Disparate Effects of Gefitinib and Lapatinib on Egfr Mutant Lung Cancer

Kreshnik Zejnullahu,Jussi Koivunen,Kimio Yonesaka,Cai‐Hong Yun,Jeffrey Swanson,Jeffrey A. Engelman,Bruce E. Johnson,Pasi A. Jänne

2008-01-01

Abstract:3636 BACKGROUND: Activating mutations in the kinase domain of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have been found in ~10-15% of all lung cancers. EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, gefitinib and erlotinib, are particularly effective treatments for patients with non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) harboring somatic mutations in EGFR. Lapatinib is a dual EGFR and ERBB2 kinase inhibitor. Unlike gefitinib or erlotinib, lapatinib preferentially binds the inactive conformation of EGFR. Activating mutations in EGFR promote the active conformation of EGFR which may alter the efficacy of lapatinib, but not gefitinib or erlotinib which bind the active conformation of EGFR, in EGFR mutant lung cancers. Lapatinib has not been specifically tested in EGFR mutant NSCLC model systems. METHODS: The in vitro sensitivity to gefitinib, lapatinib and CP-654,577 (pure ERBB2 inhibitor) of NSCLC cell lines harboring EGFR (H3255 (L858R), HCC827 (del A746_E750), HCC4006 (del L747¬_E749), PC9 (del A746_E750)), HER2 (H1781 (insVC G776)) and KRAS (A549 (G12S), H441(G12V)) activating mutation, HER2 amplification (Calu3, H1819) as well as HNSCC cell lines with wild-type EGFR, HER2 and KRAS loci (HN11) was assayed using MTS assay. The effects of inhibitors on signaling in NSCLC cell lines was measured using phosphospcific proteins against EGFR, HER-2, AKT and ERK1/2. The effects of gefitinib, lapatinib and CP-654,577 on EGFR autophosphorylation and cell viability was assayed using NIH-3T3 cells and Ba/F3 cells expressing different ERBB receptors, respectively. RESULTS: In the EGFR mutant NSCLC cell lines, the IC50s for gefitinib were significantly lower (range 10-50 nM) compared to lapatinib (range 800 nM - 2 μM). Similarly, in Ba/F3 cells expressing EGFR L858R or exon 19 deletion, lapatinib was significantly less effective at inhibiting growth (IC50 10 and 30 nM for gefitinib vs. 900 nM and 1.2 μM for lapatinib). In contrast, in HN11, which have wild-type EGFR and HER2, lapatinib was as effective as gefitinib (IC50 for lapatinib 1.5 μ versus 2μ for gefitinib). In HER2 amplified NSCLC cell lines and in Ba/F3 cells lapatinib was more effective than gefitinib. Similarly, lapatinib was less effective at inhibiting the phosphorylation of mutant EGFR but not wild type EGFR in both NSCLC cell lines or in NIH-3T3 cells expressing wild type or mutant forms of EGFR. CONCLUSIONS: Our studies suggest that lapatinib is less effective than gefitinib at inhibiting mutant but not wild type EGFR and may be clinically less effective than gefitinib or erlotinib in NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations.