Tag Archives: angiogenesis

Ohio State University Reports That Ovarian Cancer Drug Bevacizumab Is Not Cost-Effective

Posted on by

An analysis conducted by Ohio State University cancer researchers found that adding the targeted therapy bevacizumab to the first-line treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer is not cost effective.

An analysis conducted by Ohio State University cancer researchers found that adding the targeted therapy bevacizumab [Avastin®] to the first-line treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer is not cost-effective.

The findings comparing the relative value of various clinical strategies were published online March 7 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO).

Dr. David E. Cohn is a gynecologic oncologist & researcher at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital & Richard J. Solove Research Institute. He is also the lead author of the bevacizumab cost-effectiveness study.

The researchers performed a cost-effectiveness analysis looking at a clinical trial conducted by the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) studying the use of bevacizumab along with standard chemotherapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer, said first author Dr. David E. Cohn, a gynecologic surgical oncologist and researcher at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute (OSUCCC – James).

Bevacizumab is a novel targeted therapy designed to inhibit angiogenesis, the process by which new blood vessels develop and carry vital nutrients to a tumor.

Although a discussion regarding cost-effectiveness of a potentially life-extending intervention invariably suggests the rationing of limited health care resources, the intent of this study was to provide a framework with which to evaluate the pending results of a clinical trial of three different interventions for ovarian cancer, said Cohn.

“We do not suggest that bevacizumab, also known by the brand name Avastin, should be withheld from a patient with ovarian cancer, but rather argue that studies evaluating the effectiveness of new treatments should also be interpreted with consideration of the expense,” says Cohn, who collaborated with Dr. J. Michael Straughn Jr., an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The results of the randomized phase III [GOG 218] clinical trial demonstrated an additional 3.8 months of progression-free survival (PFS) when maintenance bevacizumab was added for about one year following treatment with standard chemotherapy drugs carboplatin and paclitaxel along with bevacizumab.

“We put together a model looking at the variety of treatment arms on this clinical trial, each of which included 600 patients,” said Cohn. “Given the fact that the addition of the drug was associated with 3.8 months of additional survival without cancer, we set out to determine whether or not that benefit of survival was justified by the expense of the drug.”

The model showed that standard chemotherapy for patients in the clinical trial would cost $2.5 million, compared to $78.3 million for patients who were treated with standard chemotherapy and bevacizumab, plus additional maintenance treatments of bevacizumab for almost one year.

Bevacizumab has been used in the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved it for the treatment of colorectal, lung, breast, brain (glioblastoma) and renal cell [kidney] cancers.

Typically each treatment with bevacizumab costs $5,000, with most of those costs directly attributable to the cost of the drug, Cohn said.

Effectiveness was defined as months of progression-free survival, and costs were calculated as total costs per strategy. Cost-effectiveness strategies were defined as the cost per year of progression-free survival. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was defined as the costs per progression-free year of life saved.

“Ultimately, we found that if you reduced the drug cost to 25 percent of the baseline, it does become cost effective to treat patients with bevacizumab,” said Cohn. “Or, if the survival could be substantially increased above the 3.8 months of progression-free survival, that could lead to cost-effective treatment for patients with advanced ovarian cancer.”

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic cancer, with almost 14,000 women expected to die from the disease this year, according to the American Cancer Society.

“It is anticipated that in the future, there will be increased scrutiny regarding the individual and societal costs of an effective medication,” said Cohn. “We hope that future clinical trials will incorporate the prospective collection of cost, toxicity and quality-of-life data to allow for a fully informed interpretation of the results.”

Other Ohio State researchers involved in the study are Kenneth H. Kim, Kimberly E. Resnick and David O’Malley.

Big Cost For Little Gain in Ovarian Cancer – JCO Editorial

Results of the cost-effectiveness model reported above by Cohen et. al. reveal that paclitaxel plus carboplatin plus bevacizumab, followed by bevacizumab maintenance (PCB-B), as tested in the GOG 218 phase III clinical trial, costs $78.3 million ($1,305,000 per patient) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $401,088 per progression-free year of life saved. It is important to note that traditional cost-effectiveness study models utilize the costs of improvements in overall survival, as compared to the traditional cost-effective standard of $50,000 per year of life saved, or more recently, $100,000 per year of life saved.  Cohen et. al. found that the traditional standard of $100,000 per progression free year of life saved can be achieved in calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, but only at a bevacizumab drug price point that is 25% below the actual drug cost.

Martee L. Hensley, M.D., Gynecologic Medical Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

In an accompanying JCO editorial, Martee L. Hensley, M.D., a board-certified medical oncologist who treats women with gynecologic cancers at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York city, raises several important considerations with respect to the Ohio State University study.

First, Dr. Hensley notes that the “costs” accounted for by the Ohio State University researchers only refer to the additional monies incurred by adding bevacizumab to the standard of care paclitaxel-carboplatin treatment.  Specifically, the researchers used a standard cost metholodolgy based upon estimates of drug costs using Medicare reimbursement rates.  The model used does not include indirect costs (e.g., patient out-of-pocket expenses, time lost from work associated with 51 weeks of bevacizumab maintenance, etc.). The only costs related to toxicity of treatment included by researchers were those associated with management of intestinal perforations. Dr. Hensley highlights the fact that the cost model does not include management of grade 2 or worse hypertension or other potential problems that may be caused by bevacizumab or the other chemotherapy drugs.  To the extent that additional costs are added to the model, the cost-effectiveness ratio generated by the researchers would worsen.

Second, Dr. Hensley explains that out of necessity, the researchers’ cost-effectiveness model used PFS data due to the unavailability of overall survival or quality adjusted overall survival data in connection with the three most recent bevacizumab phase III clinical trials. This model construct assumes that the 3.8 month improvement in PFS (as reported by the GOG 218 trial investigators)  provides an improvement in the patient’s experience. Dr. Hensley emphasizes that most ovarian cancer recurrences are identified while the patient is still asymptomatic, with the help of CA-125 blood testing and computed tomography imaging (i.e., CT scan).  Stated differently, it may not be correct to assume that remaining radiographically progression-free for an addtional 3.8 months would improve a patient’s quality of life.  If GOG 218 ultimately finds that PCB-B does not improve overall survival, then the drug’s cost-effectiveness will drift farther away from an acceptable level, says Hensley.

Third, Dr. Hensley points out that only when PFS associated with PCB-B use was hypothetically extended to 32.1 months (observed PFS in GOG 218 was 14.1 months) by the researchers did the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio approach $100,000 per progression-free year of life saved.  Hensley believes that the bevacizumab data accrued to date suggests that a 32.1 month PFS is unlikely. Notably, median PFS is only 24 months among lower-risk patients with optimally debulked stage III ovarian cancer treated with intraperitoneal-based platinum drug/taxane drug therapy.

Fourth, Dr. Hensley explains that it may be possible to achieve a better incremental cost-effectiveness ratio based upon preliminary data derived from the Gynaecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) phase III randomized clinical trail of paclitaxel plus carboplatin, with or without bevacizumab and bevacizumab maintenace therapy (ICON7 trial). The bevacizumab dose tested in ICON7 was only half of that used in GOG 218 (7.5 mg/kg versus 15 mg/kg), and the duration of maintenance therapy in ICON7 was only 36 weeks of continued treatment as compared to 51 weeks in GOG 218. Preliminary results reported by the GCIG in ICON7 indicate that bevacizumab creates a PFS advantage in line with that produced in GOG 218, but at half the dose. Based on these facts, Hensley states that potential use of lower-dose and shorter-duration bevacizumab would improve the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Moreover, if lower dose/shorter duration bevacizumab use is also found to reduce the frequency of grade 2 or worse hypertension, the overall costs associated with the drug would also be lower, says Hensley.

Dr. Hensley believes that there are additional steps to be taken (and questions to be answered) which could improve an evaluation of the role and costs of bevacizumab:

  • Is there a clinically meaningful overall survival advantage to PCB-B over paclitaxel plus carboplatin? If PCB-B is not effective, then by definition, it is not cost-effective.
  • Is the data from ICON7 sufficient to permit treatment at half the dose for 9 months instead of 12 months? If so, total bevacizumab costs would be lower.
  • Is there a subset of patients who benefit dramatically from PCB-B?
  • If there is a subset of patients who benefit dramatically from PCB-B, it is necessary to study this group of women to determine if potential biomarkers can identify which patients will or will not benefit from the addition of bevacizumab. Identifying biomarkers that can predict response means commitment to correlative studies as part of large clinical trials.

In sum, Dr. Hensley believes that buying bevacizumab at $78.3 million for 3.8 months of progression-free survival on behalf of approximately 600 women is not sustainable in today’s health care delivery system. Moreover, the incurrence of such costs may hinder basic clinical research to find better compounds that improve PFS by a more meaningful magnitude, says Dr. Hensley.  From Hensley’s perspective, it appears that the stage is set for a potential collision between medicine and policy with respect to where and how a finite number of health care dollars will be spent.

About the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute

The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute (cancer.osu.edu) is one of only 40 Comprehensive Cancer Centers in the United States designated by the National Cancer Institute. Ranked by U.S. News & World Report among the top cancer hospitals in the nation, The Arthur G. James Hospital is the 205-bed adult patient-care component of the cancer program at The Ohio State University. The OSUCCC – James is one of only seven funded programs in the country approved by the NCI to conduct both phase I and II clinical trials.

Sources:

FDA Awards $1.6M Orphan Drug Grant for Clinical Phase II Development of EGEN-001 for Treatment of Ovarian Cancer

Posted on by

EGEN, Inc. announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) awarded the company a four-year grant of $1.6 million to assist in the phase II clinical development of EGEN-001, the company’s lead product. EGEN-001 is under clinical development for the treatment of advanced recurrent ovarian cancer.

EGEN, Inc. announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) awarded the company a four-year grant of $1.6 million to assist in the phase II clinical development of EGEN-001, the company’s lead product. EGEN-001 is under clinical development for the treatment of advanced recurrent ovarian cancer.[1]

EGEN, Inc. is developing gene-based biopharmaceuticals that rely on proprietary delivery technologies such as TheraPlas™ (illustrated above). In preclinical studies, the application of this approach produced anti-cancer activity in the treatment of disseminated abdominal cancers, solid tumors and metastatic cancers. (Photo: EGEN, Inc.)

EGEN-001 was developed as an interleukin-12 (IL‑12) gene therapy for the treatment of disseminated epithelial ovarian cancer. It is a low concentration formulation composed of a human IL-12 plasmid formulated with a proprietary PPC delivery system. EGEN-001 is designed for intraperitoneal (IP) administration. The subsequent IL-12 protein expression is associated with an increase in immune system activity, including T-lymphocyte and natural killer (NK) cell proliferation, and cytotoxic activation and secretion of interferon gamma (IFN-g), which in turn, leads to tumor inhibition. Additionally, IL-12 inhibits angiogenesis and formation of tumor vascularization.

EGEN has successfully completed two Phase I trials of EGEN-001 in ovarian cancer patients.  In the first study, EGEN-001 was administered as monotherapy in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer patients[2] and in the second study in combination with carboplatin/docetaxel chemotherapy in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer patients.[3] In both studies, EGEN-001 treatment resulted in good safety, biological activity and encouraging efficacy.[4-5] EGEN-001 received Orphan Drug Status from the FDA in 2005, and its first $1 million FDA orphan grant in 2005.

“This is a significant milestone and accomplishment for the company,” commented Dr. Khursheed Anwer, President and Chief Science Officer of EGEN. “We are pleased to receive this FDA support, which has been very useful in the advancement of our novel EGEN-001 product in the clinic for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer. The product utilizes the Company’s proprietary TheraPlas® delivery technology and is composed of interleukin-12 (IL-12) gene formulation with a biocompatible delivery polymer. IL-12 is a potent cytokine which works by enhancing the body’s immune system against cancer and inhibiting tumor blood supply.”

About EGEN, Inc.

EGEN, Inc. (EGEN), with laboratories and headquarters in Huntsville, Alabama, is a privately held biopharmaceutical company focused on developing therapeutics for the treatment of human diseases including cancer. The Company specializes in the delivery of therapeutic nucleic acids (DNA and RNAi) and proteins aimed at specific disease targets. The Company has a significant intellectual property position in synthetic carriers, their combination with DNA, and their therapeutic applications. EGEN’s research pipeline products are aimed at treatment of various cancer indications. In addition, the Company has its TheraSilence® delivery technology aimed at delivery of therapeutic siRNA for the treatment of human diseases. EGEN collaborates with outside investigators, biotech organizations, and universities on various projects in these areas.

References:

1/ A Phase II Evaluation of Intraperitoneal EGEN-001 (IL-12 Plasmid Formulated With PEG-PEI-Cholesterol Lipopolymer) in the Treatment of Persistent or Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian, Fallopian Tube or Primary Peritoneal Cancer, Clinical Trial Summary, ClinicialTrials.gov (Identifier:  NCT01118052).

2/A Phase 1, Open Label, Dose Escalation Study of the Safety, Tolerability and Preliminary Efficacy of Intraperitoneal EGEN-001 in Patients With Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer, Clinical Trial Summary, ClinicialTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT00137865).

3/A Phase 1, Open-Label, Dose Escalation Study of the Safety and Preliminary Efficacy of EGEN-001 in Combination With Carboplatin and Docetaxel in Women With Recurrent, Platinum-Sensitive, Epithelial Ovarian Cancer, Clinical Trial Summary, ClinicialTrials.gov (Identifier:  NCT00473954).

4/Kendrick JE, Matthews KS, Straughn JM, et. al.  A phase I trial of intraperitoneal EGEN-001, a novel IL-12 gene therapeutic, administered alone or in combination with chemotherapy in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.  J Clin Oncol 26: 2008 (May 20 suppl; abstr 5572).

5/Anwar K, Barnes MN, Kelly FJ, et. al. Safety and tolerability of a novel IL-12 gene therapeutic administered in combination with carboplatin/docetaxel in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.  J Clin Oncol 28:15s, 2010 (suppl; abstr 5045).

Source: FDA Awards EGEN, Inc. Orphan -Drug Grant for Clinical Development of EGEN-001 for Treatment of Ovarian Cancer, Press Release, EGEN, Inc., February 2, 2011.

Ovarian Cancer Drug AMG 386 Shows Promise With Move To Phase 3 Trials In Australia, Canada & Europe

Posted on by

A new drug (AMG 386) designed to arrest ovarian cancer cell growth by inhibiting blood vessel formation is being readied for a phase 3 trial in Australia, Canada and Europe.

AMG 386, a new drug designed to arrest ovarian cancer cell growth by inhibiting blood vessel formation, is being readied for a phase 3 trial in Australia, Canada and Europe.

The attendees at the Clinical Oncological Society of Australia Annual Scientific Meeting were told on November 10th that AMG 386 offers benefits over existing treatments, extending survival in advanced ovarian cancer patients with fewer side-effects.

AMG 386 is a first-in-class investigational “peptibody” (i.e., a combination of a peptide + an antibody) that is designed to block angiogenesis by inhibiting angiopoietin-1 and -2 (Ang1 & Ang2). Angiopoietins interact with the Tie2 receptor, which mediates vascular remodeling. Ang1 and Ang2 are thought to play opposing roles, and the maturation of blood vessels appears to be controlled by their precise balance.

Gary E. Richardson, M.D., Associate Professor of Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia

Associate Professor of Medicine at Monash University, Gary Richardson, presented updated data from phase 2 clinical trials (first reported in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology) showing that AMG 386 in combination with paclitaxel not only extends survival, but is well tolerated and reduces the risk of serious complications such as bowel perforation.

“Currently the prognosis for ovarian cancer patients is poor,” Professor Richardson said. “Over 75% of patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer present with advanced disease. Current treatments will cure only about a quarter of these patients.”

“The phase 2 trials show that AMG 386 combined with paclitaxel extends survival of heavily pre-treated patients by almost two thirds (4.6 to 7.2 months). In practical terms, this does not add significantly to survival time for terminal patients, but importantly indicates real potential as a first line treatment immediately following surgery.”

Professor Richardson said the treatment worked by inhibiting angiogenesis, the process by which new blood vessels grow from existing blood vessels. “By starving the cancer cells of blood supply, they will die in greater numbers. This form of therapy is complementary to current chemotherapy treatment as it uses a different mechanism to target the cancer.”

Professor Richardson said the phase 3 trial would commence by the end of this year and involve more than 1,000 patients in Australia, Canada and western Europe.

Bruce Mann, M.D., President, Clinical Oncological Society of Australia

Clinical Oncological Society of Australia President, Professor Bruce Mann, said clinicians had been frustrated by the lack of progress in treatment for ovarian cancer. “We don’t want to get ahead of ourselves, but novel approaches like this have the potential to make a real difference in patient survival from this devastating disease.”

Sources:

Additional Information:

Genentech Announces Positive Results of Avastin Phase III Study in Women with Advanced Ovarian Cancer

Posted on by

Genentech announces positive results of Avastin Phase III study (GOG 218) in women with advanced ovarian cancer. The study showed that women who continued maintenance use of Avastin alone, after receiving Avastin in combination with chemotherapy, lived longer without the disease worsening compared to those who received chemotherapy alone. This is the first Phase III study of an anti-angiogenic therapy in advanced ovarian cancer to meet its primary endpoint.

Tumor angiogenesis is the proliferation of a network of blood vessels that penetrates into cancerous growths, supplying nutrients and oxygen and removing waste products. Tumor angiogenesis actually starts with cancerous tumor cells releasing molecules that send signals to surrounding normal host tissue. This signaling activates certain genes in the host tissue that, in turn, make proteins to encourage growth of new blood vessels. Photo credit: NCI

Genentech, Inc., a wholly owned member of the Roche Group , today announced that a Phase III study showed the combination of Avastin® (bevacizumab) and chemotherapy followed by maintenance use of Avastin alone increased the time women with previously untreated advanced ovarian cancer lived without the disease worsening (progression-free survival or PFS), compared to chemotherapy alone. A preliminary assessment of safety noted adverse events previously observed in pivotal trials of Avastin. Data from the study will be submitted for presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, June 4 – 8, 2010.

In the three-arm study, known as Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 0218, women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who already had surgery to remove as much of the tumor as possible were randomized to receive one of the following:

  • Arm 1: Placebo in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy followed by placebo alone, for a total of up to 15 months of therapy
  • Arm 2: Avastin in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy followed by placebo alone, for a total of up to 15 months of therapy
  • Arm 3: Avastin in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy followed by the maintenance use of Avastin alone, for a total of up to 15 months of therapy.

The study showed that women who continued maintenance use of Avastin alone, after receiving Avastin in combination with chemotherapy (Arm 3), lived longer without the disease worsening compared to those who received chemotherapy alone. Women who received Avastin in combination with chemotherapy, but did not continue maintenance use of Avastin alone (Arm 2), did not live longer without the disease worsening compared to chemotherapy alone.

“Additional medicines are urgently needed for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer, as most women’s cancer will worsen after their initial treatment,” said Hal Barron, M.D., F.A.C.C., Executive Vice President, Global Development and Chief Medical Officer. “We are encouraged by the positive findings of this study, which highlight the importance of continuing maintenance Avastin after combining Avastin with chemotherapy in this setting. We will discuss these results with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”

Robert Allen Burger, MD, FACOG, FACS, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

“This is good news for women with ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancers,” said GOG 0218 study chair Robert Burger, M.D., Fox-Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “This study showed that after initial surgery, the combination of Avastin and chemotherapy followed by extended treatment with Avastin improves progression-free survival in women with newly diagnosed advanced tumors.”

The trial is sponsored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement between the NCI and Genentech, and is being conducted by a network of researchers led by the GOG.

Avastin is being studied worldwide in more than 450 clinical trials for multiple types of cancer, including approximately 25 ongoing clinical trials in the United States for women with various stages of ovarian cancer.

About Ovarian Cancer

According to the American Cancer Society, ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death among American women. In 2009 an estimated 21,500 women were diagnosed with ovarian cancer and approximately 14,500 died from the disease in the U.S. The disease causes more deaths than any other gynecologic cancer, and the American Cancer Society estimates that nearly 70 percent of women with advanced disease will die from it within five years.

Ovarian cancer is associated with high levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a protein associated with tumor growth and spread. Studies have shown a correlation between a high level of VEGF and a poorer prognosis in women with ovarian cancer. Currently, treatment options for women with this disease are limited to surgery and chemotherapy.

About the GOG 0218 Study

GOG 0218 is an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III study in 1,873 women with previously untreated advanced epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube carcinoma. The study evaluates Avastin (5 cycles) in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy (6 cycles) compared to carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy alone (6 cycles). The trial is also designed to assess the maintenance use of Avastin alone following the initial combined regimen of Avastin and chemotherapy (for a total of up to 15 months of therapy), compared to carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy alone (6 cycles).

The primary endpoint of the study is PFS as assessed by trial investigators. Secondary and exploratory endpoints of the study include overall survival, PFS by independent review, objective response rate, safety, quality of life measures and analysis of patient tumor and blood samples.

Detailed safety assessments are ongoing. A preliminary assessment of safety performed by the GOG identified Avastin-related serious adverse events noted in previous pivotal studies, including fatal neutropenic infection and gastrointestinal perforation. The full study results, including safety information, will be presented at a future medical meeting.

About Avastin

Avastin is a solution for intravenous infusion and is a biologic antibody designed to specifically bind to a protein called VEGF. VEGF plays an important role throughout the lifecycle of the tumor to develop and maintain blood vessels, a process known as angiogenesis. Avastin interferes with the tumor blood supply by directly binding to the VEGF protein to prevent interactions with receptors on blood vessel cells. Avastin does not bind to receptors on normal or cancer cells. The tumor blood supply is thought to be critical to a tumor’s ability to grow and spread in the body (metastasize). For more information about angiogenesis, visit http://www.gene.com.

Boxed WARNINGS and Additional Important Safety Information

People treated with Avastin may experience side effects. In clinical trials, some people treated with Avastin experienced serious and sometimes fatal side effects, including:

Gastrointestinal (GI) perforation: Treatment with Avastin can result in the development of a potentially serious side effect called GI perforation, which is the development of a hole in the stomach, small intestine or large intestine. In clinical trials, this side effect occurred in more people who received Avastin than in the comparison group (0.3 percent to 2.4 percent). In some cases, GI perforation resulted in fatality.

Surgery and wound healing problems: Treatment with Avastin can lead to slow or incomplete wound healing (for example, when a surgical incision has trouble healing or staying closed). In some cases, this event resulted in fatality. Surgery and wound healing problems occurred more often in people who received Avastin than in the comparison group. Avastin therapy should not be started for at least 28 days after surgery and until the surgical wound is fully healed. The length of time between stopping Avastin and having voluntary surgery without the risk of having surgery and wound healing problems following surgery has not been determined.

Severe bleeding: Treatment with Avastin can result in serious bleeding, including coughing up blood, bleeding in the stomach, vomiting of blood, bleeding in the brain, nosebleeds and vaginal bleeding. These events occurred up to five times more often in people who received Avastin. Across cancer types, 1.2 percent to 4.6 percent of people who received Avastin experienced severe to fatal bleeding. People who have recently coughed up blood (greater than or equal to a half teaspoon of red blood) or have serious bleeding should not receive Avastin.

In clinical trials for different cancer types, there were additional serious and sometimes fatal side effects that occurred in more people who received Avastin than in those in the comparison group. The formation of an abnormal passage from parts of the body to another part (non-GI fistula formation) was seen in 0.3 percent or less of people. Severe to life-threatening stroke or heart problems were seen in 2.4 percent of people. Too much protein in the urine, which led to kidney problems, was seen in less than 1 percent of people. Additional serious side effects that occurred in more people who received Avastin than those in the comparison group included severe to life-threatening high blood pressure, which was seen in 5 percent to 18 percent of people, and nervous system and vision disturbances (reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome), which was seen in less than 0.1 percent of people. Infusion reactions with the first dose of Avastin were uncommon and occurred in less than 3 percent of people and severe reactions occurred in 0.2 percent of people.

Common side effects that occurred in more than 10 percent of people who received Avastin for different cancer types, and at least twice the rate of the comparison group, were nosebleeds, headache, high blood pressure, inflammation of the nose, too much protein in the urine, taste change, dry skin, rectal bleeding, tear production disorder, back pain and inflammation of the skin (exfoliative dermatitis). Across all trials, treatment with Avastin was permanently stopped in 8.4 percent to 21 percent of people because of side effects.

Avastin may impair fertility. Patients who are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant should talk with their doctor about the potential risk of loss of the pregnancy or the potential risk of Avastin to the fetus during and following Avastin therapy, and the need to continue an effective birth control method for at least six months following the last dose of Avastin.

For full Prescribing Information and Boxed WARNINGS on Avastin please visit http://www.avastin.com.

About Genentech

Founded more than 30 years ago, Genentech is a leading biotechnology company that discovers, develops, manufactures and commercializes medicines to treat patients with serious or life-threatening medical conditions. The company, a wholly owned member of the Roche Group, has headquarters in South San Francisco, California. For additional information about the company, please visit http://www.gene.com.

About The Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG)

The Gynecologic Oncology Group is a non-profit organization of more than 300 member institutions with the purpose of promoting excellence in the quality and integrity of clinical and basic scientific research in the field of Gynecologic malignancies. The Group is committed to maintaining the highest standards in the clinical trial development, execution, analysis and distribution of results. Continuous evaluation of our processes is utilized in order to constantly improve the quality of patient care.

GOG receives support from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes for Health (NIH).

Sources:

President of M.D. Anderson Outlines 10 Steps To Achieve Progress Against Cancer.

Posted on by

“The Houston Chronicle recently published a commentary by John Mendelsohn, M.D., president of M. D. Anderson, outlining actions the nation should take to achieve great progress against cancer. … Here are 10 steps we can take to ensure that deaths decrease more rapidly, the ranks of survivors swell, and an even greater number of cancers are prevented in the first place. …”

“Ten Pieces Help Solve Cancer Puzzle

John Mendelsohn, M.D., President, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center

John Mendelsohn, M.D., President, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center

The Houston Chronicle recently published a commentary by John Mendelsohn, M.D., president of M. D. Anderson, outlining actions the nation should take to achieve great progress against cancer.

An American diagnosed with cancer today is very likely to join the growing ranks of survivors, who are estimated to total 12 million and will reach 18 million by 2020. The five-year survival rate for all forms of cancer combined has risen to 66%, more than double what it was 50 years ago.

Along with the improving five-year survival rates, the cancer death rate has been falling by 1% to 2% annually since 1990.

According to the World Health Organization, cancer will be the leading worldwide cause of death in 2010. Over 40% of Americans will develop cancer during their lifetime.

While survival rates improve and death rates fall, cancer still accounts for one in every five deaths in the U.S., and cost this nation $89.0 billion in direct medical costs and another $18.2 billion in lost productivity during the illness in 2007, according to the National Institutes of Health.

Here are 10 steps we can take to ensure that deaths decrease more rapidly, the ranks of survivors swell, and an even greater number of cancers are prevented in the first place.

#1.  Therapeutic cancer research should focus on human genetics and the regulation of gene expression.

Cancer is a disease of cells that have either inherited or acquired abnormalities in the activities of critical genes and the proteins for which they code. Most cancers involve several abnormally functioning genes – not just one – which makes understanding and treating cancer terribly complex. The good news is that screening for genes and their products can be done with new techniques that accomplish in days what once took years.

Knowledge of the human genome and mechanisms regulating gene expression, advances in technology, experience from clinical trials, and a greater understanding of the impact of environmental factors have led to exciting new research approaches to cancer treatment, all of which are being pursued at M. D. Anderson:

  • Targeted therapies.  These therapies are designed to counteract the growth and survival of cancer cells by modifying, replacing or correcting abnormally functioning genes or their RNA and protein products, and by attacking abnormal biochemical pathways within these cells.
  • Molecular markers.  Identifying the presence of particular abnormal genes and proteins in a patient’s cancer cells, or in the blood, will enable physicians to select the treatments most likely to be effective for that individual patient.
  • Molecular imaging.  New diagnostic imaging technologies that detect genetic and molecular abnormalities in cancers in individual patients can help select optimal therapy and determine the effectiveness of treatment within hours.
  • Angiogenesis.  Anti-angiogenesis agents and inhibitors of other normal tissues that surround cancers can starve the cancer cells of their blood supply and deprive them of essential growth-promoting factors which must come from the tumor’s environment.
  • Immunotherapy. Discovering ways to elicit or boost immune responses in cancer patients may target destruction of cancer cells and lead to the development of cancer vaccines.

#2.  Better tests to predict cancer risk and enable earlier detection must be developed.

New predictive tests, based on abnormalities in blood, other body fluids or tissue samples, will be able to detect abnormalities in the structure or expression of cancer-related genes and proteins. Such tests may predict the risk of cancer in individuals and could detect early cancer years before any symptoms are present.

The prostate-specific antigen test for prostate cancer currently is the best known marker test to detect the possible presence of early cancer before it has spread. Abnormalities in the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes predict a high risk for breast cancer, which can guide the decisions of physicians and patients on preventive measures. Many more gene-based predictors are needed to further our progress in risk assessment and early detection.

#3.  More cancers can and must be prevented.

In an ideal world, cancer “care” would begin with risk assessment and counseling of a person when no malignant disease is present. Risk factors include both inherited or acquired genetic abnormalities and those related to lifestyle and the environment.

The largest risk factor for cancer is tobacco smoking, which accounts for nearly one-third of all cancer deaths. Tobacco use should be discouraged with cost disincentives, and medical management of discontinuing tobacco use must be reimbursed by government and private sector payors.

Cancer risk assessment should be followed by appropriate interventions (either behavioral or medical) at a pre-malignant stage, before a cancer develops. Diagnosis and treatment of a confirmed cancer would occur only when these preventive measures fail.

A full understanding of cancer requires research to identify more completely the genetic, environmental, lifestyle and social factors that contribute to the varying types and rates of cancer in different groups in this country and around the world. A common cancer in Japan or India, for example, often is not a common cancer in the U.S. When prostate cancer occurs in African-Americans it is more severe than in Caucasians. A better understanding of the factors that influence differences in cancer incidence and deaths will provide important clues to preventing cancer in diverse populations worldwide.

#4.  The needs of cancer survivors must become a priority.

Surviving cancer means many things: reducing pain, disability and stress related to the cancer or the side effects of therapy; helping patients and their loved ones lead a full life from diagnosis forward; preventing a second primary cancer or recurrence of the original cancer; treating a difficult cancer optimally to ensure achieving the most healthy years possible, and more.  Since many more patients are surviving their cancers – or living much longer with cancer – helping them manage all the consequences of their disease and its treatment is critically important.  It is an area ripe for innovative research and for improvement in delivery of care.

#5.  We must train future researchers and providers of cancer care.

Shortages are predicted in the supply of physicians, nurses and technically trained support staff needed to provide expert care for patients with cancer.  On top of this, patient numbers are projected to increase.  We are heading toward a “perfect storm” unless we ramp up our training programs for cancer professionals at all levels.   The pipeline for academic researchers in cancer also is threatened due to the increasing difficulty in obtaining peer-reviewed research funding. We must designate more funding from the NIH and other sources specifically for promising young investigators, to enable them to initiate their careers.

#6.  Federal funding for research should be increased.

After growing by nearly 100% from 1998-2002, the National Cancer Institute budget has been in decline for the past four years. Through budget cuts and the effects of inflation, the NCI budget has lost approximately 12% of its purchasing power.  Important programs in tobacco control, cancer survivorship and support for interdisciplinary research have had significant cuts.  The average age at which a biomedical researcher receives his or her first R01 grant (the gold standard) now stands at 42, hardly an inducement to pursue this field. This shrinks the pipeline of talented young Americans who are interested in careers in science, but can find easier paths to more promising careers elsewhere.  Lack of adequate funding also discourages seasoned scientists with outstanding track records of contributions from undertaking innovative, but risky research projects.  The U.S. leadership in biomedical research could be lost.

Biomedical research in academic institutions needs steady funding that at least keeps up with inflation and enables continued growth.

#7.  The pace of clinical research must accelerate.

As research ideas move from the laboratory to patients, they must be assessed in clinical trials to test their safety and efficacy. Clinical trials are complicated, lengthy and expensive, and they often require large numbers of patients.  Further steps must be taken to ensure that efficient and cost-effective clinical trials are designed to measure, in addition to outcomes, the effects of new agents on the intended molecular targets. Innovative therapies should move forward more rapidly from the laboratory into clinical trials.

The public needs to be better educated about clinical trials, which in many cases may provide them with access to the best care available.  Greater participation in trials will speed up drug development, in addition to providing patients with the best options if standard treatments fail.  The potential risks and benefits of clinical trials must continue to be fully disclosed to the patients involved, and the trials must continue to be carefully monitored.

The issue of how to pay for clinical trials must be addressed. The non-experimental portion of the costs of care in clinical trials currently are borne in part by Medicare, and should be covered fully by all payors. The experimental portion of costs of care should be covered by the owner of the new drug, who stands to benefit from a new indication for therapeutic use.

#8.  New partnerships will encourage drug and device development.

One way to shorten the time for drug and device development is to encourage and reward collaboration among research institutions, and collaboration between academia and industry.  Increasingly, partnerships are required to bring together sufficient expertise and resources needed to confront the complex challenges of treating cancer. There is enormous opportunity here, but many challenges, as well.

Academic institutions already do collaborate, but we need new ways to stimulate increased participation in cooperative enterprises.

Traditionally, academic institutions have worked with biotech and pharmaceutical companies by conducting sponsored research and participating in clinical trials.  By forming more collaborative alliances during the preclinical and translational phases prior to entering the clinic, industry and academia can build on each other’s strengths to safely speed drug development to the bedside. The challenge is that this must be done with agreements that involve sharing, but also protect the property rights and independence of both parties.

The results of all clinical trials must be reported completely and accurately, without any influence from conflicts of interest and with full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.

#9. We must provide access to cancer care for everyone who lives in the U.S.

More than 47 million Americans are uninsured, and many others are underinsured for major illnesses like cancer. Others are uninsurable because of a prior illness such as cancer.  And many are indigent, so that payment for care is totally impossible.

Depending on where they live and what they can afford, Americans have unequal access to quality cancer care. Treatment options vary significantly nationwide. We must find better ways to disseminate the best standards of high-quality care from leading medical centers to widespread community practice throughout the country.

Cancer incidence and deaths vary tremendously among ethnic and economic groups in this country. We need to address the causes of disparities in health outcomes and move to eliminate them.

We are unique among Western countries in not providing direct access to medical care for all who live here. There is consensus today among most Americans and both political parties that this is unacceptable.  Especially for catastrophic illnesses like cancer, we must create an insurance system that guarantees access to care.

A number of proposals involving income tax rebates, vouchers, insurance mandates and expanded government insurance programs address this issue. Whatever system is selected should ensure access and include mechanisms for caring for underserved Americans.  The solution will require give-and-take among major stakeholders, many of which benefit from the status quo.  However, the social and economic costs have risen to the point that we have no choice.

#10.  Greater attention must be paid to enhancing the quality of cancer care and reducing costs.

New therapies and medical instruments are expensive to develop and are a major contributor to the rising cost of medical care in the U.S.  The current payment system rewards procedures, tests and treatments rather than outcomes.  At the same time, cancer prevention measures and services are not widely covered.  A new system of payment must be designed to reward outcomes, as well as the use of prevention services.

Quality of care can be improved and costs can be reduced by increasing our efforts to reduce medical errors and to prescribe diagnostic tests and treatments only on the basis of objective evidence of efficacy.

A standardized electronic medical record, accessible nationwide, is essential to ensuring quality care for patients who see multiple providers at multiple sites, and we are far behind many other nations.  Beyond that, a national electronic medical record could provide enormous opportunities for reducing overhead costs, identifying factors contributing to many illnesses (including cancer), determining optimal treatment and detecting uncommon side effects of treatment.

What the future holds in store.

I am optimistic. I see a future in which more cancers are prevented, more are cured and, when not curable, more are managed as effectively as other chronic, life-long diseases. I see a future in which deaths due to cancer continue to decrease.

Achieving that vision will require greater collaboration among academic institutions, government, industry and the public.  Barriers to quality care must be removed.  Tobacco use must be eradicated.  Research must have increased funding.  Mindful that our priority focus is on the patient, we must continue to speed the pace of bringing scientific breakthroughs from the laboratory to the bedside.

M. D. Anderson resources:

John Mendelsohn, M.D.”

Primary Source:  Ten Pieces Help Solve Cancer Puzzle, by John Mendelsohn, M.D., Feature Article, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Cancer News, Mar. 2009.