File under: intriguing binary events coming up of interest this quarter…
There are a couple of phase 3 readouts likely due soon on two quite different oncology drugs in late stage development, namely Mirv and Marge, (aka mirvetuximab soravtansine and margetuximab).
For British readers, they remind me of Howard and Hilda Hughes (right) in the highly popular 1980’s comedy sitcom, lead by Richard Briers, Ever Decreasing Circles.
Aside from the fact that it’s an amusing historical analogy with more than a bit of whimsy, there are some strange parallels and hidden messages to be found here. For the record, the two characters had a penchance for wearing matching yet rather garish and ghastly jumpers.
You could either make a similar negative case for the rush from limited phase 2 data to pivotal registration study as for terribly ugly sweaters, with the reduced return on efficacy being alluded to from the show’s title.
The ripple effect – which way will it go?
Or on the other hand… the matchy matchy look could also play out the other way, in terms of positive forthcoming readouts validating phase 2 findings, so which case looks stronger overall for each agent?
To find out, we take a look at the history, what we know, and share our thoughts on how things might pan out – either way, major positive or negative outcomes can have a major ripple effect.
To learn more from our latest biotech and oncology insights, subscribers can log-in or you can click to gain access to BSB Premium Content.
If there’s one topic that has generated a LOT of questions from BSB readers this month it is Puma Biotech’s neratinib in adjuvant breast cancer.
The FDA briefing documents came out yesterday and that started another flurry of ‘what do you think of them?’ style questions so here goes. I will say that while many are eulogizing ‘benign’ or ‘friendly’ on close reading and studying them, I’d say caveat emptor.
Things are not always what they seem.
To learn more, subscribers can login to read our latest insights and analysis
There was a time when it seemed that all the good news emerging in cancer research was on breast cancer, that is clearly no longer true as other tumour types have seen some leaps and bounds with different modalities, including areas previously thought to be a graveyard for big Pharma, such as metastatic melanoma, for example.
New Dawn at the Houses of Parliament
That said, after the excellent developments in hormone-sensitive disease and the identification of the HER2 oncogene, we now have CDK4/6 as a validated target in metastatic breast cancer.
Pfizer’s palbociclib (Ibrance) lead the way, with two approvals in previously untreated and relapsed ER+ HER2- advanced breast cancer. Two other companies in this field are Novartis with ribociclib and Lilly with abemaciclib. Data is being presented on all three therapies at ESMO this year.
In addition, there are some other abstracts of note that are well worth discussing.
To learn more about our insights, subscribers can sign in…
EBCC-10 Cancer Conference
Amsterdam: The 2016 European Breast Cancer Conference organised by the European CanCer Organization (ECCO) is underway (Twitter: #EBCC10 – it’s the 10th official one they have organised).
We thought it would be a good opportunity to take a break from our coverage of #BMTTandem16 to look at some of the posters that are of interest at the meeting.
As regular readers know, we spend a lot of time reading posters – it’s where we pick up new trends and early data. Most go unnoticed or unpublicised in press releases.
For this post, I’ve highlighted four posters that I’m quite interested in and that merit further discussion.
They range from basic and translational research to clinical new product development. By chance, they are evenly split between immunotherapy (PD-L1 and TILs) and acquired drug resistance to different targeted therapies.
Subscribers can login to read more or you can purchase access.
Updated data are often presented at conferences and therefore the results can differ from the submitted abstracts, which are sometimes submitted as placeholders based on immature data cutoffs. That was certainly the case in several examples at the ASCO GI conference in San Francisco last weekend.
After Monday’s look at new developments in the lower GI tract, we now turn our attention today to the upper GI tract with a focus on oesophageal, gastric (stomach), and gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancers.
Over the last five years we have seen new approvals for targeted therapies such as HER2+ gastric cancer and relapsed refarctory gastric cancers with a VEGF inhibitor. Will that trend continue over the next five years or will we see new approaches such as immunotherapy enter the market and dominate?
To learn more, subscribers can log-in.
The metastatic colorectal cancer landscape is slowly changing after decades of multiple chemotherapies followed by the addition of biologics to the base chemo regimen including VEGF (bevacizumab, z-aflibercept, regorafenib) and EGFR inhibitors (cetuximab and panitimumab).
Each of these approvals have led to an incremental improvement in outcomes in different lines of therapy (LOT), but sadly with only one clinically meaningful biomarker identified (KRAS exon 2 mutant vs. wild type for EGFR inhibitors). We still don’t have a more comprehensive way to better select the likely responders from non-responders.
Progress, you might think, has been painfully slow, although the current data suggests that we have now reached a new plateau of around 30 months in overall survival. That’s going to be hard for new entrants to beat without some form of different paradigm shift.
There is only so much that can be achieved with the current strategies. You only have to look at second line VEGF inhibitors to see this incremental effect on survival:
- Bevacizumab – 1.4 months
- z-Aflibercept – 1.5 months
- Ramucirumab – 1.6 months
Overall, we can say that none of them add 2 extra months of life in that setting (never mind the cumulative cost or ‘financial toxicity’ as many attendees referred to it) and you might even consider the benefit to be fairly marginal. No biomarker has yet been identified for any of these therapies, making it impossible to select upfront those who are most likely to respond.
At the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (ASCO GI) last week, we saw a repeat of the usual studies looking at new VEGF inhibitors (e.g. ramucirumab in the 2L RAISE study) and an update on the TRIBE trial (FOLFOXIRI vs FOLFIRI when either are combined with bevacizumab/Avastin).
Are there other targets that might have a meaningful impact though? If we truly want to see a more precision medicine approach evolve then we have to first find the oncogenic drivers.
With this in mind, one study in particular caught my eye and attention, but you won’t find it written up in the medical lay press and it’s not that obvious unless you know what you’re looking for.
To learn more about these sentiments and insights, subscribers can log-in or you can purchase access to BSB Premium Content below…
We hope that everyone had a relaxing holiday break and now it’s time to get back to work. Tomorrow I will review some more of my thoughts in the immuno-oncology space, since that area had a tremendous amount of progress in San Diego with lots of new ideas to process and summarise.
In the meantime, a few people have written in and asked about what was happening with overcoming resistance in various tumour types, was there anything new to say in that space that was in addition to the the detailed previews we covered before the conference?
Actually, there was a quite a few posters and presentations that caught my eye, so I thought this would be a good idea to review them here:
Lung Cancer: HER2, VEGF, T790M, EGFR, erlotinib, gefitinib, trastuzumab, bevacizumab, CO-1686, AZD9291
Prostate Cancer: mTOR, PI3K, Androgen Receptor, enzalutamide, abiraterone, CC214–2, ARN–509, BET Bromodomian inhibition, ODM–201, GDC–0980, GDC-0068, PF–04691502, BKM120, BEZ235
Subscribers can log-in to read our latest insights or you can purchase access to BSB Premium Content.