Pharma Strategy Blog

Commentary on Pharma & Biotech Oncology / Hematology New Product Development

Posts by MaverickNY

The interview with Dr Charles Sawyers from Memorial-Sloan Kettering recently, talking about his role in Medivation’s MDV3100, turned out to be rather good timing.  On Friday, Medivation announced their 1Q earnings and clinical progress.

The big news is that aside from the ongoing phase III trials in castrate-resistant prostrate cancer (CRPC) before (PREVAIL) and after failure of docetaxel (AFFIRM), the company are seeking to explore the use of MDV3100 earlier in the disease.  This makes a lot of sense, both clinically and strategically.  A phase II trial is already open in the pre-chemotherapy setting, comparing MDV3100 to bicalutamide (TERRAIN).

Highlights

  1. The first phase II trial evaluates the combination of MDV3100 with bicalutamide in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer patients who have progressed while on LHRH analogue therapy or following surgical castration. TERRAIN is expected to enroll approximately 370 patients in North America and Europe. The primary endpoint of the trial is progression-free survival.  This trial is ongoing and patients are enrolling.
  2. A second phase II trial has now opened and is the first trial to examine the effects of MDV3100 without medical or surgical castration.  Patients will be given MD3100 monotherapy and “enrolled patients would not have had any previous hormonal therapies for the treatment of prostate cancer.” In other words, both hormone and chemotherapy naive, so very early in the prostate cancer treatment cycle where LHRH analogues are traditionally given.  On Friday, Medivation announced that the first patient has now begun treatment with MDV3100 in this setting.  Approx. 60 patients will be enrolled in Europe, with PSA as the primary endpoint and will take MDV3100 orally for 24 weeks (160 mg dose).
  3. The main phase III registration trial,  AFFIRM, is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 1,199 patients with advanced prostate cancer who were previously treated with docetaxel-based chemotherapy.   MDV3100 was compared to MDV3100 versus placebo.  The primary endpoint is overall survival.  The study completed enrollment last November, so Medivation plan an interim analysis  by the end of the year.

Interestingly, MDV3100 is now being positioned as “a triple-acting oral androgen receptor antagonist.” As Dr Sawyers noted in the interview, MDV3100 and abiraterone (Zytiga) have very different mechanisms of action in throttling either the androgren receptor signaling directly, or by inhibiting testosterone production that drives tumour growth through CYP17 inhibition.

What does all this data mean?

On Friday this week, I’ll be heading off to the annual meeting of the American Urology Association (AUA) and will be live tweeting, blogging and vlogging the event to see what urologists and oncologists think of these new developments.

Essentially, abiraterone’s recent FDA approval means that they will compete head to head with Sanofi’s cabazitaxel (Jevtana) in the post Taxotere setting, and Medivation look to be about 18 months behind with MDV3100, although the latter are aggressively expanding their trial program earlier in the disease, where I think it will have a more lasting impact.  The proof of concept for androgen receptor antagonists has already been proven with bicalutamide, so the question there is whether MDV3100 will be a more complete and effective inhibitor.  In the long run, a phase II trial combining abiraterone and MDV3100 to take advantage of their different mechanisms of action in early prostate cancer makes a lot of sense.

The last few weeks have provided some amusement with naysayers insisting that the PDUFA date for abiraterone wasn’t until October instead of realising it was getting Priority approval early (oops) and that the MDV3100 phase III trial couldn’t possibly be mature for an interim analysis by year end (another oops).  I’m glad I called both of those correctly 🙂

This leads me to ponder the next controversy – will urologists use these new hormonal agents in the pre-chemo setting once approved in the post chemo setting?  My hunch is yes based on the overwhelming feedback I heard this year at both ASCO GU and the European Association of Urology meeting in Vienna.

I say this with hindsight, knowing that many people insisted when imatinib (Gleevec) was approved for CML in refractory and advanced disease, that it wouldn’t be used front-line without FDA approval.  When we looked at the data at the end of 7 seven months from approval, guess what?  There was a fair bit of front-line use even without compendia listing, so it can happen when there is pent up demand and high desire to use a product.

My sense is that will happen here too, especially as bicalutamide and ketoconazole are already well established in the prostate cancer treatment paradigm as patients cycle through multiple therapies, but we will see.  Urologists, we all know, much prefer pills over the complexity of infusional therapies.

What’s next?

In the meantime, with another round of urology and cancer conferences coming up, we can expect to see the final OS survival data from the FDA submission for abiraterone presented at AUA by Fred Saad and an update on the much awaited circulating tumour cells (CTC’s) data from Prof De Bono at ASCO.  All in all, it’s going to be a very interesting two months!

 

 

5 Comments

It’s the end of a long week and today I thought it would be nice to highlight some people who write about cancer in the blogosphere since some people have emailed asking me what blogs do I read.

Here are a few cancer news sources I enjoy each week – some are writers, some survivors, some physicians, some analysts and not all have blogs, but some use other social media tools creatively to aggregate useful cancer information.

I heartily suggest you check them all out – their linked names take you to their Twitter stream and the other link to their blog or social media resource:

  1. Jody Schoger: Women with Cancer
  2. Alicia Stales: Awesome Cancer Survivor Blog
  3. Dr. Jack West: GRACE – expert mediated discussions on cancer esp. lung cancer
  4. Matthew Herper: Forbes Health
  5. Adam Feuerstein: The Street
  6. Dr. Len Lichtenfeld (ACS): Dr Len’s Blog
  7. Dr. Elaine Schattner: Medical Lessons blog
  8. Dr. Anas Younes: Curates an awesome Facebook page with regular cancer news
  9. Dr. Wafik El Diery: Has a superb cancer daily on Paper.li that I read each morning on my Flipboard
  10. Dr. Ray DuBois and Dr Naoto Ueno from MD Anderson and Dr Robert Miller from Johns Hopkins also share lots of interesting cancer news in their Twitter streams

There are many others, but I’ll stop there for this week and add a few more in the next update.

Disclosure: I am an unpaid member of the GRACE board.

Who do you enjoy reading and why?  If you have any other suggestions, please do include them in the comments below.

2 Comments

A new paper has just been published on the mechanisms associated with BRAF resistance by Corcoran et al., (2011).  One of the things I liked about this paper, other than it’s clarity and simplicity, is that you can find it in OncoTarget, an open access cancer journal (see references below), with a prestigious editorial board including Carlo Croce, Bert Vogelstein, Pier Palo Pandolfi, Wafik El Deiry, and Brian Druker to mention a few of the researchers.

The article essentially describes ERK and non-ERK dependent methods by which resistance occurs to BRAF inhibitors such as PLX4032 (vemurafenib).  These are summarised in the table below:

Mechanisms of resistance associated with BRAF

As a result of these findings on the underlying biology to date, the authors suggest that different treatment strategies can be considered:

Potential treatment strategies for overcoming BRAF resistance

As our knowledge of the science of metastatic melanoma improves, so do our opportunities for therapeutic intervention and improvement in outcomes.

Metastatic melanoma is likely to be a hot topic at the forthcoming ASCO annual meeting next month with updated data from the vemurafenib and ipilimumab clinical trials.  I will add a more detailed post once the new data has been presented.

In the meantime, this paper is well worth reading – check it out!

References:

ResearchBlogging.orgCorcoran RB, Settleman J, & Engelman JA (2011). Potential Therapeutic Strategies to Overcome Acquired Resistance to BRAF or MEK Inhibitors in BRAF Mutant Cancers. Oncotarget PMID: 21505228

 

 

 

Advanced prostate cancer has been quite a hot topic lately, with several new and relatively late stage compounds in the pipeline garnering attention from promising data. One of those agents, abiraterone acetate (Zytiga) only just received FDA approval on Friday and has been designated for accelerated review by the EMEA.

Following on from previous interviews in the Pharma Strategy Blog “Making a Difference” series with Dr Sue Desmond-Hellman (Chancellor of the University of California, San Francisco), Alain Moussy (CEO of AB Sciences) and Dr Ross Camidge (University of Colorado), it seemed most timely to extend the next round of the series to prostate cancer.

It was therefore a pleasure to talk with Dr Sawyers about his current research in the prostate cancer last week and discuss how he approaches some of the challenges involved with incorporating translational medicine into clinical research.  He is co-inventor of two drugs currently in clinical trials for prostate cancer, namely MDV3100 (Medivation) and ARN-509 (Aragon Pharmaceuticals).

Charles L. Sawyers, MD is Chair of the Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), and an Investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.  In 2009, he received the Lasker-Debakey Clinical Medical Research Award along with Drs Brian Druker and Nick Lydon, for their work on molecular targeting that led to the development of imatinib (Gleevec/Glivec), a drug that revolutionized the treatment of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) and turned it from deadly cancer into a manageable, chronic disease.

In full disclosure, I had the great privilege of working with Drs Sawyers and Druker while bringing imatinib to market at Novartis Oncology.

Pharma Strategy Blog: Charles, you and I have known each other for over ten years, when we first met you were at UCLA. What made you move to the East Coast and MSKCC?

Dr Sawyers: Harold Varmus who was the Director here at MSKCC, before he moved to the NCI, made me a job offer I couldn’t refuse.  Memorial had built up an impressive cadre of basic scientists, but there was this missing piece of physician scientists who could capitalize on translational opportunities. He was able to convince “the powers that be” to build a new research tower with 21 floors of lab space, that opened in 2006.  He offered me 3 floors and the opportunity to be Director of a brand new program called “Human Oncology.”

My mission was to recruit the best and brightest physician scientists either locally or around the country.  I also saw, after my imatinib work, that the most important contributions I could continue to make from my laboratory work were not going to be in CML, and I wanted a new challenge.  I had started to work on prostate cancer for many reasons, mostly scientific, and I needed to be at a place where clinical care and clinical trials infrastructure was much more integrated than it was at UCLA.  So, it was not that hard a decision to make the move.

Pharma Strategy Blog: One of the drugs that you discovered at your lab was MDV3100, what are you thoughts on when this may be used?

Dr Sawyers: I am very much involved in asking translational questions about MDV3100 and whether it works beyond castrate resistant disease.  Does it work up front in the neo-adjuvant setting, prior to surgery to shrink the tumor? Would it synergize with radiation? All kinds of interesting questions are coming up that we are working to answer.

Pharma Strategy Blog: Why does MDV3100 block the androgen receptor better than bicalutamide?

Dr Sawyers: The most interesting property that MDV3100 has, and what I think is the most likely explanation for its superior performance, is that when you treat cells with this compound the androgen receptor is completely incapable of binding DNA.  We have shown this recently using ChIP-Seq technology that is very powerful at annotating all the binding sites for any transcription factor across the genome.  With bicalutamide, the androgen receptor still binds with the drug very tightly on many thousands of binding sites, whereas with MDV3100, we cannot find it binding anywhere.  It has a profoundly different effect on the receptor.

Pharma Strategy Blog: How did the discovery of MDV3100 come about?

Dr Sawyers: We had been using mouse models to understand why the tumor became resistant to castration and bicalutamide.  What came out of that was the level of expression of the androgen receptor was consistently up, about 3 to 5 fold, in the castrate resistant sub lines of otherwise sensitive tumors.  Then we showed by either over-expressing the androgen receptor at about that level or knocking it down in castrate resistant lines, that it was both necessary and sufficient for this resistance phenotype. Quite dramatically, when you overexpress the receptor at that level and treat cells with bicalutamide, bicalutamide is now a weak agonist rather than antagonist.  So, you can trick the cell into responding differently just by manipulating the level of the androgen receptor.

All of that led me to approach a couple of companies that were interested in prostate cancer, with the idea that we should do a screen for compounds that are selected based on their ability to inhibit androgen receptor signaling in this context of higher expression.  Everybody that I talked to in the pharma industry pretty much thought that the androgen receptor was not really all that relevant a target in castrate resistant disease.  There seemed to be a mindset, that had built up over decades, that castrate resistant disease was really androgen independent disease, and therefore hormone therapy is no longer going to be effective.

That’s why we had to do it academically, and the approach that worked was based on a friendship that I had made with a chemist at UCLA named Mike Jung.  Rather than do high-throughput screens, he said there’s tons of chemistry already done on the androgen receptor, let’s explore that literature and try to find compounds that bind with extremely high affinity that others have described that aren’t antagonists and then do some SAR to figure out how to make them antagonists.  He found this compound that was described in an old patent that has extremely high binding affinity for the androgen receptor, never went anywhere because it is a potent agonist, but it was about two orders of magnitude tighter than bicalutamide.  So he made it, we tested it and of course it didn’t work.  Then we started making derivatives of that compound, tested 200 over a year and half, and stumbled upon MDV3100.

Pharma Strategy Blog: What is the current state of development for MDV3100?

Dr Sawyers: MDV3100 is now in a phase 3 registration trial that is fully accrued and is supposed to read out later this year, maybe early 2012.

Pharma Strategy Blog: What do you think of Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs) as a surrogate marker in prostate cancer instead of PSA response?

Dr Sawyers: Measuring CTCs using a standard Veridex platform is very nice, the answer that is not so clear is whether a CTC drop is predictive of a long-term clinical benefit?  There are a number of clinical trials in prostate cancer moving along with traditional survival endpoints in which the CTC data is being collected in parallel.  Hopefully, over another a year or two these kind of correlates can be drawn to see if it is a surrogate marker of response that could lead to faster registration.

Pharma Strategy Blog: Could CTCs replace PSA as a measure of response?

Dr Sawyers: I think in the case of MDV3100 we are targeting the androgen receptor, which regulates the expression of PSA, so it is almost a given that if your drug is engaging the target effectively you have to see a PSA drop.  If you don’t you probably haven’t hit the target correctly.  In essence, PSA is a pharmacodynamic endpoint.  If you are able to sustain PSA down for 12 weeks, with a drop of at least 50%, that is considered a pretty significant effect that is likely to be predictive of some other longer-term benefit.  Not many drugs have done that in the past, so I wonder if PSA actually might be more valuable than we give it credit for, if we just set the bar higher for what we call a PSA response.

Pharma Strategy Blog: Can you tell us more about the other prostate cancer compound that came out of your lab that is being developed by Aragon?

Dr Sawyers: “Son of Medivation” is what some people call it.  It came out later than MDV3011 and is more potent, and has what we think is a better safety profile. It is called ARN-509 and is in the clinic now. It is still in the dose-escalation stage of a phase I study at Sloan Kettering that Howard Scher and colleagues are running. There is a lot of excitement around it and we are pushing as fast as we can.  The challenge now is that the prostate cancer space is becoming crowded.

Pharma Strategy Blog: Does ARN-509 have a similar mechanism of action to MDV3100?

Dr Sawyers: Yes, very similar. We don’t yet know if ARN-509 will work in those patients who don’t respond to MDV3100 or have resistance to it. If it does work in that setting in the clinic, then it is a straightforward path to approval.  What I think is more likely is that ARN-509 will work in a similar same patient population as MDV3100 but might produce a higher percentage of responders or maybe longer duration of response. It will take at least a year if not a little more to know with confidence what those numbers are for ARN-509 compared to MDV3100, and by then Medivation will be approved.

Pharma Strategy Blog: How do androgen receptor antagonists such as MDV3100 and ARN-509 compare to abiraterone acetate (Zytiga) that was recently approved by the FDA?

Dr Sawyers: Abiraterone is targeting the androgen receptor pathway differently. Even though all these men remain on a testosterone lowering agent, testosterone is still produced primarily by the adrenal gland.  Abiraterone targets the enzyme Cyp17 that is critical in maintaining that residual level of testosterone. It is the same target of ketoconzole, a drug that has been used in this space, but has a fairly unpleasant side-effect profile. Abiraterone is looking great and showed a survival advantage in the same kind of trial as the Medivation one.  A very obvious question is whether it would make sense to target the androgen receptor pathway at two points i.e. abiraterone plus MDV3100.  Scientifically it makes beautiful sense and I think that combination trials will happen.

Pharma Strategy Blog: Would it make sense to potentially sequence them?

Dr Sawyers: I am always a believer of going up front with your best shot, so scientifically favor using a combination.

Pharma Strategy Blog: What are some of the challenges that remain in prostate cancer?

Dr Sawyers: We have a good understanding of the prostate genome, but it is very challenging to obtain tissue from patients in trials so that we can subset them into molecular subgroups.  The benefit of that is so crystal clear in other tumor types. It is a challenge that we are still struggling how to execute in prostate. One reason for this is that the trials are typically done with end-stage patients with bone disease, so tissue is not easily obtainable.  Even if patients give consent, technically, it is a challenge to isolate the tumor and analyse it.

Pharma Strategy Blog: It is a very exiting time to be in this field.  Hopefully, we will learn more at the AACR special meeting on Prostate Cancer that you are organizing in Orlando next year.  Thank you, Dr Sawyers, for sharing your thoughts and insights.

 

References:

ResearchBlogging.orgScher, H., & Sawyers, C. (2005). Biology of Progressive, Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Directed Therapies Targeting the Androgen-Receptor Signaling Axis Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23 (32), 8253-8261 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.4777

Watson, P., Chen, Y., Balbas, M., Wongvipat, J., Socci, N., Viale, A., Kim, K., & Sawyers, C. (2010). Inaugural Article: Constitutively active androgen receptor splice variants expressed in castration-resistant prostate cancer require full-length androgen receptor Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 (39), 16759-16765 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1012443107

 

10 Comments

I was delighted to see, amongst all the big news this morning on President Obama and Osama Bin Laden, that there was a little gem for Biotech – Seattle Genetics announced that the FDA have accepted their BLA filings for antibody drug conjugate (ADC), brentuximab vedotin, and awarded Priority status.  The company stated that the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) date is now set for August 30th, based on the Feb 28th filing date.

Two BLA filings were submitted, one for relapsed Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) and another for relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL).  These two hematologic cancers share a commonality, ie CD30, which is the defining marker of the disease and the target for the ADC therapy.

Based on the data we saw at the recent American Society of Hematology meeting in December, the recent NEJM publication, this is very good news indeed for patients.

New treatment options in rare or difficult to treat diseases are always most welcome. With the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and European Hematology Association (EHA) meetings both coming up in June, I’m really looking forward to an update of the data and to see how this exciting new concept (antibody drug conjugates) are progressing.

This is an area where I think we will see many more developments in the very near future, with Genentech’s T-DM1 also likely to have data at ASCO in breast cancer.

Abiraterone (Zytiga)This afternoon the FDA approved Ortho Biotech’s abiraterone acetate (Zytiga) in combination with prednisone for the treatment of castrate resistant prostate cancer in patients who have received prior chemotherapy with docetaxel.

Abiraterone was filed on December 20th, 2010 and received fast track designation, so the FDA approval comes 2 months ahead of the expected PDUFA date of June 20th.

It represents another exciting advance for this disease after what Dr Bernard Tombal described as a “Grand Cru” year for prostate cancer in 2010 following the successive launches of cabazitaxel (Jevtana), sipuleucel-T (Provenge) and denosumab (Xgeva), the first since docetaxel (Taxotere) was approved back in 2006 for chemotherapy naive metastatic disease.

I’ve written much about the clinical data from various oncology meetings over the last nine months such as ESMO last September and EAU in Vienna last month.  You can check out the data in the related posts below.

The big question on everyone’s mind, though, has been price.  Docetaxel is now generically available, Sanofi-Aventis’s cabazitaxel is around $6K per cycle (assumes ~$48K if 6 cycles are completed), Dendreon’s sipuleucel-T is $93K for three infusions.

Ruth Coxeter of CNBC Health Sciences was the first to tweet the confirmed abiraterone price of $5K per month, with a median of eight months of therapy.  This gives a treatment price of  ~$40K, which I think is very fair, although some patients will obviously take it for longer than that.

Ruth Coxeter, CNBC Pharma's Market

For those interested in the press release, you can read more here.

What does this approval mean?

abiraterone acetate (Zytiga)

For men with castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who have previously received chemotherapy, there is now a new treatment option for them to choose other than more chemotherapy with cabazitaxel in the form of easy to take pills (four per day).

The data from the 302 trial in the pre-chemo setting is expected later this year and is expected to be better than the 3.9 months overall survival benefit seen in the post chemotherapy setting reported at EAU last month.

In the analysis for the FDA approval, the overall survival benefit had increased further according to Ortho Biotech:

“In an updated analysis, results were consistent with those from the interim analysis with a 4.6 month difference between the two arms in median survival (15.8 months vs. 11.2 months [HR = 0.74]).”

At the European Association of Urology meeting earlier this year, Dr Johann De Bono (Royal Marsden) told a packed audience that the data for the circulating tumour cells (CTCs) would finally be available at the ASCO annual meeting in June.  It will be interesting to see whether this is a better surrogate measure of response than PSA. With the American Urology Association meeting coming up in a few weeks in DC, not doubt there will be more to discuss then.

All in all, it is good to see new treatment options emerge for the treatment of castrate resistant prostate cancer.

7 Comments

Today’s interesting journal article comes from Bartelds et al., (2011) in JAMA and looks at “Development of antidrug antibodies against adalimumab and association with disease activity and treatment failure during long-term follow-up.”

It caught my eye as a result of editorial commentary from Lin (2011) in Science and Translational Medicine.  You can check out both of the papers in the references below for more details.

Source: NIH Medline

Rheumatoid arthritis is a progressive, painful autoimmune disease that affects the joints.  As someone with friends and family who have suffered from the condition, I’m interested in how new developments in our understanding of the biology of the disease can help patients.

Essentially, this research was about the clinical relevance of antidrug antibodies and their impact on long-term outcomes, specifically in relation to adalimumab (Humira), which was the third anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitor to be approved in the United States after infliximab (Remicade) and etanercept (Enbrel).  TNF-α inhibitors have changed the treatment of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and have become very much part of the treatment paradigm.

One of the challenges of these biologics though, was summed up succinctly by Lin (2011):

“An eventual loss of therapeutic activity has been reported for these biologics, and it is believed that patients develop antidrug antibodies, resulting in diminished treatment response.”

The key question are how often does this occur and why does it happen?

In order to answer this, Bartelds et al., (2011) followed a group of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (n=272) and looked for a correlation in outcomes with the development of antibodies to adalimumab.

What did they find?

  1. Approximately 28% of the RA patients developed antibodies
  2. The presence of the antibodies was linked with treatment failure and increased RA score
  3. Only 4% with antiadalimumab antibodies achieved sustained remission compared with 67 of 196 (34%) antiadalimumab antibody–negative ones

It is not surprise to find that:

“Not only did patients with antiadalimumab antibodies discontinue treatment more often and earlier than patients without antiadalimumab antibodies, they also had a higher disease activity during treatment and only rarely came into remission.”

Interestingly, use of other anti-rheumatic therapies may explain some, but not all, of the results seen with adalimumab therapy:

“Another point of interest is why some patients develop an antidrug antibody response while others do not.

The use of concomitant immunosuppressants has shown to be associated with a lower frequency of antidrug antibodies. This is supported by the baseline differences for patients with and without anti-adalimumab antibodies in this study; patients who later developed antiadalimumab antibodies less often had concomitant methotrexate in a lower dose and more often had no concomitant DMARD at all.”

The authors also suggested that other factors that may impact the antibody development, such as individual genetic differences and changes in RA disease state.

Looking at the baseline characteristics, Barteld et al., (2011) also noticed that:

“Differences in baseline characteristics between antiadalimumab antibody–positive and negative patients in the present study show that patients with antiadalimumab antibodies had higher baseline disease activity and C-reactive protein levels, longer disease duration, and more often erosive disease.”

It is unclear, however, why and how these characteristics of more advanced disease are associated with the development of the antibodies.

What do these results mean?

Lin (2011) summarised this study nicely:

“The discovery of antidrug antibodies is important, especially for anti–TNF-α biologic therapy, because early detection of these antibodies will allow switching RA patients to another drug with a differing mechanism of action, such as methotrexate or TNF-α receptor decoys.”

In other words, we may be able to better optimise therapy for this debilitating disease and spare patients some of the nasty long term consequences:

“In the near future, rheumatologists might be able to use our body’s own biological response to biologics to predict disease responsiveness earlier and to avoid irreversible damages to tissues, including joints, lungs, and kidneys.”

References:

ResearchBlogging.orgLin, R. (2011). The Biological Response to Biologics Science Translational Medicine, 3 (80), 80-80 DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3002541

Bartelds, G., Krieckaert, C., Nurmohamed, M., van Schouwenburg, P., Lems, W., Twisk, J., Dijkmans, B., Aarden, L., & Wolbink, G. (2011). Development of Antidrug Antibodies Against Adalimumab and Association With Disease Activity and Treatment Failure During Long-term Follow-up JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 305 (14), 1460-1468 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.406

NHL Source: Sanford Health / NCI

A while back, I was discussing Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma (NHL) with someone and we pondered the question, “Why do some patients develop resistance to therapy with rituximab and others do not?”

The answer wasn’t immediately obvious at that time, but this morning I was delighted to spot a published article while browsing Flipboard, a nifty iPad app that brings turgid RSS feeds from journals to life and makes them interesting again.

It turns out that a Japanese group figured out the problem of what, in that Terui et al., (2009) discovered the root cause lay in CD20 mutations, but they they didn’t know the how or what.  This month, in one of the Nature publications, Blood Cancer Journal (Open Access, see references below), the same group have now expanded on their earlier findings.  Mishima et al., (2011) discuss how mutations in CD20 constitute part of the mechanisms that cause resistance rituximab therapy, specifically:

“In this study, we revealed that the binding site of L26 monoclonal antibody is located in the C-terminal cytoplasmic region of CD20 molecule, which was often lost in mutated CD20 molecules.

This indicates that it is difficult to distinguish the mutation of CD20 from under expression of the CD20 protein.”

The basis behind this research is that if “expression of CD20 seemed to have been completely lost for these lymphomas” how can we essentially unhide them?  In non-science speak, it’s as though they are protected by a Klingon-like shield to rituximab.

By finding the binding site on the C20 molecule, the researchers were able to develop new antibodies to the N-terminal region to identify cells that “have CD20 molecules with abnormalities in the C-terminal cytoplasmic region.”

The upshot of all this is that while the resistance is thought to be irreversible, the findings may help us identify patients who need a change in treatment earlier:

“This information may provide important criterion to judge whether it should switch to the treatment such as using second-generation CD20 antibody that is effective against fewer CD20-expressing cells.”

The group suggested that it may also be possible to consider using “using antibody for the different target molecule such as CD22.”

Time will tell what happens here, but these developments are important in our understanding of rituximab resistance in lymphoma.

Notes for PSB Readers:

For those of you with an iPad, you can download Flipboard from iTunes.  Once you have put all RSS feeds from your favourite journals, publications and news sources in to a Feedreader such as Google Reader, you can then import the aggregated feed into Flipboard and browse the articles more easily.

References:

ResearchBlogging.orgMishima, Y., Terui, Y., Takeuchi, K., Matsumoto-Mishima, Y., Matsusaka, S., Utsubo-Kuniyoshi, R., & Hatake, K. (2011). The identification of irreversible rituximab-resistant lymphoma caused by CD20 gene mutations Blood Cancer Journal, 1 (4) DOI: 10.1038/bcj.2011.11

 

 

2 Comments

One of the highlights of the recent American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting was a plenary session updating the results of the ongoing BATTLE trial at MD Anderson in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The more scientific readers will want to check out the academic paper and commentaries published in Cancer Discovery, (see below) or listen to the complimentary AACR webcast of the plenary talk including Dr Hong’s Reverse Migration Strategy, but I realised that not everyone is familiar with, or understands the background, to this ground breaking study.

It therefore seems a great opportunity to use Storify to collate resources and snippets from social media sources to create a story around the events that have happened over the last year…

 

References:

ResearchBlogging.orgKim, E., Herbst, R., Wistuba, I., Lee, J., Blumenschein, G., Tsao, A., Stewart, D., Hicks, M., Erasmus, J., Gupta, S., Alden, C., Liu, S., Tang, X., Khuri, F., Tran, H., Johnson, B., Heymach, J., Mao, L., Fossella, F., Kies, M., Papadimitrakopoulou, V., Davis, S., Lippman, S., & Hong, W. (2011). The BATTLE Trial: Personalizing Therapy for Lung Cancer Cancer Discovery DOI: 10.1158/2159-8274.CD-10-0010

Sequist, L., Muzikansky, A., & Engelman, J. (2011). A New BATTLE in the Evolving War on Cancer Cancer Discovery DOI: 10.1158/2159-8274.CD-11-0044

Rubin, E., Anderson, K., & Gause, C. (2011). The BATTLE Trial: A Bold Step toward Improving the Efficiency of Biomarker-Based Drug Development Cancer Discovery DOI: 10.1158/2159-8274.CD-11-0036

1 Comment

The other day, we discussed resistance in melanoma and how COT can reactivate BRAF signalling through MAPK reactivation.  Previously, we reviewed how MEK inhibitors may potentially be useful when combined with BRAF inhibitors in overcoming resistance due to cross-talk.  There are also other methods of preserving this oncogenic activity, which are highly relevant to current clinical development.

At the recent American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) meeting, Levi Garraway (Dana Farber) presented at the plenary session on “Navigating the interface of tumor biology and therapeutic development through integrative genomics.” He first discussed the history and context of targeted therapy, then focused on the progress in metastatic melanoma, highlighting some dramatic responses to the BRAF inhibitor PLX4032 (vemurafenib) using before and after pictures of his patients.

The talk was very well done indeed and I was so engrossed in following the story, I forgot to make notes – that’s how good it was!  The good news is that AACR captured the excellent slides and audio in a free webcast.  If you have 20 minutes, please do take some time to check this one out – it was one of my highlights of the meeting.

Dr Garraway also drew the audience’s attention to a poster from Wagle et al., (2011) based on new research from his lab looking at a new mechanism of resistance in melanoma, namely mutations in MEK.  Unfortunately, I missed the poster that morning, but the group kindly referred me to their publication in Journal of Clinical Oncology last month (see references below), which offers more detail for discussion here.

Essentially, they used a genomics approach to see if they could advance our understanding of mechanisms of de novo and acquired resistance to RAF inhibition, which are poorly understood.  To put things in context, the same patient that Dr Garraway refers to in the webcast above was also the subject of the genomics profiling in the paper:

“We performed massively parallel sequencing of 138 cancer genes in a tumor specimen from a melanoma patient who developed resistance to PLX4032 after a dramatic initial response.”

Initially, the patient responded to therapy:

“A profound clinical response ensued, including nearcomplete regression of all subcutaneous tumor nodules at 15 weeks on drug.”

The pictures of the patients torso in the webcast were dramatic.  There were several involuntary sharp intakes of breaths from the audience around me in the session.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t all good news:

“After 16 weeks on PLX4032, the patient experienced widespread disease relapse, which by 23 weeks involved most previous sites of visceral and subcutaneous disease.”

The pictures in the webcast also showed the physical impact of this sad news.  The key question then, is why did the patient relapse?

The genomic profiling undertaken by the group addressed this question and uncovered something unexpected:

“The resulting profile identified a novel mutation in the downstream kinase MEK1 that was absent in the corresponding pre-treatment tumor.

This MEK1 mutation was shown to increase kinase activity and confer robust resistance to both RAF and MEK inhibition in vitro.”

What are the implications of this research?

This was a very nice piece of work that sought to uncover the reason for a responding patient becoming resistant to treatment with PLX4032.  The researchers found a downstream MEK1 mutation was responsible for inducing resistance.

The implications of the finding, however, are slightly scary.

Why?  Because as the authors concluded in their paper, the MEK1 mutation found in this patients is cross-resistant to allosteric MEK inhibitors (eg AZD6244), even though the patient has never been exposed to a MEK inhibitor.  It also implies a mechanism by which melanoma may become resistant to combination RAF and MEK inhibitors (eg PLX4032 + AZD6244) with just a single mutation.

In other words, we still have a ways to go figuring out all the potential combinations and methods of resistance that could take place in this disease.  The good news is that research into mechanisms of resistance is running parallel with clinical development in metastatic melanoma and will hopefully continue to do so.

References:

ResearchBlogging.orgWagle, N., Emery, C., Berger, M., Davis, M., Sawyer, A., Pochanard, P., Kehoe, S., Johannessen, C., MacConaill, L., Hahn, W., Meyerson, M., & Garraway, L. (2011). Dissecting Therapeutic Resistance to RAF Inhibition in Melanoma by Tumor Genomic Profiling Journal of Clinical Oncology DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.2312

error: Content is protected !!