Rodin’s The Thinker sculpture Source: Wikimedia Commons
Recently, I have been pondering a raft of clinical and translational data we have seen emerge across multiple virtual conferences from several different categories of therapies such as checkpoint blockade, targeted therapies, PARP inhibition, epigenetics, and even mathematics.
Many people tend to look at these disparate categories and see them as quite different therapeutic options, but lately I have began to wonder if they are in fact much more inextricably linked than seems obvious at first glance?
This turned into a broader strategic post about advanced solid tumours and how we might think a little differently about underlying concepts and conceptual frameworks…
To learn more from our oncology analysis and get a heads up on the latest insights and commentary, subscribers can log-in or you can click to gain access to BSB Premium Content.
SITC Day 3 Highlights
There were a couple of late breakers presented in the oral session yesterday that are worth discussing for several reasons, not least the controversy surrounding the stock action afterwards.
Dr Tara Gangadhar (U Penn) presented epacadostat, Incyte’s IDO1 inhibitor, in combination with pembrolizumab, Merck’s anti-PD1 inhibitor in a phase 1/2 trial with selected solid tumours.
Will combining these agents lead to better responses and outcomes than with pembrolizumab alone?
Dr Naiyer Rizvi (Moffitt) presented the combination data of AstraZeneca’s anti-PDL1 (durvalumab) plus anti-CTLA4 (tremelimumab) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Neither of these agents have yet been approved in any indication, so the only relative comparators we have here are nivolumab and pembrolizumab as single agents in NSCLC and ipilimumab plus nivolumab in metastatic melanoma. There are no data approved for the BMS combo in lung cancer.
This review looks at both trials, in terms of the controversial data presented, and also in a broader context of the ever-changing landscape.
To learn more insights on this intriguing topic, subscribers can log-in or you can purchase access to BSB Premium Content.
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 about these sentiments and insights, subscribers can log-in or you can purchase access to BSB Premium Content 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, subscribers can log-in or you can purchase access to BSB Premium Content below…
At the last count, the renal cell carcinoma (RCC) space is quite competitive with five VEGF inhibitors (sunitinib, sorafenib, axitinib, pazopanib and bevacizumab), two mTOR blockers (temsirolimus and everolimus) and not forgetting IL–2, all approved by the FDA for the treatment of advanced disease.
Much of the recent focus has been on sequencing, exploring combinations (generally too toxic with little added benefit), and evaluating the potential for novel immunotherapies in development such as checkpoint inhibitors. Biomarkers are few and far between, making it hard to rationally decide which therapy each patient should get and in which sequence.
The key question is, why is this tumour type so challenging from a clinical and scientific perspective?
Recently, new data has begun to emerge that may help inform or enable us to switch to new approaches. While the urologists are eagerly watching the live surgery on the EAU cam, we highlight research data presented at the European Association of Urology (EAU) in Madrid and take a look at how the underlying biology of RCC can elevate our knowledge about where the potential future strategies and blueprint might lie, if we want to facilitate exciting new developments in this field.
To learn more about our latest insights, subscribers can log-in or you can purchase access to BSB Premium Content.