Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Ganitumab (AMG 479 ... · Rosen et al 1 1 Safety and...

Rosen et al 1

Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Ganitumab (AMG 479) 1

Combined With Sorafenib, Panitumumab, Erlotinib, or 2

Gemcitabine in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors 3

Lee S. Rosen,1 Igor Puzanov,2 Greg R. Friberg,3 Emily Chan,2 Yuying C. Hwang,3 4 Hongjie Deng,3 Jill Gilbert,2 Devalingam Mahalingam,4 Ian McCaffery,3 Shaunita A. 5 Michael,2 Alain C. Mita,4 Monica M. Mita,4 Marilyn Mulay,1 Poornima Shubhakar,3 Min 6 Zhu,3 John Sarantopoulos4 7

1Premiere Oncology, Santa Monica, CA; 2Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt 8 University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; 3Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA; 4Institute 9 for Drug Development, Cancer Therapy and Research Center, The University of Texas 10 Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 11

Running title: Safety of Ganitumab Plus Targeted or Cytotoxic Agents 12

Keywords: Ganitumab, sorafenib, panitumumab, erlotinib, IGF1R 13

Financial support: This study was funded by Amgen Inc. Additional investigator 14 support for this study was provided by a Cancer Center 15 Support Grant (P30CA054174) from The University of Texas 16 Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 17

Address correspondence to: Lee S. Rosen, MD 18 UCLA Hematology/Oncology 19 2020 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 600 20 Santa Monica, CA 90404 21 Phone: 310-633-8400 22 Fax: 310-633-8419 23 E-mail: [email protected] 24

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00974896 25

Word count: 4939 (limit, 5000) 26

Table/figure count: 6 (limit, 6) 27

Research. on September 10, 2020. © 2012 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from

Author manuscripts have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but have not yet been edited. Author Manuscript Published OnlineFirst on April 17, 2012; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-3369

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/

Safety of Ganitumab Plus Targeted or Cytotoxic Agents

Rosen et al 2

Statement of Translational Relevance 1

Ganitumab (AMG 479) is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody against 2

the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF1R). In early stage trials, ganitumab had 3

acceptable toxicity and evidence of activity in patients with advanced solid tumors and 4

increased overall survival when combined with gemcitabine in patients with previously 5

untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. Combinations of IGF1R inhibitors and targeted 6

or cytotoxic agents may improve treatment efficacy. We assessed the safety, 7

pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of ganitumab combined with the multikinase 8

inhibitor sorafenib, the fully human anti–epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) 9

monoclonal antibody panitumumab, the EGFR small-molecule inhibitor erlotinib, or the 10

nucleoside analogue gemcitabine. Ganitumab in combination with these agents was 11

generally well tolerated, had favorable pharmacokinetics, and resulted in partial 12

responses and tumor reductions in some patients. Ganitumab is currently under 13

investigation in combination with targeted and cytotoxic agents for the treatment of 14

several tumor types. 15

Abstract word count: 147 (limit, 150)16





Rosen et al 3

Abstract 1

Purpose: This phase 1b dose-escalation study assessed safety, tolerability, and 2

pharmacokinetics of ganitumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against the insulin-3

like growth factor 1 (IGF1) receptor, combined with targeted agents or cytotoxic 4

chemotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors. 5

Experimental Design: Patients with treatment-refractory advanced solid tumors were 6

sequentially enrolled at 2 ganitumab dose levels (6 or 12 mg/kg intravenously every 2 7

weeks [Q2W]) combined with either sorafenib 400 mg twice daily, panitumumab 6 mg/kg 8

Q2W, erlotinib 150 mg once daily, or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of 9

each 4-week cycle. The primary endpoints were safety and pharmacokinetics of 10

ganitumab. 11

Results: Ganitumab up to 12 mg/kg appeared well tolerated combined with sorafenib, 12

panitumumab, erlotinib, or gemcitabine. Treatment-emergent adverse events were 13

generally mild and included fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and chills. Three patients had 14

dose-limiting toxicities: grade 3 hyperglycemia (ganitumab 6 mg/kg and panitumumab), 15

grade 4 neutropenia (ganitumab 6 mg/kg and gemcitabine), and grade 4 16

thrombocytopenia (ganitumab 12 mg/kg and erlotinib). Ganitumab- and panitumumab-17

binding antibodies were detected in 5 and 2 patients, respectively; neutralizing 18

antibodies were not detected. The pharmacokinetics of ganitumab and each cotherapy 19

did not appear affected by coadministration. Circulating total IGF1 and IGF binding 20

protein 3 increased from baseline following treatment. Four patients (9%) had partial 21

responses. 22

Conclusions: Ganitumab up to 12 mg/kg was well tolerated, without adverse effects on 23

pharmacokinetics in combination with either sorafenib, panitumumab, erlotinib, or 24





Rosen et al 4

gemcitabine. Ganitumab is currently under investigation in combination with some of 1

these and other agents. 2

Abstract word count: 249 (limit, 250)3





Rosen et al 5

Introduction 1

The insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF1R) is a type 1 transmembrane tyrosine 2

kinase receptor that, with its ligands insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1) and 2 (IGF2), 3

regulates cell proliferation and apoptosis (1-4). The activity of IGFs is modulated by 6 4

IGF binding proteins (IGFBPs), which may affect tumor growth and IGF function (5). 5

There are several lines of evidence that implicate the IGF1R signaling axis in the 6

development of human malignancies (6). Not only have constitutive IGF1R expression, 7

IGF1R overexpression, and autocrine or paracrine signaling via IGF1R been proposed 8

as mechanisms of transformation in several tumor types (7-11), but studies using gene-9

knockout mice have demonstrated that IGF1R is required for transformation (12, 13). 10

In early-phase clinical trials, IGF1R inhibitors have shown acceptable toxicity profiles 11

and evidence of antitumor activity (14). Several lines of evidence suggest that these 12

agents might be combined with other anticancer agents in the treatment of solid tumors. 13

Interactions between IGF1R and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have been 14

reported in different cell types, and IGF1R may induce EGFR phosphorylation via 15

autocrine or paracrine mechanisms involving EGF-like ligands (15-17). It was therefore 16

postulated that combined inhibition of IGF1R and vascular endothelial growth factor or 17

EGFR would be of therapeutic benefit. This rationale was further supported by 18

preclinical studies reporting additive or synergistic inhibition of tumor cell growth, 19

induction of apoptosis, and regression of tumor xenografts in several models when 20

small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors of IGF1R were combined with either of the 21

EGFR inhibitors erlotinib or gefitinib (18-20). Similarly, combined treatment with an 22

IGF1R inhibitor and the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib was also associated with additive 23

inhibition of cholangiocarcinoma cell growth (21). Furthermore, combination treatment 24





Rosen et al 6

with an IGF1R inhibitor and the cytotoxic chemotherapy gemcitabine was associated 1

with additive inhibition of human pancreatic tumor xenograft growth (22). 2

Ganitumab (AMG 479) is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody against 3

IGF1R that inhibits tumor cell proliferation, promotes tumor cell death, and causes 4

regression of established tumor xenografts (23, 24). In a phase 1, first-in-human study, 5

ganitumab as monotherapy had acceptable toxicity up to the maximum tested dose (20 6

mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks [Q2W]) and showed antitumor activity in patients 7

with solid tumors (25). The objectives of this study were to assess the safety, tolerability, 8

and pharmacokinetics of ganitumab combined with the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib, 9

the fully human anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody panitumumab, the EGFR tyrosine 10

kinase inhibitor erlotinib, or the cytotoxic chemotherapy gemcitabine in patients with 11

advanced solid tumors. In a phase 2 study, which utilized the data from the present 12

study to justify the dose of ganitumab combined with gemcitabine, the combination had 13

acceptable toxicity and improved overall survival in patients with previously untreated 14

metastatic pancreatic cancer (26). 15

16





Rosen et al 7

Patients and Methods 1

Patients 2

Patients aged ≥18 years with pathologically or cytologically documented advanced solid 3

tumors or renal cell carcinoma (sorafenib cohorts) refractory to at least 1 line of therapy 4

or for which no standard or curative therapy was available; measurable or evaluable 5

disease per World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines; an Eastern Cooperative 6

Oncology Group performance status of ≤2; life expectancy ≥3 months; and adequate 7

hematologic, renal, and hepatic function were eligible to enroll. 8

Exclusion criteria included unresolved toxicities from prior anticancer therapy; primary or 9

metastatic central nervous system tumors (sorafenib cohorts only; controlled central 10

nervous system tumors were allowed in other cohorts); uncontrolled hypertension; 11

ascites or pleural effusion requiring treatment; abnormal pulmonary function, including 12

impaired carbon monoxide diffusion capacity (gemcitabine cohorts); magnesium below 13

the lower limit of normal (panitumumab cohorts); myocardial infarction, arterial 14

thrombosis, or venous thrombosis within the previous 6 months; clinically significant 15

hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia per investigator assessment; symptomatic congestive 16

heart failure; unstable angina; unstable cardiac arrhythmia requiring treatment; peptic 17

ulcer disease (sorafenib cohorts); major surgery within the previous 4 weeks (8 weeks 18

for the sorafenib cohorts); anticoagulation therapy (except low-dose warfarin) within the 19

previous week; active infection within the previous 2 weeks; and history of chronic 20

hepatitis. Diabetes (type 1 or 2) and existence or risk for primary hepatic tumors were 21

added as exclusion criteria after enrollment had begun. 22

Prior treatment with ganitumab or gemcitabine was not permitted. Prior treatment with 23

cetuximab, panitumumab, sorafenib, bevacizumab, or erlotinib was allowed. Patients 24





Rosen et al 8

were excluded for anticancer therapy, radiation therapy, antibody therapy, retinoid 1

therapy, hormonal therapy, or participation in clinical trials within the previous 4 weeks 2

before enrollment (within the previous 6 weeks for nitrosoureas and mitomycin C). 3

Concurrent hormone replacement therapy or gonadotropin-releasing hormone 4

modulators were allowed for prostate cancer. Concomitant medications that interfered 5

with cytochrome P450 3A metabolism were prohibited in the sorafenib and erlotinib 6

cohorts. Institutional review board approval was obtained for all study procedures. All 7

patients provided written informed consent before enrollment. 8

Study Design 9

This phase 1b open-label, dose-escalation study used a 3+3+3 design to investigate the 10

safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic profiles of ganitumab combined with sorafenib, 11

panitumumab, erlotinib, or gemcitabine. The primary endpoints were safety (incidence 12

of adverse events [AEs], clinically significant changes in vital signs and laboratory tests) 13

and pharmacokinetics of ganitumab. Secondary endpoints included the 14

pharmacokinetics of each cotherapy; anti-ganitumab antibody formation; tumor response 15

per WHO criteria; and volumetric tumor response by independent central assessment. 16

Exploratory biomarker analyses were performed, which included a pharmacodynamic 17

analysis of serum IGF1 and IGFBP-3, immunohistochemical analysis of phosphatase 18

and tensin homologue (PTEN) expression in archival tumors, and an analysis of somatic 19

mutations in archival tumors. 20

Treatment and Dose Escalation 21

Fourteen dose cohorts of 3 to 9 patients each were initially planned, which included 10 22

cohorts to assess 2 dose levels of ganitumab (6 or 12 mg/kg Q2W) combined with 23

bevacizumab 10 mg/kg Q2W, sorafenib 400 mg twice daily (BID), panitumumab 6 mg/kg 24





Rosen et al 9

Q2W, erlotinib 150 mg once daily (QD), or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 1

of each 28-day cycle. Four optional ganitumab de-escalation cohorts were to be 2

enrolled if intolerable toxicities occurred. Two planned bevacizumab cohorts were not 3

enrolled after new evidence indicated that bevacizumab might have limited activity as a 4

monotherapy in previously treated patients (27). The starting dose of 6 mg/kg and the 5

target dose of 12 mg/kg for ganitumab were based on pharmacokinetic results from a 6

preclinical tumor xenograft study and from the first-in-human study (25). Doses and 7

schedules for sorafenib, panitumumab, erlotinib, and gemcitabine were based on 8

product label information (28-31). Reduced doses of sorafenib and gemcitabine were 9

allowed depending on the toxicities observed. 10

Initially, 3 patients were enrolled in each cohort at the first ganitumab dose level. Up to 9 11

patients could be enrolled in each cohort for additional safety and pharmacokinetic data. 12

The decision to escalate to the second ganitumab dose level for each combination was 13

made by the investigators and sponsor following review of available safety, laboratory, 14

and pharmacokinetic data from a 21-day assessment period following the first dose. If 1 15

of 3 patients at the first dose level had a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), then 3 additional 16

patients were to be enrolled at the first dose level. If no further DLTs or serious 17

ganitumab-related AEs were observed, enrollment in the second dose level could begin. 18

If 2 of 6 patients at the first dose level had a DLT or serious ganitumab-related AE, then 19

3 additional patients were to be enrolled at the first dose level (for a total of 9 patients). 20

A dose was considered toxic if ≥33% of patients experienced a DLT or serious 21

ganitumab-related AE during the 21-day assessment period; the dose was to be stopped 22

if 3 of 9 patients had a DLT. 23





Rosen et al 10

Ganitumab was administered as a 1-hour intravenous infusion on day 2 of cycle 1 and 1

on day 1 of each subsequent 2-week cycle. If 1-hour infusions were tolerated, 2

subsequent infusions could be reduced to 30 minutes. If 1-hour infusions were poorly 3

tolerated, subsequent infusions could be extended to 2 hours. Sorafenib was 4

administered BID orally beginning on day 1. Panitumumab was administered as a 1-5

hour intravenous infusion on day 1 of each 2-week cycle. Erlotinib was administered QD 6

orally beginning on day 1. Gemcitabine was administered intravenously on days 1, 8, 7

and 15 of each 4-week cycle. Study drugs were administered until disease progression 8

or intolerable AE. Doses of study drugs could be withheld, reduced, or delayed per 9

protocol-specified rules for the occurrence of toxicities; interruptions lasting >6 weeks 10

resulted in study discontinuation. If ganitumab dosing was delayed, missed, or 11

discontinued, cotherapies were also delayed, missed, or discontinued; however, 12

ganitumab dosing was not altered as a result of altered dosing of cotherapies. 13

Dose-Limiting Toxicity and Maximum Tolerated Dose 14

A DLT in all cohorts (except for the gemcitabine and sorafenib cohorts) was defined as 15

any related grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity or nonhematologic toxicity occurring during the 16

initial 21 days of treatment with ganitumab (except for alopecia or other well-described 17

toxicity of the agents being investigated) according to National Cancer Institute Common 18

Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) version 3.0. A DLT in the 19

gemcitabine cohorts was defined as any related grade ≥3 nonhematologic toxicity 20

occurring during the initial 21 days of treatment of ganitumab (except for alopecia or 21

other well-described toxicities). Grade 3 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia 22

were not considered DLTs unless the neutropenia was accompanied by fever >38.5°C, 23

the neutropenia lasted >7 days, or the thrombocytopenia was accompanied by bleeding. 24

Grade 4 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia were considered DLTs. The 25





Rosen et al 11

maximum tolerated dose of ganitumab was defined as the highest dose level at which 1

<33% of treated patients in each arm had a DLT. 2

Study Assessments 3

Safety and Laboratory 4

All AEs occurring from enrollment until the last follow-up (30 days after the last dose) 5

were recorded by investigators and graded per NCI-CTCAE version 3.0. Clinical 6

chemistry, hematology, and urinalysis were assessed at screening, predose on days 1 7

and 8, before all subsequent ganitumab doses, and at the end-of-study visit. 8

Anti-ganitumab and Anti-panitumumab Antibodies 9

Blood samples for the assessment of anti-ganitumab antibodies were collected predose 10

on days 1 (for panitumumab) or 2 (for ganitumab); days 29, and 57; every 12 weeks 11

thereafter; and at the end-of-study visits (4 and 8 weeks after the last dose). Anti-12

ganitumab antibodies were assayed using an electrochemiluminescence bridging 13

immunoassay as described previously (25). Anti-panitumumab antibodies were assayed 14

using a bridging enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and a Biacore assay as 15

described previously (32). 16

Pharmacokinetics 17

Blood samples for the measurement of pharmacokinetic profiles of ganitumab, sorafenib, 18

panitumumab, erlotinib, and gemcitabine and its metabolite (2’2’-difluorodeoxyuridine 19

[dFdU]) were collected between weeks 5 (cycle 3, predose and postdose) and 7 (cycle 4, 20

predose). Sparse samples were collected in weeks 1 (cycle 1, predose and postdose), 3 21

(cycle 2, predose and postdose), 11 (cycle 6, predose), and 15 (cycle 8, predose); 22

predose every 12 weeks thereafter; and at the end-of-study visits (4 and 8 weeks after 23

the last dose). Serum concentrations of ganitumab and panitumumab were measured 24





Rosen et al 12

using a double anti-idiotypic antibody sandwich immunoassay (25) and an 1

electrochemiluminescence assay (33), respectively. Plasma concentrations of sorafenib, 2

erlotinib, gemcitabine, and dFdU were measured by liquid chromatography with tandem 3

mass spectrometry (see Supplemental Material). Pharmacokinetic parameters were 4

estimated using noncompartmental methods with WinNonlin® software (version 5.1.1; 5

Pharsight Corp., Mountain View, CA). 6

Pharmacodynamic Assessments 7

To assess the pharmacodynamic response of circulating IGF1 and IGFBP-3 to treatment 8

with ganitumab, blood samples for the measurement of serum total IGF1 and IGFBP-3 9

were collected predose in cycles 1 (days 1, 2, and 8), 2 (day 15), 4 (day 43), and 6 (day 10

71) and at the end-of-study visit (4 weeks after the last dose of ganitumab). Serum IGF1 11

and IGFBP-3 were measured using competitive binding radioimmunoassays following 12

alcohol/acid extraction. Briefly, extracts were incubated with rabbit polyclonal antisera 13

specific for IGF1 or IGFBP-3 followed by radioiodinated purified recombinant human 14

IGF1 or purified IGFBP-3. Concentrations of IGF1 and IGFBP-3 from control and test 15

samples were determined from a dose-response curve generated in each assay using 16

purified IGF1 or IGFBP-3. The sensitivities of the assays for IGF1 and IGFBP-3 were 15 17

ng/mL and 0.3 ng/mL, respectively. 18

Analysis of Tumor PTEN Expression 19

Archival tumor samples were stained for nuclear and cytoplasmic expression of 20

phosphatase and tensin homologue (PTEN) by immunohistochemistry and scored on a 21

relative scale of 0 to 3 (0 = no stain; 3 = maximal stain). Tumor cells with a staining 22

intensity ≥1 in the nuclear or cytoplasmic compartments were considered PTEN-positive. 23

Detailed staining methods are described in the Supplemental Material. 24





Rosen et al 13

Exploratory Genetic Analysis 1

DNA was extracted from archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sections. To 2

determine the somatic mutation status of HRAS, KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, PTEN, 3

and TP53, sequence libraries were generated and analyzed using the Roche 454 GS 4

FLX Amplicon Sequencing platform (454 Life Sciences, Branford, CT). Detailed 5

methods are available in the Supplemental Material. 6

Tumor Assessment 7

Tumor assessment was performed by computed tomography (CT) or magnetic 8

resonance imaging and was evaluated by investigators within 4 weeks before enrollment 9

and every 8 weeks (± 1 week) thereafter. Volumetric CT analysis was performed by a 10

central imaging laboratory (VirtualScopics, Rochester, NY). Response was assessed by 11

investigators per WHO criteria (34). A partial response was defined as a ≥50% 12

decrease from baseline in the sum of the cross-products of the longest diameters (SPD) 13

of index lesions for ≥4 weeks. Progressive disease was defined as at least a 25% 14

increase in the SPD of index lesions taking as reference the nadir SPD recorded since 15

the last treatment started or the presence of one or more new lesions. Stable disease 16

was defined as neither sufficient shrinkage of index lesions to qualify for a partial 17

response nor sufficient increase to qualify for progressive disease, taking as reference 18

the nadir SPD since the treatment started. For duration of responses, responders who 19

had not progressed or died during the study were censored at the last disease 20

assessment. 21

Statistical Analysis 22

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic, safety, pharmacokinetic, 23

biomarker, tumor assessment, and response data. The safety-analysis set included all 24





Rosen et al 14

patients who received ≥1 dose of investigational product. All patients were included in 1

efficacy analyses. Patients were categorized by the initial dose received.2





Rosen et al 15

Results 1

Patient Demographics and Disposition 2

Forty-six patients were enrolled at 3 centers in the United States between December 5, 3

2006 and September 2, 2009. All patients received at least 1 dose of ganitumab; 9 4

received at least 24 weeks of treatment. All patients received at least 1 dose of their 5

respective cotherapies. Administration of the study drugs is summarized in 6

Supplemental Table 1. Patients were enrolled sequentially, first completing treatment 7

in the gemcitabine and panitumumab cohorts, followed by the sorafenib and erlotinib 8

cohorts. Demographics and baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The 9

most common tumor types were colon (n=11), ovarian (n=6), breast (n=4), and non–10

small-cell lung (n=3). The majority of patients (n=31; 67%) had received ≥3 lines of prior 11

cancer therapy, and approximately one half had received radiotherapy (n=24; 52%). 12

Eleven patients (24%) discontinued the study early; reasons included consent withdrawn 13

(n=4), loss to follow-up (n=2; after 4 and 6 doses, respectively), alternative therapy (n=2), 14

noncompliance (n=1), AE (n=1) (see below, Dose-Limiting Toxicities), and administrative 15

decision (n=1). Thirty-five patients (76%) completed the end-of-study visit. 16

Dose Escalation, Dose-Limiting Toxicities, and Maximum Tolerated Dose 17

Overall, 8 cohorts were enrolled in the study, comprising 20 patients in the ganitumab 6-18

mg/kg cohorts and 26 patients in the ganitumab 12-mg/kg cohorts. Initially, 3 patients 19

were enrolled in cohorts to receive ganitumab 6 mg/kg combined with sorafenib 400 mg 20

BID (cohort 1), panitumumab 6 mg/kg Q2W (cohort 2), erlotinib 150 mg QD (cohort 3), or 21

gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (cohort 4). Two of these patients had DLTs: 1 in cohort 2 and 22

1 in cohort 4. In cohort 2, a patient with a thyroid tumor and history of diabetes had 23

grade 3 hyperglycemia considered by investigators to be related to ganitumab. The 24





Rosen et al 16

patient’s baseline fasting glucose was 103 mg/dL; subsequent levels ranged from 189 to 1

350 mg/dL. The patient received treatment with insulin and the panitumumab dose was 2

altered; the patient was eventually removed from the study owing to hyperglycemia. In 3

cohort 4, a patient with a small-cell lung tumor had grade 4 neutropenia. As a result of 4

the DLTs, cohorts 2 and 4 were each expanded to 6 patients to collect additional safety 5

and pharmacokinetic data. Additionally, 2 patients were enrolled in cohort 4 as 6

replacements for 2 patients who received ganitumab dosing errors (12 mg/kg instead of 7

6 mg/kg ganitumab) during the DLT assessment window. 8

Subsequently, 3 patients were enrolled in cohorts to receive ganitumab 12 mg/kg 9

combined with sorafenib (cohort 5), panitumumab (cohort 6), erlotinib (cohort 7), or 10

gemcitabine (cohort 8). One patient in cohort 7 with ovarian cancer had a DLT (grade 4 11

thrombocytopenia) after the first dose of ganitumab (day 5). The patient was removed 12

from the study and did not receive subsequent treatment. Subsequently, cohorts 5 and 13

7 were expanded to 9 patients to collect additional safety and pharmacokinetic data. 14

Additionally, 1 patient each in cohorts 5 and 6 were replaced due to consent withdrawal 15

and failure to complete DLT window, resulting in a total enrollment of 10 and 4 patients, 16

respectively. Ganitumab at the highest tested dose of 12 mg/kg appeared to be well 17

tolerated when combined with full doses of each cotherapy (as defined by a DLT rate 18

<33%). 19

Safety and Tolerability 20

Toxicity is summarized in Table 2. The most frequent ganitumab-related AEs were 21

fatigue, nausea, vomiting, chills not associated with infusion, anorexia, and 22

thrombocytopenia. The AEs considered related to treatment with the cotherapies were 23

consistent with those previously reported for these agents (35-37). Grade ≥3 treatment-24





Rosen et al 17

emergent AEs occurred in 33 patients (72%). The most common (occurring in ≥4% of 1

patients) grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia, palmar-2

plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, hypomagnesemia, rash, intestinal obstructions, 3

and dehydration (see Table 2). Grade ≥3 ganitumab-related AEs (each n=1) were 4

fatigue (cohort 5), thrombocytopenia (cohort 4), cataract (cohort 1), hyperglycemia 5

(cohort 2), hyponatremia (cohort 5), and neutropenia (cohort 5). Serious AEs occurred 6

in 15 patients (33%), none of which were considered by investigators to be related to 7

ganitumab. The most frequent (occurring in ≥4% of patients) serious AEs were 8

dehydration (cohort 5, n=1 [10%]; cohort 7, n=1 [11%]), diarrhea (cohort 5, n=1 [10%]; 9

cohort 7, n=1 [11%]), and intestinal obstruction (cohort 3, n=1 [13%]; cohort 7, n=1; 10

[11%]). Dehydration and diarrhea were the only serious AEs considered by investigators 11

to be potentially related to treatment with a study drug (sorafenib; cohort 5). 12

Hyperglycemia was not reported in any patient aside from the occurrence considered a 13

DLT. Two patients had hepatotoxicity events (grade 2 hepatic pain and grade 3 14

increased alanine aminotransferase), neither of which was considered by investigators 15

to be related to ganitumab; however, the increased alanine aminotransferase was 16

considered by investigators to be potentially related to treatment with sorafenib. Three 17

patients (7%) had AEs identified as potential sensorineural hearing loss. However, only 18

1 patient (cohort 7) had sensorineural hearing loss (grade 2 hypoacusis) considered by 19

investigators to be potentially related to ganitumab. The patient had prior exposure to 20

loud noises and a 3- to 6-month history of diminished hearing before enrollment. No 21

infusion reactions were reported during the study. 22

AEs considered potentially related to treatment with the cotherapies were consistent with 23

those previously reported for these agents (35-37). Neutropenia events were reported in 24





Rosen et al 18

7 patients (15%) overall and occurred predominantly in the gemcitabine cohorts (cohort 1

4, n=4; cohort 5, n=1; cohort 8, n=2). In addition to the 1 case of grade 4 neutropenia in 2

cohort 4 considered a DLT, grade 3 neutropenia occurred in 5 patients (cohort 4, n=3; 3

cohort 8, n=2), grade 4 neutropenia occurred in 1 patient in cohort 5, and grade 1 4

leukopenia occurred in 1 patient in cohort 8. Of these events, only the grade 1 5

leukopenia and the grade 4 neutropenia were considered by the investigators to be 6

potentially related to ganitumab. The grade 4 neutropenia was not considered a DLT 7

because it occurred after the 21-day assessment period. Thrombocytopenia events 8

occurred in the gemcitabine cohort (n=7) and in the erlotinib cohort (n=3). 9

Skin rash occurred in 33 patients (72%) overall and in 76%, 100%, 75%, and 36% of 10

patients in the sorafenib, panitumumab, erlotinib, and gemcitabine cohorts, respectively. 11

One patient who received sorafenib (cohort 5) had a grade 3 superior vena cava 12

occlusion that was not considered related to ganitumab. 13

The only treatment discontinuations as a result of AEs are described above (cohort 2, 14

hyperglycemia; cohort 7, thrombocytopenia). Delays in and reduced dosing of 15

ganitumab occurred in 6 and 3 patients, respectively, as a result of AEs. One patient 16

(cohort 5) died on study day 61 of respiratory failure not considered by investigators to 17

be related to treatment with ganitumab. This patient, who had ovarian cancer for 10 18

years, had multiple surgeries and had been heavily pretreated with various 19

chemotherapy agents prior to enrollment. 20

Antibodies 21

Ganitumab-binding antibodies were detected in 5 patients (11%) during the study, 2 of 22

whom had detectable binding antibodies at or before baseline. Ganitumab-neutralizing 23





Rosen et al 19

antibodies were not detected in any patient before or during the study. Panitumumab-1

binding antibodies were detected in 2 patients (1 each in cohorts 2 and 6) with the 2

Biacore assay but were not detected with the ELISA. In the patients with detectable 3

binding antibodies with the Biacore assay, none were detected at or before baseline or 4

within 90 days of the last dose. Panitumumab-neutralizing antibodies were not detected 5

in any patient during the study. 6

Pharmacokinetics 7

The pharmacokinetic parameters of ganitumab and each cotherapy are shown in Tables 8

3 and 4, respectively. Estimates of mean ganitumab exposure (maximum observed 9

serum concentration, minimum observed serum concentration, and area under the 10

concentration versus time curve for a dosing interval) were approximately 2-fold greater 11

among patients who received ganitumab 12 mg/kg versus 6 mg/kg in all cohorts, 12

indicating that dose linearity was not affected by coadministration with sorafenib, 13

panitumumab, erlotinib, or gemcitabine. Ganitumab clearance at both the 6- and 12-14

mg/kg doses in combination with sorafenib, panitumumab, erlotinib, and gemcitabine 15

ranged from 8.94 to 17.0 mL/d/kg, which was within the expected range with 16

monotherapy (25). Estimated pharmacokinetic parameters for sorafenib, panitumumab, 17

erlotinib, and gemcitabine did not appear to be affected by coadministration with 18

ganitumab (Table 4). 19

Tumor Response 20

Overall, 39 of 46 patients had evaluations of tumor response per WHO criteria (34) per 21

investigator assessment. Of these, 35 had both baseline and post-treatment imaging; 4 22

had assessments based on new lesions or non-index lesions (described in Figure 1 23

legend). The best-result changes from baseline in SPD of index lesions of 35 patients 24





Rosen et al 20

are shown in Figure 1. Four patients (9%) had partial responses as a best result. For 1

these 4 patients, the duration of objective response was: 24.0 weeks for a patient with 2

endometrial cancer in cohort 1 (sorafenib), 25.4 weeks for a patient with breast cancer in 3

cohort 3 (erlotinib; censored at last assessment), 24.1 weeks for a patient with colon 4

cancer in cohort 6 (panitumumab), and 16.9 weeks for a patient with prostate cancer in 5

cohort 8 (gemcitabine). These 4 patients were heavily pretreated, having previously 6

received multiple cytotoxic and targeted therapies. Twenty-three patients had a best 7

result of stable disease (sorafenib cohorts: cohorts 1 [n=2], cohort 5 [n=5]; panitumumab 8

cohorts: cohort 2 [n=5], cohort 6 [n=1]; erlotinib cohorts: cohort 3 [n=1], cohort 7 [n=1]; 9

gemcitabine cohorts: cohort 4 [n=7], cohort 8 [n=1]). Among these, 6 received treatment 10

≥24 weeks, and the most frequent primary tumor types were colon (n=5), thyroid, non–11

small-cell lung, squamous cell, and ovarian (all n=2). The remaining 12 evaluable 12

patients had progressive disease as a best result (sorafenib cohorts: cohort 1 [n=0], 13

cohort 5 [n=3]; panitumumab cohorts: cohort 2 [n=1], cohort 6 [n=1]; erlotinib cohorts: 14

cohort 3 [n=1], cohort 7 [n=4]; gemcitabine cohorts: cohort 4 [n=1], cohort 8 [n=1]). 15

There were no significant discordances in tumor response between the investigator and 16

central assessments. 17

Assessment of Potential Biomarkers 18

At the 6- and 12-mg/kg doses of ganitumab, mean total serum levels of IGF1 increased 19

from baseline to day 8 and remained relatively constant through week 11 or the end of 20

study (Figure 2A). At day 15 (collected at trough levels before the second dose), the 21

IGF1 ratio to baseline was 1.31 at the 12-mg/kg dose of ganitumab and 1.20 at the 6-22

mg/kg dose, indicating the presence of a dose-dependent pharmacodynamic effect at 23

both ganitumab dose levels. Mean total serum levels of IGFBP-3 increased from 24

baseline to the end of study at both dose levels of ganitumab (Figure 2B). No dose-25





Rosen et al 21

dependent differences were observed. No associations were observed between the 1

pharmacodynamic markers and change from baseline in SPD of target lesions. 2

We assessed potential associations between PTEN expression and response to 3

treatment with ganitumab combined with sorafenib, panitumumab, erlotinib, and 4

gemcitabine. Although immunohistochemical analysis of archival tumor samples 5

confirmed cytoplasmic and nuclear expression of PTEN in the majority of available 6

specimens, there was no observed association between the proportion of PTEN-positive 7

cells and percentage change in SPD of target lesions (Supplemental Table 2). 8

An exploratory analysis of somatic mutations in genes with potential involvement in the 9

IGF1R and EGFR signaling pathways (KRAS, BRAF, HRAS, NRAS, PIK3CA, PTEN, 10

AKT, and TP53) did not demonstrate an association between mutation status and 11

change from baseline in SPD of target lesions. However, it is important to note that this 12

analysis, and the analysis of tumor PTEN expression, was limited by the small number 13

of samples and mixed patient population. 14





Rosen et al 22

Discussion 1

In this study, ganitumab was well tolerated up to the maximum tested dose of 12 mg/kg 2

when combined with sorafenib, panitumumab, erlotinib, or gemcitabine in patients with 3

advanced solid tumors. Three patients had DLTs (cohorts 2, 4, and 7), but when cohorts 4

were expanded, there were no further DLTs. AEs related to treatment with agents other 5

than ganitumab were consistent with those expected for each agent. 6

Grade 3 hyperglycemia was observed in a patient in cohort 2 (ganitumab 6 mg/kg 7

combined with panitumumab) who had a history of controlled diabetes. Among patients 8

in the first-in-human study who did not have diabetes (n=50), hyperglycemia occurred in 9

3 patients who received ganitumab 12 mg/kg Q2W and 2 patients who received 10

ganitumab 20 mg/kg Q2W; an additional 2 of 3 patients with diabetes had decreased 11

glucose control (25). In a randomized phase 2 study, grade 3 or 4 hyperglycemia was 12

observed in 18% of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who received ganitumab 13

plus gemcitabine (26). In addition, grade 1 to 4 hyperglycemia has been reported in 14

phase 1 studies of the IGF1R inhibitor figitumumab (38-40). Thrombocytopenia has 15

been previously reported among patients receiving ganitumab treatment (25, 26). In this 16

study, thrombocytopenia events and severe neutropenia occurred predominantly among 17

patients who also received erlotinib or gemcitabine, which is consistent with studies 18

assessing these agents in metastatic cancer of the pancreas (41, 42). Thus, although 19

this study was small, there was no evidence of interactions that resulted in toxicity 20

greater than expected with any of the combinations assessed. 21

The ganitumab pharmacokinetic parameters estimated in this study were generally 22

consistent with those in the monotherapy first-in-human study (25), suggesting that the 23

pharmacokinetics of ganitumab was not affected in combination with sorafenib, 24





Rosen et al 23

panitumumab, erlotinib, or gemcitabine. There is no mechanism-based pharmacokinetic 1

interaction expected when ganitumab is administered with small-molecule drugs, owing 2

to different elimination pathways, or with monoclonal antibodies, owing to the large 3

capacity in elimination of immunoglobulin G antibodies. It has been reported that 4

baseline serum albumin and creatinine levels could affect ganitumab exposure levels 5

(43), which underscores the potential influence of baseline disease status and 6

characteristics. 7

We hypothesized that combination therapy might improve patient outcomes versus 8

single-agent inhibition of the IGF1R pathway, and therefore chose to explore the 9

antitumor activity of ganitumab in a variety of combinations with cytotoxic and targeted 10

therapies. Although antitumor activity was not a primary objective of this phase 1b study 11

of heavily pretreated patients, 4 of 46 patients (9%) with the following tumor types had 12

partial responses: endometrial (cohort 1), breast (cohort 3), colon (cohort 6), and 13

prostate cancer (cohort 8). Twenty-three patients (59%) had stable disease, including 1 14

patient with neuroendocrine cancer and 1 patient with pancreatic cancer. One partial 15

response occurred in each of the sorafenib, erlotinib, panitumumab, and gemcitabine 16

cohorts with ganitumab at either dose level. Although these results suggest that there 17

was some evidence of antitumor activity for each of the combinations, larger studies will 18

be required to assess whether there were improvements in outcomes with these 19

combinations versus single-agent treatment. 20

In the pharmacodynamic biomarker analysis, serum total IGF1 and IGFBP-3 increased 21

from baseline following treatment with ganitumab at both dose levels. Similar increases 22

in circulating IGF1 were observed following treatment with ganitumab 20 mg/kg in the 23

first-in-human study (25). 24





Rosen et al 24

In an exploratory analysis, we investigated whether there was an association between 1

tumor expression of PTEN and tumor response. Preclinical evidence has suggested 2

that the IGF1 signaling pathway promotes tumor cell proliferation and invasiveness 3

through dephosphorylation of the tumor suppressor PTEN and activation of the 4

PI3K/PTEN/Akt/NF-κB signaling pathway (44). Furthermore, loss of PTEN expression 5

has been associated with poor outcomes among cancer patients (45, 46) and with lack 6

of response to anti-EGFR therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (47). Although the 7

majority of tumor samples in the present study were assessed as PTEN-positive, there 8

was no association between PTEN expression and change in tumor dimensions in the 9

limited number of samples from a mixed patient population. 10

In conclusion, ganitumab at the target dose of 12 mg/kg combined with the approved 11

doses of sorafenib, panitumumab, erlotinib, or gemcitabine had acceptable toxicity and 12

showed evidence of antitumor activity, suggesting that further studies of ganitumab 13

combinations for the treatment of solid tumors may be warranted at the doses 14

established in this trial. Ganitumab combined with gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic 15

cancer is currently being investigated in a randomized phase 3 study (Gemcitabine and 16

AMG 479 in Metastatic Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreas [GAMMA]; Clinicaltrials.gov, 17

NCT01231347). 18





Rosen et al 25

Acknowledgment 1

The authors would like to acknowledge Li Chen (Amgen Inc.), PhD, ScD, for 2

biostatistical analysis, Jessica Johnson (Amgen Inc.) BS, for pharmacokinetic data 3

analysis, Jennifer L. Gansert (Amgen Inc.), MD, PhD, for helpful comments, and 4

Benjamin Scott, PhD, whose work was funded by Amgen Inc., for assistance in writing 5

this manuscript. 6





Rosen et al 26

References

1. Ullrich A, Gray A, Tam AW, Yang-Feng T, Tsubokawa M, Collins C, et al. Insulin-

like growth factor I receptor primary structure: comparison with insulin receptor

suggests structural determinants that define functional specificity. EMBO J

1986;5:2503-12.

2. Baker J, Liu JP, Robertson EJ, Efstratiadis A. Role of insulin-like growth factors

in embryonic and postnatal growth. Cell 1993;75:73-82.

3. Liu JP, Baker J, Perkins AS, Robertson EJ, Efstratiadis A. Mice carrying null

mutations of the genes encoding insulin-like growth factor I (Igf-1) and type 1 IGF

receptor (Igf1r). Cell 1993;75:59-72.

4. Peruzzi F, Prisco M, Dews M, Salomoni P, Grassilli E, Romano G, et al. Multiple

signaling pathways of the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor in protection from

apoptosis. Mol Cell Biol 1999;19:7203-15.

5. Grimberg A, Cohen P. Role of insulin-like growth factors and their binding

proteins in growth control and carcinogenesis. J Cell Physiol 2000;183:1-9.

6. Pollak MN, Schernhammer ES, Hankinson SE. Insulin-like growth factors and

neoplasia. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4:505-18.

7. Kaleko M, Rutter WJ, Miller AD. Overexpression of the human insulinlike growth

factor I receptor promotes ligand-dependent neoplastic transformation. Mol Cell

Biol 1990;10:464-73.

8. Pietrzkowski Z, Lammers R, Carpenter G, Soderquist AM, Limardo M, Phillips

PD, et al. Constitutive expression of insulin-like growth factor 1 and insulin-like

growth factor 1 receptor abrogates all requirements for exogenous growth factors.

Cell Growth Differ 1992;3:199-205.





Rosen et al 27

9. Peters G, Gongoll S, Langner C, Mengel M, Piso P, Klempnauer J, et al. IGF-1R,

IGF-1 and IGF-2 expression as potential prognostic and predictive markers in

colorectal-cancer. Virchows Arch 2003;443:139-45.

10. Bergmann U, Funatomi H, Yokoyama M, Beger HG, Korc M. Insulin-like growth

factor I overexpression in human pancreatic cancer: evidence for autocrine and

paracrine roles. Cancer Res 1995;55:2007-11.

11. Jones RA, Campbell CI, Gunther EJ, Chodosh LA, Petrik JJ, Khokha R, et al.

Transgenic overexpression of IGF-IR disrupts mammary ductal morphogenesis

and induces tumor formation. Oncogene 2007;26:1636-44.

12. Sell C, Rubini M, Rubin R, Liu JP, Efstratiadis A, Baserga R. Simian virus 40

large tumor antigen is unable to transform mouse embryonic fibroblasts lacking

type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A

1993;90:11217-21.

13. Coppola D, Ferber A, Miura M, Sell C, D'Ambrosio C, Rubin R, et al. A functional

insulin-like growth factor I receptor is required for the mitogenic and transforming

activities of the epidermal growth factor receptor. Mol Cell Biol 1994;14:4588-95.

14. Gualberto A, Pollak M. Emerging role of insulin-like growth factor receptor

inhibitors in oncology: early clinical trial results and future directions. Oncogene

2009;28:3009-21.

15. El-Shewy HM, Kelly FL, Barki-Harrington L, Luttrell LM. Ectodomain shedding-

dependent transactivation of epidermal growth factor receptors in response to

insulin-like growth factor type I. Mol Endocrinol 2004;18:2727-39.

16. Roudabush FL, Pierce KL, Maudsley S, Khan KD, Luttrell LM. Transactivation of

the EGF receptor mediates IGF-1-stimulated shc phosphorylation and ERK1/2

activation in COS-7 cells. J Biol Chem 2000;275:22583-9.





Rosen et al 28

17. Vardy DA, Kari C, Lazarus GS, Jensen PJ, Zilberstein A, Plowman GD, et al.

Induction of autocrine epidermal growth factor receptor ligands in human

keratinocytes by insulin/insulin-like growth factor-1. J Cell Physiol 1995;163:257-

65.

18. Buck E, Eyzaguirre A, Rosenfeld-Franklin M, Thomson S, Mulvihill M, Barr S, et

al. Feedback mechanisms promote cooperativity for small molecule inhibitors of

epidermal and insulin-like growth factor receptors. Cancer Res 2008;68:8322-32.

19. Morgillo F, Woo JK, Kim ES, Hong WK, Lee HY. Heterodimerization of insulin-

like growth factor receptor/epidermal growth factor receptor and induction of

survivin expression counteract the antitumor action of erlotinib. Cancer Res

2006;66:10100-11.

20. Huang F, Greer A, Hurlburt W, Han X, Hafezi R, Wittenberg GM, et al. The

mechanisms of differential sensitivity to an insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor

inhibitor (BMS-536924) and rationale for combining with EGFR/HER2 inhibitors.

Cancer Res 2009;69:161-70.

21. Huether A, Hopfner M, Baradari V, Schuppan D, Scherubl H. Sorafenib alone or

as combination therapy for growth control of cholangiocarcinoma. Biochem

Pharmacol 2007;73:1308-17.

22. Maloney EK, McLaughlin JL, Dagdigian NE, Garrett LM, Connors KM, Zhou XM,

et al. An anti-insulin-like growth factor I receptor antibody that is a potent inhibitor

of cancer cell proliferation. Cancer Res 2003;63:5073-83.

23. Beltran PJ, Mitchell P, Chung YA, Cajulis E, Lu J, Belmontes B, et al. AMG 479,

a fully human anti-insulin-like growth factor receptor type I monoclonal antibody,

inhibits the growth and survival of pancreatic carcinoma cells. Mol Cancer Ther

2009;8:1095-105.





Rosen et al 29

24. Beltran PJ, Chung YA, Moody G, Mitchell P, Cajulis E, Vonderfecht S, et al.

Efficacy of ganitumab (AMG 479), alone and in combination with rapamycin, in

Ewing's and osteogenic sarcoma models. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2011;337:644-

54.

25. Tolcher AW, Sarantopoulos J, Patnaik A, Papadopoulos K, Lin CC, Rodon J, et

al. Phase I, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic study of AMG 479, a fully

human monoclonal antibody to insulin-like growth factor receptor 1. J Clin Oncol

2009;27:5800-7.

26. Kindler HL, Richards DA, Stephenson J, Garbo LE, Rocha Lima CS, Safran H, et

al. A placebo-controlled, randomized phase II study of conatumumab (C) or AMG

479 (A) or placebo (P) plus gemcitabine (G) in patients (pts) with metastatic

pancreatic cancer (mPC) [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:4035

27. Giantonio BJ, Catalano PJ, Meropol NJ, O'Dwyer PJ, Mitchell EP, Alberts SR, et

al. Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin

(FOLFOX4) for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E3200. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1539-

44.

28. Vectibix® (panitumumab). Full Prescribing Information, Amgen Inc., Thousand

Oaks, CA, 2010.

29. Tarceva® (erlotinib). Full Prescribing Information, Genentech, Inc., San Francisco,

CA, 2010.

30. Nexavar® (sorafenib). Full Prescribing Information, Bayer Healthcare

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Wayne, NJ, 2010.

31. Gemzar® (gemcitabine). Full Prescribing Information, Eli Lilly and Company,

Indianapolis, IN, 2011.





Rosen et al 30

32. Lofgren JA, Dhandapani S, Pennucci JJ, Abbott CM, Mytych DT, Kaliyaperumal

A, et al. Comparing ELISA and surface plasmon resonance for assessing clinical

immunogenicity of panitumumab. J Immunol 2007;178:7467-72.

33. Rowinsky EK, Schwartz GH, Gollob JA, Thompson JA, Vogelzang NJ, Figlin R,

et al. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and activity of ABX-EGF, a fully human anti-

epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody in patients with metastatic

renal cell cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3003-15.

34. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer

treatment. Cancer 1981;47:207-14.

35. Van Cutsem E, Peeters M, Siena S, Humblet Y, Hendlisz A, Neyns B, et al.

Open-label phase III trial of panitumumab plus best supportive care compared

with best supportive care alone in patients with chemotherapy-refractory

metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1658-64.

36. Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T, Tan EH, Hirsh V, Thongprasert S,

et al. Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med

2005;353:123-32.

37. Burris HA, 3rd, Moore MJ, Andersen J, Green MR, Rothenberg ML, Modiano MR,

et al. Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line

therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin

Oncol 1997;15:2403-13.

38. Molife LR, Fong PC, Paccagnella L, Reid AH, Shaw HM, Vidal L, et al. The

insulin-like growth factor-I receptor inhibitor figitumumab (CP-751,871) in

combination with docetaxel in patients with advanced solid tumours: results of a

phase Ib dose-escalation, open-label study. Br J Cancer 2010;103:332-9.

39. Olmos D, Postel-Vinay S, Molife LR, Okuno SH, Schuetze SM, Paccagnella ML,

et al. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary activity of the anti-IGF-1R





Rosen et al 31

antibody figitumumab (CP-751,871) in patients with sarcoma and Ewing's

sarcoma: a phase 1 expansion cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:129-35.

40. Karp DD, Pollak MN, Cohen RB, Eisenberg PD, Haluska P, Yin D, et al. Safety,

pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the insulin-like growth factor type 1

receptor inhibitor figitumumab (CP-751,871) in combination with paclitaxel and

carboplatin. J Thorac Oncol 2009;4:1397-403.

41. Feliu J, Borrega P, Leon A, Lopez-Gomez L, Lopez M, Castro J, et al. Phase II

study of a fixed dose-rate infusion of gemcitabine associated with erlotinib in

advanced pancreatic cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2011;67:215-21.

42. Hwang IG, Jang JS, Oh SY, Lee S, Kwon HC, Lee GW, et al. A phase II trial of

Erlotinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced pancreatic

cancer. Invest New Drugs 2012:[Epub ahead of print].

43. Zhu M, Gosselin NH, Mouksassi MS, Lu J. Prediction of AMG 479 exposures in

non-pancreatic and pancreatic cancer (PC) patients. Clin Pharmacol Ther

2011;89:abstr PIII-75.

44. Ma J, Sawai H, Matsuo Y, Ochi N, Yasuda A, Takahashi H, et al. IGF-1 mediates

PTEN suppression and enhances cell invasion and proliferation via activation of

the IGF-1/PI3K/Akt signaling pathway in pancreatic cancer cells. J Surg Res

2010;160:90-101.

45. Moehler M, Mueller A, Trarbach T, Lordick F, Seufferlein T, Kubicka S, et al.

Cetuximab with irinotecan, folinic acid and 5-fluorouracil as first-line treatment in

advanced gastroesophageal cancer: a prospective multi-center biomarker-

oriented phase II study. Ann Oncol 2011;22:1358-66.

46. Negri FV, Bozzetti C, Lagrasta CA, Crafa P, Bonasoni MP, Camisa R, et al.

PTEN status in advanced colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. Br J Cancer

2010;102:162-4.





Rosen et al 32

47. Frattini M, Saletti P, Romagnani E, Martin V, Molinari F, Ghisletta M, et al. PTEN

loss of expression predicts cetuximab efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer

patients. Br J Cancer 2007;97:1139-45.





Rosen et al 33

Tables

Table 1. Patient Demographics and Baseline Characteristics*

Cohort 1 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

400 mg BIDSorafenib

(n=3)

Cohort 5 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab+

400 mg BIDSorafenib

(n=10)

Cohort 2 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

6 mg/kg Q2WPanitumumab

(n=6)

Cohort 6 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab+


(n=4)

Cohort 3 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

150 mg QD Erlotinib

(n=3)

Cohort 7 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab+

150 mg QDErlotinib

(n=9)

Cohort 4 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

1000 mg/m2

Gemcitabine(n=8)

Cohort 8 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab+

1000 mg/m2

Gemcitabine(n=3)

Total (n=46)

Sex, n (%) Men Women

2 (67) 1 (33)

5 (50) 5 (50)

5 (83) 1 (17)

2 (50) 2 (50)

2 (67) 1 (33)

2 (22) 7 (78)

2 (25) 6 (75)

1 (33) 2 (67)

21 (46) 25 (54)

Race, n (%) White/Caucasian Black/ African American Hispanic/Latino Asian

1 (33) 0 (0)

2 (67) 0 (0)

10 (100)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

5 (83) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (17)

4 (100)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

3 (100)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

8 (89) 0 (0)

1 (11) 0 (0)

5 (63) 1 (13) 2 (25) 0 (0)

1 (33) 2 (67) 0 (0) 0 (0)

37 (80)

3 (7) 5 (11) 1 (2)

Median age, y (range) 65 (61–74) 51 (41–63) 56 (51–63) 55 (33–68) 63 (55–69) 59 (44–73) 58 (32–64) 70 (44–73) 57 (32–74)

ECOG performance status, n (%) 0 1

0 (0)

3 (100)

3 (30) 7 (70)

2 (33) 4 (67)

2 (50) 2 (50)

1 (33) 2 (67)

2 (22) 7 (78)

4 (50) 4 (50)

0 (0)

3 (100)

14 (30) 32 (70)

Primary tumor type, n (%) Colon Ovarian Breast Non–small-cell lung Carcinoid Endometrial Small-cell lung Thyroid Angiosarcoma Carcinoma of unknown origin

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (33) 0 (0)

1 (33) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0)

2 (20) 1 (10) 1 (10) 1 (10) 1 (10) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

3 (50) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (17) 0 (0) 0 (0)

3 (75) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (33) 1 (33) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

2 (22) 2 (22) 1 (11) 0 (0)

1 (11) 0 (0)

1 (11) 0 (0)

1 (11) 0 (0)

2 (25) 2 (25) 1 (13) 1 (13) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (13) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (33) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (33)

11 (24) 6 (13) 4 (9) 3 (7) 2 (4) 2 (4) 2 (4) 2 (4) 1 (2) 1 (2)

Research.

on Septem

ber 10, 2020. © 2012 A

merican A

ssociation for Cancer

clincancerres.aacrjournals.org D

ownloaded from

Author m

anuscripts have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but have not yet been edited.

Author M

anuscript Published O

nlineFirst on A

pril 17, 2012; DO

I: 10.1158/1078-0432.CC

R-11-3369



Rosen et al 34

Cohort 1 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

400 mg BIDSorafenib

(n=3)

Cohort 5 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab+

400 mg BIDSorafenib

(n=10)

Cohort 2 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +


(n=6)

Cohort 6 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab+


(n=4)

Cohort 3 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

150 mg QD Erlotinib

(n=3)

Cohort 7 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab+

150 mg QDErlotinib

(n=9)

Cohort 4 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

1000 mg/m2

Gemcitabine(n=8)

Cohort 8 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab+

1000 mg/m2

Gemcitabine(n=3)

Total (n=46)

Esophageal Gastroesophageal junction Head and neck adenocarcinoma Hepatocellular carcinoma Leiomyosarcoma Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus Neuroendocrine Pancreatic Prostate Rectal Sacrum chordoma Squamous cell head/neck

0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (33) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (10)

1 (10) 1 (10) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (10) 0 (0)

0 (0) 1 (17)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (17) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (25) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (33) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (11) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (13)

0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (33) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (2) 1 (2)

1 (2) 1 (2) 1 (2)

1 (2) 1 (2) 1 (2) 1 (2) 1 (2) 1 (2) 1 (2)

Lines of prior therapy, n (%) 0 1 2 ≥3

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

3 (100)

0 (0) 1 (10) 2 (20) 7 (70)

0 (0) 1 (17) 3 (50) 2 (33)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

4 (100)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

3 (100)

0 (0) 1 (11) 3 (33) 5 (56)

1 (13)† 0 (0)

2 (25) 5 (63)

1 (33)† 0 (0) 0 (0)

2 (67)

2 (4) 3 (7)

10 (22) 31 (67)

Lines of prior radiotherapy, n (%) 0 1 2 ≥3

1 (33) 0 (0)

1 (33) 1 (33)

4 (40) 2 (20) 2 (20) 2 (20)

1 (17) 4 (67) 1 (17) 0 (0)

4 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 2 (67) 0 (0)

1 (33)

5 (56) 4 (44) 0 (0) 0 (0)

5 (63) 0 (0)

2 (25) 1 (13)

2 (67) 0 (0)

1 (33) 0 (0)

22 (48) 12 (26) 7 (15) 5 (11)

BID, twice daily; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; Q2W, every 2 weeks; QD, once daily.

*Safety analysis set includes patients who received ≥1 dose of ganitumab. †Patients were eligible if they had advanced solid tumors refractory to ≥1 line of therapy, if no standard or curative therapy was available, or if standard noncurative therapy was refused.

Research.

on Septem

ber 10, 2020. © 2012 A

merican A



ownloaded from

Author m


Author M


nlineFirst on A

pril 17, 2012; DO

I: 10.1158/1078-0432.CC

R-11-3369



Rosen et al 35

Table 2. Summary of Adverse Events*

Patients, n (%)

Cohort 1 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

400 mg BIDSorafenib

(n=3)

Cohort 5 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab+

400 mg BIDSorafenib

(n=10)

Cohort 2 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +


(n=6)

Cohort 6 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab+


(n=4)

Cohort 3 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

150 mg QD Erlotinib

(n=3)

Cohort 7 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab+

150 mg QDErlotinib

(n=9)

Cohort 4 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

1000 mg/m2

Gemcitabine(n=8)

Cohort 8 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab+

1000 mg/m2

Gemcitabine(n=3)

Total (n=46)

Patients with ≥1 treatment-emergent AE

3 (100) 10 (100) 6 (100) 4 (100) 3 (100) 9 (100) 8 (100) 3 (100) 46 (100)

Patients with ≥1 serious AE 1 (33) 6 (60) 1 (17) 0 (0) 2 (67) 4 (44) 1 (13) 0 (0) 15 (33)

Patients with fatal AEs 0 (0) 1 (10) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2)

Patients with ganitumab-related AEs† Fatigue Nausea Chills Vomiting Stomatitis or mucosal inflammation Rash or maculopapular rash Anorexia Thrombocytopenia Alopecia Diarrhea Hypertension Hypomagnesemia Myalgia Pruritus Pyrexia

3 (100) 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33)

0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (33) 0 (0)

1 (33) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

8 (80) 3 (30) 1 (10) 3 (30) 0 (0)

2 (20) 1 (10) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (10) 1 (10) 1 (10) 1 (10) 2 (20) 0 (0)

1 (10)

4 (67) 2 (33) 1 (17) 0 (0)

1 (17)

0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (17) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

3 (75) 1 (25) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

2 (67) 1 (33) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (33) 0 (0)

1 (33) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

7 (78) 1 (11) 2 (22) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (11) 0 (0)

1 (11) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

5 (63) 2 (25) 2 (25) 1 (13) 2 (25)

1 (13) 1 (13) 1 (13) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (13) 1 (13) 0 (0)

1 (13) 1 (13)

3 (100)

0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (33) 2 (67)

1 (33) 1 (33) 0 (0)

1 (33) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (33) 0 (0)

35 (76) 11 (24) 7 (15) 6 (13) 6 (13)

4 (8) 4 (8) 3 (7) 3 (7) 2 (4) 2 (4) 2 (4) 2 (4) 2 (4) 2 (4) 2 (4)

Patients with grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs† Neutropenia Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome Fatigue

2 (67) 0 (0)

2 (67) 0 (0)

10 (100)

1 (10)

1 (10) 2 (20)

5 (83) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0)

3 (75) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0)

2 (67) 0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (33)

4 (44) 0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (11)

5 (63) 4 (50)

0 (0) 0 (0)

2 (67) 2 (67)

0 (0) 0 (0)

33 (72) 7 (15)

3 (7) 4 (9)

Research.

on Septem

ber 10, 2020. © 2012 A

merican A



ownloaded from

Author m


Author M


nlineFirst on A

pril 17, 2012; DO

I: 10.1158/1078-0432.CC

R-11-3369



Rosen et al 36

Patients, n (%)

Cohort 1 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

400 mg BIDSorafenib

(n=3)

Cohort 5 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab+

400 mg BIDSorafenib

(n=10)

Cohort 2 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +


(n=6)

Cohort 6 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab+


(n=4)

Cohort 3 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

150 mg QD Erlotinib

(n=3)

Cohort 7 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab+

150 mg QDErlotinib

(n=9)

Cohort 4 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

1000 mg/m2

Gemcitabine(n=8)

Cohort 8 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab+

1000 mg/m2

Gemcitabine(n=3)

Total (n=46)

Anemia Rash Intestinal obstruction Hypomagnesemia Dehydration

1 (33) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (33) 0 (0)

2 (20) 1 (10) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (10)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

2 (34) 0 (0)

0 (0) 1 (25) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (11) 0 (0)

1 (11)

0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (13) 0 (0) 0 (0)

1 (33) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

4 (9) 2 (4) 2 (4) 2 (4) 2 (4)

AE, adverse event; BID, twice daily; Q2W, every 2 weeks; QD, once daily.

*Safety analysis set includes patients who received ≥1 dose of ganitumab. †AEs listed include those occurring in ≥4% of all patients.

Research.

on Septem

ber 10, 2020. © 2012 A

merican A



ownloaded from

Author m


Author M


nlineFirst on A

pril 17, 2012; DO

I: 10.1158/1078-0432.CC

R-11-3369



Rosen et al 37

Table 3. Pharmacokinetic Parameter Estimates of Ganitumab After Coadministration With Sorafenib, Panitumumab,

Erlotinib, or Gemcitabine*

Parameter, Mean (SD)

Cohort 1 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

400 mg BID Sorafenib

(n=2)

Cohort 5 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

400 mg BID Sorafenib

(n=9)

Cohort 2 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +


(n=5)

Cohort 6 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab +


(n=3)

Cohort 3 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

150 mg QD Erlotinib

(n=3)

Cohort 7 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

150 mg QD Erlotinib

(n=4)

Cohort 4 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

1000 mg/m2 Gemcitabine

(n=8)

Cohort 8 12 mg/kg

Ganitumab +

1000 mg/m2 Gemcitabine

(n=3)

Cmax, µg/mL 106 (0) 231 (54.1) 129 (42.5) 359 (84.6) 133 (32.0) 251 (64.1) 114 (23.6) 264 (28.0)

Cmin, µg/mL 5.28 (NA)* 17.7 (13.5)† 18.0 (6.46) 34.6 (15.4) 13.6 (3.29) 33.9 (6.94) 17.6 (9.80) 31.7 (4.64)

AUCτ, h·µg/mL 388 (NA)* 879 (337)† 643 (205) 1430 (234) 529 (102) 1250 (186) 592 (168) 1170 (266)

CL, mL/d/kg 17.0 (NA)* 16.6 (7.49)† 10.7 (5.02) 8.94 (1.51) 12.1 (1.85) 10.1 (1.24) 11.2 (3.46) 10.8 (2.30)

AUCτ, area under the concentration versus time curve for a dosing interval; BID, twice daily; CL, systemic clearance; Cmax, maximum observed serum concentration after dosing; Cmin, minimum observed serum concentration after dosing; NA, not assessable; Q2W, every 2 weeks; QD, once daily.

*Data were available from only 1 patient. †Data available from only 8 patients.

Research.

on Septem

ber 10, 2020. © 2012 A

merican A



ownloaded from

Author m


Author M


nlineFirst on A

pril 17, 2012; DO

I: 10.1158/1078-0432.CC

R-11-3369



Rosen et al 38

Table 4. Pharmacokinetic Parameter Estimates of Sorafenib, Panitumumab, Erlotinib, and Gemcitabine After

Coadministration With Ganitumab

Agent Week* Dose Regimen n Mean (SD)

Cmax, µg/mL Mean (SD)

AUCτ, h·µg/mL

Sorafenib 5 400 mg BID 2–4 5.36 (4.03) 37.0 (14.0)

Panitumumab 5 6 mg/kg Q2W 8 197 (52.3) 35,280 (8952)

Erlotinib 5 150 mg QD 6–9 1.59 (1.21) 33.5 (24.3)

Gemcitabine 1 1000 mg/m2 QW 11 11.5 (3.51) 6.53 (0.967)

dFdU† 11 36.6 (5.66) 210 (29.1)

Gemcitabine 5 1000 mg/m2 QW 11 11.0 (12.5) 6.38 (5.69)

dFdU† 11 31.3 (7.58) 220 (48.1)

AUCτ, area under the concentration versus time curve for a dosing interval; BID, twice daily; Cmax, maximum observed serum concentration after dosing; Q2W, every 2 weeks; QD, once daily; QW, once weekly.

*Week 1 without ganitumab or week 5 with ganitumab. †2’2’–difluorodeoxyuridine (dFdU) is a metabolite of gemcitabine.

Research.

on Septem

ber 10, 2020. © 2012 A

merican A



ownloaded from

Author m


Author M


nlineFirst on A

pril 17, 2012; DO

I: 10.1158/1078-0432.CC

R-11-3369



Rosen et al 39

Figure Legends 1

Figure 1. The best-result changes from baseline in sum of the cross-products of the 2

longest diameters of index lesions among evaluable patients with 3

measureable disease (n=35) per World Health Organization criteria and 4

independent central review for patients who received ganitumab 5

combined with sorafenib, panitumumab, erlotinib, or gemcitabine. Four 6

patients are not included: 1 colon cancer patient (ganitumab 6 mg/kg + 7

panitumumab) had progressive disease due to new lesions; 1 esophageal 8

cancer patient (ganitumab 6 mg/kg + erlotinib) had progressive disease 9

due to new lesions; 1 breast cancer patient (ganitumab 6 mg/kg + 10

gemcitabine) with only nonindex lesions had stable disease; and 1 11

ovarian cancer patient (ganitumab 12 mg/kg + sorafenib) had progressive 12

disease due to new lesions. CUO=carcinoma of unknown origin; 13

GE=gastroesophageal; HC=hepatocellular carcinoma; HGSL=high grade 14

sarcoma, leiomyosarcoma; NSCLC=non–small-cell lung cancer; 15

SC=sacrum chordoma; SCCA=squamous cell carcinoma of the anus; 16

SCHN=squamous cell head/neck; SCLC=small-cell lung cancer. 17

Figure 2. Mean (SD) change from baseline in serum total IGF1 (A) and IGFBP-3 18

(B). IGF1, insulin-like growth factor 1; IGFBP-3, insulin-like growth 19

factor–binding protein 3. 20




Max

imum

Cha

nge

From

Bas

elin

e in

SLD

, %

–70

–60

–50

–40

–30

–20

–10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Ova

rian

NS

CLC

SC

CA

HC

HG

SL

End

omet

rial

Thyr

oid

SC

Neu

roen

docr

ine

End

omet

rial

Thyr

oid

Col

on

Pan

crea

tic

GE

Jun

ctio

n

Col

on

Col

on

Rec

tal

Col

on

SC

L

Ova

rian

Col

on

Bre

ast

Car

cino

id

NS

CLC

Bre

ast

SC

L

SC

HN

Col

on

CU

O

Col

on

Ova

rian

Col

on

NS

CLC

Ova

rian

Pro

stat

e

Ganitumab + Sorafenib(n=10)

Ganitumab + Panitumumab(n=8)

Ganitumab + Erlotinib(n=7)

Ganitumab + Gemcitabine(n=10)

Partial responseStable diseaseProgressive disease

Figure 1




0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Time, d0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Time, d

A

Figure 2

B

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Seru

m IG

F1 L

evel

Rel

ativ

e to

Bas

elin

eSe

rum

IGFB

P-3

Leve

l Rel

ativ

e to

Bas

elin

e

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Ganitumab 12 mg/kgGanitumab 6 mg/kg

Ganitumab 12 mg/kgGanitumab 6 mg/kg




Published OnlineFirst April 17, 2012.Clin Cancer Res Lee S. Rosen, Igor Puzanov, Greg Friberg, et al. Gemcitabine in Patients With Advanced Solid TumorsCombined With Sorafenib, Panitumumab, Erlotinib, or Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Ganitumab (AMG 479)

Updated version

10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-3369doi:

Access the most recent version of this article at:

Material

Supplementary

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/suppl/2012/04/17/1078-0432.CCR-11-3369.DC1

Access the most recent supplemental material at:

Manuscript

Authoredited. Author manuscripts have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but have not yet been

E-mail alerts related to this article or journal.Sign up to receive free email-alerts

Subscriptions

Reprints and

[email protected] at

To order reprints of this article or to subscribe to the journal, contact the AACR Publications

Permissions

Rightslink site. Click on "Request Permissions" which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center's (CCC)

.http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2012/04/17/1078-0432.CCR-11-3369To request permission to re-use all or part of this article, use this link



http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-3369

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/suppl/2012/04/17/1078-0432.CCR-11-3369.DC1

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/alerts

mailto:[email protected]

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2012/04/17/1078-0432.CCR-11-3369


Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Ganitumab (AMG 479 ... · Rosen et al 1 1 Safety and...

Documents

Transcript of Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Ganitumab (AMG 479 ... · Rosen et al 1 1 Safety and...