William Coley first used live bacteria as an immune stimulant to treat cancer way back in 1893. Since then, however, progress with innate immunotherapy has been surprisingly very slow.
Queen Mary Rose Garden, Regents Park, Summer 2015
Indeed, to date only one therapeutic cancer vaccine has actually been approved by the FDA (Sipuleucel-T, Provenge, Dendreon), one oncolytic virus was approved in China back in 2006 (H101, a direct derivative of the E1B55k-deleted Onyx-015 that had modest activity at best) and another could soon be approved by the FDA later this year (T-VEC, Amgen).
In today’s review, we take a look at the oncolytic viral space and explore the issues, challenges and companies involved. Is this all set to be a bed of roses, or is a thorny future predicted?
To learn more about this ‘hot’ new field, subscribers can log-in or you can sign up in the box below.
New developments in renal cell carcinoma
Continuing our focus on genitourinary (GU) cancers this week, today we turn our focus from prostate cancer to renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
There were two important announcments on Monday this week relating to renal carcinoma.
Firstly, Exelixis announced positive top line data from a phase 3 pivotal trial of cabozantinib versus everolimus in relapsed metastatic renal cell carcinoma (METEOR). The study met the primary endpoint (i.e. significantly improved progression free survival) and the company revealed the following data:
- Cabozantinib reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 42%; Hazard Ratio = 0.58, (p < 0.0001) compared to everolimus
- Interim Analysis of OS demonstrated a trend in favour of cabozantinib; Hazard Ratio = 0.67, (p = 0.005) compared to everolimus
- Exelixis to complete US and EU regulatory filings in early 2016
Secondly, a press release from BMS highlighted the phase 3 CHECKMATE–025 trial comparing nivolumab to everolimus, also in relapsed metastatic RCC, where the independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended early stoppage on the basis of the primary endpoint (OS) being met. The company likely be seeking discussions with Health Authorities with a view to filing the data with the FDA and EMA.
There are some interesting points that fall out of these releases. To learn more, subscribers can log-in below or you can purchase a subscription in the box below.
Last month’s Biotech Strategy mailbag – where we answer questions from subscribers – turned out to be rather controversial with strong feelings running in several camps on Puma Biotech’s neratinib in breast cancer.
This time around we have a bunch of questions on completely different topics and compounds to cover:
- BRAF plus MEK and/or immunotherapy in BRAFV600 metastatic melanoma
- Immunogen’s IMGN853 – now known as mirvetuximab soravtansine – in platinum resistant ovarian cancer
- AbbVie/Genentech’s ABT–199/GDC–0199 venetoclax
To learn more about our insights, subscribers can log in or you can sign up in the box below.
There can be no doubt that immuno-oncology is a hot topic in cancer research of late with checkpoint inhibitors, immune agonists, immunocytokines, CAR T cells, TILs, TCRs, not forgetting innate immunotherapies. We’ve written extensively about many of these topics, but what about the companies behind them and their strategies?
One thing subscribers tell us they love reading about here on BSB is not only fireside chats with thought leaders, but also interviews behind the scenes with company personnel, be scientists, clinicians or CSOs.
Recently, we’ve posted some interviews with Roche and Genentech scientists/physicians about their IO platform that were well received. Today, it’s the turn of AstraZeneca and MedImmune, who are also developing checkpoint inhibitors and immune agonists against various cancers.
With the anti-PD1 antibodies i.e. Merck’s pembrlizumab (Keytruda) and BMS’s nivolumab (Opdivo) already approved by the FDA, and Roche/Genentech’s atezolizmuab well on the way to filing in advanced urothelial bladder cancer with the announcement this week that the IMvigor 210 trial in relapsed/refractory disease met its primary endpoint, the big question now remains is what’s happening with the fourth element of the quartet? How well is progress coming along there and what is the main focus we can expect in the near future?
Like most Brits, when AstraZeneca noted back in 2013 that they expect to establish their global R&D hub in Cambridge, I assumed they meant in the Golden Triangle and not Massachusetts. This is a burgeoning area for European biotech research, which is somewhat ironic after the KuDos scientists working on olaparib (Lynparza) moved to Alderley Park in Cheshire with the acquisition and will likely face moving back again!
At ASCO, we had the pleasure of a chat with Dr Rob Iannone, the head of the AstraZeneca Immuno-oncology development program. The company also published a number of interesting abstracts and posters that were on show in Chicago, as well as a burgeoning pipeline in this area beyond their lead compounds, the anti-PDL1 inhibitor, durvalumab (MEDI4736) and tremelimumab (anti-CTLA4).
To learn more, Subscribers can log in to read the article or you can sign up in the box below:
As the weather heats up in the western hemisphere, the temperatures are not the only thing increasing…
In Pharmaland, the oncology space traditionally sees either interesting new data published or a spate of post American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) filings. The summer doldrums often give way to a faster pace in the fall.
One thing we have been following over the last two years is the T790M race to market in EGFR mutant lung cancer. Clovis Oncology announced last week that they have begun their rolling NDA submission for rociletinib (CO–1686), but what about their keen rival, AstraZeneca with AZD9291?
The company presented new data for AZD9291 jn the EGFR mutant lung cancer upfront setting, but no formal announcement was made about the regulatory status.
There are some potentially interesting new developments to report here, though.
To learn more about what’s happening, subscribers can sign in below or interested folks can sign up in the box.
Many years ago, I used to work in the sarcoma and GIST space, which is a very interesting and fascinating disease to explore from a biology perspective. There are many different subsets of sarcoma, several different histologies, as well as numerous targets such as KIT in gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST). Some of these subsets are sensitive to chemotherapy such as doxorubicin, while others such as GIST are sensitive to targeted therapies including imatinib, sunitinib, regorafenib etc. Imatinib (Gleevec) is particularly effective in GISTs with exon 11, while the less common exon 9 has been shown to be more sensitive to sunitinib (Sutent), for example.
Often pharma companies will work with the Sarcoma Alliance for Research through Collaboration (SARC) cooperative group to undertake a phase 1 allcomers trial to evaluate which subsets might be appropriate for a given therapy, before exploring a narrower inclusion/exclusion criteria in a larger phase 2 or 3 study. You can check out their current clinical trials in sarcomas here.
Overall, people with malignant sarcomas tend to be seen by specialist centres where there are usually clinical trials available, representing a way to determine which of the agents in development are superior to the current standard of care.
Dr Margaret von Mehren
One of my favourite moments at ASCO this year was escaping the heavily mobbed poster halls to sit down for a quiet ‘fireside chat’ and catching up with an expert in this field to learn more about the latest new developments in sarcoma.
I’m delighted to publish another thought leader discussion today on Biotech Strategy Blog (BSB), where we have an in-depth interview with Dr Margaret von Mehren, the Director of Sarcoma Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center. She has spent spent her career trying to identify new therapeutics for gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST), as well as soft tissue sarcomas (STS).
To learn more about the latest insights on soft tissue sarcoma and GIST, you can log in or sign up in the box below.
In today’s post, it’s time to address a bunch of questions we’ve received over the last few weeks from subscribers about the latest and – not so greatest – in cancer research.
ASCO 2015 Chicago
Sometimes these queries are fairly straightforward to answer, other times requires some sleuthing and hunting down thought leaders for some additional context and insights… For obvious reasons, these folks are best caught in person at cancer conferences such as AACR and ASCO. The feedback isn’t always sparkly and positive though, it can also be gloom and doom, just like the inclement weather!
So here goes, questions on the following are covered in the article below:
To learn more about our insights, subscribers can log-in or you can sign up in the box below.
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…
We’ve heard a lot about agents that target the PD–1/PD-L1 pathway over the last two years, in particular, from:
- Nivolumab (BMS)
- Pembrolizumab (Merck)
- Atezolizumab (Roche/Genentech)
- MEDI–4736 (AstraZeneca/MedImmune)
What about other agents against this pathway that are in earlier development? It really doesn’t take long for a new space to become quickly crowded and very competitive, as the Pharma R&D machines start cranking out results from clinical trials.
A critical question that will to be considered is how will the third, fourth or even 19th agent to market differentiate themselves from those already approved and established? Is it realistic to expect a blue ocean strategy approach or will the pieces of the pie become ever smaller?
At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) earlier this month, there was new data presented from other companies on checkpoint inhibition. We took at look at some of the emerging data in more detail.
To learn more about the increasingly competitive anti-PD1/PDL1 pathway market, check out our insights in the mini report below.
One interesting aspect of the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting was the surprise many people expressed in conversations that chemotherapy might actually be useful in combination with checkpoint inhibitors.
You see, several years ago when we first started writing about this new class of agents, I remember vividly how quite a few analysts grumbled on social media or sent me snarky personal messages when it was even suggested that this — along with combinations with existing targeted therapies — might be a worthwhile and valid approach to explore. Clearly they believed that immunotherapies (as monotherapy) were going to be the ultimate panacea.
Not so fast…
There are a number of scientific reasons for combination strategies, but not everyone thinks rationally when new approches come along and their attititude is often ‘out with the old, in with the new!’ It was actually quite amusing to see some of the very same folks in Chicago now eulogising the combination of checkpoint blockade with… chemotherapy in lung, colorectal or even bladder cancer.
One reason why these traditional therapies may be important is because they can influence the tumour microenvironment in both positive and negative ways. That can be helpful for deciding on rational future combinations, rather than just throwing mud at the wall and hoping based on a limited set of data.
To learn more about our insights on this important topic, you can sign in or sign up in the box below.