Estimation of Percentage of Patients With Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Alterations Eligible for Off-label Use of Erdafitinib | Cancer Biomarkers | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure.  Estimated Number of Individuals With Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 2 (FGFR2) and FGFR3 Alterations Who Could Be Eligible for Off-label Use of Erdafitinib
Estimated Number of Individuals With Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 2 (FGFR2) and FGFR3 Alterations Who Could Be Eligible for Off-label Use of Erdafitinib

GE indicates gastroesophageal.

Table 1.  Frequencies of FGFR Mutations and Fusions in the United States
Frequencies of FGFR Mutations and Fusions in the United States
Table 2.  Studies Evaluating FGFR-Targeting Drugs in Other Cancer Types
Studies Evaluating FGFR-Targeting Drugs in Other Cancer Types
1.
US Food and Drug Administration. FDA grants accelerated approval to erdafitinib for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-erdafitinib-metastatic-urothelial-carcinoma. Accessed October 16, 2019.
2.
Loriot  Y, Necchi  A, Park  SH,  et al; BLC2001 Study Group.  Erdafitinib in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.  N Engl J Med. 2019;381(4):338-348. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1817323PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies. Balversa (erdafitinib). https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2019/212018s000lbl.pdf. Accessed June 4, 2019.
4.
Helsten  T, Elkin  S, Arthur  E, Tomson  BN, Carter  J, Kurzrock  R.  The FGFR landscape in cancer: analysis of 4,853 tumors by next-generation sequencing.  Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(1):259-267. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-3212PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Janssen Scientific Affairs. Expanded access program (EAP) for participants with advanced cancers and fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) genetic alterations who have exhausted all treatment options. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT03825484. Accessed October 16, 2019.
6.
Sicklick  JK, Kato  S, Okamura  R,  et al.  Molecular profiling of cancer patients enables personalized combination therapy: the I-PREDICT study.  Nat Med. 2019;25(5):744-750. doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0407-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Wagner  J, Marquart  J, Ruby  J,  et al.  Frequency and level of evidence used in recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines beyond approvals of the US Food and Drug Administration: retrospective observational study.  BMJ. 2018;360:k668. doi:10.1136/bmj.k668PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Oregon Health and Science University. Human Research Protection Program Investigator Manual. https://ohsu.ellucid.com/documents/view/15225/?security=184610e97bae246351430a86e3f87992ad088dfc. Accessed October 31, 2019.
9.
American Cancer Society.  Cancer Facts and Figures 2019. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2019.
10.
Marquart  J, Chen  EY, Prasad  V.  Estimation of the percentage of US patients with cancer who benefit from genome-driven oncology.  JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(8):1093-1098. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1660PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Haslam  A, Prasad  V.  Estimation of the percentage of US patients with cancer who are eligible for and respond to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy drugs.  JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(5):e192535-e192535. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2535PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Cheng  FT-F, Ou-Yang  F, Lapke  N,  et al.  Pazopanib sensitivity in a patient with breast cancer and FGFR1 amplification.  J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017;15(12):1456-1459. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2017.7030PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Musolino  A, Campone  M, Neven  P,  et al.  Phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled study of dovitinib in combination with fulvestrant in postmenopausal patients with HR+, HER2- breast cancer that had progressed during or after prior endocrine therapy.  Breast Cancer Res. 2017;19(1):18-18. doi:10.1186/s13058-017-0807-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Soria  J-C, DeBraud  F, Bahleda  R,  et al.  Phase I/IIa study evaluating the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of lucitanib in advanced solid tumors.  Ann Oncol. 2014;25(11):2244-2251. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu390PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
André  F, Bachelot  T, Campone  M,  et al.  Targeting FGFR with dovitinib (TKI258): preclinical and clinical data in breast cancer.  Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(13):3693-3702. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0190PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Michael  M, Bang  Y-J, Park  YS,  et al.  A phase 1 study of LY2874455, an oral selective pan-FGFR inhibitor, in patients with advanced cancer.  Target Oncol. 2017;12(4):463-474. doi:10.1007/s11523-017-0502-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Nogova  L, Sequist  LV, Perez Garcia  JM,  et al.  Evaluation of BGJ398, a fibroblast growth factor receptor 1-3 kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring genetic alterations in fibroblast growth factor receptors: results of a global phase I, dose-escalation and dose-expansion study.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(2):157-165. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.67.2048PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Lim  SH, Sun  J-M, Choi  Y-L,  et al.  Efficacy and safety of dovitinib in pretreated patients with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer with FGFR1 amplification: a single-arm, phase 2 study.  Cancer. 2016;122(19):3024-3031. doi:10.1002/cncr.30135PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Dhami  J, Hirshfield  KM, Ganesan  S,  et al.  Comprehensive genomic profiling aids in treatment of a metastatic endometrial cancer.  Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud. 2018;4(2):a002089. doi:10.1101/mcs.a002089PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Tabernero  J, Bahleda  R, Dienstmann  R,  et al.  Phase I dose-escalation study of JNJ-42756493, an oral pan–fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors.  J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(30):3401-3408. doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.60.7341PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Dizon  DS, Sill  MW, Schilder  JM,  et al.  A phase II evaluation of nintedanib (BIBF-1120) in the treatment of recurrent or persistent endometrial cancer: an NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.  Gynecol Oncol. 2014;135(3):441-445. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.10.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Powell  MA, Sill  MW, Goodfellow  PJ,  et al.  A phase II trial of brivanib in recurrent or persistent endometrial cancer: an NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.  Gynecol Oncol. 2014;135(1):38-43. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.07.083PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Mross  K, Frost  A, Steinbild  S,  et al.  A phase I dose-escalation study of regorafenib (BAY 73-4506), an inhibitor of oncogenic, angiogenic, and stromal kinases, in patients with advanced solid tumors.  Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(9):2658-2667. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1900PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Schäfer  N, Gielen  GH, Kebir  S,  et al.  Phase I trial of dovitinib (TKI258) in recurrent glioblastoma.  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2016;142(7):1581-1589. doi:10.1007/s00432-016-2161-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Di Stefano  AL, Fucci  A, Frattini  V,  et al.  Detection, characterization, and inhibition of FGFRTACC fusions in IDH wild-type glioma.  Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(14):3307-3317. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2199PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Norden  AD, Schiff  D, Ahluwalia  MS,  et al.  Phase II trial of triple tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitor nintedanib in recurrent high-grade gliomas.  J Neurooncol. 2015;121(2):297-302. doi:10.1007/s11060-014-1631-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Muhic  A, Poulsen  HS, Sorensen  M, Grunnet  K, Lassen  U.  Phase II open-label study of nintedanib in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme.  J Neurooncol. 2013;111(2):205-212. doi:10.1007/s11060-012-1009-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Takahashi  S, Murata  S, Yoshino  Y, Kobayashi  Y, Nakamura  M.  Gastric perforation related to concurrent use of nintedanib and ramucirumab.  Respirol Case Rep. 2018;7(1):e00383-e00383.PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Van Cutsem  E, Bang  Y-J, Mansoor  W,  et al.  A randomized, open-label study of the efficacy and safety of AZD4547 monotherapy versus paclitaxel for the treatment of advanced gastric adenocarcinoma with FGFR2 polysomy or gene amplification.  Ann Oncol. 2017;28(6):1316-1324. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx107PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Kim  SY, Ahn  T, Bang  H,  et al.  Acquired resistance to LY2874455 in FGFR2-amplified gastric cancer through an emergence of novel FGFR2-ACSL5 fusion.  Oncotarget. 2017;8(9):15014-15022. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.14788PubMedGoogle Scholar
31.
Davies  BR, Guan  N, Logie  A,  et al.  Tumors with AKT1E17K mutations are rational targets for single agent or combination therapy with AKT inhibitors.  Mol Cancer Ther. 2015;14(11):2441-2451. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-15-0230PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Escudier  B, Grünwald  V, Ravaud  A,  et al.  Phase II results of dovitinib (TKI258) in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer.  Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(11):3012-3022. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-3006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Angevin  E, Lopez-Martin  JA, Lin  C-C,  et al.  Phase I study of dovitinib (TKI258), an oral FGFR, VEGFR, and PDGFR inhibitor, in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.  Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(5):1257-1268. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-2885PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Loriot  Y, Massard  C, Angevin  E, Lambotte  O, Escudier  B, Soria  J-C.  FGFR inhibitor induced peripheral neuropathy in patients with advanced RCC.  Ann Oncol. 2010;21(7):1559-1560. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq237PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Goyal  L, Saha  SK, Liu  LY,  et al.  Polyclonal secondary FGFR2 mutations drive acquired resistance to FGFR inhibition in patients with FGFR2 fusion-positive cholangiocarcinoma.  Cancer Discov. 2017;7(3):252-263. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-1000PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Tsavaris  O, Economopoulou  P, Kotsantis  I,  et al.  Clinical benefit of pazopanib in a patient with metastatic chondrosarcoma: a case report and review of the literature.  Front Oncol. 2018;8:45-45. doi:10.3389/fonc.2018.00045PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Arudra  K, Patel  R, Tetzlaff  MT,  et al.  Calcinosis cutis dermatologic toxicity associated with fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor for the treatment of Wilms tumor.  J Cutan Pathol. 2018;45(10):786-790. doi:10.1111/cup.13319PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Kim  KB, Chesney  J, Robinson  D, Gardner  H, Shi  MM, Kirkwood  JM.  Phase I/II and pharmacodynamic study of dovitinib (TKI258), an inhibitor of fibroblast growth factor receptors and VEGF receptors, in patients with advanced melanoma.  Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(23):7451-7461. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1747PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Levêque  D.  Off-label use of targeted therapies in oncology.  World J Clin Oncol. 2016;7(2):253-257. doi:10.5306/wjco.v7.i2.253PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Sackett  DL.  Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents.  Chest. 1989;95(2)(suppl):2S-4S. doi:10.1378/chest.95.2_Supplement.2SPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Dillekås  H, Rogers  MS, Straume  O.  Are 90% of deaths from cancer caused by metastases?  Cancer Med. 2019;8(12):5574-5576. doi:10.1002/cam4.2474PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Saiyed  MM, Ong  PS, Chew  L.  Off-label drug use in oncology: a systematic review of literature.  J Clin Pharm Ther. 2017;42(3):251-258. doi:10.1111/jcpt.12507PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Han  DH. First-in-class, targeted therapy approved for metastatic bladder cancer. https://www.cancertherapyadvisor.com/home/cancer-topics/bladder-cancer/balversa-fda-approval-bladder-cancer-treamtment-risk/. Accessed October 16, 2019.
44.
Prasad  V.  Perspective: the precision-oncology illusion.  Nature. 2016;537(7619):S63. doi:10.1038/537S63aPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Tannock  IF, Hickman  JA.  Limits to personalized cancer medicine.  N Engl J Med. 2016;375(13):1289-1294. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb1607705PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Fojo  T.  Precision oncology: a strategy we were not ready to deploy.  Semin Oncol. 2016;43(1):9-12. doi:10.1053/j.seminoncol.2016.01.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Prasad  V, Fojo  T, Brada  M.  Precision oncology: origins, optimism, and potential.  Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(2):e81-e86. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00620-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    Oncology
    November 22, 2019

    Estimation of Percentage of Patients With Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Alterations Eligible for Off-label Use of Erdafitinib

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
    • 2Knight Cancer Institute, Division of Hematology Oncology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland
    • 3Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland
    • 4Center for Health Care Ethics, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland
    JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(11):e1916091. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.16091
    Key Points español 中文 (chinese)

    Question  What is the potential upper bound of off-label use of erdafitinib in cancers with fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) alterations?

    Findings  In this cross-sectional study, an estimated 76.1% of patients with advanced cancer expressing FGFR2 or FGFR3 alterations could be eligible for off-label treatment with erdafitinib. A total of 29 completed studies evaluating FGFR-targeting drugs in 11 cancer types and 10 ongoing studies on erdafitinib for different oncological indications were identified.

    Meaning  This study indicates that the potential for off-label use of FGFR inhibitors, such as erdafitinib, spans a number of cancer types and a large patient population.

    Abstract

    Importance  When a novel drug is granted accelerated approval, both its on-label and off-label uses must be taken into account.

    Objectives  To estimate the potential upper bound of off-label use of erdafitinib to treat advanced cancer with fibroblast growth factor receptor gene (FGFR) alterations, compare it to the upper bound of on-label use in urothelial cancer, and to review studies that may support off-label use.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This cross-sectional study used frequency data on FGFR alterations by cancer type and the estimated number of deaths from all cancers for 2019 in the United States. Mortality statistics were used as surrogates for patients with advanced cancer. Analysis was conducted in May 2019.

    Exposure  Percentage of patients with an FGFR2 or FGFR3 alteration.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Estimated number of patients with advanced cancer expressing an FGFR2 or FGFR3 alteration eligible for off-label use of erdafitinib by cancer type; number of studies investigating FGFR-targeting drugs for patients with cancer; and number of ongoing clinical trials on erdafitinib by cancer type.

    Results  A total of 15 cancer types had reported FGFR alterations. Of 455 440 estimated patients who died of cancer in 2019, 17 019 (3.7%) were estimated to have FGFR2 or FGFR3 alterations. Of these patients, 12 955 (76.1%) could be eligible for off-label treatment with erdafitinib. A total of 29 completed studies evaluated FGFR-targeting drugs in 11 cancer types, and 10 ongoing studies are studying erdafitinib for different oncological indications.

    Conclusions and Relevance  This study indicates that the potential for off-label use of FGFR inhibitors such as erdafitinib spans a number of cancer types and a large patient population. Systematic trials exploring off-label uses may be desirable for drugs that target clear, identifiable molecular alterations because this may be more efficient than off-label use in identifying clinical scenarios where the agent has activity.

    Introduction

    Erdafitinib was recently granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer with fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) or FGFR3 gene mutations or fusions.1 Erdafitinib targets FGFR2 and FGFR3, receptors commonly expressed in metastatic urothelial cancer, and belongs to the more general class of tyrosine kinase inhibitors.2 It was the first FGFR-targeting drug approved by the FDA. The approval of erdafitinib was based on overall response rate (ORR) in 87 patients with FGFR2 and FGFR3 alterations from a single-group, phase 2, multicenter study.2,3 Among responders, median (interquartile range) duration of response was found to be 5.4 (4.2-6.9) months. The response rate varied considerably by alteration, with an ORR of 40.6% (26 of 64) for FGFR3 point mutations, 11.1% (2 of 18) for FGFR3 fusions, and 0% (0 of 6) for FGFR2 fusions.3

    Urothelial cancer is not the only cancer type that harbors FGFR alterations, which may be found in breast cancer, non–small cell lung cancer, colorectal cancer, and endometrial cancer, among others.4 The availability of a drug targeting FGFR2 and FGFR3 alterations for 1 tumor type (ie, urothelial cancer) may encourage the off-label use in other types of cancers with these alterations. Patients with tumor types other than urothelial cancer already have access to erdafitinib through the expanded access program,5 and enthusiasm for precision therapies is high. Other studies have reported broad-based sequencing and off-label use of tyrosine kinase inhibitor paid for by insurers.6 Finally, empirical analyses show that molecularly targeted drugs are often recommended by expert panels for tumor types different from those that received approval.7

    This study aimed to estimate the potential upper bound of off-label use of erdafitinib to treat other types of advanced cancer with FGFR alterations, determine an estimated ratio of off-label use to on-label use, and review studies that may support the benefit of off-label use.

    Methods
    Overview

    In this cross-sectional study, we sought to estimate what percentage of FGFR2 and FGFR3 mutations and fusions were in approved vs unapproved tumor types for the drug erdafitinib. We also sought to document available, corroborative, or circumstantial evidence supporting the benefit of using erdafitinib to treat off-label tumor types.

    Per Oregon Health and Science University human research protection program policy,8 this study did not require institutional review board approval as it did not involve personally identifiable data and all data are publicly available. This report followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline.

    Estimates

    We extracted cancer-specific FGFR aberration frequency data by histology from Helsten et al.4 We obtained the estimated number of deaths from all cancers from the American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts and Figures 2019.9 Cancer types were included in the analysis if found in data sets from Helsten et al4 and Cancer Facts and Figures 2019.9 We used mortality statistics as a surrogate for incident presentation of advanced or metastatic cancer. To determine the upper-bound number of patients eligible for off-label use of erdafitinib by cancer type, the number of cancer deaths was multiplied by the percentage of patients who had an FGFR2 or FGFR3 mutation or fusion for each cancer type. This process was replicated for patients with any FGFR alteration. By determining the number of cancer patients in each cancer type with any FGFR alteration, we sought to offer a second, broader estimation of potential eligibility for off-label treatment with erdafitinib.

    Off-label use was defined as any use of erdafitinib for cancer types other than urothelial cancer. We determined off-label eligibility specifically for FGFR2 and FGFR3 alterations because erdafitinib was approved for these alterations in urothelial cancer. Our methods were similar to prior analyses of the estimated, upper-bound effect of genome-guided therapies10 and immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors11 in cancer medicine.

    Studies Targeting FGFR Alterations in Other Cancer Types

    To review studies that may be used to support off-label use of erdafitinib, we searched PubMed for studies investigating therapies targeting FGFR alterations in cancer types other than urothelial cancer. To search PubMed, we used the article type filters of case reports, clinical study, and clinical trial and searched the phrase FGFR with 1 of the following cancer types: carcinoma of unknown primary site, non–small cell lung cancer, pancreatic exocrine cancer, breast cancer, endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, glioma, head and neck squamous cell cancer, gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer, ovarian cancer, renal cell cancer, cholangiocarcinoma, all sarcomas, and melanoma. All studies investigating the use of an FGFR-targeting drug to treat cancer patients were included. Articles investigating mouse models or in vivo studies were excluded as well as articles assessing FGFR alterations in patients without investigating a FGFR-targeting treatment. Data collected included the title of study, study type (case report, case series, or phase 1, 2, or 3 trial), randomization, primary outcome, and number of participants.

    For ongoing trials of erdafitinib, a search was made on ClinicalTrials.gov using the term erdafitinib. Results were filtered by excluding trials that were suspended, terminated, completed, or withdrawn. We also excluded studies in healthy patients and registered studies that did not have an intervention (eg, estimating eligibility). Searches of PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were made on June 6, 2019.

    Statistical Analysis

    We generated an estimate of the percentage of patients in the United States with cancer and FGFR alterations eligible for on-label and off-label treatment with erdafitinib by cancer type. All statistical analyses were conducted in Excel 2016 (Microsoft). The reviews of studies on targeting FGFR alterations and ongoing studies of erdafitinib were purely descriptive. Because all statistics are descriptive, no prespecified level of statistical significance was set. The study was conducted in May 2019.

    Results
    Estimation of Patients Eligible for Off-label Treatment With Erdafitinib, Based on FGFR2 and FGFR3 Alterations

    An estimated 455 440 individuals with cancer died in 2019. Of those, 17 019 (3.7%) were estimated to have either an FGFR2 or an FGFR3 alteration. A total of 15 cancer types, including urothelial cancer, had reported FGFR alterations (Table 1). Among the cancer types, urothelial cancer, carcinoma of unknown primary, non–small cell lung cancer, pancreatic exocrine cancer, and breast cancer had the highest number of patients with FGFR2 or FGFR3 alterations (urothelial cancer, 4064 of 17 670 patients [23.0%]; carcinoma of unknown primary sites, 2708 of 45 140 [6.0%]; non–small cell lung cancer 2140 of 142 670 [1.9%]; pancreatic exocrine cancer, 1601 of 45 750 [3.5%]; breast cancer, 1310 of 42 260 [3.1%]). We estimated that, of 17 019 patients with advanced cancer expressing FGFR2 or FGFR3 alterations, 12 955 (76.1%) could be eligible for off-label treatment with erdafitinib (Figure).

    Estimation of Patients Eligible for Off-label Treatment With Erdafitinib Based on Any FGFR Alteration

    We also estimated the percentage of patients eligible for treatment with erdafitinib among a pool of patients with any FGFR alteration (ie, not necessarily FGFR2 or FGFR3) (eFigure in the Supplement). Among 455 440 estimated patients, 35 536 (7.8%) had any FGFR alteration, and of these patients, 5601 (15.8%) had urothelial cancer. Therefore, if treatment were targeted at any FGFR alteration, an estimated 84.2% of the potential use of FGFR inhibitors, such as erdafitinib, would be off-label.

    Studies Evaluating Erdafitinib and Other FGFR-Targeting Drugs in Various Cancer Types

    We found 29 completed studies evaluating FGFR-targeting drugs in 11 of 14 cancer types analyzed in the off-label estimations (Table 2).12-38 There were 8 (27.6%) case reports, 1 (3.4%) case series, 9 (31.0%) phase 1 studies, 2 (6.9%) phase 1/2 studies, and 9 (31.0%) phase 2 studies. While 2 phase 2 trials (22.2%) were randomized, the rest were noncomparator trials. All phase 1 studies had primary outcomes of either safety or dosage. Phase 2 trials evaluated ORR (5 studies [55.5%]), progression-free survival (4 studies [44.4%]), or event-free survival (1 study [11.1%]) as their primary outcome.

    There were 10 ongoing studies of erdafitinib being used for oncological indications registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, 2 (20.0%) of which included patients with urothelial cancer (eTable in the Supplement). There were 2 (20.0%) phase 1 studies, 2 (20.0%) phase 1/2 studies, 5 (50.0%) phase 2 studies, and 1 (10.0%) phase 3 study. One study (10.0%) was evaluating overall survival as its primary outcome; the rest were evaluating ORR (7 studies [70.0%]) or safety (3 studies [30.0%]). Two of the 10 trials (20.0%) were randomized.

    Discussion

    From our estimates, the number of patients with tumors exhibiting FGFR2 or FGFR3 alterations who may be potentially eligible for off-label treatment with an FGFR inhibitor is 3 times that of those eligible for on-label treatment. If interpretation of off-label use is understood more broadly to cover patients with any FGFR alteration, potential eligibility for off-label use would grow to be 5 times greater than on-label use. Alterations in FGFR are being studied in a number of cancers where these alterations are prevalent, and ORRs similar to that of erdafitinib in urothelial cancer may further encourage off-label treatments in other cancer types. Off-label use of targeted therapies is widely practiced in oncology.7,39 Erdafitinib was provisionally approved based on a surrogate outcome in a nonrandomized trial, and proof of clinical benefit will only be known after a confirmatory randomized trial investigating overall survival is conducted. The trial which led to the approval of erdafitinib found that adverse reactions of grade 3 or higher were reported by 67% of participants, and 46% were considered by investigators to be related to treatment.2 The FDA determined that the interim surrogate outcomes and toxic effects of erdafitinib were appropriate for patients with advanced urothelial cancer who had an FGFR2 or FGFR3 mutation or fusion. However, by approving this drug for this indication, the FDA has inevitably permitted off-label use of erdafitinib in many cancer types and among a considerably larger patient population.

    Strengths and Limitations

    There are strengths and limitations in our analysis. One strength is that we sought to capture the potential on-label and off-label use of a novel genome-targeted drug entering the US marketplace, and we estimated the ratio of potential on-label to off-label use. To our knowledge, this is the first article that seeks to do this at the time of product launch. Moreover, we compiled data that clinicians could use to justify off-label use (Table 2). We note that these studies are largely exploratory in nature and reliant on small uncontrolled studies, which are generally considered to be at the bottom of the hierarchy of medical evidence.40

    There are also limitations. We determined cancer-specific FGFR aberration frequencies through an analysis that looked at next-generation sequencing from 1 company,4 which may not be wholly representative of population-level frequencies. We used cancer deaths to estimate cases of metastatic disease in each cancer type, which is an imperfect surrogate. Cancer deaths are not all because of metastatic disease, and as patients with metastatic disease live longer, the incidence of metastatic cancer cases outpaces the incidence of cancer deaths. Unfortunately, to our knowledge, there are currently no data on metastatic disease in the United States, as staging data are only recorded at diagnosis. Nevertheless, we found that cancer death data were the best available option to explore our study objective. A study using the Cancer Registry of Norway41 found that the majority of cancer deaths were because of metastatic disease, and the recorded numbers are likely underestimated because of underreporting of metachronous metastases. If data on metastatic status are collected in the US population in the future, we encourage researchers exploring this topic to use incidence of metastatic cancer instead.

    We have almost certainly overestimated the number of cases of metastatic disease and, within that number, the number of patients who would be treated with an off-label drug. This assessment was not conducted to accurately approximate the number of patients who will be treated with erdafitinib but instead to determine the proportion of patients eligible for off-label use and to highlight the fact that the consequences of this accelerated approval reach far beyond the patient population it was intended to treat. Off-label drug use is practiced across almost all cancer types, most likely prescribed to metastatic cancer patients in a later line because of unapproved indication for specific tumors.42 Completed and ongoing trials on erdafitinib and other FGFR-targeting drugs in various cancers exemplify the interest around this type of targeted therapy, and the fact that erdafitinib is the first FGFR-targeting drug to be approved by the FDA43 makes it susceptible to off-label use for patients with FGFR alterations. Enthusiasm for precision oncology may fuel this extrapolation.44-47

    Conclusions

    This study found that the potential for off-label use of FGFR inhibitors such as erdafitinib spans a number of cancer types and a large patient population. Off-label use may be 3-fold higher than on-label use, based on population cancer statistics and the frequency of molecular alterations. Clinicians interested in off-label use may easily find case reports or series that may provide exploratory or circumstantial support for those choices. Because it may be tempting and plausible to use FGFR inhibitors for nonapproved uses, our analysis suggests that the size of this market share may be several times larger than the approved indication. Systematic trials to explore off-label uses may be desirable for drugs that target clear, identifiable molecular alterations because this may be more efficient than off-label use in identifying clinical scenarios where this agent has activity.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: October 4, 2019.

    Published: November 22, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.16091

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 de Almeida Carvalho LM et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, Oregon 97239 (prasad@ohsu.edu).

    Author Contributions: Dr Prasad had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs de Almeida Carvalho and de Oliveira Sapori Avelar contributed equally as co–first authors.

    Concept and design: Prasad.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: de Almeida Carvalho, de Oliveira Sapori Avelar, Haslam, Gill.

    Drafting of the manuscript: de Almeida Carvalho, de Oliveira Sapori Avelar, Gill.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Haslam, Gill, Prasad.

    Statistical analysis: Haslam.

    Supervision: Prasad.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Prasad reported receiving royalties from his book, Ending Medical Reversal; receiving funding from Arnold Ventures; receiving honoraria for grand rounds and lectures from several universities, medical centers, nonprofit groups, and professional societies; being a writer for Medscape; and hosting the Plenary Session podcast, which has Patreon support. No other disclosures were reported.

    References
    1.
    US Food and Drug Administration. FDA grants accelerated approval to erdafitinib for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-erdafitinib-metastatic-urothelial-carcinoma. Accessed October 16, 2019.
    2.
    Loriot  Y, Necchi  A, Park  SH,  et al; BLC2001 Study Group.  Erdafitinib in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.  N Engl J Med. 2019;381(4):338-348. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1817323PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies. Balversa (erdafitinib). https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2019/212018s000lbl.pdf. Accessed June 4, 2019.
    4.
    Helsten  T, Elkin  S, Arthur  E, Tomson  BN, Carter  J, Kurzrock  R.  The FGFR landscape in cancer: analysis of 4,853 tumors by next-generation sequencing.  Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(1):259-267. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-3212PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Janssen Scientific Affairs. Expanded access program (EAP) for participants with advanced cancers and fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) genetic alterations who have exhausted all treatment options. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT03825484. Accessed October 16, 2019.
    6.
    Sicklick  JK, Kato  S, Okamura  R,  et al.  Molecular profiling of cancer patients enables personalized combination therapy: the I-PREDICT study.  Nat Med. 2019;25(5):744-750. doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0407-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Wagner  J, Marquart  J, Ruby  J,  et al.  Frequency and level of evidence used in recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines beyond approvals of the US Food and Drug Administration: retrospective observational study.  BMJ. 2018;360:k668. doi:10.1136/bmj.k668PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Oregon Health and Science University. Human Research Protection Program Investigator Manual. https://ohsu.ellucid.com/documents/view/15225/?security=184610e97bae246351430a86e3f87992ad088dfc. Accessed October 31, 2019.
    9.
    American Cancer Society.  Cancer Facts and Figures 2019. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2019.
    10.
    Marquart  J, Chen  EY, Prasad  V.  Estimation of the percentage of US patients with cancer who benefit from genome-driven oncology.  JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(8):1093-1098. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1660PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Haslam  A, Prasad  V.  Estimation of the percentage of US patients with cancer who are eligible for and respond to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy drugs.  JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(5):e192535-e192535. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2535PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Cheng  FT-F, Ou-Yang  F, Lapke  N,  et al.  Pazopanib sensitivity in a patient with breast cancer and FGFR1 amplification.  J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017;15(12):1456-1459. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2017.7030PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Musolino  A, Campone  M, Neven  P,  et al.  Phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled study of dovitinib in combination with fulvestrant in postmenopausal patients with HR+, HER2- breast cancer that had progressed during or after prior endocrine therapy.  Breast Cancer Res. 2017;19(1):18-18. doi:10.1186/s13058-017-0807-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Soria  J-C, DeBraud  F, Bahleda  R,  et al.  Phase I/IIa study evaluating the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of lucitanib in advanced solid tumors.  Ann Oncol. 2014;25(11):2244-2251. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu390PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    André  F, Bachelot  T, Campone  M,  et al.  Targeting FGFR with dovitinib (TKI258): preclinical and clinical data in breast cancer.  Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(13):3693-3702. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0190PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Michael  M, Bang  Y-J, Park  YS,  et al.  A phase 1 study of LY2874455, an oral selective pan-FGFR inhibitor, in patients with advanced cancer.  Target Oncol. 2017;12(4):463-474. doi:10.1007/s11523-017-0502-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Nogova  L, Sequist  LV, Perez Garcia  JM,  et al.  Evaluation of BGJ398, a fibroblast growth factor receptor 1-3 kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring genetic alterations in fibroblast growth factor receptors: results of a global phase I, dose-escalation and dose-expansion study.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(2):157-165. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.67.2048PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Lim  SH, Sun  J-M, Choi  Y-L,  et al.  Efficacy and safety of dovitinib in pretreated patients with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer with FGFR1 amplification: a single-arm, phase 2 study.  Cancer. 2016;122(19):3024-3031. doi:10.1002/cncr.30135PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Dhami  J, Hirshfield  KM, Ganesan  S,  et al.  Comprehensive genomic profiling aids in treatment of a metastatic endometrial cancer.  Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud. 2018;4(2):a002089. doi:10.1101/mcs.a002089PubMedGoogle Scholar
    20.
    Tabernero  J, Bahleda  R, Dienstmann  R,  et al.  Phase I dose-escalation study of JNJ-42756493, an oral pan–fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors.  J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(30):3401-3408. doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.60.7341PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Dizon  DS, Sill  MW, Schilder  JM,  et al.  A phase II evaluation of nintedanib (BIBF-1120) in the treatment of recurrent or persistent endometrial cancer: an NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.  Gynecol Oncol. 2014;135(3):441-445. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.10.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Powell  MA, Sill  MW, Goodfellow  PJ,  et al.  A phase II trial of brivanib in recurrent or persistent endometrial cancer: an NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.  Gynecol Oncol. 2014;135(1):38-43. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.07.083PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Mross  K, Frost  A, Steinbild  S,  et al.  A phase I dose-escalation study of regorafenib (BAY 73-4506), an inhibitor of oncogenic, angiogenic, and stromal kinases, in patients with advanced solid tumors.  Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(9):2658-2667. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1900PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Schäfer  N, Gielen  GH, Kebir  S,  et al.  Phase I trial of dovitinib (TKI258) in recurrent glioblastoma.  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2016;142(7):1581-1589. doi:10.1007/s00432-016-2161-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Di Stefano  AL, Fucci  A, Frattini  V,  et al.  Detection, characterization, and inhibition of FGFRTACC fusions in IDH wild-type glioma.  Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(14):3307-3317. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2199PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Norden  AD, Schiff  D, Ahluwalia  MS,  et al.  Phase II trial of triple tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitor nintedanib in recurrent high-grade gliomas.  J Neurooncol. 2015;121(2):297-302. doi:10.1007/s11060-014-1631-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Muhic  A, Poulsen  HS, Sorensen  M, Grunnet  K, Lassen  U.  Phase II open-label study of nintedanib in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme.  J Neurooncol. 2013;111(2):205-212. doi:10.1007/s11060-012-1009-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Takahashi  S, Murata  S, Yoshino  Y, Kobayashi  Y, Nakamura  M.  Gastric perforation related to concurrent use of nintedanib and ramucirumab.  Respirol Case Rep. 2018;7(1):e00383-e00383.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    29.
    Van Cutsem  E, Bang  Y-J, Mansoor  W,  et al.  A randomized, open-label study of the efficacy and safety of AZD4547 monotherapy versus paclitaxel for the treatment of advanced gastric adenocarcinoma with FGFR2 polysomy or gene amplification.  Ann Oncol. 2017;28(6):1316-1324. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx107PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Kim  SY, Ahn  T, Bang  H,  et al.  Acquired resistance to LY2874455 in FGFR2-amplified gastric cancer through an emergence of novel FGFR2-ACSL5 fusion.  Oncotarget. 2017;8(9):15014-15022. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.14788PubMedGoogle Scholar
    31.
    Davies  BR, Guan  N, Logie  A,  et al.  Tumors with AKT1E17K mutations are rational targets for single agent or combination therapy with AKT inhibitors.  Mol Cancer Ther. 2015;14(11):2441-2451. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-15-0230PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Escudier  B, Grünwald  V, Ravaud  A,  et al.  Phase II results of dovitinib (TKI258) in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer.  Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(11):3012-3022. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-3006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Angevin  E, Lopez-Martin  JA, Lin  C-C,  et al.  Phase I study of dovitinib (TKI258), an oral FGFR, VEGFR, and PDGFR inhibitor, in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.  Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(5):1257-1268. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-2885PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Loriot  Y, Massard  C, Angevin  E, Lambotte  O, Escudier  B, Soria  J-C.  FGFR inhibitor induced peripheral neuropathy in patients with advanced RCC.  Ann Oncol. 2010;21(7):1559-1560. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq237PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Goyal  L, Saha  SK, Liu  LY,  et al.  Polyclonal secondary FGFR2 mutations drive acquired resistance to FGFR inhibition in patients with FGFR2 fusion-positive cholangiocarcinoma.  Cancer Discov. 2017;7(3):252-263. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-1000PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Tsavaris  O, Economopoulou  P, Kotsantis  I,  et al.  Clinical benefit of pazopanib in a patient with metastatic chondrosarcoma: a case report and review of the literature.  Front Oncol. 2018;8:45-45. doi:10.3389/fonc.2018.00045PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Arudra  K, Patel  R, Tetzlaff  MT,  et al.  Calcinosis cutis dermatologic toxicity associated with fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor for the treatment of Wilms tumor.  J Cutan Pathol. 2018;45(10):786-790. doi:10.1111/cup.13319PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    38.
    Kim  KB, Chesney  J, Robinson  D, Gardner  H, Shi  MM, Kirkwood  JM.  Phase I/II and pharmacodynamic study of dovitinib (TKI258), an inhibitor of fibroblast growth factor receptors and VEGF receptors, in patients with advanced melanoma.  Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(23):7451-7461. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1747PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    39.
    Levêque  D.  Off-label use of targeted therapies in oncology.  World J Clin Oncol. 2016;7(2):253-257. doi:10.5306/wjco.v7.i2.253PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    40.
    Sackett  DL.  Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents.  Chest. 1989;95(2)(suppl):2S-4S. doi:10.1378/chest.95.2_Supplement.2SPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    Dillekås  H, Rogers  MS, Straume  O.  Are 90% of deaths from cancer caused by metastases?  Cancer Med. 2019;8(12):5574-5576. doi:10.1002/cam4.2474PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    42.
    Saiyed  MM, Ong  PS, Chew  L.  Off-label drug use in oncology: a systematic review of literature.  J Clin Pharm Ther. 2017;42(3):251-258. doi:10.1111/jcpt.12507PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Han  DH. First-in-class, targeted therapy approved for metastatic bladder cancer. https://www.cancertherapyadvisor.com/home/cancer-topics/bladder-cancer/balversa-fda-approval-bladder-cancer-treamtment-risk/. Accessed October 16, 2019.
    44.
    Prasad  V.  Perspective: the precision-oncology illusion.  Nature. 2016;537(7619):S63. doi:10.1038/537S63aPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    45.
    Tannock  IF, Hickman  JA.  Limits to personalized cancer medicine.  N Engl J Med. 2016;375(13):1289-1294. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb1607705PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    46.
    Fojo  T.  Precision oncology: a strategy we were not ready to deploy.  Semin Oncol. 2016;43(1):9-12. doi:10.1053/j.seminoncol.2016.01.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    47.
    Prasad  V, Fojo  T, Brada  M.  Precision oncology: origins, optimism, and potential.  Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(2):e81-e86. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00620-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×