Emma Donald

Bio: Emma Donald is an academic researcher from AstraZeneca. The author has contributed to research in topics: Cancer & Vandetanib. The author has an hindex of 9, co-authored 11 publications receiving 1328 citations.

Molecular predictors of outcome with gefitinib in a phase III placebo-controlled study in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Abstract: Purpose The phase III Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer (ISEL) trial compared gefitinib with placebo in 1,692 patients with refractory advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. We analyzed ISEL tumor biopsy samples to examine relationships between biomarkers and clinical outcome after gefitinib treatment in a placebo-controlled setting. Methods Biomarkers included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene copy number by fluorescence in situ hybridization (n = 370); EGFR (n = 379) and phosphorylated Akt (p-Akt) protein expression (n = 382) by immunohistochemistry; and mutations in EGFR (n = 215), KRAS (n = 152), and BRAF (n = 118). Results High EGFR gene copy number was a predictor of a gefitinib-related effect on survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61 for high copy number and HR, 1.16 for low copy number; comparison of high v low copy number HR, P = .045). EGFR protein expression was also related to clinical outcome (HR for positive, 0.77; HR for negative, 1.57; comparison of high v low protein expressio...

Detection of PIK3CA mutations in circulating free DNA in patients with breast cancer.

Abstract: Somatic mutations in PIK3CA (encoding a class I phosphoinositide 3 kinase (PI3K) subunit) modulate PI3K signalling to influence tumour behaviour and occur in up to 40% of breast cancers. Inhibitors of PI3K signalling are entering clinical trials, but the impact of PIKC3A mutation on tumour response has yet to be clarified. This study investigated the potential utility of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) as a source for PIK3CA mutation detection in patients with breast cancer. cfDNA extracted (QIAamp Virus spin kit) from blood and matched archival tumour from 46 patients with metastatic breast cancer and 30 patients with localised, operable breast cancer was assessed for hotspot PIK3CA mutations using Amplification Refractory Mutation System (ARMS()) allele-specific PCR and Scorpion probes. PIK3CA mutations were detected in 13/46 (28%) plasma-derived and 10/46 (21%) serum-derived cfDNA samples from metastatic breast cancer patients. In 41 cases with matched tumour and plasma-derived cfDNA data, concordance (same mutation status in plasma and tumour) was 95%. Where a PIK3CA mutation was present in tumour, the 'pick up' in plasma-derived cfDNA was 80%. PIK3CA mutations were present in tumours from 14/30 (47%) localised breast cancers, but no PIK3CA mutations were detected in matched cfDNA. These data demonstrate feasibility and potential utility of cfDNA for PIK3CA mutation detection in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Studies are underway to qualify PIK3CA mutation in cfDNA as a predictive biomarker allowing patient stratification in clinical trials of mechanism-based therapeutics that target PI3K signalling pathways.

A comparison of ARMS and DNA sequencing for mutation analysis in clinical biopsy samples

Abstract: We have compared mutation analysis by DNA sequencing and Amplification Refractory Mutation System™ (ARMS™) for their ability to detect mutations in clinical biopsy specimens. We have evaluated five real-time ARMS assays: BRAF 1799T>A, [this includes V600E and V600K] and NRAS 182A>G [Q61R] and 181C>A [Q61K] in melanoma, EGFR 2573T>G [L858R], 2235-2249del15 [E746-A750del] in non-small-cell lung cancer, and compared the results to DNA sequencing of the mutation 'hot-spots' in these genes in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour (FF-PET) DNA. The ARMS assays maximised the number of samples that could be analysed when both the quality and quantity of DNA was low, and improved both the sensitivity and speed of analysis compared with sequencing. ARMS was more robust with fewer reaction failures compared with sequencing and was more sensitive as it was able to detect functional mutations that were not detected by DNA sequencing. DNA sequencing was able to detect a small number of lower frequency recurrent mutations across the exons screened that were not interrogated using the specific ARMS assays in these studies. ARMS was more sensitive and robust at detecting defined somatic mutations than DNA sequencing on clinical samples where the predominant sample type was FF-PET.

Current status and future potential of somatic mutation testing from circulating free DNA in patients with solid tumours.

Abstract: Genetic alterations can determine the natural history of cancer and its treatment response. With further advances in DNA sequencing technology, multiple novel genetic alterations will be discovered which could be exploited as prognostic, predictive and pharmacodynamic biomarkers in the development and use of cancer therapeutics. As such, the importance in clinical practice of efficient and robust somatic mutation testing in solid tumours cannot be overemphasized in the current era of personalized medicine. However, significant challenges remain regarding the testing of genetic biomarkers in clinical practice. Reliance on archived formalin fixed, paraffin embedded tumour, obtained from diagnostic biopsies, for testing somatic genetic alterations could restrict the scientific community in asking relevant questions about a patient’s cancer biology. Problems inherent with using formalin fixed, archival tissue are well recognized and difficult to resolve. It could be argued that to achieve rapid and efficient incorporation of genetic biomarkers into clinical practice, somatic mutation testing in cancer patients should be simpler, less invasive using a readily available clinical sample, whilst maintaining robustness and reproducibility. In this regard, use of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) from plasma or serum as an alternative and/or additional source of DNA to test cancer specific genetic alterations is an attractive proposition. In light of encouraging results from recent studies, this mini review will discuss the current role and future potential of somatic mutation testing from circulating or cell free DNA derived from the blood of patients with solid tumours.

Gefitinib or Carboplatin–Paclitaxel in Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma

Abstract: METHODS In this phase 3, open-label study, we randomly assigned previously untreated patients in East Asia who had advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma and who were nonsmokers or former light smokers to receive gefitinib (250 mg per day) (609 patients) or carboplatin (at a dose calculated to produce an area under the curve of 5 or 6 mg per milliliter per minute) plus paclitaxel (200 mg per square meter of body-surface area) (608 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS The 12-month rates of progression-free survival were 24.9% with gefitinib and 6.7% with carboplatin–paclitaxel. The study met its primary objective of showing the noninferiority of gefitinib and also showed its superiority, as compared with carboplatin– paclitaxel, with respect to progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.85; P<0.001). In the subgroup of 261 patients who were positive for the epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutation, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received gefitinib than among those who received carboplatin–paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.64; P<0.001), whereas in the subgroup of 176 patients who were negative for the mutation, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received carboplatin–paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death with gefitinib, 2.85; 95% CI, 2.05 to 3.98; P<0.001). The most common adverse events were rash or acne (in 66.2% of patients) and diarrhea (46.6%) in the gefitinib group and neurotoxic effects (69.9%), neutropenia (67.1%), and alopecia (58.4%) in the carboplatin–paclitaxel group. CONCLUSIONS Gefitinib is superior to carboplatin–paclitaxel as an initial treatment for pulmonary adenocarcinoma among nonsmokers or former light smokers in East Asia. The presence in the tumor of a mutation of the EGFR gene is a strong predictor of a better outcome with gefitinib. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00322452.)

Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in lung cancer

Abstract: The development and clinical application of inhibitors that target the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) provide important insights for new lung cancer therapies, as well as for the broader field of targeted cancer therapies. We review the results of genetic, biochemical and clinical studies focused on somatic mutations of EGFR that are associated with the phenomenon of oncogene addiction, describing 'oncogenic shock' as a mechanistic explanation for the apoptosis that follows the acute treatment of susceptible cells with kinase inhibitors. Understanding the genetic heterogeneity of epithelial tumours and devising strategies to circumvent their rapid acquisition of resistance to targeted kinase inhibitors are essential to the successful use of targeted therapies in common epithelial cancers.

Patterns of Somatic Mutation in Human Cancer Genomes

Abstract: AACR Centennial Conference: Translational Cancer Medicine-- Nov 4-8, 2007; Singapore PL02-05 All cancers are due to abnormalities in DNA. The availability of the human genome sequence has led to the proposal that resequencing of cancer genomes will reveal the full complement of somatic mutations and hence all the cancer genes. To explore the nature of the information that will be derived from cancer genome sequencing we have sequenced the coding exons of the family of 518 protein kinases, ~1.3Mb DNA per cancer sample, in 210 cancers of diverse histological types. Despite the screen being directed toward the coding regions of a gene family that has previously been strongly implicated in oncogenesis, the results indicate that the majority of somatic mutations detected are “passengers”. There is considerable variation in the number and pattern of these mutations between individual cancers, indicating substantial diversity of processes of molecular evolution between cancers. The imprints of exogenous mutagenic exposures, mutagenic treatment regimes and DNA repair defects can all be seen in the distinctive mutational signatures of individual cancers. This systematic mutation screen and others have previously yielded a number of cancer genes that are frequently mutated in one or more cancer types and which are now anticancer drug targets (for example BRAF , PIK3CA , and EGFR ). However, detailed analyses of the data from our screen additionally suggest that there exist a large number of additional “driver” mutations which are distributed across a substantial number of genes. It therefore appears that cells may be able to utilise mutations in a large repertoire of potential cancer genes to acquire the neoplastic phenotype. However, many of these genes are employed only infrequently. These findings may have implications for future anticancer drug development.