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.
To learn more, you can log-in or sign up in the blue box below:
Biomarkers are a hotly debated topic at the moment within the cancer immunotherapy field.
At the recent Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting (SITC 2015), there was even a debate with industry representatives arguing the “pros” and “cons.” Daniel Chen, MD PhD from Genentech (pictured right) argued “pro” and Steven Averbuch MD (pictured left) from BMS argued “con.”
The challenging question for anyone at the moment is if your Parent, Spouse or Best Friend were PD-L1 negative, would you still want them to receive a PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor (presuming it was indicated for the disease) and have a chance of a response, even if their PD-L1 negativity would suggest only a slim chance of responding?
AT SITC 2015 we spoke with an industry expert who offered insights into a leading company’s biomarker strategy and what the future may look like in 5-7 years time.
Subscribers can sign-in or you can sign-up in the box below to learn more…
Several groups have banded together to produce the first CRI-CIMT-EATI-AACR International Cancer Immunotherapy Conference (Twitter #cicon15) which focuses on the science underlying the immune system as it relates to cancer. You can view the program agenda here.
These groups include the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), Cancer Research Institute (CRI), Association for Cancer Immunotherapy (CIMT), the European Academy of Tumor Immunology (EATI).
We’ll hopefully be covering key abstracts at this event over the next few days and reporting on not only what the data is, but also the broader significance of the findings.
It’s time for the August mailbag where we answer questions about cancer research and R&D from subscribers.
After the recent queries about immuno-oncology, it’s time to focus a little on targeted therapies again. Neither chemotherapies nor targeted therapies are going to go away – they are still the bedrock of many treatment approaches in the clinic today. Sadly though, much of the new data for the latter trials were easily swamped by the sheer tsunami of immunotherapy data in Philadelphia (AACR) and Chicago (ASCO).
One important area that we have been discussing on both blogs for some time is the value of well designed basket trials. It’s time to revisit this concept in the light of new data relating to the BRAF V600 mutation outside of metastatic melanoma.
Subscribers can log in below or you can sign up to read our latest article and Op-Ed on cancer research and oncology R&D.
Anyone who has been regularly to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) over the last decade or two will have have sat through quite a lot of trials with doublets and triplets in numerous advanced solid tumours and seen an impressive graveyard of failed cytotoxics and targeted therapies build up… Too toxic, lack of efficacy, futile even. This is especially true for some of the more difficult to treat cancers such as pancreatic, small cell lung cancer, melanoma, glioblastoma and soft tissue sarcomas.
There is hope though, after all, things have changed quite dramatically in the metastatic melanoma landscape over the last five years that it is now quite unrecognisable compared to a decade or even five years ago. This is very good news indeed.
What about the other tumour types in that list, though? How are we making progress with those?
In the latest series here on BSB, we’re going to focus on the new developments happening on the fringes of cancer research out of the main spotlight and look in more depth at what’s looking promising in some of these areas. Today, we’re going to start with small cell lung cancer (SCLC), a truly devastating disease with a horribly dismal prognosis.
To learn more about our insights, you can sign up or log-in in the box below.
It’s now time to turn our attention to genitourinary oncology and, in particular, prostate, renal and urothelial bladder cancers. This week brings this ASCO GU meeting (#GU15), which is being held in Orlando this year and began this morning.
There are quite a few interesting topics being covered here, particularly in the poster sessions over the next three days. Hopefully, 2015 will also bring more good news in this space as 2014 was a rather dismal one on several fronts!
We decided to highlight some of the most interesting abstracts on castrate resistant prostate cancer and urothelial bladder cancer in our latest conference preview.
To learn more about the hot topics in GU cancer, interested subscribers can sign in or sign up below.
After the intensity of gastrointestinal cancer, we now turn our attention to genitourinary (GU) cancers with the upcoming ASCO GU meeting later this week in Orlando.
Two of the big topics here will be prostate and renal cell (RCC) cancers.
Unfortunately, the long awaited data in adjuvant RCC demonstrated that early treatment with sorafenib or sunitinib did not improve outcomes in locally advanced kidney cancer after resection. According to the ASCO press release, the trial conducted by Dr Haas and colleagues at U Penn discovered that:
“The average period to disease recurrence was similar between those who received sorafenib or sunitinib after surgery (5.6 years) and those treated with placebo (5.7 years).”
We will therefore turn our attention to castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).
One of the recent and ongoing controversies is splice variants, especially AR-V7, which is thought by some research groups to confer resistance to the hormonal therapies, enzalutamide and abiraterone. The big question though, is does it, and how useful is an assay in helping to determine appropriate therapy? Are there other factors at play?
We looked at the latest data and put the findings in context with what we know from other published research.
To learn more, you can sign in or sign up in the box below.
Continuing our series on the ASCO GI meeting, today marks the end of the conference coverage with an interesting look at overcoming resistance to EGFR therapies such as Erbitux and Vectibix.
One of the hallmarks of EGFR monotherapy in colorectal cancer is stable disease with eventual relapse, but few dramatic responses. This suggests that other factors may play a role in driving oncogenic activity.
Dr Tejpar, Leuven
Recently, patient derived xenografts (PDX) have begun to play an increasingly important role in helping to understand the biology of the disease and facilitate improved trial design.
Earlier this week, we discussed the molecular characterisation of the disease based on the keynote talk by Dr Sabine Tejpar. Her group in Belgium as well as others in Italy and Spain have been very active in European translational work in this area to identify and map the pathways influencing EGFR therapy in GI cancers.
What can we learn from the latest findings in this space?
The answer may well surprise you.
To learn more about this exciting research, you can sign in or sign up in the box below.
Over the last decade or so, we’ve seen a lot of new targeted agents approved in a variety of different tumour types. Of the big five cancers (breast, lung, melanoma, prostate, and colorectal) one clearly stands out as missing out on exciting new developments in the last 5 years.
In fact, we haven’t really seen anything startlingly new in the colorectal cancer (CRC) space since 2004, when the FDA approved cetuximab (Erbitux) and bevacizumab (Avastin) to much fanfare a few weeks apart at the beginning of that year. Sure, there have been other EGFR and VEGF inhibitors approved since, including panitumumab (Vectibix), z-aflibercept (Zaltrap) and regorafenib (Stivarga) in various lines of therapy, but you could argue that they’re all more of the same (type of inhibitors) and incremental in their improvements, rather truly game changing or disruptive.
Why is this? Why the discrepancy?
To learn more about this phenomenon and where things might be going in the future, you can sign up or sign in the box below.
A couple of years ago we had a lot of fun here on BSB following the progress of ibrutinib (Imbruvica), obinutuzumab (Gazyva), and idelalisib (Zydelig) in CLL and indolent NHL. It seemed back then that the stunning trio were the hot topics for some time at ASCO and ASH meetings. Exciting times! All three target different entities (BTK, anti-CD20 and PI3K-delta) and made it past the tape to market, with Gazyva leading, Imbruvica a close second and Zydelig a slightly more distant third. I was reminded of the race again over the last week or so as the 4Q earnings were announced, with Pharmacyclics reporting almost $500M for Imbruvica last year and estimating sales to hit $1B in 2015. In contrast, Zydelig revenues for 2014 were $23M, reflective of their much later market entry in the US.
Still, that was a pretty impressive set of drugs all in development at the same time.
Two other agents we also reported on regularly were Infinity’s IPI-145, a PI3K delta-gamma inhibitor, and ABT-199/GDC-0199 (now known as venetoclax). I haven’t heard much about the former of late, but after a few missteps, the next big question to consider is whether venetoclax is coming back strongly or destined for dog drug heaven?
To learn more, you can sign in or sign up in the box below.