Garden of the Gods

This post is about some of the trials and tribulations around oncology R&D and how we have gone from broad targeting of a particular process to honing in on what basically represents a novel target in a much more selective and precise fashion.

It’s a bit like the difference between a blunderbuss versus a sniper’s rifle – you can induce a scattered or a narrow effect, and hopefully reduce unwanted toxicities in the process too.

Targeting achilles heels and vulnerabilities in the cancer cells are not new, but figuring out novel synthetic lethal pairs could well be key in terms of a failed trial versus a successful one.  These days, more and more companies are abandoning the dreaded catch-all phase 1 polyglot trials – aka refractory advanced solid tumours – for ones based on a more rational approach dictated by the science and underlying biology.

I’m delighted to see this trend emerge and hope more will continue.  After all, if you have a targeted agent why treat it in a nihilistic and un-targeted fashion, subjecting patients who have absolutely no hope of responding to Compound X to unwanted toxicities, when they might well have a better shot at an entirely different approach?

Without much ado, it’s time to focus on the novel oncology target – and yes, there’s a couple of early frontrunners already…

To continue reading our latest discussion and analysis on oncology new product development plus expert commentary BSB subscribers can log-in or you can click to access the content.

This content is restricted to subscribers

Posted by