Vismodegib Efficacy in Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma Maintained with 8-Week Dose Interruptions: A Model-Based Evaluation
Pascal Chanu,Luna Musib,Xin Wang,Sravanthi Cheeti,Sandhya Girish,Rene Bruno,Tong Lu,Josina Reddy,Jin Y. Jin,Ivor Caro
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2020.07.036
IF: 7.59
2021-01-01
Journal of Investigative Dermatology
Abstract:Long-term use of vismodegib is associated with treatment-emergent adverse drug reactions in clinical trials of patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) and metastatic basal cell carcinoma (mBCC). Treatment interruptions have been recommended for the management of adverse drug reactions, but there is no clear guidance on the duration of those interruptions. A model-based evaluation was conducted to assess the impact of treatment interruptions on vismodegib efficacy. A tumor growth inhibition model was developed, and model-based simulations were performed to assess the proportion of patients achieving ≥30% reduction from baseline in tumor size (i.e., the proportion of responders) for various dosing schedules. The most conservative simulated scenario compared an intermittent dosing schedule of 12 weeks of vismodegib treatment followed by an 8-week dosing interruption (repeated four times for a total duration of 80 weeks) with 80 weeks of continuous dosing, which predicted a decrease in responders of −4.7% from 90.7% in laBCC and −3.7% from 63.0% in mBCC. These results demonstrated the maintenance of vismodegib efficacy with the intermittent dosing schedule and support the recently approved recommendations of treatment interruptions of up to 8 weeks to manage tolerability in patients with laBCC or mBCC in the vismodegib United States prescribing information. Once-daily oral 150 mg vismodegib is approved for the treatment of adults with symptomatic laBCC or mBCC that is inappropriate for surgery or radiotherapy (European Medicines Agency, 2019European Medicines AgencyErivedge summary of product characteristics.https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/erivedge-epar-product-information_en.pdfDate: 2019Date accessed: October 13, 2020Google Scholar; Genentech et al., 2019Genentech USA. Erivedge (vismodegib) capsules, for oral use [package insert]. https://www.gene.com/download/pdf/erivedge_prescribing.pdf; 2019 (accessed October 13, 2020).Google Scholar). Clinical studies and a model-based evaluation suggested that low-grade adverse drug reactions associated with vismodegib therapy could be managed with treatment interruptions of 4–8 weeks without compromising efficacy (Dréno et al., 2017Dréno B. Kunstfeld R. Hauschild A. Fosko S. Zloty D. Labeille B. et al.Two intermittent vismodegib dosing regimens in patients with multiple basal-cell carcinomas (MIKIE): a randomised, regimen-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial.Lancet Oncol. 2017; 18: 404-412Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (91) Google Scholar; Dummer et al., 2015Dummer R. Basset-Seguin N. Hansson J. Grob J. Kunstfeld R. Dréno B. et al.Impact of treatment breaks on vismodegib patient outcomes: exploratory analysis of the STEVIE study.J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33: 9024Crossref Google Scholar; Fife et al., 2017Fife K. Herd R. Lalondrelle S. Plummer R. Strong A. Jones S. et al.Managing adverse events associated with vismodegib in the treatment of basal cell carcinoma.Future Oncol. 2017; 13: 175-184Crossref PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar; Lacouture et al., 2016Lacouture M.E. Dréno B. Ascierto P.A. Dummer R. Basset-Seguin N. Fife K. et al.Characterization and management of hedgehog pathway inhibitor-related adverse events in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma.Oncologist. 2016; 21: 1218-1229Crossref PubMed Scopus (77) Google Scholar; Lu et al., 2020Lu T. Yang Y. Jin J.Y. Kågedal M. Analysis of longitudinal-ordered categorical data for muscle spasm adverse event of vismodegib: comparison between different pharmacometric models.CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2020; 9: 96-105Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar). In the MIKIE (NCT01815840) study, intermittent dosing of vismodegib (i.e., 8 or 12 weeks of treatment followed by an 8-week interruption) was effective and tolerable in patients with multiple nonadvanced basal cell carcinoma (Dréno et al., 2017Dréno B. Kunstfeld R. Hauschild A. Fosko S. Zloty D. Labeille B. et al.Two intermittent vismodegib dosing regimens in patients with multiple basal-cell carcinomas (MIKIE): a randomised, regimen-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial.Lancet Oncol. 2017; 18: 404-412Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (91) Google Scholar). These data, together with a recent tumor growth inhibition (TGI) model‒based evaluation, supported the submission and acceptance of a supplemental New Drug Application to the United States Food and Drug Administration for a dosing update in the vismodegib United States prescribing information without performing a new clinical trial. The updated guidance states that vismodegib can be withheld for up to 8 weeks for intolerable adverse reactions in patients with laBCC and mBCC until improvement or resolution (Genentech et al., 2019Genentech USA. Erivedge (vismodegib) capsules, for oral use [package insert]. https://www.gene.com/download/pdf/erivedge_prescribing.pdf; 2019 (accessed October 13, 2020).Google Scholar). In this study, we describe the model-based evaluation that contributed to the approval. In this study, the impact of 8-week treatment interruptions on vismodegib efficacy was assessed using a TGI model that describes the longitudinal tumor size (TS) change over time in patients with laBCC and mBCC treated with vismodegib (Bruno et al., 2020Bruno R. Bottino D. de Alwis D.P. Fojo A.T. Guedj J. Liu C. et al.Progress and opportunities to advance clinical cancer therapeutics using tumor dynamic models.Clin Cancer Res. 2020; 26: 1787-1795Crossref PubMed Scopus (21) Google Scholar). The model was developed on the basis of data from 129 and 27 evaluable patients with laBCC and mBCC, respectively, from the ERIVANCE BCC (NCT00833417) and STEVIE (NCT01367665) studies. Evaluable patients were defined as those with data on total and unbound vismodegib concentrations, plasma alpha-1-acid glycoprotein levels, and TS (sum of longest diameters of ≤5 target lesions) (model development dataset; Supplementary Table S1) (Basset-Séguin et al., 2017Basset-Séguin N. Hauschild A. Kunstfeld R. Grob J. Dréno B. Mortier L. et al.Vismodegib in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma: primary analysis of STEVIE, an international, open-label trial.Eur J Cancer. 2017; 86: 334-348Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (131) Google Scholar; Sekulic et al., 2017Sekulic A. Migden M.R. Basset-Seguin N. Garbe C. Gesierich A. Lao C.D. et al.Long-term safety and efficacy of vismodegib in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma: final update of the pivotal ERIVANCE BCC study.BMC Cancer. 2017; 17: 332Crossref PubMed Scopus (168) Google Scholar). The individual time courses of TS data in patients with laBCC and mBCC are shown in Supplementary Figure S1. The key details and results of TGI model development are described in the Supplementary Materials. In this model, tumor shrinkage was driven by the concentration of unbound vismodegib, with a similar rate used for patients with laBCC and mBCC. The rate of tumor shrinkage was constant over time in laBCC; however, an exponential decay constant (λ) was used in mBCC to account for the loss of treatment effect over time (Supplementary Table S2 and Supplementary Figure S2), as seen in other cancer types (Claret et al., 2009Claret L. Girard P. Hoff P.M. Van Cutsem E. Zuideveld K.P. Jorga K. et al.Model-based prediction of phase III overall survival in colorectal cancer on the basis of phase II tumor dynamics.J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 4103-4108Crossref PubMed Scopus (169) Google Scholar). Most TGI model parameters (Supplementary Table S2) were estimated with good precision (relative standard error of ≤20%). Individual fits of TS data from representative patients demonstrated that the model was able to capture various TS–time profiles regardless of dosing breaks or tumor progression (Supplementary Figure S3). The first model validation was performed by simulating 200 replicates of the model development dataset and showed that the TGI model was able to predict the central tendency as well as the variability in the observed data (Supplementary Figure S4). In addition, evaluation of the TGI model using the model development dataset demonstrated the ability of the model to reproduce the results of the metric of interest (i.e., the proportion of patients achieving ≥30% reduction in TS from baseline, corresponding to the definition of partial response according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria [Eisenhauer et al., 2009Eisenhauer E.A. Therasse P. Bogaerts J. Schwartz L.H. Sargent D. Ford R. et al.New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 228-247Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (15626) Google Scholar]), and good agreement was shown between observed and simulated values (Figure 1a). The predictive performance of the model was successfully verified through an external validation procedure based on data from 1,062 evaluable patients (985 laBCC and 77 mBCC) from the STEVIE study (Supplementary Table S1). The observed proportion of responders in laBCC and mBCC (79.7% and 54.5%, respectively) was well-predicted by model-based simulations (77.9% and 50.6%, respectively) (Figure 1b) and supported the use of further model-based simulations to assess the impact of 8-week treatment interruption schedules versus continuous dosing on vismodegib efficacy. A conservative scenario, representing an extreme situation involving continuous daily dosing with full compliance, and a realistic scenario, which was more representative of clinical practice, were simulated. The conservative scenario compared 80 weeks of continuous dosing with an intermittent treatment schedule consisting of four cycles of 12 weeks of vismodegib followed by an 8-week treatment interruption (Supplementary Figure S5). The median and 90% prediction intervals of the proportion of responders (continuous vs. 8-week interruption) was 90.7% (86.0–94.6) versus 85.3% (79.8–89.9) for laBCC and 63.0% (48.1–77.8) versus 63.0% (44.4–74.3) for mBCC (Figure 2a). The realistic scenario compared a reference schedule, consisting of 80 weeks of continuous dosing with a single 4-week treatment interruption occurring in 23% of randomly selected patients, with a schedule allowing for two 8-week treatment interruptions occurring in 50% of randomly selected patients. The median and 90% prediction intervals of the proportion of responders (reference vs. 8-week interruption) was 90.7% (86.0–95.3) versus 89.1% (84.5–93.8) for laBCC and 63.0% (48.1–77.8) versus 63.0% (44.4–77.8) for mBCC (Figure 2b). In the conservative scenario, the simulated median absolute change in the proportion of responders (represented by the difference and the corresponding 90% prediction intervals between the 8-week treatment interruption schedule and the continuous dosing schedule) was −4.7% (−11.6 to 0.8) from 90.7% in laBCC and −3.7% (−22.2 to 14.8) from 63.0% in mBCC. In the realistic scenario, the simulated median absolute loss in the proportion of responders for the 8-week treatment interruption schedule compared with that of the reference dosing schedule was −1.7% (−7.1 to 4.7) and 0.0% (−22.2 to 18.5) in laBCC and mBCC, respectively. Prediction intervals of the difference in the proportions of responders for both scenarios included the value zero, suggesting that the observed differences are likely not clinically relevant. The predicted impact of 8-week treatment interruptions on the simulated time course of TS in both scenarios shows a large overlap between both schedules, as shown in Supplementary Figure S6 (realistic scenario only). In conclusion, these model-based simulations demonstrated that vismodegib efficacy would be maintained in patients with laBCC and mBCC on an intermittent schedule that allowed 8-week treatment interruptions. This supports the updated guidance in the United States prescribing information that vismodegib can be withheld for up to 8 weeks for intolerable adverse reactions until improvement or resolution (Genentech et al., 2019Genentech USA. Erivedge (vismodegib) capsules, for oral use [package insert]. https://www.gene.com/download/pdf/erivedge_prescribing.pdf; 2019 (accessed October 13, 2020).Google Scholar). Both ERIVANCE BCC and STEVIE studies were carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and within the International Conference on Harmonization Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (Basset-Séguin et al., 2017Basset-Séguin N. Hauschild A. Kunstfeld R. Grob J. Dréno B. Mortier L. et al.Vismodegib in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma: primary analysis of STEVIE, an international, open-label trial.Eur J Cancer. 2017; 86: 334-348Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (131) Google Scholar; Sekulic et al., 2017Sekulic A. Migden M.R. Basset-Seguin N. Garbe C. Gesierich A. Lao C.D. et al.Long-term safety and efficacy of vismodegib in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma: final update of the pivotal ERIVANCE BCC study.BMC Cancer. 2017; 17: 332Crossref PubMed Scopus (168) Google Scholar). Study protocols were approved by the institutional review boards or independent ethics committees of participating study centres, and all patients provided written informed consent. All data accessed were de-identified. Qualified researchers may request access to individual patient-level data through the clinical study data request platform (https://vivli.org/). Further details on Roche’s criteria for eligible studies are available at https://vivli.org/members/ourmembers/. For further details on Roche’s Global Policy on the Sharing of Clinical Information and how to request access to related clinical study documents, see https://www.roche.com/research_and_development/who_we_are_how_we_work/clinical_trials/our_commitment_to_data_sharing.htm. Pascal Chanu: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9011-5431 Luna Musib: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6476-7919 Xin Wang: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3278-2695 Sravanthi Cheeti: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2933-6328 Sandhya Girish: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9336-1600 Rene Bruno: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0200-039X Tong Lu: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5899-6857 Josina Reddy: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5194-6045 Jin Y. Jin: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3627-0323 Ivor Caro: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5471-4901 All authors are employees of and hold stocks and/or stock options in Genentech/F. Hoffmann-La Roche. We thank all patients and their families as well as the investigators and research teams who participated in the clinical trials used in this study. We also thank Karen Yee, PhD (ApotheCom, London, UK) for medical editorial assistance. Financial support for editorial assistance was provided by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Conceptualization: PC, LM, SG, RB, TL, JR, JYJ, IC; Data Curation: PC, XW; Formal Analysis: PC, SG; Funding Acquisition: LM, JYJ; Investigation: PC, SC, IC; Methodology: PC, RB, TL; Project Administration: PC; Software: PC, XW; Supervision: PC, LM, SC, SG, JR, JYJ, IC; Validation: PC, JR, JYJ, IC; Visualization: PC, SC, JR, JYJ, IC; Writing - Original Draft Preparation: PC, IC; Writing - Review and Editing: PC, LM, SC, SG, RB, TL, JR, JYJ, IC Download .pdf (2.17 MB) Help with pdf files Supplementary Materials