Biotech Strategy Blog

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

Posts tagged ‘MOXR0916’

We’ve come a long way over the last two years in the oncology market, with several novel approaches approved, numerous major phase 3 trials evolving and a huge turnaround for many companies in terms of early pipeline activity.

ASCO 2016 Posters 3

The melée at the ASCO 2016 Poster Hall

Unfortunately, this also means that the tendency of lemming activity also increases in the rush to copy everyone else and not be left behind.  Just a couple of years ago, some industry friends grumbled that there were over 20 checkpoint inhibitors chasing them in development; they may be surprised to know that now there are nearly 70!  This is both unprecedented and unsustainable, and yet it’s also a function of the perceived success these agents have had on the cancer R&D landscape to date.  Everyone wants one for fear of being left behind… except that many are indeed way behind already.

You can imagine the tall guy on the left of the picture looking at his watch and wondering, “Ah so many new posters, so little time!”

Meanwhile, as the rate of approved cancer therapies increases, so does the inexorable march in terms of hyper-aggressive basket pricing.  I would argue that at some point, it no longer acceptable or even conscionable to change a premium or even market rate for drugs that give an incremental improvement of a mere 2 months of extra life.

Equally, one thing that many industry observers and the media love to do, and wrongly in my view, is to compare the individual drug prices on an annualized basis.  This is silly for several reasons:

  1. So far, not all patients are treated for a full year
  2. If patients are treated until progression and that happens early, then therapy is stopped
  3. What people should be looking at is the average treatment cost based on the length of therapy – some people will receive a few months and some much more than that
  4. What’s the true cost of a cure or remission to a patient and their family?
  5. How do we quantify the impact of the long lasting durable remissions?

These questions will become increasingly important as we see a more aggregated therapy approach emerge over the next few years.

By this, I mean that we are now going beyond monotherapy and even combinations; those trials have already long started and are the low hanging fruit that has been rapidly snapped up by the early players, as we eagerly wait for their data readouts.

If you have new agents coming-out of preclinical and into phase 1 development over the next year, there are a number of important questions to consider:

  • What are you going to do and where do you start?
  • How do you gain an edge when coming from (way) behind?
  • How do you develop unique positioning that could sustain your molecule in a sea of similar competitors?
  • Is it realistic to expect the 17th and 50th checkpoint to have equivalent efficacy as what went on before and will all of these seriously make it to market?

You can see now why even the FDA’s Dr Richard Pazdur was moved to grumble about the surfeit of me-toos here and company expectations that the FDA should consider them – it’s on a massive scale that we haven’t seen before.  For once I agree and empathize with him over that dilemma, it’s madness to think they will all be as good as pembrolizumab or nivolumab.

What we are starting to see emerge now is a surprising synthesis of ideas and a merging of disparate approaches. How will this affect oncology R&D over the next 1–5 years?

A couple of smart readers wrote in asking about these emerging trends, what have we identified so far, and where do we see the oncology space going in the near to medium term future. Now that AACR and ASCO are behind us, what can we learn about the new developments and where they all fit in the oncology landscape strategically?

To learn more about our strategic analysis, subscribers can log-in below or you can sign-up via the blue box.

The 10 abstracts selected here are actually not in order of magnitude, preference or weight… with the lone exception #1, an incredible piece of work that was a decade in the making.



Few of these choices are in the press briefing, none are in the Plenary session – they’re often hidden gems that many will miss in the hurly burly of the data drop and noise.

They’re also 10 abstracts that I feel are worthy of highlighting with some additional commentary.

Some of the ideas here illustrate some intriguing trends that are emerging, others may have a big impact on the cancer immunotherapy space, either because of the novel concept idea, or because the data are very compelling, if you understand the science.

You can decide for yourselves – which ones would you pick and why?

Subscribers can log-in or you can sign up in the Blue Box below to learn more about the important cancer immunotherapy abstracts at ASCO 2016…

After looking at one important poster yesterday on multiple myeloma, it’s time to explore other equally interesting targets in other tumour types.

Some years reflect the inertia that hit oncology R&D with a lot of old data rehashed or they can be flooded with many me-too compounds.  Not this year, there’s a lot to talk about and review… so much so that we may well have enough for three rounds of Gems from the Poster Halls, time permitting as ASCO is fast approaching!

Without much further ado, for round 1 we have explored eight posters spanning four companies with a variety of different targets including chemotherapy, targeted therapies and immunotherapies.  I will say though, that the lines are being blurred as all of these modalities can impact the immune system, sometimes in unexpected ways.

What’s in store for today?  A focus on biotech companies doing intriguing cancer research.

Companies mentioned: Infinity, Innate, Incyte, Agenus

At the recent annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), one controversial area that arose was centred around targeting OX40, a stimulatory checkpoint. We’ve written extensively about anti-OX40 checkpoint agonists on the blog in the past.

Targeting OX40 is an area of interest to several companies looking to improve the effectiveness of checkpoint inhibitors. As a result, several companies have OX40 agonists in development, including AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, GSK and Incyte/Agenus, for example, making it a competitive target and interesting race to market.

Meanwhile, in their recent 1Q earnings call, Roche announced that they expect to present clinical data on their PD-L1/OX40 combination at the forthcoming American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting in Chicago from June 4th to 7th. This therefore makes it a timely moment to reflect on the data generated so far and what we can expect next month.

In New Orleans, we spoke to several researchers who are active in the OX40 field, since there were both mouse and human data presented at this year’s conference.

The interviews conducted were wide-ranging and informative, so in our latest mini-series we explore Part 1 today with Part 2 tomorrow.  They are relaxed fireside chats with different experts included in each to discuss their data (and other relevant topics) presented in New Orleans.

This way, you’ll be able to follow along and find out where the common areas are, as well as the differences in perspectives, and even where we could be headed in the near future.

This latest series on OX40 agonists raises many intriguing questions that we hope may be answered at ASCO and other clinical meetings going forward. We also discuss the challenges and opportunities associated with research into cancer immunotherapy combinations.

Dr Bernard Fox at #AACR16

Dr Bernard Fox at #AACR16

Intriguing preclinical data in mice models were presented by Dr David Messenheimer (Portland). We spoke with the senior author of that abstract, Dr Bernard Fox.

He is the Harder Family Chair for Cancer Research and Chief of the Laboratory of Molecular and Tumour Immunology at the Earle A. Chiles Research Institute in Portland, Oregon, and a leading cancer immunotherapy expert. He’s also the CEO of UbiVac, a biotech spin-off from Chiles in 2005 to develop therapeutic vaccines for cancer and infectious diseases.

Subscribers can login to read more on where “the rubber is hitting the road” in cancer immunotherapy clinical research.

If you’re not already a subscriber, you can purchase access to AACR posts and also our immuno-oncology coverage by clicking on the blue icon below.

British Javelin TrainIt’s Day 6 of our Countdown to the AACR 2016 annual meeting in New Orleans. We’re at the halfway, 6 posts written and 6 more to go!  Then it will be daily Live blogs from the meeting.

There’s a lot of cancer immunotherapy at AACR this year, so after yesterday’s post on GITR we’re continuing our mini-series with a look at another immune agonist.

Today, we’re moving onto OX40 (CD134) as a novel immuno-target. Regular readers will know that we’ve been following this target for some time.

Immune agonists such as GITR, OX40, CD40, CD27 and 4-1BB help to rev up T cells. As Dr Tom Gajewski (Chicago) told us last year, in an interview published on the blog and excerpted in Episode 6 of the Novel Targets Podcast: Stepping on the Gas:

…there are inhibitory receptors on activated T cells that are involved with shutting immune responses down. There are also activating receptors that help to rev up those T cells. You might question whether you can push an activator and block an inhibitor, and maybe get a good anti-tumor response going as well.

When we drive a car, we both lift our foot off the break and we step on the accelerator. We have really beautiful data in animals that that this is exactly the case, that if you hit one of those strong positive regulators, and block just one of the negative regulators, you can have complete disappearance of the tumors in mice.

Several of those positive agonistic antibodies against costimulatory receptors are in the clinic. One of them is anti-OX40 that a couple of groups have in the clinic. We’re working with Genentech, that has one of those agents in phase I.

What does the OX40 competitive landscape look like?

In those post we’ve provided commentary on some of the new products in development from companies and highlighted a surprising number of abstracts that you’ll want to watch out for at AACR 2016 if you’re on the cancer immunotherapy track.

Subscribers can login to read today’s Road to AACR 2016 post or you can purchase access below in the blue box.

There has been a lot of enthusiasm in the immuno-oncology space since ASCO about the possibility of combining a checkpoint inhibitor with an immune stimulator.  There are several ideas behind this approach since:

a) Not all patients respond to checkpoint inhibitors
b) Some patients only partially respond, although they can achieve an attenuated response before relapsing

An important question in many people’s mind is what is different about these subsets of patients compared to exceptional responders? How can we change that situation for the better?

Two approaches that have been mooted of late include the following:

  • Using a cancer vaccine to ‘prime’ the tumour
  • Combining a checkpoint inhibitor with an antibody agonist to stimulate the immune system

CrowdAt SITC in Maryland this weekend, there were plenty of packed presentations and discussions on both of these classes of agents, so this is a good time to explore the idea of immune stimulators further based on the latest data we heard.

To learn more about our insights, you can log in or sign up below.

error: Content is protected !!