Ovarian Cancer Survivor Seeks “Compassionate Use” Drug Exemption From BioMarin to Save Her Life

Andrea Sloan, a 7-year survivor of stage 3c ovarian cancer, is seeking a “compassionate use” exemption from pharmaceutical company BioMarin to save her life. Sloan is scheduled to start treatment at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center on September 5 and would like to obtain access to the “PARP 1/2 inhibitor” drug known as “BMN 673” by that time. A robust grassroots campaign in support of Sloan has emerged on social media and Change.org in an effort to get an affirmative response from BioMarin.

Andrea Sloan, a 7-year, stage 3c survivor of ovarian cancer, is seeking a “compassionate use” investigational cancer drug exemption from pharmaceutical company BioMarin to save her life. Sloan, the executive director of a non-profit that advocates for survivors of domestic violence and abuse, now finds herself forced to publicly advocate for herself in a last chance effort to get the cancer treatment she needs.

Drugs that are being tested but have not yet been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are called “investigational drugs.” These drugs are generally available only to people who are taking part in a clinical trial. The FDA “Expanded Access” protocol — sometimes referred to as a “compassionate use” exemption — involves the use of an investigational drug outside of a clinical trial to treat a patient with a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, who has no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options.

FDA regulations allow access to investigational drugs for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for an individual patient, or for intermediate-size groups of patients with similar treatment needs who otherwise do not qualify to participate in a clinical trial. Before an investigational drug can qualify for compassionate use, the patient’s physician, the FDA, and the drug manufacturer must approve such use.

Unfortunately, drug manufacturers may not always be willing or able to provide access to a drug outside of their clinical trials. By law, drug companies are not required to make their drug available through the FDA expanded access protocol, or to make more of a drug for that purpose.

Andrea Sloan, a 7-year survivor of stage 3c ovarian cancer, is seeking a compassionate use exemption from pharmaceutical company BioMarin to save her life. Sloan is scheduled to start treatment at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center on September 5, and she would like to obtain access to the “PARP 1/2 inhibitor” drug known as “BMN 673” by that time. A robust grassroots campaign in support of Sloan has emerged on social media and Change.org in an effort to get an affirmative response from BioMarin.

“BioMarin’s BMN 673 offers me the best chance at a long life,” said Sloan. “My doctors and the FDA agree that I am an excellent candidate for this drug and meet the criteria for compassionate use exemption. However, BioMarin’s lack of a policy on compassionate use is preventing me from gaining access to the drug I need to save my life. I respectfully implore them to reconsider and make the ethical decision to help me.” [Emphasis added]

Sloan has endured two full rounds of chemotherapy, five surgeries, and a stem cell transplant. While her cancer remains responsive to treatment, her bone marrow can no longer tolerate traditional therapies. Her world-class oncology team at M.D. Anderson believes that BioMarin’s PARP inhibitor BMN 673, which is currently being tested in a phase I solid tumor clinical trial, is the best option for Sloan’s BRCA-1 gene-mutated form of ovarian cancer.

Unfortunately, Sloan hit a barrier in gaining access to BMN 673. Further enrollment of ovarian cancer patients in the phase I solid tumor trial is now closed, and the publicly announced portion of the trial that will be entering phase III testing is only open to BRCA gene-mutated breast (but not ovarian) cancer patients. Therefore, Sloan is left with the compassionate use exemption as her only option to access the drug she needs to fight her cancer. Based on FDA requirements, Sloan qualifies for the compassionate use exemption. Data emerging from the phase I BMN 673 study suggest that the drug is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with BRCA gene-mutated ovarian cancer.

Moreover, on August 16, 2013, BioMarin announced that its medical study abstract, entitled “PARP inhibition with BMN 673 in ovarian and breast cancer patients with deleterious mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2,” has been selected as a “late breaking” abstract by the 17th ECCO — 38th ESMO — 32nd ESTRO European Cancer Congress, which will be held from September 27 through October 1, 2013 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. BioMarin’s oral presentation at the European Cancer Congress (scheduled for September 29, 2013) will include data presented from 28 ovarian cancer patients with deleterious germline (inherited) BRCA gene mutations, including 17 patients from the phase I BMN 673 trial dose escalation cohort (range 100 µg to 1100 µg) and 11 patients from the dose expansion cohort. Presumably, the most recent ovarian cancer patient data to be presented at the European Cancer Congress will expand upon the positive data presented by the company at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which indicate that positive RECIST (“Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors“) and/or CA-125 ovarian cancer patient responses occurred at BMN 673 drug doses ≥ 100 µg/d in 11 out of 17 (64%) BRCA gene-mutated ovarian and peritoneal cancer patients. The positive RECIST medical imaging findings and the CA-125 blood test results highlight the promising effectiveness of BMN 673, albeit among a small group of ovarian cancer patients.

BMN 673 is a targeted therapy designed to disrupt the tumor without traditional chemotherapy drug side effects, thereby making it an optimal treatment for Sloan.

Despite Sloan’s best efforts, she has been unable to convince BioMarin to allow compassionate use of BMN 673. BioMarin, according to Sloan, has not been cooperative, merely citing their lack of a policy on the issue. Sloan, the executive director of a non-profit that advocates for survivors of domestic violence and abuse, now finds herself forced to publicly advocate for herself in a last chance effort to save her life. Sloan is committed to advocating for meaningful reform on this topic and hopes BioMarin will lead by example in starting a national dialogue.

If you would like to help Andrea Sloan obtain compassionate use of BMN 673, please click on this picture and sign her petition at Change.org.

For those interested in supporting Andrea Sloan, please sign her petition on Change.org that urges BioMarin to grant her a compassionate use investigational cancer drug exemption for BMN 673. Also, you can follow Andrea on Twitter at @andi_sloan.

Update:

Yesterday, BioMarin issued a statement to KXAN, an Austin, Texas local affilate of NBC, in response to a in-depth news story that KXAN aired tonight regarding Andrea Sloan’s dire situation. Effectively, BioMarin rejected Andrea Sloan’s request for compassionate use of BMN 673, although its statement was worded as a general drug “expanded access” policy explanation.

BioMarin acknowledged that it allowed preapproved expanded access to one of its investigational drugs which completed phase III clinical testing last year. In terms of general guidelines for its expanded access programs, the company stated:

“We implement these [expanded access] programs when we have sufficient scientific evidence to support both the safety and the efficacy of a product for an indication. Additionally, we implement these programs only when we can ensure that access will be provided equitably, ensuring that the process is appropriately blinded, and when we are confident that the expanded access will not inhibit our clinical trial plans or clinical trials for a disease generally.”

In terms of Andrea Sloan’s specific case, BioMarin stated that it does not comment on the status of individual patients. Apparently in a refusal to grant expanded access to any preapproved patient who requests compassionate use of BMN 673 prior to completion of phase III drug testing, the company stated:

“… However, we note that, although the current data [for BMN 673] that we have looks promising, there is no data at this point to support anything beyond dosing and some preliminary safety. It is too early to know if the experimental therapy is safe or effective, or will even prolong life, until we conduct the appropriate Phase 3 trials. The data that we have is from an ongoing early stage clinical trial, and it is the first trial that we have ever done with this therapy in humans.”

Accordingly, it appears that BioMarin’s current expanded access policy for its investigational drugs, such as BMN 673, will only extend to drugs that have already completed phase III clinical trial testing.

Sources:

• Ovarian Cancer Survivor Andrea Sloan Seeks Compassionate Use Exemption From BioMarin to Save Her Life, Press Release, Digital Journal, August 29, 2013.

• BioMarin Provides BMN 673 Program Update, BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc, Press Release, July 25, 2013.

• De Bono JS et. al. First-in-human trial of novel oral PARP inhibitor BMN 673 in patients with solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 31, 2013 (suppl; abstr 2580).

• Shen Y. et al.  BMN 673, a novel and highly potent PARP-1/2 inhibitor for the treatment of human cancers with DNA repair deficiency. Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Jul 23. PMID: 23881923 [Epub ahead of print]

• A Phase 1, First in Human, Single-arm, Open-label Study of Once a Day, Orally Administered BMN 673 in Patients With Advanced or Recurrent Solid Tumors. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01286987.

• Advocate for others needs help in a fight for her life, by Shannon Wolfson & Joe Ellis, In-Depth Investigation, KXAN News, August 29, 2013.

• Statement From BioMarin on Expanded Access, August 28, 2013.

• BioMarin Announces Oral Presentation of BMN 673 Most Recent Data on Breast and Ovarian Cancers at the European Cancer Congress 2013, Press Release, August 16, 2013.

M.D. Anderson’s EphA2-Targeted Therapy Delivers Chemo Directly to Ovarian Cancer Cells

With a novel therapeutic delivery system, a research team led by scientists at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center has successfully targeted a protein that is over-expressed in ovarian cancer cells. Using the EphA2 protein as a molecular homing mechanism, chemotherapy was delivered in a highly selective manner in preclinical models of ovarian cancer, the researchers report in the July 29 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. … In the models, the therapy inhibited tumor growth in treated mice by 85 percent – 98 percent compared to control mice. … [Anil] Sood said, “We are gearing up to bring it to phase I clinical trials. A lot of the safety studies are well under way or nearing completion and we anticipate that this drug will enter clinical trials within the next few months.”

M. D. Anderson-led team finds potent antitumor activity with a monoclonal antibody-chemotherapy combination

With a novel therapeutic delivery system, a research team led by scientists at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center has successfully targeted a protein that is over-expressed in ovarian cancer cells. Using the EphA2 protein as a molecular homing mechanism, chemotherapy was delivered in a highly selective manner in preclinical models of ovarian cancer, the researchers report in the July 29 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

EphA2 is attractive for such molecularly targeted therapy because it has increased expression in ovarian and other cancers, including breast, colon, prostate and non-small cell lung cancers and in aggressive melanomas, and its expression has been associated with a poor prognosis.

Anil K. Sood, M.D., professor in the Departments of Gynecologic Oncology and Cancer Biology at the Univ. of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center

“One of our goals has been to develop more specific ways to deliver chemotherapeutic drugs,” said senior author Anil K. Sood, M.D., professor and in the Departments of Gynecologic Oncology and Cancer Biology at M. D. Anderson. “Over the last several years we have shown that EphA2 is a target that is present quite frequently in ovarian and other cancers, but is either present in low levels or is virtually absent from most normal adult tissues. EphA2’s preferential presence on tumor cells makes it an attractive therapeutic target.”

The researchers used a carrier system to deliver chemotherapy directly to ovarian cancer cells. The immunoconjugate contains an anti-EphA2 monoclonal antibody linked to the chemotherapy drug monomethyl auristatin phenylalanine (MMAF) through the non-cleavable linker maleimidocaproyl. Research has shown that auristatins induce cell cycle arrest at the G – M border, disrupt microtubules and induce apoptosis (programmed cell death) in cancer cells.

The investigators evaluated the delivery system’s specificity in EphA2-positive HeyA8 and EphA2-negative SKMel28 ovarian cancer cells through antibody-binding and internalization assays. They also assessed viability and apoptosis in ovarian cancer cell lines and tumor models and examined anti-tumor activity in orthotopic mouse models with mice bearing HeyA8-luc and SKOV3ip1 ovarian tumors.

According to Sood, who is also co-director of both the Center for RNA Interference and Non-Coding RNA and the Blanton-Davis Ovarian Cancer Research Program at M. D. Anderson, the immunoconjugate was highly specific in delivering MMAF to the tumor cells that expressed EphA2 while showing minimal uptake in cells that did not express the protein. In the models, the therapy inhibited tumor growth in treated mice by 85 percent – 98 percent compared to control mice.

“Once we optimized the dosing regimen, the drug was highly effective in reducing tumor growth and in prolonging survival in preclinical animal models,” Sood said. “We actually studied bulkier masses because that is what one would see in a clinical setting where there are pre-existent tumors, and even in this setting the drug was able to reduce or shrink the tumors.”

As for future research with the EphA2-silencing therapy, Sood said, “We are gearing up to bring it to phase I clinical trials. A lot of the safety studies are well under way or nearing completion and we anticipate that this drug will enter clinical trials within the next few months.”

He added that his group is simultaneously conducting preclinical testing on other chemotherapy drugs to determine which agents might combine well with the immunoconjugate used in the current study.

“There is growing interest in molecularly targeted therapy so that we are not indiscriminately killing normal cells,” Sood noted. “The goal is to make the delivery of chemotherapy more specific. The immunoconjugate we used is in a class of drugs that is certainly quite attractive from that perspective.”

Research was funded by NCI-DHHS-NIH T32 Training Grant (T32 CA101642 to A.M.N.). This research was funded in part by support from M. D. Anderson’s ovarian cancer SPORE grant (P50 CA083639), the Marcus Foundation, the Gynecologic Cancer Foundation, the Entertainment Industry Foundation, the Blanton-Davis Ovarian Cancer Research Program, and Sood’s Betty Ann Asche Murray Distinguished Professorship.

Co-authors with Sood are Jeong-Won Lee, Hee Dong Han, Mian M. K. Shahzad, Seung Wook Kim, Lingegowda S. Mangala, Alpa M. Nick, Chunhua Lu, Rosemarie Schmandt, Hye-Sun Kim, Charles N. Landen, Robert L. Coleman, all of M. D. Anderson’s Department of Gynecologic Oncology; Robert R. Langley, of M. D. Anderson’s Department of Cancer Biology; Jeong-Won Lee, also of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; Mian M. K. Shahzad, also of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; Hye-Sun Kim, also of the Department of Pathology, Cheil General Hospital and Women’s Healthcare Center, Kwandong University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; and Shenlan Mao, John Gooya, Christine Fazenbaker, Dowdy Jackson, and David Tice , all of MedImmune, Inc., Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Source: EphA2-Targeted Therapy Delivers Chemo Directly to Ovarian Cancer Cells – M. D. Anderson-led team finds potent antitumor activity with a monoclonal antibody-chemotherapy combination, M.D. Anderson News Release, 29 Jul. 09 [summarizing the findings of Lee JW, Han HD, Shahzad MM et. al. EphA2 Immunoconjugate as Molecularly Targeted Chemotherapy for Ovarian Carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Jul 29. [Epub ahead of print]].

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

“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

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.

M.D. Anderson Researchers Find GM-CSF and rIFN-gamma1b Plus Carboplatin Effective For the Treatment of Recurrent, Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian Cancer

Researchers working in the Gynecologic Oncology Department of The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, reported Phase II clinical study results from their evaluation of the use of carboplatin, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and recombinant interferon gamma 1b (rIFN-gamma1b) in women with recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer. …

Researchers working in the Gynecologic Oncology Department of The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, reported Phase II clinical study results from their evaluation of the use of carboplatin, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and recombinant interferon gamma 1b (rIFN-gamma1b) in women with recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer.

As part of this Phase II clinical study, patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer were treated with subcutaneous GM-CSF and rIFN-gamma1b before and after intravenous carboplatin until their disease progressed or unacceptable toxicity occurred. All patients had measurable disease and a chemotherapy-free interval >6 months. Response was determined using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria and CA 125 blood serum levels. Between 2003 and 2007, 59 patients received a median of 6 cycles of therapy (range, 1 to 13 cycles). The median patient age at enrollment was 61 years (range, 35 to 79 years). The median patient time to disease progression prior to clinical study enrollment was 11 months (range, 6 to 58 months).

The M.D. Anderson researchers reported the following results:

• Of 54 patients evaluable for response, 9 (17%) had a complete response, 21 (39%) had a partial response, and 24 (44%) had progressive disease;
• The overall response rate was 56%;
• With a median follow-up of 6.4 months, the patient median time to disease progression was 6 months;
• Myeloid derived cells and platelets increased on day 9 of each chemotherapy cycle;
• The most common adverse effects were bone marrow suppression, carboplatin hypersensitivity, and fatigue; and
• Responders reported improved quality of life.

Based upon the foregoing results, the researchers concluded that the pre- and post-carboplatin cytokine regimen resulted in a reasonable response and a hematologic profile that could invite further evaluation of its components in the treatment of patients with ovarian cancer.

Primary Source:  A phase II study of GM-CSF and rIFN-gamma1b plus carboplatin for the treatment of recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer; Schmeler KM, Vadhan-Raj S, Ramirez PT et. al., Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Mar 3. [Epub ahead of print].

LabCorp Announces Availability of Ovarian Cancer Blood Test To Assess The Presence of Early Stage Ovarian Cancer

“Laboratory Corporation of America® Holdings is now offering OvaSure™, an Ovarian Cancer Screening test to assess the presence of early stage ovarian cancer in high-risk women. In a recent study of high risk and average risk subjects, this blood test, using six biomarkers and research conducted at Yale University School of Medicine, was shown to discriminate between disease-free women and ovarian cancer patients (stage I-IV) with high specificity (99.4%) and sensitivity (95.3%). Additional studies performed at Yale University School of Medicine demonstrate comparable findings.”

On March 14, 2008, the H*O*P*E*™ weblog reported that a new blood test developed by the Yale University School of Medicine detected early stage ovarian cancer with 99% accuracy in Phase II clinical trial testing. To review the March 14 H*O*P*E*™ weblog post, click here. In 2006, Laboratory Corporation of America (Lab Corp) obtained licensing rights to the ovarian cancer early detection blood test, known as OvaSure™, from Yale. Today, Lab. Corp. announced in a press release that it is making the OvaSure™ blood test immediately available nationwide to women who are at high risk of developing ovarian cancer in the future. The relevant portion of the Lab Corp. press release dated June 23, 2007 is set forth below.

“LabCorp Announces Availability of OvaSure™

Burlington, NC, June 23, 2008 – Laboratory Corporation of America® Holdings (LabCorp®) (NYSE: LH) is now offering OvaSure™, an Ovarian Cancer Screening test to assess the presence of early stage ovarian cancer in high-risk women. In a recent study of high risk and average risk subjects, this blood test, using six biomarkers and research conducted at Yale University School of Medicine, was shown to discriminate between disease-free women and ovarian cancer patients (stage I-IV) with high specificity (99.4%) and sensitivity (95.3%). Additional studies performed at Yale University School of Medicine demonstrate comparable findings.

‘LabCorp is pleased to offer for high-risk women the OvaSure test to enhance the potential of detecting and treating ovarian cancer in its early or localized stage when the likelihood of survival is greatest,’ said Myla P. Lai-Goldman, M.D., Executive Vice President, Chief Medical Officer of LabCorp. ‘OvaSure is a significant addition to LabCorp’s family of proteomic tests, and a major component of LabCorp’s strategy to bring the latest in diagnostic technology to women’s healthcare.’

It has been estimated that for the year 2008, 21,650 women will be newly diagnosed with ovarian cancer. It has been further estimated that 15,520 women will die from the disease in 2008. Despite being one-eighth as common as breast cancer, it is three times more lethal. If ovarian cancer is diagnosed and treated at the localized stage, the 5-year survival rate is 92%; unfortunately, only 19% of all cases are found at the localized stage. Most women have their ovarian cancer detected at the regional or distant stage when the 5-year survival rates are 71% and 30% respectively.

‘I am pleased that this test is available to help physicians detect and treat ovarian cancer in its earliest stages,’ said Gil Mor, M.D., associate professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences at Yale and a member of Yale Cancer Center. ‘Our team is proud that our research may help play a role in higher survival rates for women with this disease.’”

[Quoted Source: LabCorp Announces Availability of OvaSure™ , Laboratory Corporation of America Press Release dated June 23, 2008.]

Comment**: Although additional Phase III clinical trial testing with a larger patient population is required, the OvaSure™ blood test may represent the “gold standard” for early stage ovarian cancer detection in the near future. The immediate availability of the OvaSure™ blood test for use by women who are at high risk for developing ovarian cancer could save lives by catching ovarian cancer in its earliest stages, thereby making treatment of the disease highly effective. To view the ABCNews.com news report regarding the Yale ovarian cancer screening blood test that aired on April 21, 2008, click here.

**As of August 21, 2008, the amended OvaSure™ test “use” information provides, among other things, that a woman who has had both ovaries removed (i.e., a bilateral oophorectomy) should not use the test. Accordingly, it appears that the OvaSure™ test cannot be used by a “high-risk” woman to screen for an ovarian cancer recurrence, if she had both ovaries removed as part of her first line treatment following initial diagnosis of the disease.

OvaSure™ Information: The OvaSure™ blood test is now available nationwide through LabCorp. If you want to review OvaSure™ blood test information on the LabCorp. website, click here (then click on the letter “O” located on the upper left side panel keyboard and scroll down until you find the three OvaSure™ blood test information entries). It is our understanding that the OvaSure™ test cost approximately (U.S.)$225 and test results are available within five business days.

OvaSure™ Use (updated 8/21/08): “The OvaSure^TM assay may be used as a tool to identify high-risk women who might have ovarian carcinoma. OvaSure^TM is not indicated for a patient who is currently undergoing chemotherapy, who has had both ovaries removed, who is pregnant, or who is lactating. About 10% of women with benign ovarian masses (including cysts) may have positive results by this test.”

OvaSure™ Limitations (updated 8/21/08) : “Pregnant women or women who are lactating should not be screened by the assay because it may lead to false-positive results. A Calculated Risk Index of 0.50 or greater indicates a positive reading, which is suggestive of ovarian cancer (possible presence of disease). In a clinical study (see Journal Abstract below) across all disease stages, the six-marker panel composed of leptin, prolactin, osteopontin, insulin-like growth factor II, macrophage inhibitory factor, and CA-125 demonstrated a sensitivity of 95.3% and a specificity of 99.4% in detecting disease. Greater than 99% sensitivity (119 of 120) was shown in late-stage disease (stage III and stage IV). In early stage disease (stage I and stage II), the assay demonstrated a sensitivity of 91.6%, providing a significant improvement over CA-125 alone (less than 60% of stage I and stage II combined) for ovarian cancer detection. All positive readings should be retested on a new sample drawn at least three weeks after the original sample was collected. Patients with positive results confirmed by retesting on a second sample should be followed by a women’s health specialist who may order additional evaluations, such as sensitive imaging. Components used in this test are labeled as research purposes only. The performance characteristics of this product have not been established by the assay manufacturer. Results should not be used as a diagnosis for ovarian cancer without confirmation of the diagnosis by another medically established diagnostic product or procedure.”

OvaSure™ Journal Abstracts and Full Text Studies:

• Diagnostic markers for early detection of ovarian cancer; Visintin, I. et. al., Clin Cancer Res. 2008 Feb 15;14(4):1065-72. Epub 2008 Feb 7. Click here for an Adobe Reader PDF copy of the complete study text.
• Serum protein markers for early detection of ovarian cancer, Mor G et. al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 May 24;102(21):7677-82. Epub 2005 May 12. Click here for an Adobe Reader PDF copy of the complete study text.

Updates:

• July 2, 2008: The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO) issued a statement regarding the Labcorp OvaSure™ test. The SGO statement, dated July 2, 2008, is quoted below in its entirety.

“July 2, 2008

Society of Gynecologic Oncologists
Statement Regarding OvaSure^TM

The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO) recognizes the need for accurate early detection biomarkers for ovarian cancer. For this reason, SGO reviewed the literature regarding OvaSure, a serum-based diagnostic test for ovarian cancer.

After reviewing OvaSure’s materials, it is our opinion that additional research is needed to validate the test’s effectiveness before offering it to women outside of the context of a research study conducted with appropriate informed consent under the auspices of an institutional review board.

SGO is committed to actively following and contributing to this vitally important research. As physicians who care only for women with gynecologic cancers, our hope is that these cancers can either be prevented or detected early. Because no currently available test has been shown to reliably detect ovarian cancer in its earliest and most curable stages, we will await the results of further clinical validation of OvaSure with great interest.”

The SGO is a national medical specialty organization of physician-surgeons who are trained in the comprehensive management of women with malignancies of the reproductive tract. The purpose of the SGO is to improve the care of women with gynecologic cancers by encouraging research and disseminating knowledge to raise the standards of practice in the prevention and treatment of gynecologic malignancies, in cooperation with other organizations interested in women’s health care, oncology and related fields.

Quoted Update Source: Society of Gynecologic Oncologists Statement Regarding OvaSure™, Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, July 2, 2008 (Adobe Reader PDF document).

Other Update Sources: Fast Facts: Background on The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, Society of Gynecologic Oncologists Press Kit, undated.

• August 12, 2008: The ROC ‘n’ role of the multiplex assay for early detection of ovarian cancer, Nick AM, Sood AK; Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2008 Aug 12. [Epub ahead of print] (medical abstract text quoted below) —

“AM Nick is a Fellow in the Department of Gynecologic Oncology, and AK Sood is the Bettyann Asche-Murray Distinguished Professor in the Department of Gynecologic Oncology and in the Department of Cancer Biology, both at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

In order to overcome the significant mortality associated with ovarian cancer, a highly sensitive and specific screening test is urgently needed. CA125 is used to assess response to chemotherapy, detect recurrence, and distinguish malignant from benign disease; however, this marker is elevated in only 50-60% of stage I ovarian cancers, making it inadequate for early detection of malignancy. In this Practice Point, we discuss Visintin et al.‘s attempt to validate a novel multiplex assay that uses a panel of six serum biomarkers-leptin, prolactin, osteopontin, insulin-like growth factor II, macrophage inhibitory factor, and CA125 [medical abstract & full text of Visintin et. al. study provided above]. The study included 362 healthy controls and 156 patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. The final model yielded 95.3% sensitivity, 99.4% specificity, a positive predictive value of 99.3% and a negative predictive value of 99.2%. These results indicate potential utility of this assay for early detection of ovarian cancer, although further validation is needed in a sample set representative of the general population.”

• August 21, 2008: The Labcorp information with respect to the OvaSure™ test was recently modified. Despite that fact that the test was made available for “high-risk” women, it cannot be used by women who have had both ovaries removed. Consequently, it appears that a woman who had both ovaries removed (i.e., bilateral oophorectomy) after an initial diagnosis of ovarian cancer, cannot use the OvaSure™ test to screen for a potential recurrence of the disease in the future.

• August 23, 2008:  Lost In Translation? FDA Believes That LabCorp’s Ovarian Cancer Early Detection Test (OvaSure) Lacks Adequate Clinical Validation, Libby’s H*O*P*E*, August 23, 2008.