Biomarker-integrated Approaches Of Targeted Therapy For Lung Cancer Elimination Research Articles

The value of interventional radiology in clinical trial teams: experience from the BATTLE lung cancer trials

To report on the multidisciplinary approach, focusing specifically on the role of the interventional radiologist (IR), used to support the Biomarker-integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) and BATTLE-2 trials. Patients who underwent percutaneous image-guided biopsy for the BATTLE and BATTLE-2 trials were reviewed. A radiology-based, three-point, lesion-scoring system was developed and used by two IRs. Lesions were given a score of 3 (most likely to yield sufficient material for biomarker analysis) if they met the following criteria: size >2 cm, solid mass, demonstrated imaging evidence of viability, and were technically easy to sample. Lesions not meeting all four criteria were scored 2 with the missing criteria noted as negative factors. Lesions considered to have risks that outweighed potential benefits receive a score of 1 and were not biopsied. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the score's ability to predict successful yield for biomarker adequacy. A total of 555 biopsies were performed. The overall yield for analysis of the required biomarkers was 86.1% (478/555), and 84% (268/319) and 88.9% (210/236) for BATTLE and BATTLE-2, respectively (p=0.09). Lesions receiving a score of 3 were adequate for biomarker analysis in 89% of cases. Lesions receiving a score of 2 with more than two negative factors were adequate for molecular analysis in 69.2% (IR1, p=0.03) and 74% (IR2, p=0.04) of cases. The two IRs scored 78.4% of the lesions the same indicating moderate agreement (kappa=0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48, 0.61). IRs add value to clinical trial teams by optimising lesions selected for biopsy and biomarker analysis.

Bayesian clinical trials at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center: An update

In our 2009 article, we showed that Bayesian methods had established a foothold in developing therapies in our institutional oncology trials. In this article, we will document what has happened since that time. In addition, we will describe barriers to implementing Bayesian clinical trials, as well as our experience overcoming them. We reviewed MD Anderson Cancer Center clinical trials submitted to the institutional protocol office for scientific and ethical review between January 2009 and December 2013, the same length time period as the previous article. We tabulated Bayesian methods implemented for design or analyses for each trial and then compared these to our previous findings. Overall, we identified 1020 trials and found that 283 (28%) had Bayesian components so we designated them as Bayesian trials. Among MD Anderson-only and multicenter trials, 56% and 14%, respectively, were Bayesian, higher rates than our previous study. Bayesian trials were more common in phase I/II trials (34%) than in phase III/IV (6%) trials. Among Bayesian trials, the most commonly used features were for toxicity monitoring (65%), efficacy monitoring (36%), and dose finding (22%). The majority (86%) of Bayesian trials used non-informative priors. A total of 75 (27%) trials applied Bayesian methods for trial design and primary endpoint analysis. Among this latter group, the most commonly used methods were the Bayesian logistic regression model (N = 22), the continual reassessment method (N = 20), and adaptive randomization (N = 16). Median institutional review board approval time from protocol submission was the same 1.4 months for Bayesian and non-Bayesian trials. Since the previous publication, the Biomarker-Integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) trial was the first large-scale decision trial combining multiple treatments in a single trial. Since then, two regimens in breast cancer therapy have been identified and published from the cooperative Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response with Imaging and Molecular Analysis (I-SPY 2), enhancing cooperation among investigators and drug developers across the nation, as well as advancing information needed for personalized medicine. Many software programs and Shiny applications for Bayesian trial design and calculations are available from our website which has had more than 21,000 downloads worldwide since 2004. Bayesian trials have the increased flexibility in trial design needed for personalized medicine, resulting in more cooperation among researchers working to fight against cancer. Some disadvantages of Bayesian trials remain, but new methods and software are available to improve their function and incorporation into cancer clinical research.

Biomarker guided treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: does feasibility translate to improvements in patient care?

Molecular characterization of tumors has become integral in the management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (1). Over the last decade, major evolution in understanding the role of biomarkers has shaped the current management strategies of NSCLC. Molecularly targeted therapies have now become the preferred initial therapy for NSCLC patients with tumors containing epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR ) mutations, as well as translocations of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase ( ALK ) gene and c-ros oncogene 1 ( ROS1 ) (2-4). These successes have driven the goal to further personalize treatment decisions in NSCLC. Trials such as the Biomarker-integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) evaluated the feasibility of repeat tumor biopsy at the time of disease progression in order to direct further treatment, based on tumor molecular profile (5). The BATTLE trial demonstrated an 8-week disease control rate (DCR) of 46%. Biomarker analysis showed a higher DCR in patients with EGFR wild type (WT) and KRAS mutated tumors, randomized to sorafenib (6).

The BATTLE-2 Study: A Biomarker-Integrated Targeted Therapy Study in Previously Treated Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

By applying the principles of real-time biopsy, biomarker-based, adaptively randomized studies in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) established by the Biomarker-Integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) trial, we conducted BATTLE-2 (BATTLE-2 Program: A Biomarker-Integrated Targeted Therapy Study in Previously Treated Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer), an umbrella study to evaluate the effects of targeted therapies focusing on KRAS-mutated cancers. Patients with advanced NSCLC (excluding sensitizing EGFR mutations and ALK gene fusions) refractory to more than one prior therapy were randomly assigned, stratified by KRAS status, to four arms: (1) erlotinib, (2) erlotinib plus MK-2206, (3) MK-2206 plus AZD6244, or (4) sorafenib. Tumor gene expression profiling-targeted next-generation sequencing was performed to evaluate predictive and prognostic biomarkers. Two hundred patients, 27% with KRAS-mutated (KRAS mut+) tumors, were adaptively randomly assigned to erlotinib (n = 22), erlotinib plus MK-2206 (n = 42), MK-2206 plus AZD6244 (n = 75), or sorafenib (n = 61). In all, 186 patients were evaluable, and the primary end point of an 8-week disease control rate (DCR) was 48% (arm 1, 32%; arm 2, 50%; arm 3, 53%; and arm 4, 46%). For KRAS mut+ patients, DCR was 20%, 25%, 62%, and 44% whereas for KRAS wild-type patients, DCR was 36%, 57%, 49%, and 47% for arms 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.0 months, not different by KRAS status, 1.8 months for arm 1, and 2.5 months for arms 2 versus arms 3 and 4 in KRAS mut+ patients (P = .04). Median overall survival was 6.5 months, 9.0 and 5.1 months for arms 1 and 2 versus arms 3 and 4 in KRAS wild-type patients (P = .03). Median overall survival was 7.5 months in mesenchymal versus 5 months in epithelial tumors (P = .02). Despite improved progression-free survival on therapy that did not contain erlotinib for KRAS mut+ patients and improved prognosis for mesenchymal tumors, better biomarker-driven treatment strategies are still needed.

An overview of the design and conduct of the BATTLE trials.

Our increasing knowledge of biomedicine and genomics for human malignancies has placed us within reach of achieving personalized cancer medicine. The Biomarker-integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE)-1 trial was the first completed, prospective biopsy-mandated, biomarker-based, adaptive randomized clinical trial for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The ongoing BATTLE-2 trial continues to search for effective targeted therapies by further refining the clinical trial design. The BATTLE program has demonstrated the feasibility and promise of novel biomarker-based clinical trial platforms, which has moved us one step closer to personalized medicine. In this paper, we describe the design and conduct of the BATTLE trials, summarize the main findings, and report the experiences and lessons learned from our pursuit of developing targeted therapies in cancer.

Time Has Come to Raise the Bar in Oncology Clinical Trials

Time Has Come to Raise the Bar in Oncology Clinical Trials

Comprehensive biomarker analysis and final efficacy results of sorafenib in the BATTLE trial.

To report the clinical efficacy of sorafenib and to evaluate biomarkers associated with sorafenib clinical benefit in the BATTLE (Biomarker-Integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination) program. Patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) received sorafenib until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Eight-week disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Prespecified biomarkers included K-RAS, EGFR, and B-RAF mutations, and EGFR gene copy number. Gene expression profiles from NSCLC cell lines and patient tumor biopsies with wild-type EGFR were used to develop a sorafenib sensitivity signature (SSS). A total of 105 patients were eligible and randomized to receive sorafenib. Among 98 patients evaluable for eight-week DCR, the observed DCR was 58.2%. The median PFS and OS were 2.83 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.04-3.58] and 8.48 months (95% CI, 5.78-10.97), respectively. Eight-week DCR was higher in patients with wild-type EGFR than patients with EGFR mutation (P = 0.012), and in patients with EGFR gene copy number gain (FISH-positive) versus patients FISH-negative (P = 0.048). In wild-type EGFR tumors, the SSS was associated with improved PFS (median PFS 3.61 months in high SSS vs. 1.84 months in low SSS; P = 0.026) but not with eight-week DCR. Increased expression of fibroblast growth factor-1, NF-κB, and hypoxia pathways were identified potential drivers of sorafenib resistance. Sorafenib demonstrates clinical activity in NSCLC, especially with wild-type EGFR. SSS was associated with improved PFS. These data identify subgroups that may derive clinical benefit from sorafenib and merit investigation in future trials.

Feasibility of Image-Guided Transthoracic Core-Needle Biopsy in the BATTLE Lung Trial

As therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients becomes more personalized, additional tissue in the form of core-needle biopsies (CNBs) for biomarker analysis is increasingly required for determining appropriate treatment and for enrollment into clinical trials. We report our experience with small-caliber percutaneous transthoracic (PT) CNBs for the evaluation of multiple molecular biomarkers in BATTLE (biomarker-integrated approaches of targeted therapy for lung cancer elimination), a personalized, targeted therapy NSCLC clinical trial. The medical records of patients who underwent PTCNB for consideration of enrollment in BATTLE were reviewed for diagnostic yield of 11 predetermined molecular markers and procedural complications. Univariate and multivariate analyses of factors related to patient and lesion characteristics were performed to determine possible influences on diagnostic yield. One hundred and seventy PTCNBs were performed using 20-gauge biopsy needles in 151 NSCLC patients screened for the trial. The biopsy specimens of 82.9% of the patients were found to have adequate tumor tissue for analysis of the required biomarkers. On multivariate analysis, metastatic lesions were 5.4 times more likely to yield diagnostic tissue as compared with primary tumors (p = 0.0079). Pneumothorax and chest tube insertion rates were 15.3% and 9.4%, respectively. Image-guided 20-gauge PTCNB is safe and provides adequate tissue for analysis of multiple biomarkers in the majority of patients being considered for enrollment into a personalized, targeted therapy NSCLC clinical trial. Metastatic lesions are more likely to yield diagnostic tissue as compared with primary tumors.

An Epithelial–Mesenchymal Transition Gene Signature Predicts Resistance to EGFR and PI3K Inhibitors and Identifies Axl as a Therapeutic Target for Overcoming EGFR Inhibitor Resistance

Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) has been associated with metastatic spread and EGF receptor (EGFR) inhibitor resistance. We developed and validated a robust 76-gene EMT signature using gene expression profiles from four platforms using non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) cell lines and patients treated in the Biomarker-Integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) study. We conducted an integrated gene expression, proteomic, and drug response analysis using cell lines and tumors from patients with NSCLC. A 76-gene EMT signature was developed and validated using gene expression profiles from four microarray platforms of NSCLC cell lines and patients treated in the BATTLE study, and potential therapeutic targets associated with EMT were identified. Compared with epithelial cells, mesenchymal cells showed significantly greater resistance to EGFR and PI3K/Akt pathway inhibitors, independent of EGFR mutation status, but more sensitivity to certain chemotherapies. Mesenchymal cells also expressed increased levels of the receptor tyrosine kinase Axl and showed a trend toward greater sensitivity to the Axl inhibitor SGI-7079, whereas the combination of SGI-7079 with erlotinib reversed erlotinib resistance in mesenchymal lines expressing Axl and in a xenograft model of mesenchymal NSCLC. In patients with NSCLC, the EMT signature predicted 8-week disease control in patients receiving erlotinib but not other therapies. We have developed a robust EMT signature that predicts resistance to EGFR and PI3K/Akt inhibitors, highlights different patterns of drug responsiveness for epithelial and mesenchymal cells, and identifies Axl as a potential therapeutic target for overcoming EGFR inhibitor resistance associated with the mesenchymal phenotype.

Clinical Outcomes and Biomarker Profiles of Elderly Pretreated NSCLC Patients from the BATTLE Trial

Treating elderly non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in the salvage setting is challenging because of concerns of intolerance to therapy. Here we report outcomes (survival and toxicity) of elderly patients on the Biomarker-Integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) trial. Two hundred and fifty-five chemorefractory NSCLC patients received tumor molecular analysis, and were randomized to erlotinib, erlotinib-bexarotene, vandetanib, or sorafenib. Retrospective subgroup analyses were conducted comparing outcomes among age groups (< 65 versus ≥ 65 years; < 70 versus ≥ 70 years; < 75 versus ≥ 75 years), treatments, and sex. Median age was 62 years (range, 26-84); 38% were aged 65 years or more. No significant differences among age groups were seen in rates of biopsy-related pneumothorax, treatment-related death, compliance, grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicities, response rate, nor overall survival. However, older women aged 65 years or more had more grade 3 to 4 nonhematologic toxicities (p = 0.05). Elderly men aged 65 years or more (p = 0.008) had a higher disease-control rate at 8 weeks and a better progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.0068). Elderly women aged 70 years or more had a trend toward higher 8-week disease-control rate (p = 0.06). Older men aged 65 years or more treated with vandetanib had a better median PFS (p = 0.03) whereas PFS of older women aged 70 years or more was worse (p = 0.03) compared with younger patients. Elderly men aged 70 years or more treated with sorafenib had a higher overall survival compared with younger men (p = 0.04). Tumor tissue biomarkers show distinct differences by sex and age. Fit elderly NSCLC patients should be considered for salvage targeted therapy. In this subset of patients, older men seem to have significant clinical benefit from certain agents. Tumor biomarker analysis demonstrates sex and age variations, and is hypothesis-generating.

Personalizing lung cancer prevention through a reverse migration strategy.

Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer in the United States and worldwide. Tobacco use is the one of the primary causes of lung cancer and smoking cessation is an important step towards prevention, but patients who have quit smoking remain at risk for lung cancer. Finding pharmacologic agents to prevent lung cancer could potentially save many lives. Unfortunately, despite extensive research, there are no known effective chemoprevention agents for lung cancer. Clinical trials in the past, using agents without a clear target in an unselected population, have shown pharmacologic interventions to be ineffective or even harmful. We propose a new approach to drug development in the chemoprevention setting: reverse migration, that is, drawing on our experience in the treatment of advanced cancer to bring agents, biomarkers, and study designs into the prevention setting. By identifying molecular drivers of lung neoplasia and using matched targeted agents, we hope to personalize therapy to each individual to develop more effective, tolerable chemoprevention. Also, advances in risk modeling, using not only clinical characteristics but also biomarkers, may help us to select patients better for chemoprevention efforts, thus sparing patients at low risk for cancer the potential toxicities of treatment. Our institution has experience with biomarker-driven clinical trials, as in the recently reported Biomarker-integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) trial, and we now propose to bring this trial design into the prevention setting.

The BATTLE to Personalize Lung Cancer Prevention through Reverse Migration

Agents can enter clinical development for cancer prevention either initially or after previous development for a different indication, such as arthritis, with both approaches consuming many years of development before an agent is fully evaluated for cancer prevention. We propose the following, third approach: reverse migration, that is, importing agents, targets, and study designs to personalize interventions and concepts developed in advanced cancer to the setting of cancer prevention. Importing these "ready-made" features from therapy will allow reverse migration to streamline preventive agent development. We recently reported the Biomarker-integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) trial of personalized lung cancer therapy and now propose the reverse migration development of personalized lung cancer prevention based on the BATTLE model.

Lung cancer a hot topic at AACR meeting

Lung cancer a hot topic at AACR meeting

A New BATTLE in the Evolving War on Cancer

The Biomarker-integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) trial couples real-time molecular interrogation of cancer specimens with an adaptive Bayesian clinical trial design.

The BATTLE Trial: Personalizing Therapy for Lung Cancer

The Biomarker-integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) trial represents the first completed prospective, biopsy-mandated, biomarker-based, adaptively randomized study in 255 pretreated lung cancer patients. Following an initial equal randomization period, chemorefractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were adaptively randomized to erlotinib, vandetanib, erlotinib plus bexarotene, or sorafenib, based on relevant molecular biomarkers analyzed in fresh core needle biopsy specimens. Overall results include a 46% 8-week disease control rate (primary end point), confirm prespecified hypotheses, and show an impressive benefit from sorafenib among mutant-KRAS patients. BATTLE establishes the feasibility of a new paradigm for a personalized approach to lung cancer clinical trials. The BATTLE study is the first completed prospective, adaptively randomized study in heavily pretreated NSCLC patients that mandated tumor profiling with "real-time" biopsies, taking a substantial step toward realizing personalized lung cancer therapy by integrating real-time molecular laboratory findings in delineating specific patient populations for individualized treatment.

The BATTLE Trial: A Bold Step toward Improving the Efficiency of Biomarker-Based Drug Development

Successful completion of the Biomarker-integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) trial, reported in this issue of Cancer Discovery, is an important advance in the effort to improve clinical trial approaches to the simultaneous development of new therapeutics with matching diagnostic tests so that patients most likely to benefit from these therapies can be identified.

Reply to M. Buyse et al

We appreciate the thoughtful correspondence by Buyse et al with respect to this important developing area of clinical trials that use a molecular profiling approach. We have considered their remarks regarding the use of a progression-free survival (PFS) ratio in this setting. We do not consider the comments of Buyse et al to counter our conclusion, given thatwewerenotseekingtoshowthatmolecularprofilingyieldedahigher averagetimetotumorprogression.Theideawastoshowthat itworkedin some patients, more often than would have been expected, and to examine successes to help determine in which patients it was working and why. This is why we felt that it was appropriate to use the PFS ratio in this pilot trial, rather than to undertake formal comparisons of overall average treatment effect. However, to our knowledge, this is the first time that the PFS ratio end point has been used in a molecular profiling study, so discussion on this point is certainly warranted. Thedesignofourpilottrialwaschallengingbecauseourpatientshad progressed while receiving multiple other therapies and because of the nature of trying to treat individual patients with different histologic types of cancer (with potentially different natural histories of disease). To additionally address the comments by Buyse et al, in addition to PFS, other parameters such as tumor size were observed. We were encouraged that, in addition to the primary end point of the PFS ratio of 1.3, there was also shrinkage of some patients’ tumors (Fig 4, waterfall plot from the original article). Obviously, designing clinical trials to test molecular profiling is an evolving challenge. It is notable that other groups are exploring different end points for these studies; for instance, the BiomarkerIntegrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) trial is investigating the disease control rate at 8 weeks for patients with non–small-cell lung cancer, and in the Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response With Imaging and Molecular Analysis 2 (I-Spy 2), the end point is pathologic complete response. There is no doubt that molecular profiling of patients’ tumor tissue using a variety of techniques will be important from now on, given the recently reported successes of molecular targeted agents. Designs for clinical trials to evaluate the utility of increasingly sophisticated methods of molecular characterization of patients’ tumors (and the microenvironments of their tumors) is obviously an important and evolving area for clinical research and clinical trial design. The continued work of Buyse et al with respect to those clinical trial designs is much appreciated.

An approach to personalized medicine: the BATTLE trial

In the Biomarker-Integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) trial designed in 2005, four agents against defined molecular targets were assigned to metastatic lung cancer patients based on predefined biomarkers. In this trial, it was demonstrated that a prospective biomarker-driven personalized therapeutic approach in lung cancer is feasible. In this article, preliminary results of this trial as well as the concept of biomarker-driven therapy of non-small-cell lung cancer patients will be summarized. As one of the results from this trial, re-biopsies of metastatic disease will become increasingly important and should be performed with acceptable risks for the patient, and combined with treatment options, whenever possible.

Abstract PL01-03: The landscape of cancer prevention: Personalized approach in lung cancer

Abstract PL01-03: The landscape of cancer prevention: Personalized approach in lung cancer

BATTLE to personalize lung cancer treatment

BATTLE to personalize lung cancer treatment