Close

Larotrectinib data published in The New England Journal of Medicine: Bayer

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...
- Advertisement -

Bayer and Loxo Oncology, Inc., , a biopharmaceutical company from Stamford announced the publication in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) of larotrectinib data for the treatment of pediatric and adult patients whose tumors harbor Neurotrophic Tyrosine Receptor Kinase (NTRK) gene fusions.

These genetic alterations are present across a wide range of tumors resulting in uncontrolled Tropomyosin Receptor Kinase (TRK) signaling and tumor growth.

Larotrectinib was designed to directly target TRK, turning off the signaling pathway that allows TRK fusion cancers to grow. The data published in NEJM include an additional three months of patient follow-up to data presented at the 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting.

In data from 55 patients across the Phase I adult trial, Phase II trial (NAVIGATE), and Phase I/II pediatric trial (SCOUT), larotrectinib demonstrated an overall response rate of 75% (95% CI 61, 85) by central assessment and 80% (95% CI 67, 90) by investigator assessment. At the time of analysis, 86% of responding patients remained on larotrectinib or underwent surgery with curative intent. The median duration of response and progression-free survival had not been reached. Larotrectinib was well tolerated; the majority of all adverse events were grade 1 or 2.

“The data outlined in the NEJM publication shows the potential that larotrectinib has for patients who have TRK fusion cancers,” said David Hyman, M.D., the NAVIGATE global principal investigator, chief of the Early Drug Development service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and senior author of the NEJM paper. “These data warrant screening for TRK fusions in patients of all ages with advanced solid tumors.”

Bayer and Loxo Oncology are jointly developing larotrectinib for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with TRK fusion cancers. In December 2017, Loxo Oncology initiated the submission of a rolling New Drug Application (NDA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for larotrectinib. Bayer plans to submit a Marketing Authorisation Application (MAA) in the European Union in 2018.

“NTRK gene fusions, which can be identified through gene sequencing, are rare, but present in various pediatric and adult cancers. These data showcase the potential of larotrectinib, which may benefit patients across a broad range of TRK fusion cancers,” said Scott Fields, MD, Bayer’s senior vice president and head of Oncology Development at Bayer’s Pharmaceutical Division. “We look forward to working with Health Authorities and the scientific community to make this important new treatment option available to patients as quickly as possible.”

Overview of data published in NEJM
The published data were based on the intent to treat (ITT) principle, using the first 55 NTRK gene fusion patients with RECIST-evaluable disease enrolled to the three clinical trials, regardless of prior therapy or tumor tissue diagnostic method. The analysis included both adult and pediatric patients, ranging in age from four months to 76 years, who carried 17 unique tumor diagnoses with a NTRK gene fusion. Tumor types included salivary gland, infantile fibrosarcoma, thyroid, colon, lung, melanoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) and other cancers.

The primary endpoint for the analysis was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. As previously reported, the ORR was 75% by central assessment (62% partial responses, 13% completes responses) and 80% by investigator assessment (64% partial responses, 16% complete responses).

Median DOR and median PFS had not been reached after median follow-up durations of 8.3 and 9.9 months, respectively. At one year, 71% of responses were ongoing. As of the July 17, 2017 data cutoff, 86% of responding patients remained on treatment or had undergone surgery with curative intent. The first patient treated with a NTRK gene fusion tumor remained in response and on therapy at 27 months.

Larotrectinib was well tolerated with the majority of all adverse events being grade 1 or 2. Few grade 3 or 4 adverse events, regardless of attribution, were observed with the most common being anemia (11%), alanine or aspartate aminotransferase increase (7%), weight increase (7%) and neutrophil count decrease (7%) (all grade 3 events). There were no treatment-related grade 4 or 5 events, and no treatment-related grade 3 adverse events occurred in more than 5% of patients.

Eight patients required larotrectinib dose reductions. Adverse events leading to dose reductions included AST/ALT elevation, dizziness, and neutrophil count decrease, all grade 2 or 3 events. In all cases, patients whose doses were reduced maintained their best response at the lower dose and none discontinued larotrectinib due to an adverse event.

Primary resistance (defined as the best response being progressive disease) was observed in six patients in the study. Of the six, one patient had been previously treated with another TRK inhibitor and tumor sequencing prior to larotrectinib dosing revealed a solvent front mutation, a known resistance mechanism.

Tumor tissue was analyzed for three of the five remaining patients. In all three patients, TRK immunohistochemistry failed to demonstrate TRK expression, potentially implicating a false positive initial NTRK gene fusion test result and therefore explaining the lack of response in these patients.

The publication also details mechanisms of acquired resistance to larotrectinib. Ten patients experienced disease progression while on treatment after a documented objective response or stable disease for at least six months, a phenomenon known as acquired resistance. Nine of the ten patients had assessments of post-progression tumor or plasma samples, and NTRK kinase domain mutations were identified in all of those samples tested.

In seven of those assessed, investigators identified solvent front mutations as a convergent mechanism of acquired resistance; other NTRK kinase domain mutations were identified in the remaining two patients tested. Of the 10 patients who developed acquired resistance, 80% continued treatment with larotrectinib beyond progression due to ongoing clinical benefit.

As part of their agreement, Bayer and Loxo Oncology are developing LOXO-195, a next-generation TRK inhibitor, to specifically address acquired resistance mutations, including all mutations characterized in the study. LOXO-195 is currently being evaluated in a phase 1/2 trial in children and adults.

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »