784
B. E. Fink et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 21 (2011) 781–785
Table 6
Profile of lead compounds in N87 tumor model
Compound
N87 MED (mg/kg)
24 h exposurea
C24 h
Dose (mg/kg)
C3 h
(l
M)
(lM)
AUC0–24 h (lM h)
3
8l
60
<15
240
15
5.8
7.2
0.1
6.8
100
160
a
Mean 24 h serum exposure in three male Balb/C mice for compounds administered orally in Tween 80/PEG400/water (10/40/50).
improved in vivo potency. A comparison of drug concentration at
the 3 and 24 h time points shows that while both compounds show
similar plasma concentrations at 3 h, at 24 h the concentration of
8l remains significantly higher.
In addition, analysis of N87 tumor lysates using a phospho-HER2
endpoint demonstrated that 8l suppressed HER2 signaling for a
much longer period of time relative to 3 (Fig. 2), consistent with
the observed improvements in pharmacokinetics and in vivo
potency.
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
3 Hours
24 Hours
Compound 8l showed a good level of kinase selectivity in a pa-
nel of diverse protein kinases (Table 5). Among the more potent
off-target activities were Lck (IC50 = 0.37
lM) and KDR (IC50 =
0.11 M), however, a 10-fold window was achieved against these
l
important kinases. Greater than 100-fold selectivity was achieved
versus a number of other receptor tyrosine kinases such as IGF-
1R as well as serine/threonine kinases such as CDK2.
In summary, we have identified the C5 aminopiperidine as an
important contributor to intrinsic potency of pyrrolotriazines
against both HER2 and EGFR kinases. This substitution allows
modification of the C4 position to reduce the overall size and
lipophilicity leading to higher exposures and greatly improved
in vivo potency in both HER2 (N87) and EGFR (GEO)-driven tumor
models.
Control
8l
3
Figure 2. Pharmacodynamic analysis of N87 tumors at 3 and 24 h after 21 days of
dosing (8l = 15 mg/kg, 3 = 240 mg/kg). Each sample represents the pooling of three
individual tumor samples.16
exploration of the m-position (8h–8j) showed that small hydropho-
bic substitutions were more potent and demonstrated correspond-
ing improvements in cellular anti-proliferative activity. Compound
8i was of particular interest, demonstrating extremely potent activ-
ity in N87 cells (IC50 = 60 nM) while showing no observable potency
in HER2/EGFR independent A2780 tumor cells (IC50 >5000 nM).
Di-substitution on the C4 aniline ring was found to parallel the
SAR developed for mono-substitution. The m- and p-positions were
tolerant of substitution (8l) although increases in either steric bulk
or polarity at the p-position resulted in decreased biochemical po-
tency (8m). Other substitution patterns, such as 3,5-disubstitution,
resulted in a substantial decrease in biochemical potency (8k).
Potential lead candidates were evaluated in vivo in the EGFR-
driven GEO colon tumor xenograft model (Table 4). The rapid
growth kinetics associated with the GEO xenografts allowed for
rapid screening of compounds using an abbreviated 10-days
dosing schedule. All compounds showed robust in vivo activity in
the GEO model at minimum efficacious doses ranging from 15 to
60 mg/kg. Initial lead 8b demonstrated good efficacy at doses as
low as 15 mg/kg, however it was accompanied by significant
weight loss, perhaps related to an undetermined off-target activity.
Compound 8i, among the most potent in the N87 cellular assay,
provided lower than expected potency in vivo that was attributed
to poor serum exposure. Compound 8l showed in vivo potency
superior to the previous lead 1, and was selected for further
evaluation.
References and notes
1. (a) Hynes, N. E.; Lane, H. A. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2005, 5, 341; (b) Baselga, J.; Arteaga,
C. L. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005, 23, 2445.
2. Salomon, D. S.; Brandt, R.; Ciardiello, F.; Normanno, N. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol.
1995, 19, 183.
3. Moy, B.; Kirkpatrick, P.; Kar, S.; Goss, P. Nat. Rev. Drug Disc. 2007, 6, 431.
4. (a) Wong, T. W.; Lee, F. Y.; Yu, C.; Luo, F. R.; Oppenheimer, S.; Zhang, H.; Smykla,
R. A.; Mastalerz, H.; Fink, B. E.; Hunt, J. T.; Gavai, A. V.; Vite, G. D. Clin. Cancer
Res. 2006, 12, 6186; (b) Gavai, A. V.; Fink, B. E.; Fairfax, D. J.; Martin, G. S.;
Rossiter, L. M.; Holst, C. L.; Kim, S.-H.; Leavitt, K. J.; Mastalerz, H.; Han, W.-C.;
Norris, D.; Goyal, B.; Swaminathan, S.; Patel, B.; Mathur, A.; Vyas, D. M.;
Tokarski, J. S.; Yu, C.; Oppenheimer, S.; Zhang, H.; Marathe, P.; Fargnoli, J.; Lee,
F. Y.; Wong, T. W.; Vite, G. D. J. Med. Chem. 2009, 52, 6527.
5. Mastalerz, H.; Chang, M.; Chen, P.; Fink, B. E.; Gavai, A.; Han, W-C.; Johnson, W.;
Langley, D.; Lee, F. Y.; Leavitt, K.; Marathe, P.; Norris, D.; Oppenheimer, S.;
Sleczka, B.; Tarrant, J.; Tokarski, J. S.; Vite, G. D.; Vyas, D. M.; Wong, H.; Wong, T.
W.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, G. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2007, 17, 4947.
6. (a) Mastalerz, H.; Chang, M.; Chen, P.; Dextraze, P.; Fink, B. E.; Gavai, A.; Goyal,
B.; Han, W.-C.; Johnson, W.; Langley, D.; Lee, F. Y.; Marathe, P.; Mathur, A.;
Oppenheimer, S.; Ruediger, E.; Tarrant, J.; Tokarski, J. S.; Vite, G. D.; Vyas, D. M.;
Wong, H.; Wong, T. W.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, G. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2007, 17,
2036; (b) Gavai, A. V.; Han, W.-C.; Chen, P.; Ruediger, E. H.; Mastalerz, H.; Fink,
B. E.; Norris, D. J. PCT Int. Appl. WO 2005065266, 2005; 83.
7. Mastalerz, H.; Chang, M.; Gavai, A.; Johnson, W.; Langley, D.; Lee, F. Y.; Marathe,
P.; Mathur, A.; Oppenheimer, S.; Tarrant, J.; Tokarski, J. S.; Vite, G. D.; Vyas, D.
M.; Wong, H.; Wong, T. W.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, G. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2007,
17, 2828.
8. Fink, B.; Vite, G. D.; Matalerz, H.; Kadow, J.; Kim, S.-H.; Leavitt, K.; Du, K.; Crews,
D.; Mitt, T.; Wong, T.-W.; Hunt, J.; Vyas, D.; Tokarski, J. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett.
2005, 15, 4774.
9. Cockerill, S.; Stubberfield, C.; Stables, J.; Carter, M.; Guntrip, S.; Smith, K.;
McKeown, S.; Shaw, R.; Topley, P.; Thomsen, L.; Affleck, K.; Jowett, A.; Hayes,
D.; Willson, M.; Woolard, P.; Spalding, D. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2001, 11,
1401.
10. Rusnak, D. W.; Affleck, K.; Cockerill, S. G.; Stubberfield, C.; Harris, R.; Page, M.;
Smith, K. J.; Guntrip, S. B.; Carter, M. C.; Shaw, R. J.; Jowett, A.; Stables, J.;
Topley, P.; Wood, E. R.; Brignola, P. S.; Kadwell, S. H.; Reep, B. R.; Mullin, R. J.;
Alligood, K. J.; Keith, B. R.; Crosby, R. M.; Murray, D. M.; Knight, W. B.; Gilmer, T.
M.; Lackey, K. Cancer Res. 2001, 61, 7196.
Anti-tumor activity for compound 8l in the N87 gastric cancer
xenograft model was even more impressive (Table 6). Compound
8l (MED <15 mg/kg) was over four-fold more potent than 3
(MED = 60 mg/kg). Pharmacokinetic analysis of drug exposure in
serum over 24 h in Balb/C mice showed that 8l had comparable
drug exposure levels to 3, but at a fraction of the dose (15 mg/kg
vs 240 mg/kg).15 Clearly, improving the pharmacokinetic profile
through reducing molecular size and lipophilicity resulted in