More

Avastin Should Not Be Used For Breast Cancer, FDA Says

MATTHEW PERRONE   12/16/10 03:26 PM ET   AP

Avastin

WASHINGTON — Federal health authorities recommended Thursday that the blockbuster drug Avastin no longer be used to treat breast cancer, saying recent studies failed to show the drug's original promise to help slow the disease and extend patients' lives.

The rare decision by the Food and Drug Administration is supported by many cancer experts but drew fierce opposition from cancer patients and some doctors who defend the drug and say it should remain available.

The ruling is a significant setback for the world's best-selling cancer drug and will likely cost Swiss drugmaker Roche hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. Avastin is also approved for various types of colon, lung, kidney and brain cancer.

FDA officials stressed that the recommendation is only a preliminary step toward revoking the drug's approval for breast cancer. Roche has refused to voluntarily withdraw the indication, and the company said in a statement it would request a public meeting on the issue.

Drug companies almost always follow FDA requests, and agency officials said a meeting over the fate of Avastin would be the first of its kind. The agency said it will consider whether to hold the meeting in the coming months.

"Today's decision was a difficult one for the agency but certainly not unique," said Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of FDA's drug center. "The FDA is responsible for assuring that the products we approve for patients are both effective and safe."

The FDA approved Avastin for breast cancer in 2008 based on one study suggesting it halted the spread of breast cancer for more than five months when combined with chemotherapy. But follow-up studies showed that the delay lasted no more than three months, and patients suffered dangerous side effects.

"Given the number of serious and life-threatening side effects, the FDA does not believe there is a favorable risk-to-benefit ratio," said Dr. Richard Pazdur, FDA's chief of cancer drug review.

In a separate announcement Thursday, the European Medicines Agency said it would keep the drug available as a combination treatment with the chemotherapy drug paclitaxel – the same use rejected by the FDA.

FDA officials said the split opinion was due to differences in how Avastin was approved in the U.S. versus Europe. The FDA cleared the drug under its accelerated approval program, giving the agency the option to rescind approval if follow-up studies didn't confirm initial results. European regulators granted the drug full approval based on the same results, making it more difficult to reverse course when faced with weaker follow-up results.

If the FDA ultimately removes Avastin's breast cancer indication, doctors will still have the option to prescribe the drug "off-label," or without a federal approval, but many insurers do not reimburse drugs for such uses. Without insurance coverage, Avastin's enormous cost would put it out of reach for most patients. Roche sells the drug at a wholesale price of $7,700 a month. When infusion charges are included, a year's treatment with Avastin can run more than $100,000, though Roche caps spending at $57,000 per year for patients who meet certain financial criteria.

For the time being, the FDA said the drug will remain available and patient care will not be affected.

While vigorously opposed by thousands of cancer patients, the FDA's ruling is in line with the guidance of its outside panel of cancer experts, who voted 12-1 in July to rescind the drug's approval for breast cancer.

Cancer specialists said Avastin never lived up to its initial promise.

"The bottom line is that it doesn't work very well," said Dr. Albert Braverman, chief of oncology at State University of New York Downstate Medical Center. "I've seen the occasional patient have a brief remission, which is nice, but it's certainly not doing anything important. It's not saving anyone's life."

But some patients credit their survival to Avastin and say the FDA's decision could amount to a death sentence.

Christi Turnage of Madison, Miss., said her cancer has been undetectable for more than two years since starting therapy with Avastin. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in June 2006 and began taking the drug in 2008 after the tumors spread, or metastized, to her lungs. Breast cancer that spreads to other parts of the body is generally considered incurable.

"It's a miracle drug for me and for several of my friends, and to deny it to women being diagnosed with metastatic disease is wrong," Turnage said.

More than 9,500 cancer patients and friends and family signed a petition by Turnage urging the FDA to keep Avastin approved.

Dr. Julie Gralow of the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance said the drug appears to work in some subsets of patients and should remain available.

"It is clear that some breast cancer patients derive substantial benefit from Avastin. We don't know how to select those tumors or patients yet," said Gralow, who helped conduct the initial study of Avastin in breast cancer.

Barbara Brenner, director of Breast Cancer Action, a San Francisco-based advocacy group, said the group agrees with FDA's decision.

"It's never been shown to improve survival or quality of life. We know that people will be disappointed, but science has to dictate where we go with drug approval," Brenner said.

She added that women already receiving the drug should be allowed to keep getting it.

Roche reported Avastin sales of nearly $6 billion in 2009.

FDA rules bar the agency from considering cost when making drug approval decisions. But earlier this month the U.K.'s public health service rejected the drug for breast cancer, citing its high cost and limited benefit.

U.S. sales of Avastin for breast cancer generate an estimated $600 million annually, according to analyst David Kaegi of Switzerland's Bank Sarasin. When combined with lost revenue from the U.K., Kaegi estimated Roche's Avastin sales could fall by $1 billion.

The FDA granted Avastin accelerated approval for breast cancer in 2008 based on a study suggesting it delayed the spread of breast cancer for more than five months when combined with a popular chemotherapy drug. However, patients taking the drug did not actually live longer than those taking chemotherapy alone. And FDA officials reiterated Thursday that all four studies of Avastin conducted by Roche failed to show increased survival.

Avastin, which is grown from hamster ovary cells, was the first drug approved to fight cancer by stopping nutrients from reaching tumors. Such "targeted therapies" were thought to hold promise for eliminating chemotherapy, but that promise has gone unmet. Today drugs like Avastin are generally used as a second-line treatment after chemotherapy.

"I think a few years down the line it was becoming increasingly clear, at least to me, that this wasn't a particularly active drug, despite the initial presentation," said Dr. Braverman, referring to Avastin for breast cancer. "But people are sort of on a roll and it takes a while for things to die down."

____

AP Medical Writer Marilynn Marchione contributed to this report from Milwaukee.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTH

WASHINGTON — Federal health authorities recommended Thursday that the blockbuster drug Avastin no longer be used to treat breast cancer, saying recent studies failed to show the drug's original ...
WASHINGTON — Federal health authorities recommended Thursday that the blockbuster drug Avastin no longer be used to treat breast cancer, saying recent studies failed to show the drug's original ...
Filed by Nicholas Miriello  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 0
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
intolleft
ObamaCare...getting you shovel ready
09:12 AM on 12/22/2010
The FDA explained that it was revoking approval of the drug for that use because it decided that the drug does not provide "a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients."

Risk? The drug is prescribed for women who are otherwise going to die from cancer unless the drug saves them at least for a time. The far greater risk to these women is from the FDA, not the drug.
10:01 AM on 12/20/2010
Any surprise? ALL drugs are ineffective. It's a cruel, criminal hoax and killing people by the millions. Pharmaceuticals are poison, period!!!
11:57 AM on 12/20/2010
so you would willingly succumb to bacterial infection, rather than take an antibiotic?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sam Smith
02:16 AM on 12/20/2010
Cannabis compounds are safe alternatives and gains in research knowledge are putting them into serious consideration for breast cancer treatment.
01:07 PM on 12/17/2010
pardon th eusual reference to alternative .

maybe get a second opinion from some relatively rare MDs who practice alternative [ integrated integrative functional .... and even rarer maharishi ayur veda , TCM , master herbalism]

for peopel with money go to Lancaster ayur veda clinic as an adjunct to whatever your MD is doing

as with HRT etc seek alternative and use alternative first in any case when such is available locally

testimonials from people with cancer show that transcendental meditation and mapi.com rasayanas are very helpfull in alleviating chemo side effects and anxiety etc

all patients should ask their doctor to aks for funding for research for alternative ,not just say where's the proof

TM research has shown greater life expectancy in cancer [ and other especially heart] patients from adding TM 2x daily 20 minutes
http://www.mapi.com/maharishi_ayurveda/research/index-cancer.html
11:59 AM on 12/20/2010
spam!
how else are we to interpret your post when it begins with "pardon the usual..."?
spare me the commercials
01:01 PM on 12/17/2010
There's quite a bit of misinformation in the comments here.

a) It's not being pulled from the market. It will still be available and labeled for use in cancers where it has shown to be effective. It's only breast cancer indication that is being pulled. Doctors can still use Avastin on patients with breast cancer if they choose.

b) It really has not proven to be effective for breast cancer. There are two primary endpoints when testing cancer therapies; overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). OS is how long does a person live after diagnosis and treatment. PFS is how long does a person live before the tumor starts growing again. Avastin's fast-track approval was based on an increase in PFS of 4 months. That same study, however, showed no increase in OS. It also showed that Avastin resulted in greater side effects. The FDA conditional approved Avastin, however, given the promise of the PFS. They required additional studies.

c) The results of two new studies were not good. First they showed PFS was even lower than the first study. Not 4-5 months but only 1-2 months increase in PFS. Neither study indicated any increased OS. In fact, the one study suggested that Avastin may actually shorten OS. The greater side effects were confirmed. In short, whatever benefit in PFS gained was offset by side effects resulting in no benefit in terms of longer life or quality of life.

The FDA did right here.
schatsie
banks are more dangerous than standing armies
12:52 PM on 12/19/2010
Excellent comment, thank you for sharing your expertise.
03:46 AM on 12/17/2010
Death panels!

This drug is known to help some patients live up to a year longer. But under Fascist Obamacare the government will now decide whether it is worth the cost or not. Doesnt matter if YOU want to pay the price, you cant. Because the Empire Knows Best!
traceymarie
Independent to Dem in 2007
09:22 AM on 12/17/2010
maybe 2 months, make a point with facts not lies.
01:39 PM on 12/17/2010
Not even 2 months. That figure was progression free survival which means how long a patient goes before the tumor starts growing again. In terms of overall survival, meaning how long a patient lives, Avaistin made no difference. None. In three different studies. See my comment above, but it means that whatever benefit gained from tumor regression was offset by greater side effects resulting in zero net health benefit.
photo
jmdziuban1
Heeey, Mr Spaceman.
01:38 PM on 12/17/2010
With this ruling, many,I might surmise most, insurance companies will no longer cover it either.

"If the FDA ultimately removes Avastin's breast cancer indication, doctors will still have the option to prescribe the drug "off-label," or without a federal approval, but many insurers do not reimburse drugs for such uses. Without insurance coverage, Avastin's enormous cost would put it out of reach for most patients."

It will be disapproved, unless public and political pressure trumps science, again. Why does Roche not pull it for such treatments, as is the norm following such determinations? $$$$$$
12:03 AM on 12/17/2010
These drugs should be researched to the nth degree before they are ever approved as having treatment efficacy... It's no wonder the cost of health coverage is so out of control. It seems that even the FDA "follows the money..."
traceymarie
Independent to Dem in 2007
09:23 AM on 12/17/2010
this was pushed through several years ago. The fast track was a ploy to benefit the drug corps.
photo
jmdziuban1
Heeey, Mr Spaceman.
01:43 PM on 12/17/2010
I never liked fast track authority. On the one hand, you have desperate patients willing to grasp at any straw which offers hope. On the other you have pharmaceuticals wishing to bypass more rigorous trials, get the drug to the market sooner, and start raking in the profits. In the middle are those who wish to ensure that what the government does, and approves, has efficacy. Those in the middle are getting it from both sides, and bad decisions are made.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cgeorgan
Proud American-Canadian Libertarian
10:51 PM on 12/16/2010
$88,000.  For - statistically - two months of life.
11:12 PM on 12/16/2010
Wonder what that costs in Canada. They didn't let big Pharma buy their HHS when they negotiated drug and device prices.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cgeorgan
Proud American-Canadian Libertarian
08:40 AM on 12/17/2010
If it's sold in Canada (doubtful), the price is subsidized by the US market.
photo
ramal
One's only real life is the life one never leads.
09:34 PM on 12/16/2010
There is never going to be a cure for cancer, heart disease, AIDS... Too many people are making too much money for the gravy train to ever screech to a halt.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Someone Said
Watching this movie in a front row seat.
10:05 PM on 12/16/2010
Absolutely right,
"blockbuster drug Avastin no longer be used to treat breast cancer," of course not you fools, it's there to make money not heal anyone.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cgeorgan
Proud American-Canadian Libertarian
10:52 PM on 12/16/2010
Oh god.  We've got another one, folks - the guy who believes in the conspiracy to keep effective drugs off of the market.
photo
ramal
One's only real life is the life one never leads.
11:01 PM on 12/16/2010
Oh, god. We've got another one, folks- the guy who believes that international corporations are looking out for the good and well-being of the little guy, first and foremost.

I never said that effective drugs would not be on the market. Look at the treatments for HIV to witness that, as just one example. I said that there would never be a cure.

Q. What is the perfect patient for any doctor or drug company?

A. The one who doesn't die, but never gets "well."
traceymarie
Independent to Dem in 2007
11:06 PM on 12/16/2010
crazy nonsense
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Quack Ackers
09:05 PM on 12/16/2010
this is population control, plain and simple.
11:08 PM on 12/16/2010
Gotta do it somewhere if you want to outlaw birth control and abortion
07:37 PM on 12/16/2010
Who needs Avastin when we could have this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lXgnb6tdBY
traceymarie
Independent to Dem in 2007
08:15 PM on 12/16/2010
I researched this guy before...he cured nothing! All these so-called cancer patients had tumors, never biopsied and never confirmed as cancer. The women who spoke are in remission due to medical interventian and they went holistic after treatment. Cancer is not a virus.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
constantcomments
Keep your hands off my bedroom slippers
07:35 PM on 12/16/2010
I think the majorty of the drugs out there work on the placebo effect. In fact, a lot of drugs are being retested and are showing no better performance than a placebo. I feel bad for the cancer patients but paying thousands of dollars for a drug that doesn't work is not the solution to their problems. It would be great if more emphasis was placed on complementary medicine, purposely using the placebo effect and researching things like relaxation and meditation. The pharmaceutical industry says it has the answer, and though there are some beneficial drugs out there but they are not the only answer.
traceymarie
Independent to Dem in 2007
08:15 PM on 12/16/2010
relaxing and meditating does not cure cancer.
photo
ramal
One's only real life is the life one never leads.
09:35 PM on 12/16/2010
But it does help in dealing with the stress of that or almost anyother health condition.
schatsie
banks are more dangerous than standing armies
01:01 PM on 12/19/2010
but it does impact the stress response and the immune system....why do you think we get cancer when our bodies have produced millions of mutations....before we even get cancer....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
MJinCanada
Safe from zombies until my 2nd cup of coffee
08:47 PM on 12/16/2010
Do you actually know anyone who's been through chemotherapy or read up on it? Do you know what a tumor looks like when it breaks through the skin?
traceymarie
Independent to Dem in 2007
11:03 PM on 12/16/2010
no they do not have a clue. This phd. who they are posting about uses his"holistic' lie along with strong radiation and says he cured cancer. He is based in Houston and makes tons of money doing seminars, gets people involved in pyramid shemes selling his stuff. He tells people the government and the FDA are against him because of money.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fred Hood
Out of many we are one ...B.O.
07:32 PM on 12/16/2010
approve the true super cure all CANNABIS..........
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CheapTrick
Them or Us.
09:55 PM on 12/16/2010
Um... that doesn't cure anything. But it can be used to treat a lot of conditions including the side effects of chemo therapy.
11:10 PM on 12/16/2010
Works good for reading rethug posts on this site
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Margie Kronewitter
05:22 AM on 12/17/2010
Google "cannabis . Cancer" for a video that is convincing. HEMP has the BEST BALANCE of any Essential Fatty Acid source. THey are called essential for a reason and are not readily available in the Standard American Diet. SAD

HEMP is an amazing plant that is only illegal in the U.S. HempUSA.com has amazing uses including FUEL, food, oil, rope, building materials, paper, clothing, etc. The only reason it is illegal is HURST wanted to eliminate the competition for his tree based paper. DuPonte wanted a monopoly on synthetic rope. So in 1937 a plant that had been mandatory to grow became illegal. It had been in most medicines and is again a medicine in 15 states.

There are books written (with references) on the practical & medicinal uses of cannabis & hemp. Hemp (sativa strain) helps heal cancer, kills pain safely, and even promotes new neuron growth. The sativa strain doesn't even contain high levels of THC which get one high. There are many studies in PubMed, the government website via nih.

ALCOHOL in anything but moderation CAUSES CANCER, yet they and drug companies conspire to keep it illegal and off the market. All about $$$$$$ while citizens suffer & die. WHY??????
10:24 PM on 12/18/2010
Study Shows Marijuana and Tobacco Pose Similar Cancer Risk http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=4128
07:10 PM on 12/16/2010
Good--now start taking a look at the hundreds of other drugs that have no independent studies to confirm their effectiveness.
10:22 PM on 12/18/2010
Testicular Cancer Risk Increased in Marijuana Users
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/588135
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
john649
07:07 PM on 12/16/2010
the FDA is the biggest joke ever.......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JustMeinNJ
10:31 PM on 12/16/2010
yes and once we get to this new healthcare "law" and the secretary determines what should/should not be covered - advice from the FDA concerns me.
traceymarie
Independent to Dem in 2007
11:12 PM on 12/16/2010
please, do you really belive you decide what gets covered or it it some pencil pusher working for the for profit insurance company.
11:11 PM on 12/16/2010
And completely in bed with big Pharma