FDA's Approval of the First Biosimilar to Bevacizumab.

Passage of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 created an abbreviated licensure pathway for biosimilar products. The FDA approved ABP215 (MVASI, bevacizumab-awwb; Amgen) as a biosimilar to U.S.-licensed Avastin (bevacizumab; Genentech) based on an extensive comparative analytic characterization, data obtained in a pharmacokinetic similarity study in healthy subjects, and a comparative clinical study in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. The totality of the evidence for biosimilarity supported extrapolation of the data to support licensure as a biosimilar for other approved indications of U.S.-licensed Avastin, without the need of additional clinical studies. Clin Cancer Res; 24(18); 4365-70. ©2018 AACR.

Approval summary: Cetuximab in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin and 5-fluorouracil for the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent locoregional or metastatic squamous cell head and neck cancer.

On November 7, 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved cetuximab in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin and 5-fluorouracil for the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent locoregional or metastatic squamous cell head and neck cancer. Approval was based on a randomized study of 442 patients conducted outside the U.S. Cisplatin (100 mg/m2 intravenously) or carboplatin (area under the curve 5 intravenously) on day 1 with 5-fluorouracil (1,000 mg/m2/day continuous intravenous infusion days 1-4) were administered every 3 weeks. Cetuximab, 400 mg/m2 intravenously, was administered initially followed by cetuximab, 250 mg/m2 intravenously weekly. After completion of six planned treatment courses, cetuximab patients without progression continued cetuximab 250 mg/m2 weekly. The study used European Union (EU)-approved cetuximab rather than U.S.-approved cetuximab. U.S.-approved cetuximab provides approximately 28% higher exposure relative to EU-approved cetuximab in a pharmacokinetic comparability study in monkeys. Overall survival, the primary efficacy endpoint, was significantly improved in cetuximab-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-0.98; p = .034, stratified log-rank test). Median survival times were 10.1 and 7.4 months, respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) was also significantly improved in patients receiving cetuximab (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.46-0.72; p < .0001). Median PFS times were 5.5 and 3.3 months, respectively. Response rates were 35.6% and 19.5% (odds ratio: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.50-3.60; p = .0001). Adverse reactions (≥25%) from cetuximab plus chemotherapy treatment included nausea, anemia, vomiting, neutropenia, rash, asthenia, diarrhea, and anorexia. Conjunctivitis occurred in 10% of cetuximab patients. Other adverse reactions, sometimes severe, included infusion reactions, hypomagnesemia, hypocalcemia, and hypokalemia.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval: panitumumab for epidermal growth factor receptor-expressing metastatic colorectal carcinoma with progression following fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-containing chemotherapy regimens.

PURPOSE: To describe the Food and Drug Administration review and marketing approval considerations for panitumumab (Vectibix) for the third-line treatment of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-expressing metastatic colorectal carcinoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Food and Drug Administration reviewed a single, open-label, multicenter trial in which 463 patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer who had progressed on or following treatment with a regimen containing a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan were randomized (1:1) to receive best supportive care (BSC) with or without panitumumab (6 mg/kg every other week) administered until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Progression and response were confirmed by an independent review committee masked to treatment assignment. At progression, patients in the BSC-alone arm were eligible to receive panitumumab. RESULTS: Although median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar in both treatment arms ( approximately 8 weeks), the mean PFS was approximately 50% longer among patients receiving panitumumab than among those receiving BSC alone (96 versus 60 days, respectively) and the objective response rate in patients receiving panitumumab was 8%. However, no difference in overall survival was shown between the two study arms. CONCLUSIONS: Panitumumab received accelerated approval based on improvement in PFS and an independently confirmed response rate of 8%, similar to that observed with other active agents at this advanced stage of disease. Confirmation of clinical benefit will be required for full approval.

Development and regulation of monoclonal antibody products: challenges and opportunities.

An increasing number of monoclonal antibodies for cancer diagnosis and treatment are in clinical use and in the development pipeline, with more expected as new molecular targets are identified. As with all drugs, product quality, an appropriate pre-clinical pharmacology-toxicology testing program, and well-designed clinical trials are essential for a successful drug development program. However, protein products such as monoclonal antibodies present unique regulatory concerns. The derivation from biological sources as well as the constantly evolving technologies utilized to develop these products demands continuous appraisal of safety concerns, even while the accumulated experience with these protein products has facilitated their safety evaluations. Because of the complex nature of these products and their inherent heterogeneity, a mechanistic understanding of the mode of action along with careful attention to product design and manufacture are critical to assuring a safe, effective and consistent product. Protein products may be highly species specific, thus pharmacologically relevant animal models are an important component in accurately assessing pre-clinical safety and establishing initial dosing. Furthermore, the immunogenicity of protein products can impact its safety profile, dose exposure, and efficacy. Mechanistic insight should form the basis of biological assays used for monitoring efficacy, safety, lot-to-lot consistency and manufacturing changes. The inherent uniqueness of each product necessitates a flexible case-by-case approach for biologics review that is based on a strong scientific understanding of relative risks. This review will provide an overview of approaches used in the development of antibody-based cancer therapeutics and the scientific basis of regulatory reviews.