Advertisement
help button home button The Oncologist
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow eLetters: Submit a response to this article
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pérez-Soler, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pérez-Soler, R.
The Oncologist, Vol. 9, No. 1, 58–67, February 2004
© 2004 AlphaMed Press

ORIGINAL PAPER
Lung Cancer

HER1/EGFR Targeting: Refining the Strategy

Román Pérez-Soler

Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA

Correspondence: Román Pérez-Soler, M.D., Chairman, Department of Oncology, Hofheimer 100, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 111 East 210th Street, Bronx, New York 10467, USA. Telephone: 718-920-4001; Fax: 718-798-7474; e-mail: rperezso{at}montefiore.org


   LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Top
 Learning Objectives
Abstract
 Introduction
 HER Biology
 Making Sense of the...
 Conclusion
 References
 
After completing this course, the reader will be able to:

  1. Differentiate between ligand-dependent and ligand-independent human epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase activation and initiation of signaling.
  2. Describe the site of action of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and explain how this might impact their therapeutic profiles.
  3. Discuss the influence of all aspects of clinical trial design on measurable outcomes, including dosing regimen, protocol, and patient selection.

Access and take the CME test online and receive one hour of AMA PRA category 1 credit at CME.TheOncologist.com


   ABSTRACT
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
Introduction
 HER Biology
 Making Sense of the...
 Conclusion
 References
 
Human epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), HER, targeting has formed the basis of extensive and growing drug development programs in various companies. However, receptor biology is often poorly explained and confusing. The HER family of four naturally occurring receptors and one tumor-specific mutant can activate signaling via a complex and sophisticated range of mechanisms, which we are only beginning to understand. HER1/EGFR downstream signaling can lead to tumor growth and development via a host of processes, including enhanced cellular proliferation, survival, and metastasis. A range of potential therapeutic targets exists within the HER signaling system, both inside and outside the cell. Monoclonal antibodies and tyrosine kinase inhibitors, acting extracellularly and intracellularly, respectively, comprise two classes of agents most advanced in clinical development or already available for use. Despite promising single-agent activity in chemotherapy-resistant patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), disappointing results from two phase III trials of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib in NSCLC have been of concern to some. However, many factors may have contributed to this outcome, and it is not necessarily predictive of the future usefulness of these agents. Patient characteristics, lack of patient selection, dosing schedule, and trial design may all have played roles. It is important to remember that intracellular targeting of HER is a relatively novel approach, and our knowledge of how best to optimize such treatment is still unfolding. More clinical experience is needed.

Key Words. Cancer • HER • Targeted therapy • Tyrosine kinase inhibitors • Erlotinib • Gefitinib


   INTRODUCTION
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
HER Biology
 Making Sense of the...
 Conclusion
 References
 
A new understanding of tumor biology and genetics has enabled the development of novel approaches for the targeted treatment of cancer. These innovative avenues heralded a promising era of hope for oncologists and their patients, particularly in the treatment of solid tumors, cancers traditionally refractory to conventional chemotherapy and with poor prognoses. While expectations are, understandably, high, some confusion exists about the basis for such therapy. Clinicians are keen to use any therapeutic tool that may work in this poorly served patient group. However, the underlying science of tumor targeting is complex and remains to be clarified. In addition, given the vast and growing published work on this subject, clinicians sometimes find it difficult to translate early clinical data into its potential value in clinical practice. This is especially true when trial results are not as positive as expected. This paper sets out first to demystify the science underlying the mechanisms of action of the main cancer therapies targeting the human epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), HER, family and second to put early clinical trial data in perspective with regard to differentiating these agents and predicting their potential benefits in widespread clinical use.


   HER BIOLOGY
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 HER Biology
Making Sense of the...
 Conclusion
 References
 
The HER family of receptor proteins plays a key role in tumorigenesis and disease progression. The HER molecules are cell membrane-bound proteins comprising four distinct receptors: HER1/EGFR, HER2, HER3, and HER4 [1, 2]. Three mutant HER1/EGFR receptors have been defined, with EGFRvIII (variant III) the most commonly detected in human solid tumors [3]. Receptor nomenclature varies across the literature (Table 1Go), though the HER terminology used in this paper reflects a species-specific precision (in this case, human) that is both simple to remember and scientifically correct.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Synonyms for members of the HER family
 
Nonmutant HERs are each divided into three regions: an extracellular ligand binding region, an intracellular region with tyrosine kinase activity and regulatory functions, and a region that spans the cell membrane and anchors the receptor to the cell [2]. In the inactive state, each HER exists as a monomer. Ligand binding promotes either homodimerization (between monomers of the same receptor, e.g., HER1/HER1) or heterodimerization between the bound receptor and other members of the HER family (e.g., HER1/HER2), activating the receptor tyrosine kinase (Fig. 1Go). This biochemical trigger starts a cascade of complex cell biochemistry called downstream signaling that regulates various aspects of cell function [2], namely, cell proliferation, programmed cell death (apoptosis), angiogenesis, adhesion, and motility [4]. In abnormal cells, these pathways become dysregulated, leading to cell hyperproliferation and migration or metastasis.



View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Overview of the HER signaling system. A) HER2 homodimerization occurs without ligand (L) involvement (constitutive activation) and is enhanced when there is receptor overexpression. B) Ligand binding to HER1/EGFR facilitates heterodimerization with HER2, the most common coreceptor. C) Although HER3 has no active tyrosine kinase (K), ligand binding initiates signaling via heterodimerization with HER2. D) The mutant EGFRvIII lacks an extracellular ligand-binding domain and does not dimerize, but can still initiate signaling via constitutive activation.

 
The HER-family cell signaling process utilizes at least 11 EGF-like ligands [5]. HER1/EGFR is known to bind with a high affinity to several ligands, including EGF and transforming growth factor-{alpha} [6]. HER2 is structurally almost identical to HER1/EGFR, but no HER2 ligand has, as yet, been identified [7, 8]. However, despite this, HER2 tyrosine kinase is frequently activated, because this receptor is the most common heterodimerization partner for the HER family [9, 10]. HER3 and HER4 also structurally resemble HER1/EGFR, though HER3 has no intrinsic tyrosine kinase activity [11] and must associate with another HER-family receptor, usually HER2, to trigger signaling [10, 12].

The various signaling cascades activated through homo- or heterodimerization result in different cellular effects. Two major signal-transduction pathways are involved in HER1/EGFR signaling: the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, important in regulating cell growth, and the Akt pathway, predominantly involved in apoptosis and cell survival. Interestingly, recent studies suggest that these pathways may also regulate chemoresistance [13, 14]. However, further work is needed to fully understand the complex downstream signaling mechanisms that promote tumorigenesis and disease progression.

EGFRvIII, a mutant receptor, has a modified binding region and, consequently, cannot bind to a ligand [15]; it also does not dimerize [16]. However, it does have an intact tyrosine kinase domain that is constitutively activated and can initiate downstream signaling [3]. This mutant receptor is not found in normal cells, but is present in a wide range of solid tumors. Its constitutively activated state and association with an invasive tumor phenotype [17] may reflect an important role in cancer pathogenesis.

HER1/EGFR and HER2 are the most widely studied HERs. HER1/EGFR is involved in normal cell growth, differentiation, and repair [2]. In many cancers, HER1/EGFR expression is abnormal or upregulated, indicative of a possible role in tumorigenesis [5, 18] (Table 2Go) [19–28]. Evidence suggests that HER1/EGFR overexpression or dysregulation correlates with disease progression, survival, stage, and response to therapy [18, 29, 30], indicating it may be a good target for therapeutic inhibition.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. HER1/EGFR overexpression in human solid tumors
 
Although the complexities of HER-driven cell signaling have not yet been fully elucidated, several possible points for interruption of tumorigenic cellular mechanisms have emerged. The most promising and advanced therapeutic strategies are:

  • Small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs): These are given orally and comprise, arguably, the most promising class of targeted agents currently in development. They work by inhibiting the intracellular portion of the target HER, thus blocking downstream signaling. TKIs can be reversible or irreversible and can have single, dual, or pan HER specificity. Examples include erlotinib (TarcevaTM; Genentech Inc.; South San Francisco, CA; OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Melville, NY; and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.; Basel, Switzerland) and gefitinib (Iressa®; AstraZeneca; Wilmington, DE), which are both HER1/EGFR-targeted reversible TKIs currently being evaluated in late phase clinical development.
  • Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs): These are injected and were the earliest approach to targeting HERs. They bind to the extracellular portion of the target HER, preventing activation. Examples are HER2-specific trastuzumab (Herceptin®; Genentech Inc.; South San Francisco, CA), already established in clinical practice, and cetuximab (Erbitux®; ImClone Systems, Inc; New York, NY), a HER1/EGFR-targeted mAb now in advanced clinical development.

As space in this paper is limited, it is impossible to do justice to the entire field of HER-targeted therapies. Recent news of disappointing results from two phase III trials evaluating the TKI gefitinib in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has focused attention on this class of compound. Therefore, it seems appropriate at this time to reexamine these data and attempt to put them in perspective in the context of HER targeting as a therapeutic approach, with regard to TKIs in particular.


   MAKING SENSE OF THE EVIDENCE
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 HER Biology
 Making Sense of the...
Conclusion
 References
 
Two phase III trials (Iressa NSCLC Trial Assessing Combination Treatment [INTACT] 1 and INTACT 2), involving a total of 2,130 patients with untreated, advanced NSCLC, evaluating gefitinib in combination with one of two standard chemotherapeutic regimens (carboplatin and paclitaxel or gemcitabine and cisplatin), found no significantly greater overall survival, progression-free survival, or time to worsening symptoms associated with the addition of this TKI to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy plus placebo (Table 3Go) [31–37]. In the Iressa Dose Evaluation in Advanced Lung Cancer (IDEAL) 1 and IDEAL 2 phase II trials, gefitinib monotherapy showed promising results in NSCLC. Overall response rates at 250 and 500 mg/day were 18.4% and 19%, respectively, in IDEAL 1 [33], and 11.8% and 8.8%, respectively, in IDEAL 2 [34] (Table 3Go). While patients enrolled in the IDEAL 1 and IDEAL 2 trials had received at least one, and sometimes several, prior chemotherapy regimens, those enrolled in the INTACT 1 and INTACT 2 trials were chemotherapy naïve. The lack of additional benefit from combining gefitinib with chemotherapy as first-line therapy is entirely consistent with observations that, with conventional chemotherapy, triplet regimens are not superior to doublets in NSCLC [38]. Responses in the IDEAL 1 and IDEAL 2 trials were seen in a patient population already heavily pretreated with, and refractory to, chemotherapy, and may reflect a greater dependence of these tumors on HER1/EGFR pathways for growth and survival after chemotherapy-induced stress. Interestingly, the poor first-line combination data with gefitinib were in marked contrast to data obtained from preclinical studies in murine models [39]. The reason for this lack of concordance is unclear, but it could be a result of the different drug administration schedules used in the clinical and preclinical settings. Studies to examine the effect of scheduling on the efficacy of chemotherapeutic and targeted combinations are in progress.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. A selection of trials for tyrosine kinase inhibitors now in late-phase clinical development
 
Evidence, although unconfirmed, suggests that cancers can become dependent on one or more specific elements of the cell signaling circuit, requiring their continued presence in order to remain malignant [40]. Thus, if a cancer becomes dependent on the HER1/EGFR pathway, or some element of it, response to inhibition of this pathway may be greater in tumors that depend on the pathway, which offers another explanation for the differing outcomes of the IDEAL and INTACT trials. One would therefore need to learn more about tumor regulation at different stages of growth and to identify at what point such a dependence typically develops to optimize the timing and scheduling of therapy. Another possibility for such results is that the inhibition of tumor growth by gefitinib, when dosed at less than the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), may occur primarily via a secondary ‘stromal’ action, rather than because of any direct cytotoxic effect on tumor cells per se. Thus, although initially responses occur, therapy is effectively incomplete, leaving behind a residual subpopulation of more aggressive, resistant tumor cells. This would explain the responses seen in the IDEAL 1 and IDEAL 2 trials, versus the absence of any survival benefit in the INTACT 1 and INTACT 2 trials. More work is needed to establish whether such treatment actually directly kills tumor cells and, if not or if killing is incomplete, what consequences may result for subsequent tumor development. This will require the detailed study of tumor biopsies before, during, and after treatment, but will give a better understanding and so enable future treatment optimization.

Preselecting potentially responsive patients prior to therapy may increase the chances of achieving a positive outcome with new agents. Experience with trastuzumab has taught us that screening for a marker, HER2, prior to therapy with this agent is critical. If patients had not been selected for phase III trastuzumab trials based on HER2 expression, the objective response rate would have been so low that the trial would have resulted in a negative outcome and a potentially beneficial new therapy may have been overlooked [41]. The predictive marker for trastuzumab was easily identified as HER2, the target receptor; however, no reliable marker predictive of response has yet been identified for therapy with HER1/EGFR-targeted agents. HER1/EGFR, the most obvious choice, is overexpressed or dysregulated in many types of cancers [42], but several recent experimental studies suggest no correlation exists between HER1/EGFR overexpression and response to HER1/EGFR therapy [43, 44]. Although some studies have shown that the level of HER1/EGFR expression correlates with poor disease prognosis and lower survival, the data are inconclusive [18]. Indeed, HER1/EGFR expression has been used to preselect patients for therapy with some agents, but trials enrolling only HER1/EGFR-positive patients showed little better numbers of responsive patients [36, 37, 45]. This outcome may have resulted from the difficulties in quantifying HER1/EGFR expression [41] or the unrecognized molecular heterogeneity of tumors [46]. Interestingly, findings from a recent study examining cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy showed all responders had a +3-HER1/EGFR status [47]. However, the number of patients enrolled in that trial was relatively low (n = 30) and, therefore, further data are required to confirm these findings.

In a highly complex system such as the HER1/EGFR signaling network, the entire receptor family needs to be considered, its ligands, the role of gene mutations, and crosstalk with other signaling pathways. Studies have shown that overexpression of HER2 enhances the efficacy of TKIs and downregulates HER1/EGFR downstream pathways [48, 49]. In an attempt to identify pretreatment characteristics associated with response, a recent study analyzing 140 patients with NSCLC treated with gefitinib monotherapy showed that bronchioloalveolar features and a history of not smoking were the only predictors of response to gefitinib [50]. These data are supported by recent findings with erlotinib, which show that nonsmoking patients are potential responders to therapy [51]. These studies suggest that NSCLC may have a different biology in patients who have never smoked and may help unravel the mechanism of action of these agents. In summary, a deeper understanding of tumor biology and continued examination of tumor samples from clinical trials is required to identify markers that may predict response, hopefully, allowing the realization of the full potential of these agents.

As erlotinib progresses through two similar phase III trials, there may be some understandable apprehension among the clinical community regarding outcomes. As with the INTACT 1 and INTACT 2 trials, the erlotinib trials (Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation [TALENT] and Tarceva Responses in Conjunction with Paclitaxel and Carboplatin [TRIBUTE]) are important steps on the road to optimizing the application and use of this novel class of targeted agents. However, as these agents are still being used in an untargeted manner, the results may be difficult to interpret. However, some differences do exist between these agents that may, at least in part, account for the observed lack of response to gefitinib in the INTACT trials and may provide some reason not to presume a similar outcome for erlotinib.

Tumors are likely to express variable but excessive numbers of HER1/EGFRs [18]. Unless all receptors are effectively inhibited from initiating signaling, there is likely to be sufficient residual tumorigenic activity to maintain disease. If a tumor cell has, say, 500,000 HER1/EGFRs, and a therapeutic agent inhibits only 90%, that leaves 50,000 HER1/EGFR signaling receptors remaining; even if 99% inhibition was achieved, 5,000 HER1/EGFR signaling receptors per cell would still remain. In addition, studies have shown that the concentration of TKI required to inhibit receptor-mediated downstream signaling is much higher than that required to inhibit receptor autophosphorylation [49]. This suggests that, to achieve 100% receptor inhibition and completely block downstream signaling in as many tumors as possible, the therapeutic goal may require the administration of TKIs at as high a dose as can be tolerated without dose-limiting toxicities, that is, at the MTD. Erlotinib shows high plasma exposure for a relatively modest administered dose. Phase I data show maximum plasma levels (Cmax) of 1,737 µg/ml of erlotinib at its MTD of 150 mg/day compared with a Cmax of 307 µg/ml and a Cmax of 903 µg/ml for gefitinib attained at daily doses of 225 mg and 525 mg, respectively [52, 53], close to recommended doses, but significantly below the MTD of 700 mg/day to >1,000 mg/day [53–55]. Although used at a much higher plasma concentration than gefitinib, erlotinib has a good safety profile [35–37, 52].

As with any pharmacotherapeutic intervention, ultimately, patient tolerability determines the therapeutic regimen. If sufficient tumor concentration of drug cannot be achieved before toxicity becomes dose limiting, therapeutic efficacy is compromised. As one approaches the MTD, toxic effects increasingly manifest. For example, rash, the most common class-related toxicity for TKIs, appears to depend on dose level [52–55]. However, the appearance of a rash may act as a marker of TKI therapeutic efficacy, a hypothesis that is borne out by analysis of data from a phase II trial of erlotinib in 57 patients with advanced NSCLC in whom the occurrence of a rash was associated with clinical benefit. All patients who showed complete or partial responses, and 95% of those who had stable disease also had rashes. Conversely, of those patients who had disease progression, only 54% had rashes. Rash was also significantly correlated with greater survival, both in terms of occurrence and grade of severity.

The hypothesis that the occurrence of a rash correlates with survival is also supported by data for cetuximab. Findings from four recent trials examining cetuximab as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy in patients with colorectal, head and neck, and pancreatic cancers show a strong correlation between cetuximab-related rash and survival [56]. In the largest trial of cetuximab given in combination with irinotecan to 120 patients with colorectal cancer, the median survival times for patients with no rash, grade 1 rash, grade 2 rash, and grade 3 rash were 4.1, 6.2, 10.5, and 14.9 months, respectively (p = 0.0001). Similarly, in a phase II trial of patients with HNSCC administered the higher recommended dose of gefitinib (500 mg/day), results show a strong correlation between skin toxicity and response (p = 0.004), progression-free survival (p = 0.0002), and overall survival (p = 0.001) [57]. Findings from phase I studies with various TKIs also suggest that rash is related to dose and support a correlation between rash and response/survival. Thus, we can hypothesize that dosing to increase rash may improve outcome [53–55]. Perhaps the recommended (tolerated) therapeutic dose for gefitinib is by necessity suboptimal in some patients. At this stage of our understanding of the biology of cancer and how TKIs affect it, we may be wiser to consider these agents as functional marrow-sparing chemotherapy, and administer them at or near the MTD, rather than following the concept of an optimal biological dose, which is very difficult to define. Based on this premise, a phase II multicenter trial is in progress examining whether dose escalation of erlotinib in patients with less severe skin toxicity may increase rash and therefore improve outcome.

HER1/EGFR and HER2 both play key roles in the tumorigenic process. Since HER2 is the preferential coreceptor for the HER family, inhibition of HER1/EGFR alone will not prevent signaling via, for example, HER2/HER3 heterodimerization. Multiple pathway activation probably functions as a key feature of aggressive and refractory cancers, such as NSCLC. An agent that can knock out not only the preferred aberrant signaling route of the tumor, but also a subordinate one, may have added clinical benefits. Studies show that erlotinib inhibited not only isolated HER2 tyrosine kinase, but also blocked HER2/HER3-mediated activation of downstream signaling in a receptor-rich model in vitro [49, 58], both at concentrations that could possibly be attained by this compound in a clinical setting. This agent has also shown dose-dependent inhibition of tumor growth that was cytotoxic at higher doses and did not plateau [59]. This suggests that the ability to give erlotinib at the higher end of the dosing spectrum could have the added advantage of multiple dimer blockade and/or cytotoxic activity.

Patients enrolled in initial clinical trial programs for any new treatment in oncology are likely to comprise cases of advanced, refractory, and conventionally untreatable cancers. As such, new strategies are being evaluated in the sickest, most previously overmedicated, and least responsive individuals. There is little time, therefore, within any given study for perfecting an optimal regimen or accurately predicting efficacy in widespread clinical practice. Clinical trial design is an imprecise art at the best of times; in this patient population, it poses a real challenge. Constraints of time, ethical considerations, small patient numbers in early studies, and the fact that one is trying to treat late-stage terminal illness in which secondary physiological effects have taken hold all conspire to make both implementation of the trial and interpretation of the resulting data a medical minefield. Subtle differences among studies, such as patient population demographics in terms of disease stage, can lead to very different conclusions about efficacy and may or may not accurately predict the true place of an agent in the oncologist’s armamentarium. Phase II trials are designed to establish at least putative efficacy, which ideally means incorporation of a placebo control arm. However, in oncology, this can be ethically challenging, though not impossible, to achieve. Without this check, it cannot be assumed with 100% certainty that a clinical response is due to the treatment, even though in terminally ill patients a placebo effect of any magnitude is unlikely. Phase II trials evaluating gefitinib monotherapy in advanced NSCLC, the IDEAL 1 and IDEAL 2 trials, showed promising responses, but did not include a placebo arm, thus making definitive interpretation difficult. An ongoing phase III trial (BR.21) in a similar patient group addresses this question by comparing erlotinib monotherapy with placebo (Table 3Go).

A clinical trial is a licensing necessity, but it is also not always an exact science. Many factors can affect clinical trial outcomes, including trial design, dosing regimen, protocol, and patient selection criteria. For example, splitting a relatively small patient population into several even smaller groups to evaluate more than one dosing schedule can serve to hide modest survival benefits and make subsequent analyses less meaningful. The INTACT 1 and INTACT 2 trials had three arms, to take into account the two different doses of gefitinib used plus the control group [31, 32]. This may have contributed to a statistical dilution effect. The TALENT and TRIBUTE trials have two arms only, one to evaluate a single dose of erlotinib and one acting as the placebo control. From a statistical analysis perspective, this design effectively doubles the patient population on active medication and should help to reveal any effect on survival.

Other considerations to bear in mind when trying to interpret trial results include:

  • Protocol: For targeted agents, the timing of administration within a combination therapy or overall clinical case management framework may be crucial in determining response. For example, TKIs may be optimally effective either after a course of conventional chemotherapy (to prevent tumor cell repair/recovery and facilitate apoptosis) or as pretreatment sensitizers for radiotherapy [60, 61].
  • Disease stage: Preliminary trials are usually conducted in patients with advanced, near-terminal cancers, most of whom already have metastatic disease and associated physiological disturbances. By this time, cancer behaves like a ‘runaway train,’ generating its own momentum and biochemistry. Targeted agents offer an elegant solution for controlling cell aberrations, not a ‘chemical sledgehammer,’ and thus are probably being evaluated in a setting not best suited to their use, greatly underestimating their potential value. There is considerable strength in the argument that TKIs will work best when started in early-stage disease, that is, in an adjuvant or neoadjuvant context.


   CONCLUSION
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 HER Biology
 Making Sense of the...
 Conclusion
References
 
The mysteries of the complex mechanisms driving tumorigenesis, and of the HER pivotal role in this process, are only beginning to be unraveled. In some respects, novel targeted therapies are being fast-tracked to market because of an unmet medical need, leaving a knowledge gap in their wake regarding how best they should be used. Rather than balking at the challenges this presents, or arriving at conclusions too soon, we must share the responsibility for finding ways to ensure optimal utilization of these agents. This will likely involve identifying molecular markers that predict for response, thereby allowing the selection of the correct agent, or therapeutic "cocktail," for the right patient, cancer, and clinical need. A veritable tidal wave of new diagnostic and therapeutic developments gives good reason for optimism about the future (Fig. 2Go).



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Selected HER-targeted cancer therapeutics in development.

 
Few, if any, preliminary studies, particularly those involving a novel class of compound, have gotten it right the first time. Rather than basing definitive prediction, good or bad, prima facie on such trials alone, it is important to constructively critique and to intelligently question all aspects of their rationale. Only then can such trials have meaningful value, not merely as predictors of clinical efficacy but, as importantly, as components of a process of learning and refinement leading to this goal. The experience of the INTACT trials with gefitinib should be put in perspective and considered in the context of the many other trials evaluating TKI therapy, both completed and ongoing, many of which have already shown encouraging results and only a few of which are shown in Table 3Go. One dictionary definition of trial states it to be a "preliminary contest." No single clinical trial is an adequate substitute for consistent ongoing evaluation in clinical practice. As oncologists, we need to show a willingness to persevere with novel approaches, particularly when so much is at stake for us and our most vulnerable patients.


   REFERENCES
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 HER Biology
 Making Sense of the...
 Conclusion
 References
 

  1. Sedlacek HH. Kinase inhibitors in cancer therapy: a look ahead. Drugs 2000;59:435–476.[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Wells A. EGFR receptor. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 1999;31:637–643.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Moscatello DK, Holgado-Madruga M, Emlet DR et al. Constitutive activation of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase by a naturally occurring mutant epidermal growth factor receptor. J Biol Chem 1998;273:200–206.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell 2000;100:57–70.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Yarden Y, Sliwkowski MX. Untangling the ErbB signalling network. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2001;2:127–137.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Jones JT, Akita RW, Sliwkowski MX. Binding specificities and affinities of egf domains for ErbB receptors. FEBS Lett 1999;447:227–231.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Semba K, Kamata N, Toyoshima K et al. A v-erbB-related protooncogene, c-erbB-2, is distinct from the c-erbB-1/epidermal growth factor-receptor gene and is amplified in a human salivary gland adenocarcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1985;82:6497–6501.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Hackel PO, Zwick E, Prenzel N et al. Epidermal growth factor receptors: critical mediators of multiple receptor pathways. Curr Opin Cell Biol 1999;11:184–189.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Pinkas-Kramarski R, Soussan L, Waterman H et al. Diversification of Neu differentiation factor and epidermal growth factor signaling by combinatorial receptor interactions. EMBO J 1996;15:2452–2467.[Medline]
  10. Klapper LN, Glathe S, Vaisman N et al. The ErbB-2/HER2 oncoprotein of human carcinomas may function solely as a shared coreceptor for multiple stroma-derived growth factors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999;96:4995–5000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Guy PM, Platko JV, Cantley LC et al. Insect cell-expressed p180erbB3 possesses an impaired tyrosine kinase activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1994;91:8132–8136.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Graus-Porta D, Beerli RR, Daly JM et al. ErbB-2, the preferred heterodimerization partner of all ErbB receptors, is a mediator of lateral signaling. EMBO J 1997;16:1647–1655.[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Janmaat ML, Kruyt FA, Rodriguez JA et al. Response to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer cells: limited antiproliferative effects and absence of apoptosis associated with persistent activity of extracellular signal-regulated kinase or Akt kinase pathways. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:2316–2326.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Kraus AC, Ferber I, Bachmann SO et al. In vitro chemo- and radio-resistance in small cell lung cancer correlates with cell adhesion and constitutive activation of AKT and MAP kinase pathways. Oncogene 2002;21:8683–8695.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Voldborg BR, Damstrup L, Spang-Thomsen M et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and EGFR mutations, function and possible role in clinical trials. Ann Oncol 1997;8:1197–1206.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Chu CT, Everiss KD, Wilkstrand CJ et al. Receptor dimerization is not a factor in the signalling activity of a transforming variant epidermal growth factor (EGFRvIII). Biochem J 1997;324:855–861.
  17. Lal A, Glazer CA, Martinson HM et al. Mutant epidermal growth factor receptor up-regulates molecular effectors of tumor invasion. Cancer Res 2002;62:3335–3339.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Salomon DS, Brandt R, Ciardiello F et al. Epidermal growth factor-related peptides and their receptors in human malignancies. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 1995;19:183–232.[Medline]
  19. Walker RA, Dearing SJ. Expression of epidermal growth factor receptor mRNA and protein in primary breast carcinomas. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1999;53:167–176.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Beckmann MW, Niederacher D, Massenkeil G et al. Expression analyses of epidermal growth factor receptor and HER-2/neu: no advantage of prediction of recurrence or survival in breast cancer patients. Oncology 1996;53:441–447.[Medline]
  21. Bucci B, D’Agnano I, Botti C et al. EGF-R expression in ductal breast cancer: proliferation and prognostic implications. Anticancer Res 1997;17:769–774.[Medline]
  22. Messa C, Russo F, Caruso MG et al. EGF, TGF-{alpha}, and EGF-R in human colorectal adenocarcinoma. Acta Oncol 1998;37:285–289.[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Fujino S, Enokibori T, Tezuka N et al. A comparison of epidermal growth factor receptor levels and other prognostic parameters in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 1996;32A:2070–2074.
  24. Rusch V, Klimstra D, Venkatraman E et al. Overexpression of the epidermal growth factor receptor and its ligand transforming growth factor {alpha} is frequent in resectable non-small cell lung cancer but does not predict tumor progression. Clin Cancer Res 1997;3:515–522.[Abstract]
  25. Fontanini G, De Laurentiis M, Vignati S et al. Evaluation of epidermal growth factor-related growth factors and receptors and of neoangiogenesis in completely resected stage I-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer: amphiregulin and microvessel count are independent prognostic indicators of survival. Clin Cancer Res 1998;4:241–249.[Abstract]
  26. Fischer-Colbrie J, Witt A, Heinzl H et al. EGFR and steroid receptors in ovarian carcinoma: comparison with prognostic parameters and outcome of patients. Anticancer Res 1997;17:613–619.[Medline]
  27. Bartlett JM, Langdon SP, Simpson BJ et al. The prognostic value of epidermal growth factor receptor mRNA expression in primary ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer 1996;73:301–306.[Medline]
  28. Uegaki K, Nio Y, Inoue Y et al. Clinicopathological significance of epidermal growth factor and its receptor in human pancreatic cancer. Anticancer Res 1997;17:3841–3847.[Medline]
  29. Ebert AD, Wechselberger C, Martinez-Lacaci I et al. Expression and function of EGF-related peptides and their receptors in gynecological cancer—from basic science to therapy. J Recept Signal Transduct Res 2000;20:1–46.[Medline]
  30. Nicholson RI, Gee JM, Harper ME. EGFR and cancer prognosis. Eur J Cancer 2001;37(suppl 4):S9–S15.
  31. Giaccone G, Johnson DH, Manegold C et al. A phase III clinical trial of ZD1839 (‘Iressa’) in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (INTACT 1). Ann Oncol 2002;13(suppl 5):2.[Free Full Text]
  32. Johnson DH, Herbst R, Giaccone G et al. ZD1839 (‘Iressa’) in combination with paclitaxel & carboplatin in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): results from a phase III clinical trial (INTACT 2). Ann Oncol 2002;13(suppl 5):127.[Free Full Text]
  33. Fukuoka M, Yano S, Giaccone G et al. Multi-institutional randomized phase II trial of gefitinib for previously treated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2237–2246.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Kris MG, Natale RB, Herbst RS et al. A phase II trial of ZD1839 (‘Iressa’) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who had failed platinum- and docetaxel-based regimens (IDEAL 2) [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002;21:292a.
  35. Senzer NN, Soulieres D, Siu L et al. Phase 2 evaluation of OSI-774, a potent oral antagonist of the EGFR-TK in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001;20:2a.
  36. Finkler N, Gordon A, Crozier M et al. Phase 2 evaluation of OSI-774, a potent oral antagonist of the EGFR-TK in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001;20:208a.
  37. Perez-Soler R, Chachoua A, Huberman M et al. Final results from a phase II study of erlotinib (TarcevaTM) monotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer following failure of platinum-based chemotherapy [abstract]. Lung Cancer 2003;41(suppl 2):S246.
  38. Alberola V, Camps C, Provencia D et al. Cisplatin/gemcitabine (CG) vs cisplatin/gemcitabine/vinorelbine (CGV) vs sequential doublets of gemcitabine/vinorelbine followed by ifosfamide/vinorelbine (GV/IV) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): results of a Spanish Lung Cancer Group phase III trial (GEPC/98/02) [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001;20:308a.
  39. Sirotnak FM. Studies with ZD1839 in preclinical models. Semin Oncol 2003;30(suppl 1):12–20.[CrossRef]
  40. Weinstein IB. Addiction to oncogenes—the Achilles heal of cancer. Science 2002;297:63–64.[Free Full Text]
  41. Hortobágyi GN, Sauter G. Challenges and opportunities for Erlotinib (Tarceva): what does the future hold? Semin Oncol 2003;30(suppl 7):47–53.
  42. Arteaga CL. The epidermal growth factor receptor: from mutant oncogene in nonhuman cancers to therapeutic target in human neoplasia. J Clin Oncol 2001;19(suppl):32S–40S.
  43. Moulder SL, Yakes FM, Muthuswamy SK et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor (HER1) tyrosine kinase inhibitor ZD1839 (Iressa) inhibits HER2/neu (erbB2)-overexpressing breast cancer cells in vitro and in vivo. Cancer Res 2001;61:8887–8895.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Christensen JG, Schreck RE, Chan E et al. High levels of HER-2 expression alter the ability of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) family tyrosine kinase inhibitors to inhibit EGFR phosphorylation in vivo. Clin Cancer Res 2001;7:4230–4238.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Hidalgo M. Phase I studies/combination therapy with Tarceva (erlotinib HCl; OSI-774) in head and neck cancer. Presented at the Consortium on Novel Targeted Therapies for Head and Neck Cancer, San Juan, Puerto Rico, February 5–9, 2003.
  46. Betensky RA, Louis DN, Cairncross JG. Influence of unrecognized molecular heterogeneity on randomized clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:2495–2499.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Kelly K, Hanna N, Rosenberg A et al. A multicenter phase I/II study of cetuximab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in untreated patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:644.
  48. Moasser MM, Basso A, Averbuch SD et al. The tyrosine kinase inhibitor ZD1839 (‘Iressa’) inhibits HER2-driven signaling and suppresses the growth of HER2-overexpressing tumor cells. Cancer Res 2001;61:7184–7188.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Akita RW, Dugger D, Lewis Phillips G et al. Effects of the EGFR inhibitor TARCEVA on activated ErbB2 [abstract]. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 2002:43:1003.
  50. Shah N, Miller VA, Kris MG et al. Bronchioalveolar histology and smoking history predict response to gefitinib [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:628.
  51. Miller VA, Patel J, Shah N et al. The epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib (OSI-774) shows promising activity in patients with bronchioloalveolar cell carcinoma (BAC): preliminary results of a phase II trial [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:619.
  52. Hidalgo M, Siu LL, Nemunaitis J et al. Phase I and pharmacologic study of OSI-774, an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid malignancies. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3267–3279.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Ranson M, Hammond LA, Ferry D et al. ZD1839, a selective oral epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is well tolerated and active in patients with solid, malignant tumors: results of a phase I trial. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:2240–2250.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Herbst RS, Maddox AM, Rothenberg ML et al. Selective oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor ZD1839 is generally well-tolerated and has activity in non-small-cell lung cancer and other solid tumors: results of a phase I trial. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3815–3825.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  55. Baselga J, Rischin D, Ranson M et al. Phase I safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic trial of ZD1839, a selective oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with five selected solid tumor types. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:4292–4302.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Saltz LB, Kies MS, Abbruzzese JL et al. The presence and intensity of the cetuximab-induced acne-like rash predicts increased survival in studies across multiple malignancies [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:204.
  57. Cohen EE, Rosen F, Stadler WM et al. Phase II trial of ZD1839 in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1980–1987.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. Data on file. Melville, NY: OSI Pharmaceuticals.
  59. Pollack VA, Savage DM, Baker DA et al. Inhibition of epidermal growth factor receptor-associated tyrosine phosphorylation in human carcinomas with CP-358,774: dynamics of receptor inhibition in situ and antitumor effects in athymic mice. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1999;291:739–748.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Bianco R, Bianco C, Caputo R et al. Selective inhibition of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase (EGFR-TK) by ZD1839 (‘Iressa’) potentiates the antitumor effects of ionizing radiation. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 2002;43:1003.
  61. Bonner JA, Raisch KP, Trummell HQ et al. Enhanced apoptosis with combination C225/radiation treatment serves as the impetus for clinical investigation in head and neck cancers. J Clin Oncol 2000;18(suppl 21):47S–53S.
Received June 18, 2003; accepted for publication October 7, 2003.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 FASEB J.Home page
S. Song, D. Liu, J. Peng, H. Deng, Y. Guo, L. X. Xu, A. D. Miller, and Y. Xu
Novel peptide ligand directs liposomes toward EGF-R high-expressing cancer cells in vitro and in vivo
FASEB J, May 1, 2009; 23(5): 1396 - 1404.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
A. J. Mutsaers, G. Francia, S. Man, C. R. Lee, J. M.L. Ebos, Y. Wu, L. Witte, S. Berry, M. Moore, and R. S. Kerbel
Dose-Dependent Increases in Circulating TGF-{alpha} and Other EGFR Ligands Act As Pharmacodynamic Markers for Optimal Biological Dosing of Cetuximab and Are Tumor Independent
Clin. Cancer Res., April 1, 2009; 15(7): 2397 - 2405.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
K. D. Cowden Dahl, J. Symowicz, Y. Ning, E. Gutierrez, D. A. Fishman, B. P. Adley, M. S. Stack, and L. G. Hudson
Matrix Metalloproteinase 9 Is a Mediator of Epidermal Growth Factor-Dependent E-Cadherin Loss in Ovarian Carcinoma Cells
Cancer Res., June 15, 2008; 68(12): 4606 - 4613.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
T. Li, Y.-H. Ling, I. D. Goldman, and R. Perez-Soler
Schedule-Dependent Cytotoxic Synergism of Pemetrexed and Erlotinib in Human Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Cells
Clin. Cancer Res., June 1, 2007; 13(11): 3413 - 3422.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
G. Schaefer, L. Shao, K. Totpal, and R. W. Akita
Erlotinib Directly Inhibits HER2 Kinase Activation and Downstream Signaling Events in Intact Cells Lacking Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Expression
Cancer Res., February 1, 2007; 67(3): 1228 - 1238.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
U. Reusch, M. Sundaram, P. A. Davol, S. D. Olson, J. B. Davis, K. Demel, J. Nissim, R. Rathore, P. Y. Liu, and L. G. Lum
Anti-CD3 x Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Bispecific Antibody Redirects T-Cell Cytolytic Activity to EGFR-Positive Cancers In vitro and in an Animal Model
Clin. Cancer Res., January 1, 2006; 12(1): 183 - 190.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The OncologistHome page
W. P. Tew, D. P. Kelsen, and D. H. Ilson
Targeted Therapies for Esophageal Cancer
Oncologist, September 1, 2005; 10(8): 590 - 601.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 GutHome page
R J Playford, H Wassan, and S Ghosh
Effects of growth factors and receptor blockade on gastrointestinal cancer
Gut, August 1, 2004; 53(8): 1059 - 1063.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow eLetters: Submit a response to this article
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pérez-Soler, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pérez-Soler, R.

HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE ONCOLOGIST STEM CELLS CME ALPHAMED PRESS JOURNALS