Subset Of Ovarian Cancer Patients Responsive To Iressa Identified, Fox Chase Cancer
Main Category: Ovarian CancerArticle Date: 21 Apr 2005 - 0:00 PDT
Researchers at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia have identified a subset of ovarian cancer patients who appear to respond better than others to gefitinib, or Iressa.TM The research was presented today at the 96th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research in Anaheim, Calif.
Previous studies indicate that activation of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) can stimulate the growth of cancer cells. Mutations within the tyrosine kinase (TK) portion of this receptor may give cancer cells a growth advantage but at the same time make them more susceptible to drugs, like gefitinib, which inhibit growth. Gefitinib does not appear to be effective in women whose cancer does not have a mutation in the TK portion of EGFR.
"Researchers continue to study how best to incorporate EGFR-inhibiting drugs into therapy for ovarian cancer, but that requires a cost-effective way to screen patients to identify various mutations," said lead researcher Russell Schilder, M.D., a medical oncologist at Fox Chase. "In regard to ovarian cancer, there are 25,000 cases diagnosed annually. Someday, we'll be able to sequence key genes in ovarian tumors to identify the women who would be responsive to gefitinib or other targeted therapies."
The Fox Chase translational research team headed by Schilder and Andrew K. Godwin, Ph.D., director of Fox Chase's Clinical Molecular Genetics Laboratory, where the mutation studies were performed, was spurred by recent studies that indicated the same mutations appear to identify lung cancer patients who respond well to gefitinib therapy. Gefitinib has been used as a single agent to treat patients with recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Schilder and Godwin have replicated this finding retrospectively in ovarian cancer samples. "This was the first report that has documented mutations in the EGFR in ovarian cancer," Schilder said.
For the study, the researchers examined archived tumor tissue from a phase II trial designed to assess the activity and tolerability of gefitinib in patients with recurrent or persistent ovarian carcinoma or primary peritoneal cancer. They found that a mutation in the EGFR occurred in the tumor of the one patient whose tumor shrunk during treatment with gefitinib. No mutations of the EGFR were detected in the tumors of the patients who did not respond.
"We went back to these samples and analyzed them to see if we could detect mutations in the tyrosine kinase portion of the receptor," reported Schilder.
The researchers performed a blinded study and found that the one patient who experienced the only objective response to gefitinib during the 23-month trial had a mutation in the tyrosine kinase portion of the EGFR. Conversely, no mutations were observed in 23 of the cases that had no measurable response to gefitinib.
Given the apparent clustering of EGFR mutations found in previous studies of NSCLC, the researchers sequenced genes in an additional 32 ovarian tumor samples not treated with gefitinib. The majority of the tumors were late-stage serous adenocarcinomas. One additional sample was found to have a mutation (3.1%; 1 of 32).
Overall, the researchers detected mutations in the TK domain region in 2 of 56 (3.6%) of ovarian adenocarcinomas and observed that a patient on the clinical trial with a mutation in the catalytic domain of EGFR responded to gefitinib, suggesting a method to pre-select a subset of patients whose tumors may be more responsive to this EGF receptor-targeted therapy.
"This finding could have a dramatic impact on clinical care," indicated Schilder. "While this mutation is a relatively rare event, it could have a profound effect for some ovarian cancer patients," he says.
Along with Schilder and Godwin, scientists contributing to this research include postdoctoral associate Xiaowei Chen, Ph.D., scientific technician Brock A. Armstrong and surgical fellow Cletus A. Arciero, M.D., of Fox Chase Cancer Center and Michael W. Sill, Ph.D., and Kathleen M. Darcy, Ph.D., of the Gynecologic Oncology Group Statistical and Data Center, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, N.Y.
Fox Chase Cancer Center was founded in 1904 in Philadelphia as the nation's first cancer hospital. In 1974, Fox Chase became one of the first institutions designated as a National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center. Fox Chase conducts basic, clinical, population and translational research; programs of prevention, detection and treatment of cancer; and community outreach. For more information about Fox Chase activities, visit the Center's web site at www.fccc.edu or call 1-888-FOX CHASE.
Contact: Karen C. Mallet
colleen.kirsch@fccc.edu
215-906-7227
Fox Chase Cancer Center
http://www.fccc.edu
Visit our ovarian cancer section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
16 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/23193.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/23193.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (2)
Cell Function Analysis
posted by Gregory D. Pawelski on 27 May 2006 at 9:32 pmOver the past few years, gene expression profiling has been suggested as the best or only way of determining ex vivo drug sensitivity. However, the clinical applicaton of these DNA content assays have been shown to correlate only with response and not survival. And due to almost all patients being treated with combination chemotherapy, this methodology cannot even be calibrated without the use of Cell Culture Drug Resistance Testing (CCDRT). CCDRTs can actually integrate all the gene expression into one convenient test result.
In obtaining information from gene mutations (DNA content assays) and/or gene expression (RNA content) it must be realized that DNA structure is only important insofar as it predicts for RNA content, which is only important insofar as it predicts for protein content, which is only important insofar as it predicts for protein function, which is important only insofar as it predicts for cell response, which is only important insofar as it predicts for tumor response and function. In other words, it correlates only with response and not survival, in entirely retrospective (not prospective) studies.
What are the data supporting the use of testing DNA, RNA and Protein expression? Two retrospective studies from two Harvard-affiliated hospitals, showing response, but not survival advantages, with a grand total of twenty six correlations. And a subsequent study, presented in the July 14, 2005 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine from another laboratory that did not show correlations between gene mutations and patient survival (Volume 353:133-144 Number 2).
There is cellular profiling (Cell Function Analysis) that shows data indicating a near doubling in the survival of patients with platinum resistant ovarian cancer, striking correlations between platinum activity and patient survival in previously-untreated ovarian cancer, and a comprehensive meta-analysis of scores of studies reporting response and survival correlations in thousands of patients.
Plus a recent study using angiogenesis assay describing correlations between cell culture assay results in response to Iressa, and survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. These correlations were based on the actual assay results which had been reported, in real time, prospectively to the doctors who had ordered the assay laboratory tests. There were striking correlations between test results and patient survival, not just response.
Not only is cellular profiling a very important predictive test, but it is a unique tool for identifying newer, better drugs, testing drug combinations, and serving as a "gold standard" to develop new DNA, RNA, and protein-based tests of drug activity.
Source: Human Tumor Assay Journal
Whole Cell Profiling
posted by Gregory D. Pawelski on 17 Jun 2006 at 7:00 pmA new laboratory test that identifies patients who benefit most from targeted cancer drugs was introduced at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) as the test's accuracy is sure to save hundreds of lives per year. This could help solve the problem of knowing which patients can tolerate costly, new treatments and their harmful side-effects. This "smart" drugs do not work for everyone, and a test to determine the efficacy of these drugs in a patient could be the first crucial step in personalizing treatment to the individual.
According to Chemical & Engineering News, targeted "small-molecule" therapies ruled at the annual ASCO meeting of oncologists. The most exciting results shown came from studies of multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors, small molecules that act on multiple receptors in the cancerous cells, like Tykerb and Sutent. The trend is away from the monoclonals to the small molecules, a trend which the new EGFRx (TM) test may be able to hasten.
The EGFRx (TM) assay will test molecularly-targeted anti-cancer drugs therapies Iressa, Tarceva, Sutent and possibly Nexavar, because of being small molecules. The monoclonal antibodies like Herceptin and Erbitux are "enormous" molecules. These very large molecules don't have a convenient way of getting access to the large majority of cells. Plus, there is multicellular resistance, the drugs affecting only the cells on the outside may not kill these cells if they are in contact with cells on the inside, which are protected from the drug. The cells may pass small molecules back and forth.
However, drugs like Avastin (although a monoclonal antibody) can be tested with EGFRx (TM) because the target of Avastin is not the cells themselves, but rather a hormone (VEGF) secreted by the tumor cells. The Avastin complexes with free VEGF and blocks its action. The EGFRx (TM) test can discriminate between the activity of different targeted drugs and identify situations in which it is advantageous to combine the targeted drugs with other types of cancer drugs. All the more reason to "test the tumor first."
Most patients are treated not with a targeted therapy drug alone but with a combination of chemotherapy drugs. Therefore, existing DNA and RNA tests do not reflect the way cancer medicine is practiced today. The EGFRx assay, developed by The Weisenthal Cancer Group relies upon a technique known as "Whole Cell Profiling" in which living tumour cells are removed from an individual cancer patient and exposed in the laboratory to the new drugs.
A variety of metabolic and apoptotic measurements are then used to determine if a specific drug was successful at killing the patient's cancer cells. The whole cell profiling method differs from other tests in that it assesses the activity of a drug upon combined effect of all cellular processes, using several metabolic and morphologic endpoints. Other tests, such as those which identify DNA or RNA sequences or expression of individual proteins often examine only one component of a much larger, interactive process.
Not only is this an important predictive test that is available "today," but it is also a unique tool that can help to identify newer and better drugs, evaluate promising drug combinations, and serve as a "gold standard" correlative model with which to develop new DNA, RNA, and protein-based tests that better predict for drug activity.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.



