iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Crizotinib, Lung Cancer Drug, Shows Big Promise In Early Tests

Lung Cancer Drug

MARILYNN MARCHIONE   06/ 5/10 12:33 PM ET   AP

CHICAGO — It's way too soon to declare success, but an experimental drug for lung cancer patients with a certain gene showed extraordinary promise in early testing, doctors reported at a cancer conference on Saturday.

More than 90 percent of the 82 patients in a study saw their tumors shrink after two months on the drug, Pfizer Inc.'s crizotinib, (crih-ZAH-tin-ib), researchers reported.

Doctors had expected only about 10 percent of these very sick patients to respond to the drug, according to one of the study's leaders, Dr. Yung-Jue Bang of the Seoul National University College of Medicine in South Korea.

These were people with advanced disease, including some whose cancers had spread to the brain. They had already tried an average of three other drugs. Responses to crizotinib have lasted up to 15 months so far, and the drug has been rushed into late-stage testing, Bang said.

Many leading cancer specialists, who normally don't get excited until a drug proves effective in large studies against existing treatments, said the research so far on crizotinib was promising.

"It's early, but I'm impressed by it. It looks extremely effective," said Dr. Roy Herbst, lung cancer chief at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. He has consulted for makers of other lung cancer drugs but not this one.

Dr. Alice Shaw, the Massachusetts General Hospital doctor who is leading a larger study of crizotinib, agreed.

"I don't think there is false hope. The data are so strong," she said.

The drug targets a gene that promotes tumor growth and is found in about 4 percent of lung cancers, especially among younger, non-smokers. This small percentage is still a lot of people: nearly 220,000 new cases of lung cancer are diagnosed each year in the United States alone, and it is the world's top cancer killer.

That means that up to 10,000 people in the U.S. annually could benefit, said Dr. Mark Kris, a lung cancer specialist at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who has consulted for Pfizer.

Two other gene-targeted treatments, Tarceva and Iressa, help about 20,000 lung cancer patients annually in the U.S.

"We're chipping away at large numbers of patients," and future gene discoveries should add to the number helped, Herbst said.

The gene targeted by crizotinib was discovered in 2007, Kris noted.

"Once we understand a cancer cell, we can come up with a treatment very quickly," he said.

No show-stopping side effects were seen in the first study – half of patients on crizotinib had diarrhea, nausea or vomiting – but much larger tests are needed to establish safety.

Even more testing is needed to see if the drug is more effective than existing treatments, how long any benefits last, and whether it improves survival – not just shrinks tumors.

Pfizer sponsored the study and has already launched bigger studies to compare crizotinib to current standard treatments. The company hopes to seek federal Food and Drug Administration approval for the drug next year.

The study was presented Saturday at a meeting in Chicago of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

___

Online:

Cancer meeting: http://www.asco.org

National Cancer Institute: http://www.cancer.gov

Pfizer: http://www.pfizer.com

FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTHY LIVING

CHICAGO — It's way too soon to declare success, but an experimental drug for lung cancer patients with a certain gene showed extraordinary promise in early testing, doctors reported at a cancer ...
CHICAGO — It's way too soon to declare success, but an experimental drug for lung cancer patients with a certain gene showed extraordinary promise in early testing, doctors reported at a cancer ...
Filed by Nick Graham  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 338
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AndyWright68
Freedom is inevitable!
12:20 PM on 06/06/2010
Even if it does work 100% the FDA will hold it up for a decade or more while tens of thousands of people d.i.e that this drug would have saved. The FDA has done this for decades. Everyone in the FDA should be tried for gen.ocide. If I am terminal and this drug has only a 1% chance of working the FDA has no right to keep me from trying this potential cure. It is my body, not theirs, and I am terminal for god's sake!
10:33 AM on 06/06/2010
O great... Just watched I am Legend! Now I am scared!
photo
Mattie
My Daddy taught me to beware the good Christian
02:03 PM on 06/06/2010
I watched it to, that is one scary movie.....My husband was out in the garage, and I made him come in for the ending....I know I'm a wimp!
08:54 AM on 06/06/2010
JSN,I am not sure where your numbers came from, but over 80% of all lung cancers diagnosed are diagnosed in smokers and about 90% of the annual deaths attributed to lung cancer are in smokers. That said,Jozzie, there are plenty of us who are over weight, drive too fast, don't exercise, eat right or wear a seat belt belt.
And as much as I think that drug companies are scurvy dogs, I don't think they are sitting on a cure for cancer, when they would be raking in billions if they could come up with one. Unfortunately, only a small number of people participate in clinical research, which is the only way a cure will ever be found;cancer is not a single disease, it is multiple diseases affecting multiple organs and behaving in different ways.Hopefully, this will be something good, but like all new drugs, only time will tell.
photo
SEQUOIABISON
President of the Sequoia Bison Society a non profi
08:40 AM on 06/06/2010
More empty promises.

The "miracle drug" is just around the corner, send the cancer researchers more money and they guarantee a “cure” by no later than the end of the century.

Perhaps the emphasis should be placed on Prevention instead of magic vaccines and drugs?

I think most of us already know that cleaning up our environment of highly toxic carcinogens and living a healthy life-style will go a long way toward avoiding most if not all types of cancers.

Those who continue to tell us; do whatever you want and eat whatever you like and don’t worry about cancer the medical profession will cure you, are only interested in funding their ineffective experiments in the lab. Just send them more money.
10:41 AM on 06/06/2010
I think part of the problem is that the consumer doesn't always get the facts straight. For example, in this story, it appears many people just read the headline and maybe a paragraph or two and then concluded, "Smokers rejoice!" They failed to read that this particular drug is targeted at a genetic mutation, anaplastic lymphoma kinase. Quoted from the article above, "The drug targets a gene that promotes tumor growth and is found in about 4 percent of lung cancers, especially among younger, non-smokers."

As it appears, the main reason researchers are impressed with this study is that it is an example of "personalized medicine" that looks promising. Researchers located a gene mutation that increased the risk for lung cancer, and then researchers developed a drug targeted at that specific gene mutation. Early results look promising. A larger, Phase III trial will provide more information, probably including information on survival benefit.

As for "do whatever you want," I don't think people are intentionally fusing their genes together in order to be ALK positive. Unfortunately, with so few people actually interested in educating themselves, we appear destined to be mired in these sorts of knee-jerk reactions where they lament wonderful research advances.
10:55 AM on 06/06/2010
I will also add that medical writers or journalists often miss the mark on reporting research results accurately or without sensationalist spin. Unfortunately, reading the New England Journal of Medicine or the Lancet is about as dull as dirt unless you get excited by hazard ratios, forest plots, trial methodology, medical terminology, technical details, etc. The researchers tend to cover the essential details in their articles, including limitations, and are increasingly providing large supplemental appendices since word counts are very restrictive. I think it's time for average consumers to admit they have their own limitations when it comes to understanding medical research. There's no shame in it. Not everyone wants to understand Haybittle-Peto group sequential design or semiparametric theory.
photo
MarsAmbassador
Per angusta ad augusta
03:04 AM on 06/06/2010
There has been no increase in life expectancy for cancer in 30 years for a reason. Because there's no money to be made from eradicating it. It's an industry like any other, with the Bottom Line being the most important and all research and treatments being controlled by a handful of EXTREMELY powerful corporations with vested financial interests in milking this for as long as possible.
09:08 AM on 06/06/2010
Sadly, no! In the last 30 years there have been huge increases in life expectancy for a wide variety of cancers. Between adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation, people live for years or decades after cancer, and 30 years ago that was nearly unheard of. I'm opposed to huge pharmaceutical companies using their influence with governments to guarantee huge profits, but you can't say their drugs are useless, because they are not.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cybersense
09:27 AM on 06/06/2010
Not much in lung cancer, however.
12:23 PM on 06/06/2010
Maybe one of the least logical posts I have even seen on the internet. (impressive) A drug to treat cancer would not eradicate it. A corporation would make untold billions on a drug that cured cancer. Just because they invent a cure, doesn't mean there would be no market for the product. People would still get cancer, they would just survive, after paying probably a fortune for the drug. In fact, they may ultimately get another form of cancer, making them a repeat customer, unlike those who die from failed treatments. Do people think, or do they just repeat to themselves... "corporations...bad."

Those same EXTREMELY powerful corporations have come up with cures for many other diseases (which of course doesn't mean that the no one gets the disease). Explain that? Feel free to also explain why they have spent billions trying to discover a cure, if they don't want to. Wouldn't that be an enormous waste of money, since after spending all that they wouldn't be able to recoup on that investment?
photo
MarsAmbassador
Per angusta ad augusta
02:41 AM on 06/06/2010
One day not too far from now they'll just do a biopsy or even just take a simple blood sample, scan it with a computer and a tailor-made solution will be programmed into a blank cell, you'll inject it and that will be that. It won't matter what the disease or condition, it will merely be approached as a DNA/genetic solution regardless of the cause. A mathematically formulaic solution with blanket applications.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GuiltD
12:37 AM on 06/06/2010
Ah that toddler smoker is in luck!
12:48 AM on 06/06/2010
Why is that? Does he have ALK-positive NSCLC?
photo
Chlowina
Why so much hate???
11:54 PM on 06/05/2010
Now the question is: Will our insurance companies pay for it and if not, will we have to remortgage our homes to get it.
02:14 AM on 06/06/2010
Great question, Pfizer will make you mortgage your home, you children's and your grandchildren's too. Too sad but true.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
exile
11:51 PM on 06/05/2010
aahhh
so i guess
i should start smoking
and sell my car ??
11:48 PM on 06/05/2010
Great news on lung cancer discovery of new drug!!! My Grandfather died from this disease...just bloody awful!! Now nothing 2 do with this but WHY is HP using TMZ as a news source. Might have 2 leave this site if this keeps up!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
metropixie
"Near normal" is close enough...
05:29 AM on 06/06/2010
7 people will miss you...
11:41 PM on 06/05/2010
My mom was in good health, never smoked, never drank, perfect example of ahealthy person. She started coughing one day and a year later she was gone. Cancer is an epidemic and theres no way to stop it. Two weeks ago my aunt discovered she had lung cancer...her symptom...a pain near her breastbone. Two young men I know in their 20's in the last couple of months were diagnosed.with cancer. Will there ever be a cure? I am beginning to think not.
09:56 PM on 06/05/2010
Great news but why not just use it on really sick volunteers?
08:38 PM on 06/05/2010
There have been dozens of 'breakthroughs' like this hyped by big pharma over the years. The 'big'
news here is that lots of tumors shrunk. Which generally means very little, as new research into cancer stem cells shows that only a tiny fraction of cancer cells drive the tumor, and by shrinking the rest, often the cancer comes back with more virulence. Note that this study did not show any improvement in length of survival, nor that it is more effective than standard treatment. Yet pharma stocks will go up, our health care costs will rise when this treatment is approved at $80,000 a year or more, and we'll still be no closer to curing cancer. I hope I'm wrong, but that's the pattern with 95% of the 'breakthroughs' announced in the past decade or so.

As for me I had lung cancer 25 years ago, as a non smoker, went to the best alternative (better than any conventional oncologist) oncologist around in NY and here I am in great health, on a program of special diet, detox, enzymes and lots of supplements - with zero chemo or radiation. So there is hope NOW. Just do your research and have an open mind about what can work.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:27 PM on 06/05/2010
I had a friend with Stage 4 Lung Cancer who had a series of chemo and went on alternative meds. He had a great two years but then the cancer returned throughout his body. He believed strongly in the alternative meds. Whether they were the reason that he lived healthily for two years....I don't know, but he lived without fear, so who is to say that they don't have a place in medicine.

OTOH, I had a cancerous lung lobe removed 30 years ago. Fortunately, it was Stage 1. I begged for chemo but my doctor said that it would prolong my life for two months at best. He, also told me that, given my type of cancer, if I lived for two years, I would probably remain cancer free with the exception of having an increased risk for anoth primary cancer. It was a looooong two years for both of us.

If this new drug saves 5-10% of patients diagnosed with lung cancer, let Pfizer have their profits. Who knows, the use of the drug as a remedy for other disease may make it useful in many ways.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kwapiv
Twitter @kwapiv | www.facebook.com/kwapivengesayi
08:23 PM on 06/05/2010
My mother lost the battle with cancer four years ago but this really warms my heart because depending on the research developments, some family will never have to go throw what me and my family went through; the pain, heartache and the sadness that stays hidden but still lingers till this very day. My only concern is that if the treatment does prove to be as successful as the trials show, will they make this accessible to the less fortunate.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:32 PM on 06/05/2010
Please do not refer to people who die of cancer as "losing the battle". It makes it sound as if they could have done something more or different and saved themselves. Would you ever refer to a person who died of a heart attack or a stroke as "losing the battle"? You have no idea how isolating that concept is for someone who has been diagnosed with cancer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kwapiv
Twitter @kwapiv | www.facebook.com/kwapivengesayi
10:18 PM on 06/05/2010
Please do not come here and lecture me about terminology and in the process misrepresenting the essence of what I was saying. Its my Mother not some random person I'm talking about; I have aunts that died of Cancer and they themselves referred to it as "losing the Battle with Cancer" because to them and the family it was a battle; it was a fight. So from everything I said in that post, that is all you took away from it? I understand what you are staying but I respectfully insist that your sentiments out of line considering the fact that you imply that I'm insensitive to the plight of Cancer when it is my own mother I was talking about.
11:36 PM on 06/05/2010
What, are you the "Terminology Police"?

How repulsive.
08:14 PM on 06/05/2010
Take for example a researcher by the name of Zheng Cui. He created a LOT of buzz about 10 years ago when he discovered cancer resistant mice. He put 10 years of solid research into taking the knowledge towards human treatments. What happened? It died in the FDA because of lack of funding. Here he was, completely curing cancer in mice(don't believe this? google it) and what happens? The drug co's can't make any money so they don't fund it-they get their paid researchers to say 'it's controversial!. So it doesn't even get its day in the sun. There is evil in the world ladies and gentlemen. I am here to tell you it is Big Pharma. That means the CEO's who lie and say they would never pass up a treatment that would cure it. Ha. My BIL's oncologist-world reknowned oncologist- said privately the drug co's are "horrible" because they run what happens, and what happens BETTER MAKE CASH(so get rid of vaccines.)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rubyfoo
09:29 PM on 06/05/2010
Many, many compounds have cured cancer in mice. In fact, if we wanted to treat them, mice could die mainly of other things, e.g., mouse traps. It turns out that you can't test drugs in normal mice, because of the statistics. You would need 10,000 mice running around, and that's a bit expensive to track. So you need mice that have artificially had tumors implanted. This is really not analogous to human cancers. So, many cured mice, but very compounds get through human clinical testing. Incidentally, nothing dies in the FDA. You mean they couldn't afford the human trials to get it into the FDA. I'm not a big fan of the medical-industrial complex, but it's not as simple a set of issues as you might think.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cybersense
09:33 AM on 06/06/2010
Rubyfoo, what staryeyesuprise is really true. If there are companies that do not want someone else to gain from it, they work closely with the AMA and etc. You now have seen what lobbyist can do to influence situations. This isn't a "conspiracy that doesn't happen", this really does happen.
11:37 PM on 06/05/2010
Sure, and Big Pharma brought down the Twin Towers too. And killed Hoffa. And faked the moon landing. And Obama's birth certificate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cybersense
09:35 AM on 06/06/2010
TimTheWizard, the influence is where the money is. You have seen the problem now, that when you have the money to pay the lobbiests, what can happen. This type of thing has been going on for a long time. When someone has a possible "cure". The way to get money for it, is to show how someone else can make money from it.