The Lost Opportunity in Phase I Oncology Trials

Insider Abstracts PEER PERSPECTIVES IN ONCOLOGY

The Lost Opportunity in Phase I Oncology Trials a Q&A with Daniel D. Von Hoff, M.D.

Insider Abstracts PEER PERSPECTIVES IN ONCOLOGY

Overview In Peer Perspectives in Oncology, Medelis brings together some of the most respected researchers to talk about the issues facing Chief Medical Officers today. They’re issues we all face on a daily basis: ! Rising costs. ! Optimum patient accrual. ! Targeted therapeutics. ! Patient safety. ! FDA regulations. ! Efficacy. ! Budgets. ! Timelines.

In this Q&A series, we’ll discuss these challenges with leading experts who deliver practical, frontline insights gleaned from years of experience bringing new drugs to market.

www.medelis.com | info@medelis.com

The Lost Opportunity in Phase I Oncology Trials a Q&A with Daniel D. Von Hoff, M.D. Introduction Traditionally, drug developers have regarded the phase I trial as having a utility limited to the assessment of safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a drug. In this Peer Perspectives in Oncology, renowned oncology investigator Dr. Daniel Von Hoff describes how Chief Medical Officers can design better oncology phase I trials to glean meaningful efficacy data by using the patient as his or her own control. He further explains how a CMO can gather evidence showing a drug changes the natural history of a patient’s disease, demonstrating improved care and a stronger case for moving a drug into phase II.

About Dr. Daniel Von Hoff Daniel D. Von Hoff, M.D. is Senior Investigator and Head of Translational Research at the Translational Genomics Research Institute's (TGen) Translational Drug Development Division and Head, Pancreatic Cancer Research Program in Phoenix, Arizona.

He also serves as Chief Scientific Officer for U.S. Oncology and the Scottsdale Clinical Research Institute, and is a founding shareholder and advisory board member of Medelis.

Dr. Von Hoff's major interest is in the development of new anticancer agents, both in the clinic and in the laboratory. He and his colleagues were involved in the beginning of the development of many of the agents we now use routinely, including mitoxantrone, fludarabine, paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine, CPT-11, gefitinib and others. At present, he and his colleagues are concentrating on the development of molecularly targeted therapies.

Dr. Von Hoff's laboratory interests and contributions have been in the area of in vitro drug sensitivity testing to individualize treatment for the patient. He and his laboratory are now concentrating on discovery of new targets in pancreatic cancer. Dr. Von Hoff has published more than 529 papers, 129 book chapters, and more than 891 abstracts.

Dr. Von Hoff was appointed to President Bush's National Cancer Advisory Board from June 2004 - March 2010. He is the past President of the American Association for Cancer Research, a Fellow of the American College of Physicians, and a member and past board member of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. He is a founder of ILEX Oncology, Inc. (acquired by Genzyme). He is founder and Editor Emeritus of Investigational New Drugs - The Journal of New Anticancer Agents as well as the Editor-in-Chief of Molecular Cancer Therapeutics. He is also proud to have been a mentor and teacher for multiple medical students, medical oncology fellows, graduate students, and post-doctoral fellows.

Insider Abstracts

3

The Lost Opportunity in Phase I Oncology Trials a Q&A with Daniel D. Von Hoff, M.D. Medelis: Dan, you believe that many Chief Medical Officers today are missing a valuable opportunity to gain more meaningful data from phase I oncology trials. That, in fact, seeing each patient as his or her own control may hold a key to later success and, as a result, create a more compelling story for management and investors. Can you describe in detail what you mean here?

Dr. Von Hoff: Yes, and it’s very simple. Typically, a CMO sees phase I as a toxicity trial, not a therapeutic trial, because of course it isn’t randomized.

But the doctors at the bedside and the patients themselves don’t see it as purely a toxicity trial. We’re looking for improvement and survival. And even during phase I, we can glean important efficacy clues by using the patient as his or her own control.

Recently, at AACR, I reported on findings involving nine patients in a phase I trial showing dramatic tumor shrinkage with no side effects with an oral agent. Clearly the drug did something. It slowed down the disease and the patients benefited. In fact, the drug changed the natural history of each patient.

Medelis: How should this information be used?

Dr. Von Hoff: It can be a key part of the story you tell to sponsors and investors when raising money. You show how long the patient was on a prior therapy and now how long she is on your new therapy. If the patient is on the new therapy longer than she was on the prior therapy, the new drug is doing something – it is changing the natural history of that patient’s disease.

Medelis: In the context of a trial, it seems counter-intuitive to look at the individual patient.

Dr. Von Hoff: The reason it’s so important to look at each individual patient is because each patient’s tumor has a different natural history.

Everyone’s cancer is different in heterogeneity and tempo, or natural history. We may not know all the variables, but we do know that if the cancer changes, as measured by increased time on therapy, we must be doing something right.

Insider Abstracts

4

The Lost Opportunity in Phase I Oncology Trials: a Q&A with Daniel D. Von Hoff, M.D.

Medelis: Do you systematically track this information for each patient?

Dr. Von Hoff: Yes. In fact, I now recommend including this kind of information — time to progression on each drug — in the protocol so it becomes part of each patient’s database.

Medelis: How should a CMO incorporate this data into the protocol?

Dr. Von Hoff: You establish it as an endpoint. So in addition to all the other endpoints that measure anti-tumor activity in a classic phase I trial, you add a line that specifies that one of the secondary endpoints is the time patients are on treatment with a new agent versus the time they were on their “just-prior drug.”

Medelis: You refer to measuring “time on therapy” as opposed to “time to progression?” What’s the distinction?

Dr. Von Hoff: With “time to progression” you need to be taking regular measurements such as scans. In comparison, “time on therapy” takes other things into consideration.

Medelis: That turns it into a more subjective, general indicator. Is that good?

Dr. Von Hoff: It helps because it takes into consideration clinical judgment, or people’s observational powers, which can be beneficial in addition to scans.

Medelis: And therein lies the art of the matter: the power of observation.

Dr. Von Hoff: What makes a clinical investigator great at his or her trade is the ability to observe keenly. Careful observation is critical at every stage.

Medelis: Are CMOs starting to do this as a matter of course — using time on drug to demonstrate improvement, then using that data to make a case to potential sponsors?

Dr. Von Hoff: I have written about this but have never seen a CMO plot time on a new drug versus the time on a just-prior therapy.

This idea of using the patient as their own control is a lost concept in drug development. Dr. Bob Temple at the FDA, an icon in clinical

Insider Abstracts

5

The Lost Opportunity in Phase I Oncology Trials: a Q&A with Daniel D. Von Hoff, M.D.

trial design, calls it a lost art. He’s referring to the ability to document changes in the natural history of a patient’s tumor, and how this information can give you a sense of whether the drug will work.

Medelis: Does the approach of using a patient as their own control still work in the case of cytostatic drugs, which affect cells without decreasing tumor size?

Dr. Von Hoff: Even if an agent isn’t shrinking the tumor, it may be keeping it stable for long periods. If you plot the time a patient is on a new drug versus the time they were on the therapy they just progressed on, you can gauge whether an agent changed the natural history of the patient’s tumor. And, if at the higher doses, you have more people with longer time to progression as compared to lower doses, then you have a trend that your drug is actually doing something. If the patient had been on the next drug for only one month, then you know it didn’t do anything for them. But if you can beat what the patient just had, you really have a good prognostic sign.

CMOs and others just aren’t giving this information enough value.

Medelis: At what point would you feel validated to invest more deeply in a particular therapy based on information deduced from using the patient as their own control?

Dr. Von Hoff: If you treat 30 patients and 30% stay on a new therapy for a longer time than the just-prior drug they had progressed on, then that would justify a deeper investment. Patients’ tumors grow at an inexorable rate. If you find an agent that can taper that growth, then it is probably doing something and should be pursued.

Medelis: Why isn’t this a more common practice?

Dr. Von Hoff: It’s not how people report. Instead of time on a therapy, they report stable disease over time. Unless they know how fast the tumor was growing in the first place, there is no reference point. If a patient has a short time to progression when you put them on study, they have a fast-growing tumor. If you slow its growth, you can tell right away by comparing time to progression.

Insider Abstracts

6

The Lost Opportunity in Phase I Oncology Trials: a Q&A with Daniel D. Von Hoff, M.D.

Medelis: So the phase I shouldn’t just focus on maximum tolerable dose?

Dr. Von Hoff: Exactly. It’s an opportunity to look for therapeutic effect as well. If it’s there, patients benefit and you have a great start.

Medelis: So the payoff for CMOs changing how they see the phase I could be substantial.

Dr. Von Hoff: There’s no question in my mind. If a CMO started comparing time on new drug versus time on just-prior therapy, they would have a better idea as to whether the new agent had promise. All it takes is a more proactive approach to the phase I.

www.medelis.com | info@medelis.com

Headquarters 5870 Flowering Sage Court Suite 200 Reno, Nevada 89511 phone: 775.851.9460 fax: 775.851.9490

Executive Offices 4105 N. 20th Street Suite 215 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 phone: 602.840.1101 fax: 602.840.1102

U.S. Clinical Operations 2200 21st Ave., South Suite 300 Nashville, Tennessee 37212 phone: 615.297.6105 fax: 615.297.6539

Medelis Europe 15 rue Pierre Basseres 66660 Port Vendres France phone/fax: 33 (0) 468.555.392

Peer Perspectives in Oncology is a Q&A series brought to you by Medelis, a single-source provider for oncology drug development services. Medelis provides a total solution for biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies seeking rapid drug development and approval. To learn more, visit www.medelis.com.

Insider Abstracts

7