Biotech Strategy Blog

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

Posts tagged ‘AACR annual meeting’

The forthcoming annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) in Washington DC is a must attend for anyone interested in cancer research and new cancer drugs in development.

AACR 2013 Annual Meeting Banner Screenshot

Many readers will know that one of the hallmarks of cancer is the evasion of apoptosis or cell death.  Drugs in development that act as an inhibitor of apoptosis proteins (IAP) are starting to show promise against this target.

Novartis IAP Inhibitor LCL161

At the 2012 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), a phase 1 trial with LCL161, a novel-IAP antagonist from Novartis, showed promising responses in triple negative breast cancer when given in combination with paclitaxel chemotherapy. The SABCS data showed that in the 52 patients treated with LCL161, a complete response was observed in 1 patient, and a partial response was seen in 15 patients.

Caution must obviously be expressed at extrapolating from early-stage data in a non-randomized trial.

Several other companies have IAP antagonists in early development, including Curis (CUDC-427).

  • Curis announced in November they had licensed GDC-0917 from Genentech. I am hopeful there will be new data on CUDC-427 at the AACR annual meeting.  At the recent Citi Global Healthcare Conference on Feb 25, 2013, Curis stated they could start phase 2 development of CUDC-427 by mid-2013 and were looking at it in combination with capecitabine (Xeloda) in breast cancer as well as monotherapy.
  • Ascenta Therapeutics licensed their IAP inhibitor AT-406 to Debiopharm in August 2011.

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery has a review article on “Targeting IAP proteins for therapeutic intervention in cancer” for those interested in learning more about some of the compounds in preclinical and clinical development, and the scientific rationale behind this target.

IAP inhibitors are an interesting class of compounds to watch as they move forward in clinical development.

IAP Inhibitors may promote Bone Metastasis

Research published in the February 2013 issue of the AACR journal Cancer Discovery shows that in mouse experiments a side-effect of IAP inhibitors is promotion of osteoclast activity.  Whether these preclinical results in animal models translate to man remains to be seen, but the research by Chang Yang and colleagues from the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, MO is worth noting.

Cancer Discovery Research Article Chang Yang

In simple terms, osteoclasts are the cells that remove bone as part of a dynamic equilibrium with osteoblasts, the cells that produce and lay down new bone.

An increase in osteoclasts caused by IAP antagonists activating alternative NF-κB signalling through NF-κB-inducing kinase (NIK) results in the disruption of normal bone metabolism.  In mouse experiments, this led to over-degradation of bone and osteoporosis (pathological bone loss), as well as providing a microenvironment that favors tumor expansion and metastasis.

Osteoclasts embedded in the bone matrix also release tumor growth factors, so if there are more osteoclasts then more growth factors are produced resulting in the creation of a more favourable microenvironment for bone metastasis.

In addition to showing the effects of IAP antagonists on the bone microenvironment, Chang Yang and colleagues demonstrated that drugs that prevent bone resorption such as zoledronic acid were able to decrease the incidence and severity of bone metastasis.

Many breast, cancer, prostate and lung cancer patients end up with bone metastases, which is why bone targeted agents have an important role to play in the treatment of the disease.

They conclude in their Cancer Discovery research paper that “future clinical trials of IAP antagonist-based therapy may require detailed examination of this potential for enhanced bone metastasis and osteoporosis, as well as possible combination with antiresorptive agents.”  

The potential implications of this research is that bisphosphonates such as zoledronic acid and RANKL-targeted compounds, such as denosumab, may need to be used in conjunction with IAP antagonist treatment.

This is an important finding. If the animal results translate to humans, then concomitant administration of a bone target agent may be necessary.  Future clinical trials of IAP antagonists could end up with more complex and expensive study designs if bone side effects needs to be monitored and addressed.

I look forward to learning more about IAP antagonists at the AACR meeting in April, and to following progress in this novel class of new drugs that seek to address one of the hallmarks of cancer.

ResearchBlogging.orgYang, C., Davis, J., Zeng, R., Vora, P., Su, X., Collins, L., Vangveravong, S., Mach, R., Piwnica-Worms, D., Weilbaecher, K., Faccio, R., & Veis Novack, D. (2012). Antagonism of Inhibitor of Apoptosis Proteins Increases Bone Metastasis via Unexpected Osteoclast Activation Cancer Discovery, 3 (2), 212-223 DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-12-0271

2 Comments

The New Drugs on the Horizon session at the recent annual American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) meeting in Chicago showcased several drugs that I expect we will be hearing more of in the future.  I previously wrote about AZD3514 in prostate cancer.

Another small molecule that particularly impressed me in this AACR session was ABT-199, a potent and selective inhibitor of Bcl-2. Steven Elmore from Abbott Laboratories presented impressive early data from an ongoing phase I trial in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Faced with the opportunity to read around 900+ posters yesterday afternoon in the first of the six main poster sessions from Sunday to Wednesday here at the AACR annual meeting, any selection of a “poster of the day” is extremely subjective.  All the posters here have considerable scientific merit having passed a rigorous peer-review selection process.

Faced with a smorgasboard of choice, one ends up focusing on areas of personal interest. One area I have recently started to write about on this blog is the impact nanotechnology may have on cancer research and in particular how nanoparticles in the form of diamonds can be used to reach into tumors.

So “my poster of the day” from Sunday April 3rd, Day 2 of AACR is  “Multistate Nanoparticle Delivery System for Deep Penetration into Tumor Tissue.” It is Abstract#548 on the AACR website, and is from a team of researchers at the Department of Chemistry at MIT, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School.

The published poster by Cliff Wong and colleagues is “a proof-of-principle demonstration that a size changing nanoparticle can facilitate delivery into the dense collagen matrix of a tumor.

The authors conclude, that what they have developed is: “the potential for customized delivery of nanoparticles by using genomic and molecular data to achieve optimal delivery for a particular patient.”

Heralding the future potential of their research, the poster states that as result of this work they now can “design a series of customized nanoparticles that are activated by a variety of tumor-associated proteases such as cathepsin B and urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA).

One question that this research raises to me is to what extent different tumors may require a different sized nanoparticles to deliver drug to the target area? If we do need different sized nanoparticles, then how do we determine which is the best size/combination?

I’m excited at the possibility that not only may we have personalized medicine, but that nanotechnology may enable customized drug delivery.

The heart of the AACR annual meeting to me is the posters, and they frequently stimulate questions that may generate novel new approaches or trigger new research avenues or opportunities to make a difference in the lives of future cancer patients.

 

There are 5,396 posters at the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) here in Orlando. Intermingled with the exhibitors (something that no doubt encourages traffic to the exhibits), the posters provide a window into the world of current cancer research and the spirit of collaboration.

Researchers from all over the world present their latest scientific discoveries, what they may have spent 3 years or more years on while studying for a Ph.D or undertaking a post-doctoral fellowship.

The research is innovative, and what’s seen at AACR is often at the cutting edge and shown prior to publication in a major journal.

What is palpable is the energy surrounding the poster discussions as experts, thought leaders and leading researchers network and share ideas with typically more junior colleagues, and in the process relate their experience to the poster being presented.

In a world of fixed term grants, the poster session is also an opportunity to showcase research to those who may be looking to hire new talent to their team.

It takes six poster sessions over four days for the 5000+ posters to be presented. I’m looking forward to the exercise!

Today in the plenary session of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), Lynda Chin from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston provided an excellent overview of the challenges and opportunities of translating insights from cancer genomics into personalized medicine that will benefit patients.

I unequivocally recommend listening to the webcast of the plenary when it is posted on the AACR website.

As Dr Chin stated at the start of her presentation, “cancer is fundamentally a disease of the genome.”  The goal of all cancer research is to make progress with prevention, detection and cure.

In the plenary presentation she highlighted some of the successes that have come from understanding the genome e.g. the knowledge of BRAF mutation in melanoma led to the identification of a target and development of a new drug in 8 years.  In addition to the development of novel therapeutics, genomics research has helped companies reposition drugs and she highlighted crizotinib as an example (move from C-Met to ALK inhibition in NSCLC).

These successes have “motivated researchers” according to Chin.  However, it is transformative new technology such as the next generation of sequencing technology that has heralded “a new era of cancer genomics.”  Massively parallel sequencing enables comprehensive genome characterization.

Not only has innovative new sequencing technology increased the throughput, but it has dramatically decreased the costs.  As Dr Chin noted, some have questioned whether cancer genomics is worth it?  She outlined some of the recent successes, such as BAP1 in ocular melanoma (see my previous post on this) as examples of its value.

Challenges remain such as the management of the vast amount of data that genome sequencing produces.  Data management, processing and storage remain issues, as does the need to develop a reference human genome against which a patient’s tumor profile could be compared.

And even when you find a mutation, the challenge is to separate the “drivers” from the “passengers.” This according to Chin requires a “robust statistical framework”.

Cancer signaling is not linear, but is a highly interconnected and redundant network, so it remains a big task to translate genomics into personalized medicine.  According to Dr Chin using mice as models to bridge the gap between sequencing and man may be the way forward in translating cancer genomics into personalized medicine.

It’s a busy day of science at the 102nd American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) annual meeting in Orlando, You can follow what’s happening on twitter, #AACR.  Pharma Strategy Blog has an excellent “Cover it Live” widget that shows everyone’s #AACR tweets. It allows you to go back in time, so you can see what happened earlier.  AACR also has some excellent webcasts and podcasts from the meeting.

However, what caught my attention this morning was the launch of a new journal, Cancer Discovery; preview copies were handed out to attendees at the plenary session this morning.

In a world where we are already overwhelmed by data, publications and sources of information, why is this journal both important and worth reading?

Firstly, this team has a distinguished group of editors, Lewis Cantley, PhD and José Baselga MD PhD are Editors-in-Chief.  However, what attracted me was the way this journal, in a highly readable way, covers a wide range of topics from news, updates on current research to mini reviews and research articles.

In the news section, the journal picked up on nanodiamonds for drug delivery (a topic previously mentioned on this blog), and discussed the Gilead acquisition of Calistoga from perspective of bringing PI3K delta inhibitors to market.

I liked the selected highlights of recent articles of exceptional significance from the cancer literature.  The mini review on the “stumbling blocks on the path to personalized medicine in Breast Cancer” summarized the challenges in the clinical development of PARP inhibitors. The research articles reminded me of those I’ve read in other journals such as Science, with high quality figures and tables.

If AACR and the editors can keep up the high standard of the April 2011 preview copy they have published, Cancer Discovery will definitely be on the reading list of those involved with cancer research, new product development and translational medicine.

You can find out more about Cancer Discovery and read online articles on the AACR website.

error: Content is protected !!