Toronto Skyline for WCLC
There’s a lot going on in lung cancer of late, especially with the World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) taking place in Toronto this week.
Following on from our recent preview, it’s time to take a look at the actual data presented and make an assessment on progress with both targeted and immunotherapies.
Here we offer some thoughts and insights on 16 key trials that were presented…
To learn more from our latest assessment and get a heads up on our oncology insights, subscribers can log-in or you can click to gain access to BSB Premium Content.
At ESMO IO last Fall, Genentech/Roche were first past the post in 1L non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with data from their phase 3 study in non-squamous patients evaluating the combination of chemotherapy and bevacizumab plus atezolizumab versus chemotherapy alone.
The 1L NSCLC race continues apace…
Since then, there has been much anticipatory excitement for BMS and Merck’s phase 3 trials, CheckMate-227 and KEYNOTE189, respectively. These data will be now presented at the annual meeting of AACR in Chicago next month.
In the meantime, there are also the overall survival data expected soon from AstraZeneca’s MYSTIC trial – will it be positive despite a PFS miss?
Later this year, the company have another study (NEPTUNE) result expected that explores the combination of durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus platinum-based standard chemotherapy in first line treatment of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) wild-type advanced or metastatic NSCLC. This has been a controversial area for IO studies to date and the story here may well be more subtle and complex than many realise.
Next year we can also expect to see more readouts from Pfizer/EMD Serono’s JAVELIN LUNG 100 (avelumab) in both squamous and non-squamous histologies, while AstraZeneca’s POSEIDON study is in squamous patients only.
Just this week, Genentech again announced their phase 3 squamous NSCLC trial readout with positive PFS in favour of the combination of chemotherapy plus atezolizumab versus chemotherapy alone. The BMS CheckMate-227 study included both sets of histologies and no details were provided in the announcement, so hopefully this data will be available at AACR.
In Pharmaland we hear much noise around First-in-Class and Best-in-Class claims but, ultimately, it will all come down to data. In oncology, it always does.
In our latest review post, we take a look at both squamous and non-squamous settings and what we learn from the latest available information. Surprisingly, it’s quite a lot and there are important nuances to consider as well…
To learn more from thought leaders and get a heads up on our latest oncology insights, subscribers can log-in or you can click to gain access to BSB Premium Content.
With so much data to cover recently, we haven’t have time for a perennial favourite, the monthly mailbag to answer BSB reader Q&A on hot oncology topics.
October has brought out quite a lot of controversy to consider, most of it happening in the last week!
Here, we consider questions on Immune Design’s phase 3 trial with their NY-ESO-1 vaccine, CMB305, which attracted both a lot of market attention and also questions from readers.
We also review a bunch of questions relating to 1L NSCLC and the upcoming readouts. This niche is probably potentially one of the most competitive spaces in oncology R&D at present and readers seem almost insatiable for information on this topic.
It is quite a turnaround considering the last decade of numerous failed trials or even non-inferiority studies that were being conducted.
Like many readers, I can well remember sitting in freezing cold, half empty halls wondering if the latest chemo or targeted therapy doublet was going to offer a mere 2-3 months improvement in PFS and no OS benefit or not. It was that binary and also depressing.
With the possibilities offered by immune checkpoint blockade, in a short space of time 1L NSCLC has gone from graveyard to uber intense with several companies vying to demonstrate improvements in overall survival by 6 months or more.
There’s a lot more to come here and not all of the lung trials will be positive – that’s expecting too much against the game of chance. Here, we look at numerous factors that could make a difference, both positive and negative.
To learn more insights on this intriguing topic, subscribers can log-in or you can click to gain access to BSB Premium Content.