National Harbor, MD
Despite remarkable results with cancer immunotherapy to date, we do need to keep out feet on the ground and remember that response rates are relatively low to modest (10–30%) and the majority of patients do not respond or see a benefit with these approaches.
As we start moving beyond checkpoint monotherapy, the realisation has fast hit many researchers and companies that we really don’t know as much about the tumour microenvironment (TME) as we would like.
No doubt we will learn a lot more about it from the combinatory approaches, but be aware that this also means higher risk associated with such developments – we will likely see a lot of failures – and hopefully, some successes too.
This is where the little biotech companies have an opportunity to shine… they may have some intriguing IO compounds in development but not an anti-PD1/L1 backbone, meaning they can collaborate with a big pharma company to explore novel combinations in small phase 1/2 trials to determine what works or not. This is much lower risk (and R&D costs) for both parties and we get to see more quickly where things shake out.
At the annual Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) meeting last week, there was a whole day devoted to New Immunotherapy Drug Development.
Some of these agents look worthy of watching out for and following their progress. A variety of data in different targets and MOA were presented from big and small companies alike. We selected a few of the promising ones for further review and discussion.
To learn more about our insights, Subscribers can log in..
It’s been very clear for over four years now that combinations were going to be necessary if we want to a larger number of deeper and more durable responses than can attained with monotherapy. Gradually, we are starting to see early and very preliminary readouts with some of the trials in progress.
We are also learning very quickly that it’s going to be a case of #notalltumours and #notallsubsets.
Another very busy poster session at #ASCO16!
By this, I mean we obviously can’t take a one-combination-fits-all approach for all tumour types.
We need to be able to classify patients into more homogenous subsets and then devise different combinations or even sequences that address the underlying biology of both the cancer itself and also the tumour microenvironment. That’s going to take a while to sort out, perhaps even years.
Let’s not forget though that in the meantime, we can gather information quite a few clues both preclinically, as well as from initial clinical studies. Sometimes, after all, we even learn more from negative trials than positive ones. This is an area that is ripe for combinations with traditional targeted therapies, the question is which ones are promising and why?
We took a look at the landscape in SCCH&N and how this might evolve over time in the medium term, with future opportunities, that can be explored in rational combination approaches.
To learn more, subscribers can log-in or you can sign-up to join the ever-growing BSB club.