XL880 - Met Inhibitor - VEGF
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:02 am
I thought I would post this, as some ASPS patients are being offered XL880, an Exelixis drug that has both oral met inhibitor activity and anti VEGF. We applied to be included the the trial because of its promise in papillary CA (and the met data in ASPS from Sloan Kettering) and our knowledge that our daughter's ASPS primary was positive for both met and VEGF.
We ultimately were denied access at Dana Farber because John Goldberg had taken a job in Florida, and the peds onc that we were to inherit (all sarcomas were to go to her) was not interested in new therapies and was concerned about the risk of putting 'K' into an adult trial. There was an abstract about XL880 that said that one adverse reaction occurred in a patient had previously been on Sutent (I think it was hypertension) - and that patient left the trial. Our daughter had been on Sutent, so we thought, just as well she couldn't get in. Besides the commute (Seattle to Boston) would have been horrendous.
We subsequently read about Jonny May (an ASPS patient with a blog, also registered at alveolarspsarcoma.net) and his unsuccessful experience with XL880. He left the study after 6 months. His post: http://www.jonnymay.org/?p=86
Papillary CA and ASPS share an identical gene splice abnormality, but Papillary CA is a balanced translocation, whereas ASPS is not. That may mean ASPS is more unstable and prone to more genetic variation (why some tumors must be removed surgically, and not all tumors may respond to medical treatment).
Our oncologist speculated that the met inhibitor effects of XL880 are fairly weak - that it is more a VEGF inhibitor than met inhibitor, and he expressed his preference for ARQ197 over XL880 for that reason, but that is all speculative, I think. The data are too early to tell.
Hope this may help some of you. If XL880 and even Gemzar are discussed more commonly as possible treatments for stage IV ASPS patients, perhaps Olga you could give them their own New Topic rather than filed under Other Clinical Trials?
We ultimately were denied access at Dana Farber because John Goldberg had taken a job in Florida, and the peds onc that we were to inherit (all sarcomas were to go to her) was not interested in new therapies and was concerned about the risk of putting 'K' into an adult trial. There was an abstract about XL880 that said that one adverse reaction occurred in a patient had previously been on Sutent (I think it was hypertension) - and that patient left the trial. Our daughter had been on Sutent, so we thought, just as well she couldn't get in. Besides the commute (Seattle to Boston) would have been horrendous.
We subsequently read about Jonny May (an ASPS patient with a blog, also registered at alveolarspsarcoma.net) and his unsuccessful experience with XL880. He left the study after 6 months. His post: http://www.jonnymay.org/?p=86
Papillary CA and ASPS share an identical gene splice abnormality, but Papillary CA is a balanced translocation, whereas ASPS is not. That may mean ASPS is more unstable and prone to more genetic variation (why some tumors must be removed surgically, and not all tumors may respond to medical treatment).
Our oncologist speculated that the met inhibitor effects of XL880 are fairly weak - that it is more a VEGF inhibitor than met inhibitor, and he expressed his preference for ARQ197 over XL880 for that reason, but that is all speculative, I think. The data are too early to tell.
Hope this may help some of you. If XL880 and even Gemzar are discussed more commonly as possible treatments for stage IV ASPS patients, perhaps Olga you could give them their own New Topic rather than filed under Other Clinical Trials?