Safety and Efficacy of Denosumab for Giant Cell Tumor of Bone Jean-Yves Blay 1 ; Sant Chawla 2 ; Leanne Seeger 3 ; Robert Henshaw 4 ; Edwin Choy 5 ; Robert Grimer 6 ; Stefano Ferrari 7 ; Peter Reichardt 8 ; Piotr Rutkowski 9 ; Scott Schuetze 10 ; David Thomas 11 ; Antonio Lopez Pousa 12 ; Yi Qian 13 ; Ira Jacobs 13 1 University Claude Bernard Lyon I, Lyon, France; 2 Sarcoma Oncology Center, Santa Monica, CA, USA; 3 Musculoskeletal Radiology, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 4 Georgetown University College of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA; 5 Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; 6 Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, UK; 7 Istituti Ortopedici Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy; 8 HELIOS Klinik Berlin-Buch, Berlin, Germany; 9 Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland; 10 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI;
16
Embed
Safety and Efficacy of Denosumab for Giant Cell Tumor of Bone Jean-Yves Blay 1 ; Sant Chawla 2 ; Leanne Seeger 3 ; Robert Henshaw 4 ; Edwin Choy 5 ; Robert.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Safety and Efficacy of Denosumab for Giant Cell Tumor of Bone
Jean-Yves Blay1; Sant Chawla2; Leanne Seeger3; Robert Henshaw4; Edwin Choy5; Robert Grimer6; Stefano Ferrari7; Peter Reichardt8; Piotr Rutkowski9; Scott Schuetze10; David Thomas11;
Antonio Lopez Pousa12; Yi Qian13; Ira Jacobs13
1University Claude Bernard Lyon I, Lyon, France; 2Sarcoma Oncology Center, Santa Monica, CA, USA; 3Musculoskeletal Radiology, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA;
4Georgetown University College of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA; 5Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; 6Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, UK; 7Istituti Ortopedici Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy; 8HELIOS Klinik Berlin-Buch, Berlin, Germany; 9Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland; 10University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI; 11Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; 12Hospital Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain; 13Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
Acknowledgements and Disclosures
• Funding for the study and assistance with presentation preparation was provided by Amgen Inc.• J. Y. Blay has received corporate-sponsored research funding from and has served as an advisory
board member for Novartis, GSK, Roche, MSD, and PharmaMar. • S. Chawla has received corporate-sponsored research funding from and has served as an
advisory board member for Amgen, Threshold, Cytrax, GlaxoSmithKline, and Berg Pharma. • R. Henshaw has received corporate-sponsored research funding from and has served as an
advisory board member for Amgen. • E. Choy has received research funding from the Liddy Shriver Sarcoma Initiative and has served
as a consultant to Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, and Biomed Valley Discoveries. • S. Ferrari has received funding from Amgen, Molmed, PharmaMar, and Pfizer and received
support from Takeda to attend scientific meetings. • P. Reichardt has served as an advisory board member for Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, MSD/Merck,
and as a speakers’ bureau member for Novartis, Pfizer, MSD/Merck, Amgen, and PharmaMar. • P. Rutkowski has served as an advisory board member for Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squib (BMS),
and MSD and as a speaker’s bureau member for Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, BMS, and MSD. • D. Thomas has received research support from Amgen Inc. • Y. Qian and I. Jacobs are employees of Amgen Inc. and have received Amgen stock/stock
options. • L. Seeger, R. Grimer, S. Schuetze, and A. Lopez Pousa have no relationships to disclose.
Giant Cell Tumor of Bone (GCTB)
• Locally aggressive, destructive primary bone tumor
• Causes pain and swelling and impairs mobility and function1
• No standard or approved medicinal therapy
• Surgical intervention often associated with significant morbidity2
1. Mendenhall WM, et al. Am J Clin Oncol. 2006;29:96-9. 2. Thomas DM, Skubitz KM. Curr Opin Oncol. 2009;21:338-344.
Denosumab in GCTB
• GCTB stromal cells, thought to be the neoplastic component of GCTB, express high levels of RANK ligand (RANKL) that stimulate the formation of RANK-positive tumor giant cells from RANK-positive osteoclast precursors.1-6
• High levels of RANKL also stimulate giant cell activation and survival and tumor-induced bone lysis.3-5
• Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody against RANKL.6
• Denosumab inhibits bone destruction by preventing RANKL-mediated formation, activation, and survival of osteoclast-like giant cells.5
1. Atkins GJ, et al.. J Bone Miner Res. 2006;21:1339-1349.2. Huang L, et al. Am J Pathol. 2000;156:761-767.3. Roux S, et al. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117:210-21.6
4. Lau YS et al. Hum Pathol. 2005;36:945–54.5. Branstetter DG et al. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 8(16):4415-24.6. Bekker PJ, et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2004;19:1059-66.
Objectives
• To evaluate the safety profile of denosumab in patients with GCTB treated with denosumab
• To evaluate time to disease progression in patients with unsalvageable GCTB
• To evaluate the proportion of denosumab-treated patients with salvageable GCTB who do not require surgery, for whom surgery is delayed, or who are able to undergo a less morbid surgery
• This prespecified interim analysis includes all eligible patients enrolled between September 9, 2008 and March 25, 2011 (the analysis cut-off date)
• Additional results from this study are being presented in posters at CTOS:
– Results of independent imaging assessments (poster 144)
– Effects of denosumab on pain and analgesic use (poster 143)
Study Design
1 8 15 2 3 4 5
Denosumab 120 mg SC
Months 7 to N
Cohort 2: Salvageable GCTB with planned surgery
Cohort 1: Surgically unsalvageable GCTB
6
Adults or skeletally mature adolescents with GCTB
Cohort 3*: Patients who transitioned from previous denosumab GCTB study
*No loading doses on days 8 and 15 N = number of months on study
Primary Endpoint
• Safety profile of denosumab
Key Secondary Endpoints
• Cohort 1: Time to disease progression• Cohort 2: Proportion of patients without any surgery
at month 6
Results: Study Participation
Cohort 1: 170 patients
149 on study at interim analysis cutoff date
169 analyzed for efficacy * 169 analyzed for safety *
Cohort 2: 101 patients
20 Discontinued Study10 Protocol-specific
criteria1 Adverse event2 Consent withdrawn2 Disease progression5 Other
81 on study at interim analysis cutoff date
100 analyzed for efficacy † 101 analyzed for safety †
Patients Enrolled: 282
21 Discontinued Study2 Complete tumor
resection7 Adverse event1 Consent withdrawn1 Disease progression2 Requirement for
alternative therapy1 Pregnancy7 Other
*In cohort 1, 169 patients received investigational product. †In cohort 2, 101 patients received investigational product, but one cohort 2 patient was ineligible (no written informed consent) and was therefore excluded from the efficacy analysis. ‡Cohort 3 patients are included in the safety analyses but not in the efficacy analyses in this presentation.
Cohort 3: 11 patients
0 Discontinued Study
11 on study at interim analysis cutoff date
11 analyzed for efficacy ‡ 11 analyzed for safety‡
Results: Baseline Demographics and Disease Characteristics
Characteristics(All enrolled patients), n (%)
Cohort 1Surgically
UnsalvageableN = 170
Cohort 2Salvageable,
Surgery PlannedN = 101
Cohort 3Patients from
Previous StudyN = 11
Female 102 (60) 57 (56) 5 (45)Age, median (min–max) 33 (13–83) 34 (16–69) 30 (22–63)Location of target lesion
• 6 patients (4%) in Cohort 1 experienced disease progression at some time during the assessment period; the median time to disease progression was not reached.
Clinical Benefit (Investigator-Determined)
N1 = number of enrolled patients who were eligible and received ≥ 1 dose of denosumab.
Pain reduc-
tion
Improved mobility
Improved function
Other0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
48 (28%)
38 (22%)32 (19%)
6 (4%)
Cohort 1: Surgically UnsalvageableN1 = 169*
Cohort 2: Salvageable, Surgery Planned
N1 = 100*
Pain reduc-
tion
Improved mobility
Improved function
Other0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
50 (50%)
33 (33%)
23 (23%)
10 (10%)
Best Response During the Assessment Period
Radiologic Response to Denosumab
Pre-Treatment Week 19 Post-Treatment
Radiologic Response to Denosumab
Baseline Week 5 Week 37
Planned Versus Actual Surgery in Cohort 2
Surgical Procedure, n* (In decreasing order of morbidity)
Baseline Planned (N =100)
Actual Total (N = 26)
All surgeries 100 26
Major surgeries 44 3
Hemipelvectomy 4 0
Amputation 17 0
Joint/prosthesis replacement 9 1
Joint resection 14 2
En bloc resection 37 6
En bloc excision 4 0
Marginal excision 1 0
Curettage 13 16
Other 1 1
No surgery 0 74
• Of the 71 patients in Cohort 2 who had the opportunity to be on study for ≥6 months, 64 (90%) did not have any surgery by month 6.
• By the analysis cut-off date, 74 of 100 patients (74%) in Cohort 2 had not undergone surgery.
* n = number of patients
Adverse Events
Patients with Adverse Events, n* (%) All Patients
N = 281*Any adverse event 236 (84)
Adverse events occurring with > 10% frequency
Arthralgia 55 (20)
Headache 51 (18)
Nausea 48 (17)
Fatigue 45 (16)
Back pain 42 (15)
Pain in extremity 41 (15)
Grade 3,4, or 5 adverse events 50 (18)
Serious adverse events 25 (9)
Adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation 14 (5)
Adverse event of interest
Adjudicated positive ONJ 3 (1)
Resolved† 2 (1)
Hypocalcemia (none serious) 15 (5)
Serious infections 5 (2)
New primary malignancy 3 (1)
Based on Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA; version 14.1 and CTCAE version 3.0)* n = number of patients who received ≥ 1 dose of denosumab† By the cutoff date, 2 cases were resolved and 1 case was not resolved
Summary
• The safety profile of denosumab in these patients with GCTB was consistent with that observed in other denosumab trials; no new risks were observed– ONJ and hypocalcemia, known risks of denosumab, were
observed at a low rate consistent with that seen in other studies• 96% of Cohort 1 patients had no disease progression at any time on
study, as determined by the investigator• Of 100 patients for whom surgery was planned:
– 74 had no surgery – 16 of 26 had less morbid surgeries than planned
• Denosumab delayed disease progression, prolonged the time to surgery, and reduced the need for morbid surgery in most patients, representing a potential new treatment option for patients with GCTB