Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Penis Clinical Trial
Official title:
A Randomized Phase II Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Cetuximab in Metastatic Penile Carcinoma
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Cetuximab in metastatic penile carcinoma
Penile carcinoma is a rare cancer type, particularly in our industrialized countries.
Incidence is not well established but is estimated around 26000 annual new cases all around
the world [1]. We don't have accurate estimation for France but regarding data from the
literature, incidence rates in developed countries vary from 0.7 to 1.0/100000 men [2]. The
mean age at diagnosis is about 60 years [3].
Different causes have been identified like history of Human PapillomaVirus (essentially
HPV16), phymosis, absence of circumcision, tobacco use, and history of condyloma [1]. In
addition, a lot of molecular genetic alterations are also responsible for penile cancer
occurrence and development [4].
Histologically, most of these tumors are epidermoid cancers. Tumor spreads into inguinal
lymphnodes, then into pelvic lymphnodes. Then retroperitoneal lymphnodes are involves before
metastatic dissemination, often in lungs, liver and bones.
According to the French urology recommendations, treatment of localized penis cancer should
be conservative, as far as possible [5]; Even if local recurrences rate varies from 15% to
30% of patients, no reduction of overall survival is observed in these patients [7].
The investigations regarding involvement of inguinal lymphnodes and distant organs are a
key-point. Among the 10% of patients with loco regional recurrence [6], lymphadenectomy
should be preferred to chemotherapy which should be recommended for metastatic patients or
unresectable patients with regional lymphnodes involvement [5].
Numbers of treatments (monotherapy or associations) have been tested in penis cancer but the
rarity of these tumors is a major obstacle to clinical research, due to small samples of
patients. The best results seem to be obtained with platinum-based treatments (ORR up to
32.5% with a combination of cisplatin, methotrexate and bleomycine) [8] [9], but even if
response rates are very promising, overall survival is still very short (median OS = 28
weeks) and treatment-related toxicities can be very important, even lethal [9].
The histological type of squamous cells carcinoma, which is the large majority of penile
cancer, led Pagliaro et al. [10] to explore a combination of Paclitaxel, Ifosfamide and
Cisplatin (TIP) as neoadjuvant treatment of locally advanced penile tumors. This association
of chemotherapy agents had previously proven its efficacy in squamous cell carcinoma of the
head and neck. Even if this study included a small number of patients (N=30) with penile
carcinoma, it showed very promising results on primary objective (objective response rate =
50% with 10% of complete responses).
Despite these results and all previous researches, no chemotherapy agent has been submitted
to health authority's approval in France. It results that there is no market approval for
treatment of metastatic penile carcinoma.
However, based on the results of Pagliaro et al., the TIP is now considered by the French
physicians as the recommended standard of care for patients with metastatic penile carcinoma
[5].
From a biological point of view, Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) and K-ras status
have been widely explored in the past few years in penile carcinoma.
EGFR seem to present high expression levels in such tumors, whatever the stage of disease.
Among 17 patients studied by Lavens et al., expression of EGFR was 3+ (which is the highest
grade of expression) in 14 cases and 2+ in 3 cases [11].
Andersson et al. analyzed 28 penis tumors and found a somatic mutation in 39% (n=11).
Mutations have been detected in the following genes: PIK3CA (29%), HRAS (7%) and K-ras (3%)
[12].
Dorff et al. studied EGFR expression and K-ras status in 28 other penile carcinomas. They
noted an over expression of EGFR in all the samples but didn't find any K-ras mutation [13]
while Valverde et al. found 22% of K-ras muted carcinomas (N=28) [14].
When present, K-ras mutations have been identified on exon 2 (codons 12 and 13) but rarely
on exon 3 (codon 61). Mutational status can be easily explored by Polymerase Chain Reaction
amplification.
EGFR expression seems to be correlated with differentiation grade while K-ras mutation seems
to be correlated to the stage of disease [13] [14].
Cetuximab is a human/mouse chimeric monoclonal antibody. It has a specific and competitive
binding to the extracellular domain of EGFR, leading to inactivation of self-phosphorylation
of the receptor and inhibition of all the following intracellular signal chains. This has an
antiproliferative effect on cancer cells, inhibits angiogenesis, reduces cells mobility and
restores apoptosis.
Cetuximab has been widely studied in cancers with overexpression of Epidermal Growth Factor
Receptors (EGFR), in particular in squamous cancers of head and neck [15], colorectal [16]
and lung cancers [17].
Phases I studies showed that a dose in the range of 200mg/m² to 400mg/m² led to a good EGF
receptor saturation [18]. Association of Cetuximab and radiation therapy showed an
improvement on overall survival in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancers
(median overall survival = 49 months versus 29 months in the radiotherapy-alone group) [19].
Cetuximab has also been associated to platinum-based chemotherapies (Cisplatin or
Carboplatin) and 5-Fluorouracile in patients with head and neck cancer. Median overall
survival was significantly better on the group of patients with Cetuximab (10.1 months vs
7.4 months; p=0.04). However, 82% of patients with Cetuximab experienced Commom Terminology
Criteria for Adverse Event (CTCAE) grade 3/4 toxicities versus 76% in the other group [20].
Adverse events commonly noted with Cetuximab are cutaneous events, hypomagnesaemia,
infection and grade 3/4 anorexia.
Cetuximab has also been studied as monotherapy in head and neck patients with responses rate
of 13% and disease control rate of 46%. Cutaneous events were still the main toxicities
[21].
One preliminary experience has been conducted in a patient with penile carcinoma, treated
with an association of a taxane (Docetaxel) and Cetuximab. This treatment led to imaging and
clinical signs of efficacy (decrease of 18F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose fluorodeoxyglucose
(18-FDG) uptake, necrosis of metastatic mass, improvement of pain and performance status).
The tolerance profile has been characterized by neutropenia and mild skin toxicity [22].
Another key-point is that the efficacy of Cetuximab is closely related to the presence of
mutation on the gene coding for K-ras. Van Cutsem et al. showed that patients with wild-type
K-ras colorectal cancers are much better responders to Cetuximab than patients with mutation
[23].
K-ras mutation leads to a constitutive activation of the Ras pathway independently and can
bypass the EGFR-driven signaling cascade and impair the clinical efficacy of EGFR.
K-ras status should always be determined before Cetuximab initiation and it would be
interesting to know EGFR expression rates in order to correlate with responses to Cetuximab.
Finally, immunogenicity is a class effect of monoclonal chimeric antibodies; the incidence
of Human Anti-Chimeric Antibodies (HACA) formation has been observed around 3.7% of patients
treated with cetuximab. However, no apparent effect on the safety or antitumor activity of
cetuximab has been observed in these patients [Summary of Product Characteristics of
Cetuximab].
Given the fact that,
- the association of Paclitaxel, Ifosfamide and Cisplatin is efficient for the treatment
of metastatic penile carcinoma and considered as the new "standard" of care in France,
- squamous cell carcinoma of the penis expresses EGF receptor,
- cetuximab has anti-tumor properties in EGF mediated cancers,
- response rates to cetuximab is much better in patient with wild-type K-ras,
We postulate that:
- the combination of Paclitaxel, Ifosfamide, Cisplatin with Cetuximab, will enable to
provide a better Objective Response Rate (ORR) than the same combination used without
Cetuximab.
As promising results obtained by Pagliaro are not resulting from a comparative phase III
with a reference treatment, it cannot be considered as a validated new standard of care.
The proposed Phase 2 study will explore the optimal way to treat patients with metastatic
penile carcinoma between two experimental schemes using a Simon's selection "pick the
winner" randomized design.
;
Allocation: Randomized, Endpoint Classification: Safety/Efficacy Study, Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment, Masking: Open Label, Primary Purpose: Treatment
| Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recruiting |
NCT02104063 -
Characterising Metastatic Penile Cancer Using Molecular Imaging - Hybrid MRI-PET [MRI-PET]
|
N/A | |
| Not yet recruiting |
NCT06161532 -
Sacituzumab Govitecan With or Without Atezolizumab Immunotherapy in Rare Genitourinary Tumors (SMART) Such as Small Cell, Adenocarcinoma, and Squamous Cell Bladder/Urinary Tract Cancer, Renal Medullary Carcinoma and Penile Cancer
|
Phase 2 | |
| Completed |
NCT03517488 -
A Study of XmAb®20717 in Subjects With Selected Advanced Solid Tumors
|
Phase 1 | |
| Recruiting |
NCT03221400 -
PEN-866 in Patients With Advanced Solid Malignancies
|
Phase 1/Phase 2 | |
| Recruiting |
NCT04996849 -
Contemporary Characteristics of Penile Cancer
|