Biotech Strategy Blog

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

Posts tagged ‘T-DM1’

Updated data are often presented at conferences and therefore the results can differ from the submitted abstracts, which are sometimes submitted as placeholders based on immature data cutoffs. That was certainly the case in several examples at the ASCO GI conference in San Francisco last weekend.

San Francisco HerculesAfter Monday’s look at new developments in the lower GI tract, we now turn our attention today to the upper GI tract with a focus on oesophageal, gastric (stomach), and gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancers.

Over the last five years we have seen new approvals for targeted therapies such as HER2+ gastric cancer and relapsed refarctory gastric cancers with a VEGF inhibitor. Will that trend continue over the next five years or will we see new approaches such as immunotherapy enter the market and dominate?

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

We’ve had a couple of requests come in for a revival of the old conference series… ‘Gems from the poster halls’ because quite a few folks are interested in the up and coming data from small to medium biotechs.

SABCS San Antonio CrowdA bunch of my Post Doc chums in this field were at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) meeting and gleefully highlighted mobbed posters or areas where they thought the data looked potentially interesting.

From these, we selected a few for review in today’s look at the nuggets that can be gleaned from cool and intriguing trials or preclinical research that may influence future trials.

Companies covered in this article include Seattle Genetics, Jounce, Immunomedics, Syndax and MedImmune.

Subscribers can log-in or you can sign up in the box below to learn more.

Today the immunotherapy and related data flooding out of the annual meeting of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) is pretty exciting!

Data was presented on a number of drugs including pembrolizumab, avelumab and atezolizumab, which put together with some recent publications, highlights some potentially exciting opportunities in this fast moving space.

Here, we explore the potential for checkpoint therapy combinations in TNBC, HER2 and even the ER+ subsets.  There’s a lot of new findings to take in and contemplate here.

Subscribers can log-in or you can sign up in the box below to learn more about this emerging area in cancer immunotherapy new product development.

One area that is finally seeing a lot more research results of late is neo-adjuvant therapy in breast cancer, i.e. therapeutic intervention prior to surgery.

The main advantages of neo-adjuvant over adjuvant therapy are:

  1. If it works, then the therapy allows the margins to shrink prior to surgery, potentially making the tumour easier to excise
  2. If therapy works prior to surgery, you know what will likely be effective post surgery, whereas in adjuvant treatment after surgery, this is unknown.

One of the leading trials for neoadjuvant breast cancer was the ISPY2 (Investigation of Serial studies to Predict Your therapeutic response with imaging and molecular analysis 2) study.  I wrote about it in more detail at the time it was launched on Pharma Strategy Blog, if you need more information. Basically, the study is based on a complex adaptive conjoint design in neoadjuvant breast cancer, so over time, additional arms were added to the study (there were originally four) while others were removed. In this way, the investigators can find the best therapies for each tumour subtype (HER2+/1, ER+/- or triple negative) based on the responses and biomarkers.

One element of neoadjuvant trials is figuring out what the most valid and meaningful endpoints are. In metastatic breast cancer (MBC), for example, we tend to see the primary and secondary endpoints being focused around the overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). These endpoints are rarely used in neoadjuvant trials though, because:

a) the goals of therapy are different and
b) patients are expected to live much longer with earlier stage disease so other outcomes such as DFS or EFS are often used

Given these factors, the FDA recently brought out new guidelines suggesting that pCR improvement would be a useful surrogate marker and predictor of survival endpoints. One example they used was HER2 disease and the ISPY2 model where drugs ‘graduate’ based on their performance over time. This is why the current ISPY2 trial is recruiting different arms than the original study setup. The first two therapies were considered to have ‘graduated’ from the trial with data (triggered 60–120 patients are enrolled) late 2013, i.e. AbbVie’s veliparib, a PARP inhibitor, and Puma’s neratinib, a pan-HER/ErbB inhibitor.

Veliparib was considered to have graduated in the triple negative signature. Initial veliparib data was presented at SABCS in December (see our analysis, commentary and update of this study data here). The neratinib data has yet to be presented at a medical conference, although the company have announced an oral presentation at AACR in 3 weeks time.

That said, neratinib and neoadjuvant therapy, in general, was discussed by several participants at last week’s Miami Breast Cancer Conference (MBCC).

For those interested in my thoughts and analysis, you can sign in or sign up below:

error: Content is protected !!