Biotech Strategy Blog

Commentary on Science, Innovation & New Products with a focus on Oncology, Hematology & Cancer Immunotherapy

Prof Fran Balkwill Barts Cancer InstituteWhen it comes to cancer immunotherapy drug development, one of the challenges is that we can’t accurately predict from preclinical mouse models what will happen in people. The result is a rush into the clinic to test in human subjects.

We do need better preclinical models, which is why it was interesting to hear recently on an episode of Health Check (BBC World Service) about a 3D tumour model that is being developed at Barts Cancer Institute.

Professor Fran Balkwill (pictured), who leads the Centre for Cancer and Inflammation, kindly spoke to BSB about the work she and colleagues are doing to model the tumour microenvironment (TME) in high-grade serous ovarian cancer.

Subscribers can login to read more or you can purchase access below:

Like the Battle of Britain, the cancer immunotherapy landscape is a dynamic one where tactical decisions can make the difference between “winning” and “losing.”

As Bristol Myers recently found out in first-line NSCLC, if you choose the wrong trial design or adopt an overly-aggressive strategy, you can end up losing badly (see post: Detailed thoughts on BMS CheckMate 026 1L trial in NSCLC)

A recent trip to the operations bunker at former RAF Uxbridge, from where the fighters of 11 Group were directed, shows how close we came to losing the Battle of Britain.  Had the German Luftwaffe continued to target RAF airfields instead of diverting their efforts on London, the outcome of the war is likely to have been quite different.

History provides a valuable lesson that strategy and tactics can and do matter; in R&D the targets you choose and how effectively you execute on a plan can make a big difference to outcome.

Battle of Britain Bunker Plot

Pictured: the RAF 11 Group Operations plot as it looked on September 15, 1940.

In Part 2 of the BSB interview with PsiOxus Therapeutics CEO Dr John Beadle, we discuss corporate strategy, and some of the challenges faced by an emerging Biotech company, many of which are likely to be shared by other small companies in the field.

Subscribers can login to read more or you can purchase access below.

To be successful as a cancer immunotherapy company, you not only have to be science driven (that’s a given) and offer an approach that could make a difference, you also need a vision and the ability to execute ahead of competitors in a fast moving and competitive landscape.

Dr John Beadle

Dr John Beadle

We’re continuing our series on emerging cancer immunotherapy companies with an in-depth look at PsiOxus, and the vision of CEO Dr John Beadle (pictured right) for it to be a world-leading immuno-oncolytic virus company.

PsiOxus is based just outside of Oxford – it’s part of the so-called “golden triangle,” the area between London, Oxford and Cambridge in the South of England that is a driver of UK science and innovation.

The company is located in a nondescript business park 45 minutes by train from Paddington to Didcot Parkway, followed by a taxi or bus ride. You have to want to make the trip from London!

Dr Beadle kindly spoke to BSB about the competitive advantage the PsiOxus oncolytic virus platform offers, their path-to-market strategy and how he sees the company developing in the future.

With clinical data due in 2017, PsiOxus is a cancer immunotherapy company to watch out for.

Part 1 of the interview focuses on the scientific platform and cancer new products in development that are driving the company forward.

Subscribers can login to read more or you can purchase access via the blue box below.

Thankfully, the dog days of summer means that the Pharmaland conference season takes a much needed break and the intense news cycle tends to calm down somewhat (well a little, depending on your perspective). This gives us some breathing space to conduct and write up some CEO interviews, as well as publish in-depth thought pieces and op-eds on up and coming areas of interest in the broader cancer research field.

In last week’s surprisingly popular mini-series on neoantigens, we explored the concept in a three-part series comprising a primer on the topic, plus helpful insights from a thought leader in the field and a CEO/investor at an example company.

Dawlish High Speed Train

Here we explore the broader landscape beyond T-VEC through a primer, plus a fascinating two-part interview with a CEO in this space.

To begin with, we start off with a primer to get BSB readers on the same page.

To learn more, subscribers can log-in below or you can sign up for a subscription via the blue button…

As we continue our journey exploring neoantigens in the context of novel cancer research in Part 3 of our latest mini-series, today we focus on the commercialisation side of the business through an interview with a leading investor, Dr Cary Pfeffer, who is a partner in Third Rock Ventures, as well as being ad interim CEO of Neon Therapeutics.  We’ve written about other Third Rock companies in the past; Agios, Foundation Medicine and bluebird bio come to mind, for example.

neonlogoHow does an exciting early product in development move from academia to industry? There are many ways to do this, so here is the story through the eyes of one young company with strong academic connections, as a way to illustrate what can be done. It isn’t the only way, by any means.

To be sure, there are other competitor companies in the neoantigen space – Gritstone and Moderna come to mind as examples – we will cover companies in the broader landscape in a future post. There is also an incredible amount of promising research going on in academia right now, which may lead to more companies or products being licensed and developed.

To learn more about what Cary Pfeffer had to say on Neon Therapeutics and neoantigens, subscribers can log-in or you can sign up in the blue box below:

Westminster Hall Stained GlassThis week we’re focusing on neoantigens, what role they have to play in cancer immunotherapy and novel approaches that identify and use them as a therapeutic modality.

When you look at the cancer immunotherapy landscape it’s like looking at a stained glass window – it’s not only about the light but seeing the patterns and way the glass is aesthetically arranged in order to make it effective.

Today’s post, the second in a mini-series of three, features an interview with a thought leader doing pioneering work at the forefront of how neoantigen based vaccines can be used to target solid tumors.

The field of vaccine based cancer immunotherapy research is attracting renewed interest from VCs, angel investors and academics because of it’s potential to be used in combination with other immunotherapies.

If you’d like to learn why, then you can purchase access below. Subscribers can login to read more.

Great Fire MonumentThe Great Fire of London started 350 years ago in September 1666 following a fire in a Pudding Lane bakery.  It highlights the potential of what a small fire can do once it takes hold – over the course of 3 days, 13,000 houses and 436 acres were destroyed.  It forever changed the landscape of medieval London.

The Monument (pictured right) to commemorate the Great Fire was designed by Sir Christopher Wren. Constructed from 1671 – 1677, it is 202 feet in height, the distance to the bakery where the fire started. You can even walk up it, if you are in the area.

When we think about cancer immunotherapy, one of the emerging important trends is the need to “inflame” or set fire to the immune system, especially in those cancer patients who don’t have a pre-existing immune response.

We want to ignite the immune system, in the hope that it will create the equivalent of the Great Fire…

Great Fire of London Plaque

In this post we’re starting at mini-series looking at neoantigens, beginning with a primer on what they are and why they matter in cancer immunotherapy.  In subsequent posts we’ll look at some of the innovative ways companies are identifying and targeting them.

Subscribers can login to read more or you can purchase access via the blue button below.

BioTwitter is all a-flutter today with the announcement from BMS that the CheckMate–026 trial in first line non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) comparing nivolumab (Opdivo) to chemotherapy did NOT meet its primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS).

The news was not entirely a surprise to us at BSB, here’s why…

Figurative statute representing Science on Holborn Viaduct in City of London.

Figurative statute representing Science on Holborn Viaduct in City of London.

To learn more, you can log-in or sign up in the blue box below:

HMS VictoryThe dog days of summer are usually quiet on the Pharmaland front, although this year has been a bit of an exception, being notable for a batch of deals being completed and announced already.

The cell therapy space is one area that has courted both controversy and new collaborations, for example. Nary a week seems to pass without something appearing in the news! This has proven pretty interesting for a number of subscribers, who write in asking plenty of astute questions.

Today’s questions from BSB readers therefore encompass allogeneic cell therapies and what’s going on in that fast moving dynamic space.  Not all of the announcements may be what they seem though, and some are much more riskier than others.

To learn more, subscribers can log-in or you can sign up in the blue box below…

The Shard from River ThamesMuch has been written about the impact of cancer immunotherapies, particularly the twin pillars of checkpoint blockade and CAR T cell therapies, but beyond that lies a huge wealth of alternative approaches that may come in very useful indeed.

Just as we have seen oncogenic escape witth targeted therapies, there is also a related phenomenon called immune escape. Likewise, this can occur as either primary or secondary resistance.

It’s very important to consider this issue, because, after all, the vast majority of cancer patients with solid tumours do NOT see durable clinical benefit with immunotherapies when given as single agents. Some don’t respond at all (primary resistance), while others may see an initial response, then relapse (secondary resistance).

Understanding the mechanisms involved in resistance may help us design better combination trials to address the underlying biology as well as develop biomarkers to help select appropriate patients for each regimen. Clearly resistance can vary, not only by tumour type, but also by lesion and patient, making it a very complex situation to research.

Some interesting new information has recently come to light that is worthy of futher discussion and analysis, particularly in the context of other published data in this niche.

To learn more about the latest data, subscribers can log-in or you can sign up via the blue box below…

error: Content is protected !!