in pa­tients with CNS metas­tases

The FDA on Wednes­day is­sued draft guid­ance pro­vid­ing rec­om­men­da­tions to drug­mak­ers on eval­u­at­ing can­cer drugs in pa­tients with cen­tral ner­vous sys­tem (CNS) metas­tases. FDA says the guid­ance is meant to in­form clin­i­cal tri­al de­signs to sup­port prod­uct la­bel­ing that de­scribes an­ti­tu­mor ac­tiv­i­ty of drugs or bi­o­log­ics in pa­tients with CNS metas­tases from sol­id tu­mors orig­i­nat­ing in oth­er parts of the body.

Richard Paz­dur

“There are few ef­fec­tive treat­ments for pa­tients with cen­tral ner­vous sys­tem (CNS) metas­tases — a type of can­cer that has spread from the orig­i­nal tu­mor to the CNS and is as­so­ci­at­ed with a high­er risk of death. In ad­di­tion, there are al­so few clin­i­cal tri­als test­ing ther­a­pies for CNS metas­tases. More at­ten­tion is war­rant­ed to ad­dress this un­met med­ical need,” said Richard Paz­dur, di­rec­tor of FDA’s On­col­o­gy Cen­ter of Ex­cel­lence.

When look­ing to en­roll pa­tients with brain metas­tases in clin­i­cal tri­als, FDA di­rects spon­sors to its re­cent­ly fi­nal­ized guid­ance, Can­cer Clin­i­cal Tri­al El­i­gi­bil­i­ty Cri­te­ria: Brain Metas­tases.

In the guid­ance, FDA ex­plains some of the chal­lenges present in eval­u­at­ing treat­ments for CNS metasta­t­ic dis­ease. “The po­ten­tial for ben­e­fit of a drug as as­sessed by tu­mor shrink­age of CNS le­sions is un­in­ter­pretable with­out in­for­ma­tion re­gard­ing tu­mor shrink­age at ex­tra-CNS dis­ease sites. Fur­ther­more, eval­u­a­tion of an­ti-tu­mor ac­tiv­i­ty, par­tic­u­lar­ly dura­bil­i­ty of tu­mor re­sponse in the CNS may not be at­trib­ut­able sole­ly to the in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al drug, as treat­ment would gen­er­al­ly be changed at the time of ex­tra CNS dis­ease pro­gres­sion in pa­tients with ev­i­dence of sta­ble or re­spond­ing CNS le­sions,” FDA writes.

FDA al­so notes that CNS dis­ease should not be eval­u­at­ed in iso­la­tion from metasta­t­ic dis­ease in the rest of the body. As such, FDA says that “ef­fi­ca­cy claims based on end­points mea­sur­ing CNS ac­tiv­i­ty alone may not be ap­pro­pri­ate.”

To de­ter­mine whether an ex­pe­dit­ed pro­gram for ther­a­pies with­out avail­able ther­a­peu­tic al­ter­na­tives, FDA says it con­sid­ers, “an avail­able ther­a­py for a metasta­t­ic sol­id tu­mor [to] be an avail­able ther­a­py for CNS metas­tases of that sol­id tu­mor, un­less oth­er­wise spec­i­fied in the la­bel­ing for that ther­a­py.”

When it comes to de­sign­ing clin­i­cal tri­als, FDA says spon­sors should take con­sid­er­a­tion of pri­or ther­a­pies sub­jects may have re­ceived. FDA notes that spon­sors should cap­ture in­for­ma­tion on all pri­or CNS-di­rect­ed treat­ments and that pro­to­cols should spec­i­fy an in­ter­val, typ­i­cal­ly of at least 12 weeks, be­tween com­ple­tion of CNS ra­di­a­tion ther­a­py and study en­try, “to al­low at­tri­bu­tion of treat­ment ef­fects to the study in­ter­ven­tion.”

Ad­di­tion­al­ly, pro­to­cols, “Should spec­i­fy ap­pro­pri­ate strat­i­fi­ca­tion fac­tors for ran­dom­iza­tion to min­i­mize bias based on pri­or ther­a­py(ies).”

FDA al­so pro­vides guid­ance on as­sess­ing CNS metas­tases, not­ing that mag­net­ic res­o­nance imag­ing (MRI) with gadolin­i­um con­trast is pre­ferred and that pro­to­cols should re­quire base­line imag­ing eval­u­a­tion of the CNS in all en­rolled pa­tients with CNS dis­ease. Oth­er rec­om­men­da­tions in­clude ap­ply­ing ac­cept­ed stan­dard re­sponse cri­te­ria for eval­u­at­ing CNS dis­ease and re­quir­ing on-study imag­ing as­sess­ments for CNS dis­ease at the same time points as those for ex­tra-CNS dis­ease.

As for end­points, FDA says the se­lec­tion of an ap­pro­pri­ate end­point will de­pend on the study pop­u­la­tion and whether the study is eval­u­at­ing on­ly pa­tients with CNS metas­tases. Some of the end­points FDA says may be con­sid­ered in­clude time-to-event end­points in ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­als, over­all sur­vival or end­points based on tu­mor as­sess­ment such as over­all re­sponse rate or pro­gres­sion-free sur­vival.


RAPS: First pub­lished in Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus™ by the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety, the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care prod­ucts. Click here for more in­for­ma­tion.

Secretary of health and human services Alex Azar speaking in the Rose Garden at the White House (Photo: AFP)

Trump’s HHS claims ab­solute au­thor­i­ty over the FDA, clear­ing path to a vac­cine EUA

The top career staff at the FDA have vowed not to let politics get in the way of science when looking at vaccine data this fall. But Alex Azar, who happens to be their boss’s boss, apparently won’t even give them a chance to stand in the way.

In a new memorandum issued Tuesday last week, the HHS chief stripped health agencies under his purview — including the FDA — of their rulemaking ability, asserting all such power “is reserved to the Secretary.” Sheila Kaplan of the New York Times first obtained and reported the details of the September 15 bulletin.

Dan Skovronsky, Eli Lilly CSO

UP­DAT­ED: An­a­lysts are quick to pan Eli Lil­ly's puz­zling first cut of pos­i­tive clin­i­cal da­ta for its Covid-19 an­ti­body

Eli Lilly spotlighted a success for one of 3 doses of their closely-watched Covid-19 antibody drug Wednesday morning. But analysts quickly highlighted some obvious anomalies that could come back to haunt the pharma giant as it looks for an emergency use authorization to launch marketing efforts.

The pharma giant reported that LY-CoV555, developed in collaboration with AbCellera, significantly reduced the rate of hospitalization among patients who were treated with the antibody. The drug arm of the study had a 1.7% hospitalization rate, compared to 6% in the control group, marking a 72% drop in risk.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Eli Lilly CSO Dan Skovronsky (file photo)

#ES­MO20: Eli Lil­ly shows off the da­ta for its Verzenio suc­cess. Was it worth $18 bil­lion?

The press release alone, devoid of any number except for the size of the trial, added nearly $20 billion to Eli Lilly’s market cap back in June. Now investors and oncologists will get to see if the data live up to the hype.

On Sunday at ESMO, Eli Lilly announced the full results for its Phase III MonarchE trial of Verzenio, showing that across over 5,000 women who had had HR+, HER2- breast cancer, the drug reduced the odds of recurrence by 25%. That meant 7.8% of the patients on the drug arm saw their cancers return within 2 years, compared with 11.3% on the placebo arm.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Greg Friberg (File photo)

#ES­MO20: Am­gen team nails down sol­id ear­ly ev­i­dence of AMG 510’s po­ten­tial for NSCLC, un­lock­ing the door to a wave of KRAS pro­grams

The first time I sat down with Amgen’s Greg Friberg to talk about the pharma giant’s KRAS G12C program for sotorasib (AMG 510) at ASCO a little more than a year ago, there was high excitement about the first glimpse of efficacy from their Phase I study, with 5 of 10 evaluable non-small cell lung cancer patients demonstrating a response to the drug.

After decades of failure targeting KRAS, sotorasib offered the first positive look at a new approach that promised to open a door to a whole new approach by targeting a particular mutation to a big target that had remained “undruggable” for decades.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

#ES­MO20: Out to beat Tagris­so, J&J touts 100% ORR for EGFR bis­pe­cif­ic/TKI com­bo — fu­el­ing a quick leap to PhI­II

J&J’s one-two punch on EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer has turned up some promising — although decidedly early — results, fueling the idea that there’s yet room to one up on third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Twenty out of 20 advanced NSCLC patients had a response after taking a combination of an in-house TKI dubbed lazertinib and amivantamab, a bispecific antibody targeting both EGFR and cMET engineered on partner Genmab’s platform, J&J reported at ESMO. All were treatment-naïve, and none has seen their cancer progress at a median follow-up of seven months.

#ES­MO20: As­traZeneca aims to spur PRO­found shift in prostate can­cer treat­ment with Lyn­parza OS da­ta

AstraZeneca has unveiled the final, mature overall survival data that cemented Lynparza’s first approval in prostate cancer approval — touting its lead against rivals with the only PARP inhibitor to have demonstrated such benefit.

But getting the Merck-partnered drug to the right patients remains a challenge, something the companies are hoping to change with the new data cut.

The OS numbers on the subgroup with BRCA1/2 or ATM-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer are similar to the first look on offer when the FDA expanded the label in May: Lynparza reduced the risk of death by 31% versus Xtandi and Zytiga. Patients on Lynparza lived a median of 19.1 months, compared to 14.7 months for the anti-androgen therapies (p = 0.0175).

Exelixis CEO Michael Morrissey (file photo)

#ES­MO20: Look out Mer­ck. Bris­tol My­ers and Ex­elix­is stake out their com­bo’s claim to best-in-class sta­tus for front­line kid­ney can­cer

Now that the PD-(L)1 checkpoints are deeply entrenched in the oncology market, it’s time to welcome a wave of combination therapies — beyond chemo — looking to extend their benefit to larger numbers of patients. Bristol Myers Squibb ($BMY} and Exelixis {EXEL} are close to the front of that line.

Today at ESMO the collaborators pulled the curtain back on some stellar data for their combination of Opdivo (the PD-1) and Cabometyx (the TKI), marking a significant advance for the blockbuster Bristol Myers franchise while offering a big leg up for the team at Exelixis.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Donald Trump and White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, before boarding Marine One (Getty Images)

Pric­ing deal col­laps­es over Big Phar­ma's re­fusal to is­sue $100 'cash card­s' be­fore the elec­tion — re­port

Late in August, as negotiations on a pricing deal with President Trump reached a boiling point, PhRMA president Stephen Ubl sent an email update to the 34 biopharma chiefs that sit on his board. He wrote that if the industry did not agree to pay for a $100 “cash card” sent to seniors before November, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows was going to tell the news media Big Pharma was refusing to “share the savings” with the elderly — and that all of the blame for failed drug pricing negotiations would lie squarely on the industry.

#ES­MO20: It’s not just Keytru­da any­more — Mer­ck spot­lights 3 top ear­ly-stage can­cer drugs

Any $12 billion megablockbuster in the portfolio tends to overshadow everything else in the pipeline. Which is something Merck can tell you a little bit about.

Keytruda not only dominates the PD-(L)1 field, it looms over everything Merck does, to the point some analysts wonder if Merck is a one-trick pony.

There’s no shortage of Keytruda data on display at ESMO this weekend, but now the focus is shifting to the future role of new drugs and combos in maintaining that lead position for years to come. And the pharma giant has a special focus for 3 early-stage efforts where Roger Perlmutter’s oncology team is placing some big bets.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.