Impact of the EU Paediatric Medicine Regulation on new anti-cancer medicines for the treatment of children and adolescents

LOGGIC/FIREFLY-2: a phase 3, randomized trial of tovorafenib vs. chemotherapy in pediatric and young adult patients with newly diagnosed low-grade glioma harboring an activating RAF alteration

BACKGROUND

Pediatric low-grade glioma (pLGG) is essentially a single pathway disease, with most tumors driven by genomic alterations affecting the mitogen-activated protein kinase/ERK (MAPK) pathway, predominantly KIAA1549::BRAF fusions and BRAF V600E mutations. This makes pLGG an ideal candidate for MAPK pathway-targeted treatments. The type I BRAF inhibitor, dabrafenib, in combination with the MEK inhibitor, trametinib, has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the systemic treatment of BRAF V600E-mutated pLGG. However, this combination is not approved for the treatment of patients with tumors harboring BRAF fusions as type I RAF inhibitors are ineffective in this setting and may paradoxically enhance tumor growth. The type II RAF inhibitor, tovorafenib (formerly DAY101, TAK-580, MLN2480), has shown promising activity and good tolerability in patients with BRAF-altered pLGG in the phase 2 FIREFLY-1 study, with an objective response rate (ORR) per Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology high-grade glioma (RANO-HGG) criteria of 67%. Tumor response was independent of histologic subtype, BRAF alteration type (fusion vs. mutation), number of prior lines of therapy, and prior MAPK-pathway inhibitor use.

METHODS

LOGGIC/FIREFLY-2 is a two-arm, randomized, open-label, multicenter, global, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of tovorafenib monotherapy vs. current standard of care (SoC) chemotherapy in patients < 25 years of age with pLGG harboring an activating RAF alteration who require first-line systemic therapy. Patients are randomized 1:1 to either tovorafenib, administered once weekly at 420 mg/m2 (not to exceed 600 mg), or investigator's choice of prespecified SoC chemotherapy regimens. The primary objective is to compare ORR between the two treatment arms, as assessed by independent review per RANO-LGG criteria. Secondary objectives include comparisons of progression-free survival, duration of response, safety, neurologic function, and clinical benefit rate.

DISCUSSION

The promising tovorafenib activity data, CNS-penetration properties, strong scientific rationale combined with the manageable tolerability and safety profile seen in patients with pLGG led to the SIOPe-BTG-LGG working group to nominate tovorafenib for comparison with SoC chemotherapy in this first-line phase 3 trial. The efficacy, safety, and functional response data generated from the trial may define a new SoC treatment for newly diagnosed pLGG.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05566795. Registered on October 4, 2022.

The future of cancer care in the UK-time for a radical and sustainable National Cancer Plan

Cancer affects one in two people in the UK and the incidence is set to increase. The UK National Health Service is facing major workforce deficits and cancer services have struggled to recover after the COVID-19 pandemic, with waiting times for cancer care becoming the worst on record. There are severe and widening disparities across the country and survival rates remain unacceptably poor for many cancers. This is at a time when cancer care has become increasingly complex, specialised, and expensive. The current crisis has deep historic roots, and to be reversed, the scale of the challenge must be acknowledged and a fundamental reset is required. The loss of a dedicated National Cancer Control Plan in England and Wales, poor operationalisation of plans elsewhere in the UK, and the closure of the National Cancer Research Institute have all added to a sense of strategic misdirection. The UK finds itself at a crossroads, where the political decisions of governments, the cancer community, and research funders will determine whether we can, together, achieve equitable, affordable, and high-quality cancer care for patients that is commensurate with our wealth, and position our outcomes among the best in the world. In this Policy Review, we describe the challenges and opportunities that are needed to develop radical, yet sustainable plans, which are comprehensive, evidence-based, integrated, patient-outcome focused, and deliver value for money.