A frequent challenge in oncology R&D is the fast paced nature of pipeline development such that there’s always something cool or new coming along nipping at the heels of those further ahead in clinical development coupled with the changing of the broader landscape before you even get to market.

What this means is companies with agents in phase 2 development can frequently feel rather squeezed between the two extremes.

This can lead to a lot of pondering on whether they will have enough innovation to make an impact on whatever are the favoured approaches by the time they might get to market, while at the same time offering sufficient protection against the novel compounds coming along behind.  Obviously no one drug is perfect and each will have their own achilles heels, to add to the mix and uncertainty.

For some time now there hasn’t been much in the form of new approaches in prostate cancer beyond the myriad of androgen receptor antagonists in various treatment niches plus the PARP inhibitors in a select population of men with BRCA mutations… what then?

A big question targeted therapies often have to address is their impressive initial response rates and PFS based on RECIST measurements don’t always translate into people living longer, as measured by overall survival.  No drug is without toxicities either, which means these need to be factored into the final clinical decision making and can make or break early uptake more than initially realised.

In our latest review we highlight some examples of where the field might be headed next (or not), based on some new preclinical and clinical data presented…

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

This content is restricted to subscribers

Posted by