A phase II study evaluating the efficacy and safety of AMG 102 (rilotumumab) in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

Center for Neuro-Oncology, Dana Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Shields Warren 430 D, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Neuro-Oncology (Impact Factor: 5.29). 02/2011; 13(4):437-46. DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noq198
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of AMG 102 (rilotumumab), a fully human monoclonal antibody against hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor (HGF/SF), in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). Patients with histologically confirmed, measurable recurrent GBM or gliosarcoma (World Health Organization grade 4) and ≤3 relapses or prior systemic therapies received AMG 102 (10 or 20 mg/kg) by infusion every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was best confirmed objective response rate (central assessment) per Macdonald criteria. Of the 61 patients who enrolled, 60 received AMG 102. Twenty-nine patients (48%) had previously received bevacizumab. There were no objective responses per central assessment, but 1 patient had an objective response per investigator assessment. Median overall survival (95% CI) in the 10- and 20-mg/kg cohorts was 6.5 months (4.1-9.8) and 5.4 months (3.4-11.4), respectively, and progression-free survival (PFS) per central assessment was 4.1 weeks (4.0-4.1) and 4.3 weeks (4.1-8.1), respectively. PFS was similar among patients who had previously received bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab-naive patients. The most common adverse events were fatigue (38%), headache (33%), and peripheral edema (23%). AMG 102 serum concentrations increased approximately dose-proportionally with 2-fold accumulation at steady state. Plasma total HGF/SF and soluble c-Met concentrations increased 12.05- and 1.12-fold, respectively, from baseline during AMG 102 treatment. AMG 102 monotherapy at doses up to 20 mg/kg was not associated with significant antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with recurrent GBM.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: MET is located on chromosome 7q31 and is a proto-oncogene that encodes for hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) receptor, a member of the receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) family. HGF, also known as scatter factor (SF), is the only known ligand for MET. MET is a master regulator of cell growth and division (mitogenesis), mobility (motogenesis), and differentiation (morphogenesis); it plays an important role in normal development and tissue regeneration. The HGF-MET axis is frequently dysregulated in cancer by MET gene amplification, translocation, and mutation, or by MET or HGF protein overexpression. MET dysregulation is associated with an increased propensity for metastatic disease and poor overall prognosis across multiple tumor types. Targeting the dysregulated HGF-MET pathway is an area of active research; a number of monoclonal antibodies to HGF and MET, as well as small molecule inhibitors of MET, are under development. This review summarizes the key biological features of the HGF-MET axis, its dysregulation in cancer, and the therapeutic agents targeting the HGF-MET axis, which are in development.
    OncoTargets and Therapy 01/2014; 7:969-83. · 1.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Headaches occur commonly in all patients, including those who have brain tumors. It has been argued that there is a classic “brain tumor headache type” – defined by the International Headache Society as one that is localized, progressive, worse in the morning, aggravated by coughing or bending forward, develops in temporal and often spatial relation to the neoplasm, and resolves within 7 days of surgical removal or treatment with corticosteroids.Methods Using the search terms “headache and brain tumors,” “intracranial neoplasms and headache,” and “facial pain and brain tumors,” we reviewed the literature from the past 20 years on brain tumor-associated headache and reflected upon the International Classification of Headache Disorders-3 (ICHD-3). In a separate, complementary paper, the proposed mechanisms of brain tumor headache are reviewed.ResultsWe discuss multiple clinical presentations of brain tumor headaches, present the ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for each type of headache, and then apply our findings to the ICHD-3. Our primary and major finding was that brain tumor headaches can present similarly to primary headaches in those with a predisposition to headaches, suggesting that following ICHD-3 criteria could cause a clinician to overlook a headache caused by a brain tumor. We further find that some types of headaches are not explicitly discussed in the ICHD-3 and also propose that the International Headache Society formally define SMART (Stroke-like Migraine Attacks after Radiation Therapy) syndrome given the increasing amount of literature on this disorder.Conclusion Our literature review revealed that brain tumor headache uncommonly presents with classic brain tumor headache characteristics and often satisfies criteria for a primary headache category such as migraine or tension-type. Thus, clinicians may miss headaches due to brain tumors in following ICHD-3 criteria, and the distinction between primary and secondary headache disorders may not be so clear-cut.
    Headache The Journal of Head and Face Pain 04/2014; 54(4). · 2.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are a proven effective therapeutic modality in human malignancy. Several mAbs are approved to targets critical in aberrant oncogenic signaling within tumors and their microenvironment. These targets include secreted ligands (e.g., VEGF and HGH), their receptors (e.g., HER2 and VEGFR2), cell surface counter receptors and their receptor-bound ligands (e.g., PD1 and PD1L, respectively). The ability to genetically engineer the structure and/or functions of mAbs has significantly improved their effectiveness. Furthermore, advances in gene expression profiling, proteomics, deep sequencing and deciphering of complex signaling networks have revealed novel therapeutic targets. We review target selection, approved indications and the rationale for mAb utilization in solid and hematologic malignancies. We also discuss novel mAbs in early- and late-phase clinical trials that are likely to change the natural history of disease and improve survival. The future challenge is to design mAb-based novel trial designs for diagnostics and therapeutics for human malignancies.
    Future Oncology 03/2014; 10(4):609-36. · 2.61 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 16, 2014