Pharma Strategy Blog

Commentary on Pharma & Biotech Oncology / Hematology New Product Development

Palm trees in downtown San Diego

Greetings from the annual American Society of Hematology (ASH) meeting in San Diego!

The palm trees and warm sunshine here were a most pleasant welcome after the bitter chill in Texas.

Having just arrived here from the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, I thought it would be a nice idea to do a quick preview of some of the new and interesting data that I’m interested in at this conference and share some of the hot topics that I’ll will be following over the weekend:

  • Ponatinib in refractory CML
  • In myelofibrosis, rixuluximib and CYT-387
  • Velcade and pomalidomide in multiple myeloma
  • Obinutuzumab, PCI-32765 and alisertib in lymphomas

Let’s take a quick look at these topics in turn.

CML

The updated phase II PACE trial is expected to be presented at this meeting. Ponatinib is a potent second generation BCR-ABL inhibitor that also targets FLT3 and FGFR. The initial indication is expected to be in relapsed, refractory CML after prior treatment with a minimum of two TKIs, although many are likely to have received imatinib, dasatinib and nilotinib, so a heavily pre-treated population. Patients with advanced CML or Ph+ ALL received ponatinib in a single arm open-label trial. The other thing to note is that this agent is the only TKI so far shown to target the rare T315I mutation and these patients were included in the study.

If the results continue to hold up for durability with no additional safety signals since FLT3 and FGFR may induce off-target side effects, then I’m expecting Ariad to file ponatinib for accelerated review with the FDA, based on phase II data in relapsed and refractory CML, sometime in 2012. This is an exciting new agent and it will good for patients with CML to have an additional option in this setting.

MYELOFIBROSIS

This year has seen a lot of interest in myelofibrosis with Incyte’s ruxolitinib (Jakafi) receiving FDA approval recently. The drug was approved largely on the basis of its ability to reduce spleen size, which is one of the complications of the disease. The updated phase III COMFORT-1 data is being presented on Monday and my assumption is that we will see an improvement in overall survival with ruxolitinib.

There has been a lot of interest in YM Bioscience’s agent, CYT-387, which caused a stir at ASCO after initial data suggested that it may be able to reverse anemia associated with the condition.

Now, I’m not sure of the exact mechanism behind this phenomenon, since both compounds target JAK1 and JAK2, so the anemia response may be an artifact or a real effect. If the anemia effect is real, then I’m expecting to see the hemoglobin levels to go up rather than down, as we saw with Jakafi. The poster on Monday may well tell us more about what’s happening here and also I’m hoping to speak to some myelofibrosis thought leaders to see what their perspective is.

MYELOMA

Multiple myeloma has seen real improvements in overall survival over the last 10 years with the introduction of bortezomib (Velcade) in the upfront setting and lenalidomide (Revlimid) in the refractory and maintenance settings. Currently, a new kid on the block, Onyx’s carfilzomib, is currently being reviewed by the FDA in the refractory population, although we likely won’t know the decision until 1Q next year. If approved, it may offer physicians a new option to extend outcomes even further in advanced myeloma.

There is another agent not far behind, pomalidomide, which is a third generation immunomodulatory agent similar to lenalidomide. Celgene are presenting key data at this meeting and I’m looking forward to seeing how the data is progressing. I’m expecting this compound to show good efficacy in advanced myeloma, as it is thought to be more potent than Revlimid.

The phase III multiple myeloma study that is of great interest is the VISTA trial, which will be presented on Monday and compares the combination of Velcade, melphalan and prednisone (VMP) with melphalan and prednisone alone (MP). The five year data in treatment naive multiple myeloma will inform us which combination has superior overall survival and side effect profile and what can be expected in terms of secondary primary malignancies (SPM) with the triple versus double combination over longer term follow-up.

LYMPHOMAS AND CLL

For me, the big lymphoma story at this ASH is probably going to be GA101, now named obinutuzumab. It’s a CD20 antibody similar to, but also different from, rituximab, making it ideal for testing in NHL since the proof of concept is already established for the CD20 target.

My critical questions related to this agent’s development are:

  1. Will it overcome rituximab resistance and work in refractory patients?
  2. Will it work more effectively than rituximab earlier and prolong outcomes further?
  3. Will it have fewer side effects than rituximab?

If any of the above are true, how does obinutuzumab work differently than rituximab and does that explain any of the differences?

Not all of these questions will be answered here at this ASH meeting, but I’ll discuss these issues in more detail once the data is available.

Finally, there are a couple of other compounds in early development for lymphomas that I’m really interested in.

The first is PCI-32765 (Pharmacyclics), a bruton kinase inhibitor (BTK), while the second is Millennium and Seattle Genetics’s aurora kinase A inhibitor, alisertib. These are relatively new mechanisms of action in lymphomas and intriguing scientifically.

I’ll write more about these particular agents in depth as the data becomes available, but they’re worth watching out for over the weekend as the wires hit the news sites.

Meanwhile, you can follow the conversations at the American Society of Hematology meeting on Twitter using the official hashtag of #ASH11.

Do check back for daily updates here in the blog for the hot (and sometimes not so hot) data. I’ll also be posting a video review of the important news next week.

3 Comments

Yesterday evening brought a flurry of news around the New England Journal of Medicine articles for the BOLERO2 and CLEOPATRA trials, but out of respect to the presenters, I hate talking about the actual data before its being presented. Call me old fashioned if you like, but it seems odd moving up deadlines for the publication ahead of the presentations instead of releasing them on the day and is a little disrespectful of the journal towards the presenter and attendees.

I will therefore discuss the data for BOLERO2 and CLEOPATRA studies in detail after they have been presented today and tomorrow, respectively. For those of you interested in the study designs and their potential implications, you can check out my brief video highlights in the meantime.

Yesterday at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) brought some really intriguing biology data that are well worth discussing:

  • Notch inhibition to reduce AI resistance
  • HER2 mutants
  • Targeting HER3 with an antibody and impact of ErbB3 expression on luminal cells

Notch inhibition

Perhaps one of the most intriguing presentations (to me) yesterday at SABCS looked at combining a Notch inhibitor plus an AI to reduce breast cancer resistance in preclinical models.

This is an interesting idea that is worth exploring because resistance to oral therapies, including AIs, is a common problem. Understanding the potential mechanisms of resistance should therefore lead to new trial designs and logical combinations.

In this research, the presentation focused on early data on combining MK-0752 (notch) plus hormone therapy. Interestingly, it also finally mentioned the magic word, biomarkers! I think this is a combination we will here much more about going forward.

In his award lecture, Dr Carlos Arteaga correctly observed that the medical community has not done a good job with ER+ drug-resistant disease. This situation is slowly changing as the BOLERO2 data has shown and other mechanisms of resistance will no doubt follow now that more attention is being focused on it.

HER2 mutants

Dr Boulbes from MD Anderson presented the results of some elegant research identifying three mutants to HER2, namely:

  • D808N
  • V794M
  • L726F

All three phenotypes displayed aggressive tendencies. Both the V and L phenotypes showed a dramatic lack of phosphorylation and the latter may be related to the development of HER2 resistance. Data was shown in relation to lapatinib, a HER2 small molecule TKI, which is known to develop resistance to treatment over time.

This is the first time I think HER mutant phenotypes have been reported to my knowledge and if validated clinically, they will represent a breakthrough in our understanding of how HER2 resistance develops, but more importantly, suggest directions for potential therapeutic strategies to overcome it.

Targeting HER3 with an antibody and impact of ErbB3 expression on luminal cells

HER3 has not received a lot of attention relative to its more popular HER2 cousin, largely because it is tricky to target. However, at this meeting, Dr Garner et al., showed that an anti-HER3 antibody (Novartis) nicely shrank breast cancer tumours in immunocompromised mice.

The presenter observed that the alpha-HER3 mAB recognizes and stabilizes HER3 in the inactive conformation. I was left wondering whether HER2 and 3 pairing / dimerization was shut off or something else was going on?

Dr Cook subsequently showed some clear data whereby HER3 is required for HER2 cancer growth in genetic engineering animal model. This was a very nice piece of research.

What was interesting was that Dr Garner also showed that alpha-HER3 can combine w/ trastuzumab plus a PI3K inhibitor to improve efficacy in trastuzumab-resistant settings. This caught my attention because earlier this year at the AACR PI3K special meeting, Neal Rosen (MSKCC) noted that targeting PI3K activated HER3 as one mechanism of resistance in the breast cancer model they were using and thus speculated that combined inhibition of HER3 and PI3K would lead to reduced resistance. Looks like his hypothesis was correct 🙂

And that was just the first full day of presentations with much more to come!

In the meantime, you can follow the conversations remotely using our tracking tool, accessible here on the blog.

Check back tomorrow for more updates on cancer biology and clinical trials from SABCS.

1 Comment

What’s hot at the 2011 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium?

There is a lot of exciting data coming out at SABCS 2011 over the next three days, including the BOLERO2, CLEOPATRA and NEOSPHERE clinical trial data.

I previously wrote about the exciting BOLERO2 results that were presented at the European Multidisciplinary Cancer Conference (ECCO/ESMO 2011) in Stockholm in September. More data is expected at SABCS to coincide with a publication in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

The following video outlines some of the data that I think is hot at SABCS and why it’s worth watching out for. I will be writing more about it as it’s presented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7bnqslE6mc

2 Comments

Greetings from the frigid cold of Texas Hill Country! It’s 38F and a little nippy here at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), brrrr! Later this morning, I will be recording my premeeting video but the outdoor Riverwalk filming has been sadly cancelled due to the inclement weather. However, I will post a synopsis of my hot topics and main highlights that I plan to be covering at this event.

In the meantime, for those of you following remotely, you can follow the conversations and join in the discussion around progress in breast cancer on Twitter using the hashtag #SABCS. To make it easy to read all the tweets, you can use the widget below to see what’s going on – tweets will start in earnest this afternoon with the main sessions.

One of the great things about following the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) on Twitter, is that they regularly share technical open access articles from their journals for scientists to read.  Of course, many will have access through their institution subscription, but there are also probably quite a few interested community oncologists and scientists like me that don’t. The idea of sharing some of their really important scientific research with the broader public is a great one – a little bit of goodwill goes a long way and furthers their cause too.

Yesterday, AACR kindly tweeted and shared a fascinating paper (see references below for open access to all the articles) on how EGFR signaling in glioblastoma (an aggressive form of brain cancer) activates the mTOR pathway, specifically mTORC2, and is partially suppressed by PTEN:

EGFRmTOR
Source: Tanaka et al., (2011)

We know that mTOR and it’s upstream relative, PI3K, are frequently dysregulated in cancer and may also lead to resistance to treatment with some therapies, such as aromatase inhibitors in breast and other cancers. This is also true in glioblastoma, where chemotherapies such as temozolamide are often used, as the authors noted:

“mTORC2 signaling promotes GBM growth and survival and activates NF-κB. Importantly, this mTORC2–NF-κB pathway renders GBM cells and tumors resistant to chemotherapy in a manner independent of Akt.”

One of the challenges though, is elucidating the mechanism behind mTOR activation:

“The mechanisms of mTORC2 activation are not well understood. Growth factor signaling through PI3K, potentially through enhanced association with ribosomes, and up-regulation of mTORC2 regulatory subunits have been proposed as mechanisms of mTORC2 activation.”

Recently, Clohessy et al., (2008) observed that mTORC1 inhibition was not sufficient to block GBM growth, so this new research took a different approach and focused on asking the question of whether oncogenic EGFR affects mTORC2. To test this hypothesis, they used GBM derived cell lines that represent the most common genetic events driving GBM i.e. PTEN loss with EGFR overexpression or activating mutation (EGFRvIII) present or absent. It should be noted that a good marker of mTORC2 activity is the phosphorylation of AKT S473, although SGK1 is also turning out to be a good biomarker of response.

What did they find?

The paper (open access) is well worth reading, but to summarise, here are some of the key findings from this well thought out research:

  • mTORC2 signaling promotes GBM growth and survival
  • EGFRvIII activates NF-kB through mTORC2
  • mTORC1 inhibition alone could not suppress NF-κB activation in GBM cells
  • mTORC2 mediates EGFRviii-dependent cisplatin resistance through NF-kB, independently of Akt
  • mTORC2 inhibition reverses cisplatin resistance in xenograft tumours
  • mTORC2 signaling is hyperactivated and associated with NF-kB and phospho-EGFR in the majority of clinical GBM samples

What stood out for me in their series of experiments and comprehensive analysis was that:

“Elevated phosphorylation of EGFR (Y1068) and Akt (S473) was detected in 44% and 77% of GBMs, respectively. These numbers are consistent with the independent findings of EGFR mutation and/or amplification in 45% and PI3K pathway–activating mutations in 87% of GBMs, reported in the Cancer Genome Atlas studies.”

What do these results all mean?

Looking at question regarding the mechanism underlying mTORC2 activation and its relationship with EGFR was poorly understood, this paper clearly showed that mTORC2 activation is a common event in GBM, including tumors harbouring EGFR-activating lesions. But what was particularly interesting was the finding that EGFRvIII was significantly more potent than wild-type EGFR in promoting mTORC2 activity. This is consistent with previous work from Huang et al., (2007), who found that:

“EGFRvIII preferentially activates PI3K signaling despite lower levels of receptor phosphorylation, leading to differential activation of downstream effectors.”

One outstanding question that has puzzled many researchers is what is the mechanism of rapamycin (mTOR) resistance? There are some clues in this research:

“Here we demonstrated that rapamycin (or genetic mTORC1 inhibition by raptor knockdown) promoted Akt S473 and NDRG1 T346 phosphorylation; this feedback activation could be suppressed by mTORC2 inhibition.”

They also looked at a patient sample to determine if there were any hints for further translational research:

“In a clinical sample from a GBM patient analyzed before and 10 days after treatment with rapamycin, mTORC2 signaling was elevated concomitant with significant mTORC1 inhibition, as measured by decreased S6 phosphorylation.”

This is important because to date, based on much of the data that has emerged from mTOR and PI3K inhibitors we have seen that single agent therapy often leads to either stable disease or low response rates, so the question is how can we improve this by understanding the mechanisms of resistance better in order to direct future combination approaches (as opposed to single agent studies) logically:

“These data suggest the possibility that failure to suppress mTORC2 signaling, including NF-κB signaling, may underlie resistance to rapamycin and the poor clinical outcome associated with it in some patients with GBM.”

This is a crucial finding because some early mTOR inhibitors such as rapamycin target mTORC1 effectively, but are weak inhibitors of mTORC2. The new generation of inhibitors may address this issue better and shut down the mTOR pathway more effectively, although that may not be enough on it own.

Clearly, future research studies will be needed to better understand the potential role of mTORC2/NF-κB signaling in mediating resistance to treatment in GBM:

“The results reported here provide a potential mechanism for mutant EGFR-mediated NF-kB activation in GBM and other types of cancer. The results also suggest that EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor resistance could also potentially be abrogated by targeting mTORC2-mediated NF-kB activation.”

So far this is a good start, but we still have a long way to go. There are a number of mTOR and PI3K inhibitors in development for the treatment of GBM – I’m looking forward to seeing the results of those trials and learning which combinations and lines of therapy might see the best results with mTOR inhibitors. Hopefully, there might be some early readouts at ASCO next June.

References:

ResearchBlogging.orgTanaka, K., Babic, I., Nathanson, D., Akhavan, D., Guo, D., Gini, B., Dang, J., Zhu, S., Yang, H., De Jesus, J., Amzajerdi, A., Zhang, Y., Dibble, C., Dan, H., Rinkenbaugh, A., Yong, W., Vinters, H., Gera, J., Cavenee, W., Cloughesy, T., Manning, B., Baldwin, A., & Mischel, P. (2011). Oncogenic EGFR Signaling Activates an mTORC2-NF- B Pathway That Promotes Chemotherapy Resistance Cancer Discovery, 1 (6), 524-538 DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-11-0124

Cloughesy TF, Yoshimoto K, Nghiemphu P, Brown K, Dang J, Zhu S, Hsueh T, Chen Y, Wang W, Youngkin D, Liau L, Martin N, Becker D, Bergsneider M, Lai A, Green R, Oglesby T, Koleto M, Trent J, Horvath S, Mischel PS, Mellinghoff IK, & Sawyers CL (2008). Antitumor activity of rapamycin in a Phase I trial for patients with recurrent PTEN-deficient glioblastoma. PLoS medicine, 5 (1) PMID: 18215105

Huang, P., Mukasa, A., Bonavia, R., Flynn, R., Brewer, Z., Cavenee, W., Furnari, F., & White, F. (2007). Quantitative analysis of EGFRvIII cellular signaling networks reveals a combinatorial therapeutic strategy for glioblastoma Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (31), 12867-12872 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0705158104

That was the quaint phrase used by one of the presenters at the recent AACR-EORTC-NCI Molecular Targets meeting in San Francisco.

Apparently, some drug or two was considered, too toxic (fair enough) or lacking in efficacy, hence the requisite binning of a multi-million dollar program to the scrapheap.

Yesterday’s post, however, reminded me that maybe sometimes, it’s not that the efficacy was lacking but the clinical trial design or tumor type or even line of therapy was the best one.  Let’s consider a couple of recent ideas here:

  1. The aurora kinase inhibitor PHA-739358 didn’t show any efficacy in adenoncarcinoma of the prostate, but the target, aurora kinase A may be a key one in some neuroendocrine tumours of the prostate.  These are very different subsets requiring a different approach to patient selection criteria and screening, which might potentially lead to a higher response rate in a small subset.
  2. At the above AACR meeting, I was discussing mTOR inhibitors in breast cancer with a few people.  Everyone noted how interesting it was that Wyeth’s temsirolimus failed to show any efficacy in a large phase III trial in women with ER/PR+ newly diagnosed breast cancer when given an aromatase inhibitor and the mTOR.  In contrast, Novartis took a different approach and used the AI and mTOR combination in second line therapy using everolimus and exemestane and saw dramatic responses. Why the difference?  Well, mTOR is known to cause resistance to AI over time, so it would make more sense to add it in later, rather than upfront.

There are many many other examples like this.  Sometimes, the key is in better understanding of the underlying processes from basic research.

For me then, dog drug heaven might not always be due to a poor molecule, but a failure to figure out where and how the drug might have worked effectively.  Dr Len Saltz (MSKCC) summed this up nicely at the NY Chemotherapy Symposium earlier this month:

Now, while Dr Saltz was specifically discussing the potential role (or lack of) for PI3K inhibitors in colorectal cancer, I do think his maxims hold very true for any targeted agent being evaluated in the clinic and something that cannot be emphasized enough.

The first point is obvious, but many sadly seem to miss it!  More preclinical and translational research is key to determining what the targets are and which ones matter in which tumor types.  Without that rational approach, you might as well throw mud at a wall and see what happens.  The second point speaks to the therapeutic index of the drug and whether we are shutting down the pathway enough to stop aberrant activity.  The final point is absolutely crucial – is the target a driver or a passenger?  If it’s the latter, the first two will not matter a jot no matter what we throw at it, in fact all that happens there is more toxicities are introduced and that’s not a good thing for the patient on the receiving end.

These issues become even more pertinent when we consider how regimens and increasingly, clinical trials, are moving more towards double and perhaps even triple combination therapies in an effort to shut down a pathway more completely.

In the meantime, the dog drug heaven days will likely continue.

 

3 Comments

Last week a very interesting article appeared in Cancer Discovery that reported a new target in neuroendocrine tumours (NET) of the prostate, a particularly aggressive subtype. Now, these tumours are “rare” and “uncommon” based on a spot check with a couple of oncology specialists I asked this morning.  In fact, according to this latest research, fewer than 2% of men with prostate cancer actually present with neuroendocrine disease and adenocarcinoma of prostate can also (rarely) evolve into neuroendocrine disease, but overall, the prognosis for NET of the prostate is generally poor.

What did they find?

Rubin and et al., (2011) used next-generation RNA sequencing to profile samples of neuroendocrine prostate cancers or NEPC (n=7), prostate adenocarcinomas or PCA (n=30) and benign (BEN) samples of prostate tissue (n=5) to try and characterise the molecular imprint. Previously, it has been shown by Tomlins et al., (2005) that TMPRSS2-ERG occurs in 50% of prostate NET, which is approximately the same rate as adenocarcinoma of the prostate. The big question is whether other molecular subtypes can be identified?

In this research, it was discovered that the genes AURKA and MYCN were overexpressed and amplified in neuroendocrine prostate cancers (40%) and in prostate adenocarcinomas (5%). The findings were then validated in tumours from a larger cohort of patients (n=37 with NEPC, n=169 with PCA, and n=22 with BEN) using immunohistochemistry and FISH:

“We discovered significant overexpression and gene amplification of AURKA and MYCN in 40% of NEPC and 5% of PCA tumors, respectively, and evidence that they cooperate to induce a neuroendocrine phenotype in prostate cells.”

For those of you interested in the Aurora kinase, here’s what AurA looks like from a broad perspective as part of the cell cycle pathway:

Source: Cell Signal

In order to determine if AURKA was a valid (driver rather than passenger) target, treatment with an aurora kinase (AURKA) inhibitor (PHA-739358, Nerviano Medical Sciences) was evaluated in cell lines and xenografts to determine if the agent inhibited the growth of the neuroendocrine tumours:

“There was dramatic and enhanced sensitivity of NEPC (and MYCN overexpressing PCA) to Aurora kinase inhibitor therapy both in vitro and in vivo, with complete suppression of neuroendocrine marker expression following treatment.”

What do these results mean?

This study has identified new potential targets in neuroendocrine tumours of the prostate in AURKA and N-myc that are well worth evaluating in clinical trials with patients who have this condition:

“We propose that alterations in Aurora kinase A and N-myc are involved in the development of NEPC and that future clinical trials will help determine the efficacy of Aurora kinase inhibitor therapy.”

Interestingly, PHA-739358 (danusertib) has been studied in prostate cancer before without success, but this may be due to the fact that the trial was in patients with adenocarcinomas and not neuroendocrine tumours.

What we learn from this is that the oft heralded argument about targeted therapy – ie first find a valid driver target still holds true – some subsets may respond to therapy while others will not, so identifying the right subset for therapeutic intervention is critical if we wish to increase the chances of success in clinical testing.  While a number of aurora kinase inhibitors have gone by the wayside due to lack of efficacy or excessive toxicities, the good news is that there are still several other aurora kinase A inhibitors in active R&D in addition to PHA-739358, including:

  • MLN8237 (Millennium)
  • AT9283 (Astex)
  • AZD1152 (AstraZeneca)
  • AMG 900, a pan aurora kinase inhibitor (Amgen)

There are probably a few others, but these are the ones I can remember off the top of my head.

Overall, I think these results are very promising indeed, albeit for a small subset of patients with prostate cancer.  That said, it does suggest that another ‘slice of the pie’ has potentially been identified and I look forward to seeing a more precise and well defined clinical trial emerge in the near future in NET prostate cancer to validate the new research findings.

References:

ResearchBlogging.orgBeltran, H., Rickman, D., Park, K., Chae, S., Sboner, A., MacDonald, T., Wang, Y., Sheikh, K., Terry, S., Tagawa, S., Dhir, R., Nelson, J., de la Taille, A., Allory, Y., Gerstein, M., Perner, S., Pienta, K., Chinnaiyan, A., Wang, Y., Collins, C., Gleave, M., Demichelis, F., Nanus, D., & Rubin, M. (2011). Molecular Characterization of Neuroendocrine Prostate Cancer and Identification of New Drug Targets Cancer Discovery, 1 (6), 487-495 DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-11-0130

Tomlins, S. (2005). Recurrent Fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS Transcription Factor Genes in Prostate Cancer Science, 310 (5748), 644-648 DOI: 10.1126/science.1117679

Angiogenesis inhibitors have seen a long and rather chequered history since Judah Folkman first propounded the concept that tumours grow by adding new blood vessels. Many of these inhibitors have ended up in the dog heaven scrap heap, so to speak, while others (some monoclonals, some small molecule inhibitors) have made it to market in some indications, but failed miserably in others.  All in all, it’s been a bit of a crapshoot at best for manufacturers trying to crack this particularly difficult nut.

Perhaps the most famous (some would say infamous) drug is bevacizumab (Avastin), a monoclonal antibody to VEGF-A, which has been approved for colon, lung, glioblastoma, renal cancers but just had its approval revoked in advanced breast cancer by the FDA due to a poor risk-benefit and efficacy profile.

Although Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) has been the target most associated with angiogenesis, there are quite a few other pathways involved in the process, including Platelet Derived Growth Factor (PDGF), Placental Growth Factor (PIGF), Fibroblast Growth Factor, Notch, angiopoeitins (eg Ang1-3 and Tie2) and many others.

Recently, at the European Multidisciplinary Cancer Conference (formerly ECCO and ESMO) in September, new data emerged on two new angiogenesis compounds in colorectal cancer, namely aflibercept (VEGF-Trap) from Regeneron and BIBF1120 (Vargatef) from Boehringer. Both drugs showed promising efficacy and tolerability data in a phase III (VELOUR) and a phase II trial, respectively.

I’m not going to go into details of those trials here, but to expand on the idea of angiogenesis further, because it makes logical scientific sense to target several aspects of the process to see if improved outcomes result. Closely related to this is lymphangiogenesis, which is the formation of new lymphatic vessels from pre-existing lymphatic vessels, in a similar way to blood vessel development or angiogenesis.

According to Tobler and Detmar (2006), a simplified angiogenic and lymphangiogenic mechanism is thought to look something like this:

angiogenesis

It was therefore with great interest that I came across Regeneron’s latest poster at the AACR-EORTC-NCI Molecular Targets meeting last week. They looked at the idea of combining aflibercept (VEGF) and (Ang2) to determine whether there was a synergistic effect. The angiogenesis process is described below (courtesy of Regeneron):

VEGFAng2

The answer, in short, was yes.

They found that combined blockade of both VEGF (aflibercept) and Ang2 (REGN910) promoted noticeable tumour necrosis and growth inhibition in colorectal cancer xenografts over either agent alone.

Of course, we don’t know which biomarkers will be useful predictors of response, but that’s a discussion in itself for another post.

Now, while these results are encouraging, it does not mean they will automatically translate to patients in the clinic, but I do think it looks like a promising dual targeting approach that is well worth exploring further.  In the research there appeared to be no obvious signs of additional toxicities with the combination.  This is one specific multi-targeted approach that we may see more of in the clinic going forward. What this space for progress!

References:

ResearchBlogging.orgTobler, N. (2006). Tumor and lymph node lymphangiogenesis–impact on cancer metastasis Journal of Leukocyte Biology, 80 (4), 691-696 DOI: 10.1189/jlb.1105653

2 Comments

Last week I had an enjoyable time at the AACR-EORTC-NCI Molecular Targets meeting but gippy wifi in San Francisco followed by my blog hosting and RSS feed going haywire meant that reviews of the meeting were delayed until now. There are a couple of interesting topics that emerged during the meeting that I’m going to explore in extended posts this week.

Today’s review looks at new breast cancer data from the conference. There were two things that stood out for me:

  • The role of epigenetics in advanced ER/PR+ breast cancer
  • New potential targets for inflammatory breast cancer (IBC)

Let’s take a look at these in turn.

Entinostat in second-line ER/PR+ breast cancer

The other week we discussed the data from a second generation HDAC, entinostat in lung cancer, so it was no surprise to see new data emerge in breast cancer in San Francisco as well.

Syndax reported the initial results from their phase II trial (ENCORE301) in women with hormone-sensitive breast cancer who had relapsed on an aromatase inhibitor. This is the same population recently evaluated in the BOLERO2 trial with everolimus plus exemestane at ECCO in September. In total, 49 patients were included, randomised to receive either exemestane plus entinostat (n=27) or exemestane and placebo (n= 22).

Here’s the schematic for the trial design:

schema

We know that the benefits of hormone therapy decline over time as resistance sets in. One mechanism of resistance is mTOR, and the BOLERO2 data demonstrated nicely how a logical combination of an AI with everolimus can help overcome this, leading to an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) of 6.5 months. Hopefully, overall survival (OS) data will be available at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) next month. Of course, as with many tumour types, there is usually more than one mode of resistance at play.

There were several key points that emerged from the epigenetics study:

  1. The ENCORE301 study is the first trial to report positive data with epigenetic therapy in breast cancer.
  2. They used a biomarker – acetylation levels – to ascertain response to therapy.
  3. Surprisingly, the clinical response to the therapy could be determined after only one or two doses.

The acetylation biomarker really intrigued me. Essentially, high levels of actylation predicted for better response with entinostat and AI therapy. The concept behind this is that HDAC inhibitors induce hyperactylation of lysines on histones as part of the mechanism of action (MOA). Thus in theory, high acetylation would potentially indicate the level of response.

What did the results actually show?

The good news is that we can see that adding entinostat to exemestane nearly doubled the PFS from 2.3 to 4.3 months, but those women with high acetlyation levels saw another doubling in the response to 8.5 months:

entinostat

Of course, this is a small exploratory study, but… the concept I think, is an excellent one, and well worth testing in a larger phase III trial.

The most obvious question that jumped to my mind after seeing the initail data was what would happen if we used a triple combination of exemestane, everolimus and entinostat or another HDAC in this relapsed population?

I don’t know the answer, but would love to see a phase II study emerge to get a quick readout on the possibilities. Many of you will recall that:

a) The Wyeth mTOR trial with temsirolimus in several thousand women with breast cancer produced a resoundingly negative result, but that that was in the front-line setting and mTOR is activated over time, causing resistance.

b) Merck’s HDAC inhibitor (vorinostat, SAHA) was evaluated in several breast cancer trials and none of those produced a positive result as far as I recall. That begs the question – was it the trial design or the drug – not all HDACs may be equal.

The good news here is that there is both a positive result and also a biomarker of response. Those suggest that it would be worth testing further in the relapsed setting both as a doublet in a large phase III study and in triple combination with everolimus in a smaller phase II trial.

Overall, I was very impressed with these results and Syndax should be congratulated for an excellent study design and also developing a useful biomarker. Neither are easy to do well.

Is ALK a new target in inflammatory breast cancer (IBC)?

This one caught me completely by surprise. IBC is a rare, but rather nasty, form of breast cancer that is often diagnosed late (in stage IIIb/IV). It presents with red, inflamed and thickened skin, rather than with a tumour, like this:

IBC

Sadly, we still have a lot of progress to make in understanding the aetiology of this disease, which often shows an accelerated path to metastasis, although we don’t know why. There aren’t that many new therapies or clinical trials in this area either as a rsult of the paucity of knowledge around the biology.

Dr Fredika Robertson (MD Anderson Cancer Center) presented the initial results of some translational research in a small number (n=12) of women with IBC.

She suggested that the early evidence is that the ALK translocation may be a transforming oncogene in breast cancer.

What did they find?

As a result of earlier work from Perez-Pinera et al., (2007) showing ALK gene expression in several types of breast cancer, they decided to look at this more closely in both pre-clinical animal models and also IBC patients.

These are the initial findings in women with IBC:

ALK

Note that they found an incidence of 75% for the ALK translocation in the dozen patients tested. I personally would be leery of extrapolating the results from such a small sample size to the broader population, but it certainly would be worth investigating further.

There are several questions that come to mind:

  1. Is the effect real or not? See Krishnan et al’s (2009) paper on intravascular ALK-Positive Anaplastic Large-Cell Lymphoma mimicking inflammatory breast carcinoma (reference below).
  2. Is the ALK translocation a key driver of aberrant activity?
  3. If yes, would an ALK inhibitor be effective or not?

In order to answer the last question, there is a multi-centre phase I trial with LDK378 (Novartis) now enrolling patients with ALK+ positive advanced cancer to find out the answer. In addition, Dr Robertson mentioned a single centre trial with crizotinib in ALK+ breast cancer, although I couldn’t find it in the clinical trials database.

Conclusions:

Overall, it was good to see some new progress being made in both translational research and also in the clinic, albeit the results are still early, but rather encouraging I think.

These two concepts, ie epigenetic therapy in ER/PR+ breast cancer and ALK translocations in IBC, will be worth following over the next couple of years to see whether they progress our knowledge and eventually more effective and targeted treatments of different subsets.

In the meantime, a further update of exciting new developments in breast cancer will be posted on this blog next month from the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS).

References:

ResearchBlogging.org Perez-Pinera, P., Garcia-Suarez, O., Menendez-Rodriguez, P., Mortimer, J., Chang, Y., Astudillo, A., & Deuel, T. (2007). The receptor protein tyrosine phosphatase (RPTP)β/ζ is expressed in different subtypes of human breast cancer Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 362 (1), 5-10 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2007.06.050

Krishnan, C., Moline, S., Anders, K., & Warnke, R. (2009). Intravascular ALK-Positive Anaplastic Large-Cell Lymphoma Mimicking Inflammatory Breast Carcinoma Journal of Clinical Oncology, 27 (15), 2563-2565 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.3984

6 Comments

For those of you interested in this year’s AACR-EORTC-NCI meeting on Molecular Targets being held in San Francisco this year, you can follow the tweets from the hashtag #aacr in the widget below.

This is one of my favourite meetings of the year. I’m not expecting the same volume of tweets as the annual AACR meeting, mainly because a lot of the data being presented tends to be of an unpublished nature so people tweet those less – I certainly do!

If anyone has any questions, you can tweet me @maverickny. AACR also have an official Twitter and are very helpful.

error: Content is protected !!