leave a comment

Some Targeted Therapies for Cancer Come as Pills

This post, on FDA-​​approved small-​​molecule tar­geted ther­apies for cancer, seems like a homework assignment of sorts. But really I found it a useful exercise and hope some readers might find it so, too. In searching the Web, I found remarkably little on this that’s public-​​domain, com­pre­hensive and orga­nized. In fact, there seems to be a lot of con­fusion about what these drugs are and how these differ from con­ven­tional, cyto­toxic chemother­apies.

Some his­torical perspective:

Before 1970, few people received chemotherapy. Even with a cancer diag­nosis, most treat­ments were sur­gical and radiation-​​based. A few older agents, chemotherapy pills such as chlo­ram­bucil and mel­phalan were given by mouth. From 1970 until 2000 (more or less), the thrust of most new cancer treat­ments involved stronger and some­times more effective com­bi­nation chemotherapy reg­imens. Almost all of those new treat­ments were given by intra­venous (IV).

One point here that’s rel­evant to health care reform and the current debate on physician pay­ments is that as things stand, oncol­o­gists and medical centers make money by giving IV infu­sions. Each treatment is billed as a pro­cedure, apart from the cost of the med­ication in itself. So if patients can take a drug without a catheter, it might be less costly – there’s no nurse to hire, no catheter to pur­chase and insert and there’s no billing for an infusion per se.

And there’s less cost to the patient in terms of hassle and some untoward effects of IV treatment. With oral drugs (cap­sules, pills or tablets — any­thing taken by mouth) there’s no need to go to the doctor’s office or medical center every week or every other week, or even daily as is pre­scribed for some chemo reg­imens. There’s no need to have one’s arms shot up or a per­manent, dan­gling catheter inserted. There’s no attendant risk for infection from an IV or semi-​​permanent catheter.

Reality check: most effective cancer drugs are not available in pill form, and for the most part these tar­geted treat­ments are in their infancy. But their number is expanding, so much so that most of the cancer pills I’m about to list have been approved only in the past five years.

Take further note: these are toxic drugs. Tar­geted ther­apies are designed, in prin­ciple, to kill malignant cells while leaving normal, healthy cells alone. Unfor­tu­nately, the effects of the med­ica­tions listed below are broader than would be ideal. In general, these pills take aim at mol­e­cules that are over-​​active in cancer cells. But most of the affected enzymes are present in regular, healthy cells, too.

Here’s a list of small-​​molecule, oral drugs that target cancer cell enzymes and have received Food and Drug Admin­is­tration approval prior to March 9, 2010, in order of approval:

1. Gleevec (ima­tinib, STI-​​571) was the first drug in this class to receive FDA approval. It coun­teracts an abnormal enzyme, a tyrosine kinase, that’s active in chronic myel­ogenous leukemia (CML) cells. The malignant tyrosine kinase, bcr-​​abl, arises in most cases from a chro­mo­somal switch, called the Philadelphia Chro­mosome.

It turns out this drug works, also, against another tyrosine kinase, one related to a cell surface receptor protein called c-​​kit that’s mutated and acti­vated in many Gas­troin­testinal Stromal Tumors (GIST). In 2002 the FDA approved use of Gleevec for GIST tumors in “c-​​kit+” tumors, meaning GIST cancers in which the c-​​kit receptor is mutated.

Since then the drug’s been approved for addi­tional uses, only in some and quite spe­cific cir­cum­stances, for adults with acute lym­phoblastic leukemia (ALL) in which the malignant cells harbor the Philadelphia Chro­mosome (Ph+) and for some patients with other, mainly rare blood dis­orders in which par­ticular genetic changes are estab­lished. (Novartis, May 2001)

2. Tarceva (erlotinib). This drug is also a tyrosine kinase inhibitor and is thought to act pri­marily by blocking growth signals of the Epi­dermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR). The drug was ini­tially approved for use in some patients with non-​​small cell lung cancer and, more recently, for patients with pan­creatic cancer. (Genentech, November 2004)

(Here I should mention Iressa (gefi­tinib) that was approved by the FDA early on for treatment of patients with advanced non-​​small lung cancer. Like Tarceva, Iressa has activity against EGFR-​​linked kinase activity and growth signals. The drug is no longer approved for most patients. AstraZeneca, 2003)

3. Sprycel (dasa­tinib). Like Gleevec, this tar­geted therapy blocks the bcr-​​abl tyrosine kinase activity in CML. The FDA approved this med­ication for CML patients whose disease pro­gressed while on Gleevec (Gleevec-​​refractory CML) and for some adults with ALL in whom the malignant cells are Ph+. (Bristol-​​Myers Squibb, June 2006)

4. Sutent (suni­tinib). Sutent is approved for use in metastatic kidney cancer and in GIST tumors that have pro­gressed during treatment with Gleevec. It’s a fairly broad-​​acting tyrosine kinase inhibitor. (Pfizer, January 2006)

5. Tykerb (lap­a­tinib). Tykerb is the only small-​​molecule drug that’s FDA-​​approved for use in some breast cancer cases. It blocks growth signals through Her2 (Her2/​neu), a receptor tyrosine kinase that’s present on the surface of some breast cancer cells. The drug is approved for patients with metastatic breast cancer that’s Her2+ (meaning that the malignant cells display this mol­ecule) and when it’s given in com­bi­nation with Xeloda (capecitabine, an oral version of an oth­erwise con­ven­tional chemotherapy).

In January of 2010, the FDA granted accel­erated approval of Tykerb in con­junction with Femara (letrozole, a hor­monal therapy) in some patients with metastatic, Her2+ breast cancer in which the cells also express estrogen and/​or prog­es­terone receptors. (Glax­o­SmithKline, March 2007)

6. Tasigna (nilo­tinib). This is the latest drug to tackle the bcr-​​abl tyrosine kinase activity in CML. It’s approved for adults with CML who have failed at least one regimen con­taining Gleevec. (Novartis, October 2007).

7. Nexavar (sorafenib). This therapy may not be tar­geted in the truest sense because its activity is so broad. It blocks receptor-​​linked tyrosine kinases such as those asso­ciated with Vas­cular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor (VEGF-​​R) and Platelet Derived Growth Factor Receptor (PDGF-​​R). It inhibits other types of sig­naling enzymes inside cells, such as Raf–asso­ciated serine-​​threonine kinases.

The FDA has approved this drug for two groups of patients: those with advanced renal cell (kidney) cancer and those with liver tumors that can’t be removed by surgery.  (Bayer, November 2007)

8. Afinitor (everolimus) is in a slightly dif­ferent class of drugs, in that it blocks mTOR (mam­malian target of rapamycin, another sort of cel­lular enzyme). This drug is approved for use in patients with metastatic kidney cancer whose disease has pro­gressed after Sutent and Nexavar. (Novartis, March 2009)

9. Votrient (pazopanib) blocks numerous tyrosine kinases and is the latest FDA-​​approved drug in this class. It’s approved for patients with advanced renal cell (kidney) cancer. (Glax­o­SmithKline, October 2009)

Note to readers: other, oral tar­geted ther­apies are available that act by dif­ferent sorts of mech­a­nisms. I will cover those separately.

Several web­sites provide more infor­mation on so-​​called tar­geted ther­apies for cancer, including new intra­venous treat­ments, mon­o­clonal anti­bodies and some drugs that act by dis­tinct mech­a­nisms. Some of the sites I rec­ommend for this topic include the National Cancer Institute and the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Cancer​.Net.

Related Posts:

Leave a Reply