Cargando…
Randomized Phase II Study of Duligotuzumab (MEHD7945A) vs. Cetuximab in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck (MEHGAN Study)
BACKGROUND: Duligotuzumab, a novel dual-action humanized IgG1 antibody that blocks ligand binding to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3), inhibits signaling from all ligand-dependent HER dimers, and can elicit antibody-dependent cell-mediated c...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5086582/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27843803 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2016.00232 |
_version_ | 1782463756041715712 |
---|---|
author | Fayette, Jérôme Wirth, Lori Oprean, Cristina Udrea, Anghel Jimeno, Antonio Rischin, Danny Nutting, Christopher Harari, Paul M. Csoszi, Tibor Cernea, Dana O’Brien, Paul Hanley, William D. Kapp, Amy V. Anderson, Maria Penuel, Elicia McCall, Bruce Pirzkall, Andrea Vermorken, Jan B. |
author_facet | Fayette, Jérôme Wirth, Lori Oprean, Cristina Udrea, Anghel Jimeno, Antonio Rischin, Danny Nutting, Christopher Harari, Paul M. Csoszi, Tibor Cernea, Dana O’Brien, Paul Hanley, William D. Kapp, Amy V. Anderson, Maria Penuel, Elicia McCall, Bruce Pirzkall, Andrea Vermorken, Jan B. |
author_sort | Fayette, Jérôme |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Duligotuzumab, a novel dual-action humanized IgG1 antibody that blocks ligand binding to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3), inhibits signaling from all ligand-dependent HER dimers, and can elicit antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. High tumor-expression of neuregulin 1 (NRG1), a ligand to HER3, may enhance sensitivity to duligotuzumab. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II study (MEHGAN) evaluated drug efficacy in patients with recurrent/metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) progressive on/after chemotherapy and among patients with NRG1-high tumors. Patients received duligotuzumab (1100 mg IV, q2w) or cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) load, 250 mg/m(2) IV, q1w) until progression or intolerable toxicity. Tumor samples were assayed for biomarkers [NRG1, ERBB3, and human papillomavirus (HPV) status]. RESULTS: Patients (N = 121) were randomized (duligotuzumab:cetuximab; 59:62), median age 62 years; ECOG 0–2. Both arms (duligotuzumab vs. cetuximab, respectively) showed comparable progression-free survival [4.2 vs. 4.0 months; HR: 1.23 (90% confidence interval (CI): 0.89–1.70)], overall survival [7.2 vs. 8.7 months; HR 1.15 (90% CI: 0.81–1.63)], and objective response rate (12 vs. 14.5%), with no difference between patients with NRG1-high tumors or ERBB3-low tumors. Responses in both arms were confined to HPV-negative patients. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) (duligotuzumab vs. cetuximab, respectively) included infections (22 vs. 11.5%) and GI disorders (17 vs. 7%), contributing to higher rates of serious AEs (41 vs. 29.5%). Metabolic disorders were less frequent with duligotuzumab (10 vs. 16%); any grade rash-related events were less with duligotuzumab (49 vs. 67%). CONCLUSION: While several lines of preclinical evidence had supported the premise that the blockade of HER3 in addition to that of EGFR may improve outcomes for patients with R/M SCCHN overall or specifically in those patients whose tumors express high levels of NRG1, this study provided definitive clinical evidence refuting this hypothesis. Duligotuzumab did not improve patient outcomes in comparison to cetuximab despite frequent expression of NRG1. These data indicate that inhibition of EGFR alone is sufficient to block EGFR–HER3 signaling, suggesting that HER2 plays a minimal role in this disease. Extensive biomarker analyses further show that HPV-negative SCCHN but not HPV-positive SCCHN are most likely to respond to EGFR blockage by cetuximab or duligotuzumab. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5086582 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50865822016-11-14 Randomized Phase II Study of Duligotuzumab (MEHD7945A) vs. Cetuximab in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck (MEHGAN Study) Fayette, Jérôme Wirth, Lori Oprean, Cristina Udrea, Anghel Jimeno, Antonio Rischin, Danny Nutting, Christopher Harari, Paul M. Csoszi, Tibor Cernea, Dana O’Brien, Paul Hanley, William D. Kapp, Amy V. Anderson, Maria Penuel, Elicia McCall, Bruce Pirzkall, Andrea Vermorken, Jan B. Front Oncol Oncology BACKGROUND: Duligotuzumab, a novel dual-action humanized IgG1 antibody that blocks ligand binding to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3), inhibits signaling from all ligand-dependent HER dimers, and can elicit antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. High tumor-expression of neuregulin 1 (NRG1), a ligand to HER3, may enhance sensitivity to duligotuzumab. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II study (MEHGAN) evaluated drug efficacy in patients with recurrent/metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) progressive on/after chemotherapy and among patients with NRG1-high tumors. Patients received duligotuzumab (1100 mg IV, q2w) or cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) load, 250 mg/m(2) IV, q1w) until progression or intolerable toxicity. Tumor samples were assayed for biomarkers [NRG1, ERBB3, and human papillomavirus (HPV) status]. RESULTS: Patients (N = 121) were randomized (duligotuzumab:cetuximab; 59:62), median age 62 years; ECOG 0–2. Both arms (duligotuzumab vs. cetuximab, respectively) showed comparable progression-free survival [4.2 vs. 4.0 months; HR: 1.23 (90% confidence interval (CI): 0.89–1.70)], overall survival [7.2 vs. 8.7 months; HR 1.15 (90% CI: 0.81–1.63)], and objective response rate (12 vs. 14.5%), with no difference between patients with NRG1-high tumors or ERBB3-low tumors. Responses in both arms were confined to HPV-negative patients. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) (duligotuzumab vs. cetuximab, respectively) included infections (22 vs. 11.5%) and GI disorders (17 vs. 7%), contributing to higher rates of serious AEs (41 vs. 29.5%). Metabolic disorders were less frequent with duligotuzumab (10 vs. 16%); any grade rash-related events were less with duligotuzumab (49 vs. 67%). CONCLUSION: While several lines of preclinical evidence had supported the premise that the blockade of HER3 in addition to that of EGFR may improve outcomes for patients with R/M SCCHN overall or specifically in those patients whose tumors express high levels of NRG1, this study provided definitive clinical evidence refuting this hypothesis. Duligotuzumab did not improve patient outcomes in comparison to cetuximab despite frequent expression of NRG1. These data indicate that inhibition of EGFR alone is sufficient to block EGFR–HER3 signaling, suggesting that HER2 plays a minimal role in this disease. Extensive biomarker analyses further show that HPV-negative SCCHN but not HPV-positive SCCHN are most likely to respond to EGFR blockage by cetuximab or duligotuzumab. Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-10-31 /pmc/articles/PMC5086582/ /pubmed/27843803 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2016.00232 Text en Copyright © 2016 Fayette, Wirth, Oprean, Udrea, Jimeno, Rischin, Nutting, Harari, Csoszi, Cernea, O’Brien, Hanley, Kapp, Anderson, Penuel, McCall, Pirzkall and Vermorken. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Oncology Fayette, Jérôme Wirth, Lori Oprean, Cristina Udrea, Anghel Jimeno, Antonio Rischin, Danny Nutting, Christopher Harari, Paul M. Csoszi, Tibor Cernea, Dana O’Brien, Paul Hanley, William D. Kapp, Amy V. Anderson, Maria Penuel, Elicia McCall, Bruce Pirzkall, Andrea Vermorken, Jan B. Randomized Phase II Study of Duligotuzumab (MEHD7945A) vs. Cetuximab in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck (MEHGAN Study) |
title | Randomized Phase II Study of Duligotuzumab (MEHD7945A) vs. Cetuximab in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck (MEHGAN Study) |
title_full | Randomized Phase II Study of Duligotuzumab (MEHD7945A) vs. Cetuximab in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck (MEHGAN Study) |
title_fullStr | Randomized Phase II Study of Duligotuzumab (MEHD7945A) vs. Cetuximab in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck (MEHGAN Study) |
title_full_unstemmed | Randomized Phase II Study of Duligotuzumab (MEHD7945A) vs. Cetuximab in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck (MEHGAN Study) |
title_short | Randomized Phase II Study of Duligotuzumab (MEHD7945A) vs. Cetuximab in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck (MEHGAN Study) |
title_sort | randomized phase ii study of duligotuzumab (mehd7945a) vs. cetuximab in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (mehgan study) |
topic | Oncology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5086582/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27843803 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2016.00232 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fayettejerome randomizedphaseiistudyofduligotuzumabmehd7945avscetuximabinsquamouscellcarcinomaoftheheadandneckmehganstudy AT wirthlori randomizedphaseiistudyofduligotuzumabmehd7945avscetuximabinsquamouscellcarcinomaoftheheadandneckmehganstudy AT opreancristina randomizedphaseiistudyofduligotuzumabmehd7945avscetuximabinsquamouscellcarcinomaoftheheadandneckmehganstudy AT udreaanghel randomizedphaseiistudyofduligotuzumabmehd7945avscetuximabinsquamouscellcarcinomaoftheheadandneckmehganstudy AT jimenoantonio randomizedphaseiistudyofduligotuzumabmehd7945avscetuximabinsquamouscellcarcinomaoftheheadandneckmehganstudy AT rischindanny randomizedphaseiistudyofduligotuzumabmehd7945avscetuximabinsquamouscellcarcinomaoftheheadandneckmehganstudy AT nuttingchristopher randomizedphaseiistudyofduligotuzumabmehd7945avscetuximabinsquamouscellcarcinomaoftheheadandneckmehganstudy AT hararipaulm randomizedphaseiistudyofduligotuzumabmehd7945avscetuximabinsquamouscellcarcinomaoftheheadandneckmehganstudy AT csoszitibor randomizedphaseiistudyofduligotuzumabmehd7945avscetuximabinsquamouscellcarcinomaoftheheadandneckmehganstudy AT cerneadana randomizedphaseiistudyofduligotuzumabmehd7945avscetuximabinsquamouscellcarcinomaoftheheadandneckmehganstudy AT obrienpaul randomizedphaseiistudyofduligotuzumabmehd7945avscetuximabinsquamouscellcarcinomaoftheheadandneckmehganstudy AT hanleywilliamd randomizedphaseiistudyofduligotuzumabmehd7945avscetuximabinsquamouscellcarcinomaoftheheadandneckmehganstudy AT kappamyv randomizedphaseiistudyofduligotuzumabmehd7945avscetuximabinsquamouscellcarcinomaoftheheadandneckmehganstudy AT andersonmaria randomizedphaseiistudyofduligotuzumabmehd7945avscetuximabinsquamouscellcarcinomaoftheheadandneckmehganstudy AT penuelelicia randomizedphaseiistudyofduligotuzumabmehd7945avscetuximabinsquamouscellcarcinomaoftheheadandneckmehganstudy AT mccallbruce randomizedphaseiistudyofduligotuzumabmehd7945avscetuximabinsquamouscellcarcinomaoftheheadandneckmehganstudy AT pirzkallandrea randomizedphaseiistudyofduligotuzumabmehd7945avscetuximabinsquamouscellcarcinomaoftheheadandneckmehganstudy AT vermorkenjanb randomizedphaseiistudyofduligotuzumabmehd7945avscetuximabinsquamouscellcarcinomaoftheheadandneckmehganstudy |