Biotech Strategy Blog

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

Posts tagged ‘Genentech’

BMS and Exelixis announce new renal cell cancer data

New developments in renal cell carcinoma

Continuing our focus on genitourinary (GU) cancers this week, today we turn our focus from prostate cancer to renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

There were two important announcments on Monday this week relating to renal carcinoma.

Firstly, Exelixis announced positive top line data from a phase 3 pivotal trial of cabozantinib versus everolimus in relapsed metastatic renal cell carcinoma (METEOR).  The study met the primary endpoint (i.e. significantly improved progression free survival) and the company revealed the following data:

  • Cabozantinib reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 42%; Hazard Ratio = 0.58, (p < 0.0001) compared to everolimus
  • Interim Analysis of OS demonstrated a trend in favour of cabozantinib; Hazard Ratio = 0.67, (p = 0.005) compared to everolimus
  • Exelixis to complete US and EU regulatory filings in early 2016

Secondly, a press release from BMS highlighted the phase 3 CHECKMATE–025 trial comparing nivolumab to everolimus, also in relapsed metastatic RCC, where the independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended early stoppage on the basis of the primary endpoint (OS) being met. The company likely be seeking discussions with Health Authorities with a view to filing the data with the FDA and EMA.

Subscribers can log-in to read our latest insights or you can purchase access to BSB Premium Content. 

This content is restricted to subscribers

Biotech Strategy questions answered on BRAF, MEK, immunotherapy, mirvetuximab soravtansine and venetoclax

Last month’s Biotech Strategy mailbag – where we answer questions from subscribers – turned out to be rather controversial with strong feelings running in several camps on Puma Biotech’s neratinib in breast cancer.

This time around we have a bunch of questions on completely different topics and compounds to cover:

  • BRAF plus MEK and/or immunotherapy in BRAFV600 metastatic melanoma
  • Immunogen’s IMGN853 – now known as mirvetuximab soravtansine – in platinum resistant ovarian cancer
  • AbbVie/Genentech’s ABT–199/GDC–0199 venetoclax

To learn more insights on this intriguing topic, subscribers can log-in or you can purchase access to BSB Premium Content. 

This content is restricted to subscribers

What happens when you combine checkpoint blockade with an immune stimulant in cancer?

We know from preclinical research that immunosuppressive tumour microenvironments can restrain anti-tumour immunity, thereby making subsequent therapeutic interventions less effective than expected. CD40 activation has been shown to reverse immune suppression and drive antitumor T cell responses, which in turn could lead to potentially better outcomes.

What happens when patients with advanced melanoma are given a checkpoint inhibitor plus an immune agonist such as anti-CD40?

Can we help the non-responding patients to checkpoint blockade improve their outcomes and shift the long tail in survival curves up using this approach?

Subscribers can log-in to read our latest insights or you can purchase access to BSB Premium Content. 

This content is restricted to subscribers

Where are checkpoint inhibitors going next?

One of the obvious learnings from the American Association of Clinical Research (AACR) meeting earlier this week was that we are coming to the end of the low hanging fruit opportunities for checkpoint inhibitors as monotherapies.

Speaking with numerous company people in this space, there was wide consensus on that point. As one clinical lead put it succinctly, “From here on out, it’s going to get way more complicated – had a low grade headache develop after the very first science session I attended – and it’s still there after two days!”

How many of us know that feeling all too well?  AACR always has the heaviest science load of any cancer conference we attend each year. Sure there’s some nice clinical data, but that is like nibbling on the light appetizers before the 20 course banquet. You need much stamina and fortitude to survive the brain fog at AACR. Then there’s the glee at snagging some key poster handouts at the meeting, only to be rapidly diminished when you try to read the 4pt print post hoc and realise your eyes cannot focus easily.

Looking at the long list of topics I want to cover in the in-depth post meeting analysis for a ‘lighter’ post, especially given that it’s Friday after a very long week, that sinking feeling hit home hard – there are no lightweight topics at AACR.

The other day, we posted about the promising data in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), following on from the Genentech and Merck presentations at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS). These data surprised many folks, mostly because they didn’t consider breast cancer to be an immunogenic tumour – nor is lung cancer in the broader scheme of things for that matter – yet we are seeing some nice durable responses in both tumour types with checkpoint inhibitors.

In other words, our definition and perceptions must change as we redefine how we identify and think of possible ‘responsive’ cancers to these agents.

So where are likely heading next?

To learn more about these sentiments and insights, subscribers can log-in or you can purchase access to BSB Premium Content below… 

This content is restricted to subscribers

Will venetoclax impact in hematologic malignancies

A couple of years ago we had a lot of fun here on BSB following the progress of ibrutinib (Imbruvica), obinutuzumab (Gazyva), and idelalisib (Zydelig) in CLL and indolent NHL.  It seemed back then that the stunning trio were the hot topics for some time at ASCO and ASH meetings.  Exciting times!  All three target different entities (BTK, anti-CD20 and PI3K-delta) and made it past the tape to market, with Gazyva leading, Imbruvica a close second and Zydelig a slightly more distant third.  I was reminded of the race again over the last week or so as the 4Q earnings were announced, with Pharmacyclics reporting almost $500M for Imbruvica last year and estimating sales to hit $1B in 2015.  In contrast, Zydelig revenues for 2014 were $23M, reflective of their much later market entry in the US.

Still, that was a pretty impressive set of drugs all in development at the same time.

Two other agents we also reported on regularly were Infinity’s IPI-145, a PI3K delta-gamma inhibitor, and ABT-199/GDC-0199 (now known as venetoclax).  I haven’t heard much about the former of late, but after a few missteps, the next big question to consider is whether venetoclax is coming back strongly or destined for dog drug heaven?

To learn more about these sentiments and insights, subscribers can log-in or you can purchase access to BSB Premium Content below… 

This content is restricted to subscribers

Targeting CD40 in Cancer Immunotherapy

At the recent 2014 annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), it was surprising to see how many people stayed till the bitter end of the conference to attend the Hot Topic Symposium on Accelerating Tumor Immunity with Agonist Antibodies.

Readers are well aware of the potential of cancer immunotherapies that block immune checkpoint receptors. After all, the FDA has already approved antibodies that block CTLA–4 (ipiliimumab) and PD–1 (pembrolizumab) in metastatic melanoma, with nivolumab (Opdivo) currently being reviewed for advanced melanoma and lung cancers.

These antagonists, and others in development targeting the PD-L1 signalling pathway, such as MEDI4736 and MPDL3280A, act to reduce the engagement of inhibitory receptors on the T-cell. This results in a releasing of a brake on the T cell response, enabling killer T cells to attack the tumour(s).

CD40 in cancer Source: Costello et al., 1999

However, in order to stimulate an immune response, particularly in tumors with few natural T cells, it is likely that agonist antibodies will be required that act on stimulatory signalling receptors on T cells and antigen presenting cells (APC’s).

In a previous post from SITC, we discussed the potential of agonists targeting OX40, and the rational for combining an anti-OX40 antibody with an anti-PDL1. This is one of the hottest targets that thought leaders are excited about from our discussions.

It isn’t the only one of interest though. Another potential stimulatory target that might be suitable for combination with anti-PD–1/PD-L1 is an antibody against CD40 (not to be confused with OX40). The pathway (shown right) is quite complex.

Subscribers can login to read more about another fascinating talk from SITC 2014 on where the cancer immunotherapy may be heading.

This content is restricted to subscribers

Will combining anti-OX40 with a checkpoint inhibitor matter in cancer?

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.

This content is restricted to subscribers

ESMO 2014 Preview on Breast Cancer

This last week saw the ASCO Breast Cancer Symposium in San Francisco, although very little caught my attention from a drug development point of view. Much of the attention seemed to be focused on surgery, genetic counselling and screening.

With the 2014 European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) conference in Madrid coming up fast in only 2 weeks time, it seems a good point to take a look at what’s on the slate there, since there are some important clinical trials being presented there with new data that we can expect to hear a lot more about.

Premium subscribers can log-in to read more.

Companies mentioned: Roche/Genentech, GSK, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Medivation, Astellas
Drugs mentioned: Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, lapatinib, PI3K inhibitors, olaparib, enzalutamide

There are a couple of important breast cancer trials with data being presented for the first time at Madrid.

This content is restricted to subscribers

What impact will nivolumab & pembrolizumab have on advanced melanoma?

Today’s post focuses on another question from a reader, who asked: “How will we decide which therapies to give patients with metastatic melanoma once the new immunotherapies are available?”

This is not an easy question to answer, but first let’s remember that as little as five years ago there were only treatments such as DTIC (dacarbazine), temozolamide, interferon, chemotherapy and not much else as choices for people with advanced melanoma. Survival rates were generally poor, yet despite the low barrier to entry, many agents failed miserably to beat them. The disease was therefore widely considered to be a graveyard for Pharma R&D.

Fast forward to 2014. We now have several targeted therapies and combinations approved including BRAFV600E (vemurafenib and dabrafenib) and MEK inhibitors (trametinib), as well as a number of others that may soon be on the way in the near term such as cobimetinib in combination with vemurafenib.  Along similar lines, GSK recently announced that the combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib was superior to vemurafenib alone in terms of overall survival.  Hopefully, we will see the full data for both combinations at a medical meeting such as ESMO or EADO in the Fall.

Immunotherapies such as ipilimumab (Yervoy) have also been shown to improve patient outcomes. In addition, others are also in the queue including anti-PD–1 antibodies, which are likely to be reviewed soon by the Health Authorities (e.g. pembrolizumab and nivolumab). Indeed, Japan already approved nivolumab (Opdivo) in advanced melanoma on July 4th, making it the first anti-PD–1 checkpoint inhibitor to be available globally. Meanwhile, in the US Merck had a jump start with their rolling NDA for pembrolizumab already started (the PDUFA is Oct 28th, 2014). Their data at ASCO included probably one of the largest trials I’ve seen in advanced melanoma with over 400 patients included. BMS are not far behind with nivolumab, however, and are expecting to begin their filing in the 3Q this year following the frontline trial (CHECKMATE 037) in BRAF wild type (wt) metastatic melanoma versus dacarbazine successfully meeting its primary endpoint earlier than expected.

You can read about the clinical results relating to the three key melanoma trials reported at ASCO by Ribas et al., Hodi et al., and Sznol et al., in our earlier review but today, I wanted to focus on a broader, more strategic perspective, now that several events post meeting are shaking out more clearly.

A couple of years ago (was it really that long?!), many of us were quite disappointed to see the combination of vemurafenib plus ipilimumab scuttled due to unexpected liver toxicity, although the good news from ASCO is that a dual immunotherapy combination (ipilimumab plus nivolumab) appears not to have met the same fate.

The landscape for metastatic melanoma is therefore rapidly changing, but where is this field likely to go and what can we expect to see?

To learn more about our insights, you can log-in.

This content is restricted to subscribers

ASCO 2014 Will ABT-199 change the CLL landscape?

Previously, we discussed the role of new agents being developed for aggressive non-Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL) with Dr Nancy Valente of Genentech, particularly how their antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) could have a potential role to play in revolutionizing treatment for patients with an otherwise poor prognosis.

The second half of the interview from ASCO 2014 focuses on more indolent disease, namely chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and the role of their novel therapeutics obinutuzumab (Gazyva) and ABT–199/GDC–0199.

We’ve heard a lot of positive data about the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, obinutuzumab, but the Bcl2 inhibitor undergoing co-development with AbbVie has had a bit of a chequered history to date. There is no doubt that ABT–199/GDC-0199 is highly potent, while lacking the severe myelosuppressive effects (thrombocytopenia) of its predecessor, navitoclax — which can be both a blessing and a curse — as the phase I single agent investigators discovered recently when severe tumour lysis lead to two sudden patient deaths.

It is important to address these issues expeditiously in a safe and rational way to ensure patient safety for those who enroll in both current and future trials. This is a critical issue we discussed at length with Dr Valente and how the company has been handling it.

At the AACR Molecular Targets meeting last November, many readers will remember that we learned about Genentech’s research plans for combinations with GDC–0199 in CLL and NHL in an interview with one of the scientists for that program, Dr Deepak Sampath.

Today, it’s time to look at where and how this exciting agent might impact CLL. Obviously, both CLL and NHL have commonalties and overlap, since they are both B cell disorders, so often what works in one disease often works well in the other too, as rituximab has clearly demonstrated.

To learn more about these insights and how ABT–199/GDC–0199 could impact the future CLL landscape, log-in to access the article.

This content is restricted to subscribers

error: Content is protected !!