Pharma Strategy Blog

Commentary on Pharma & Biotech Oncology / Hematology New Product Development

Posts from the ‘Prostate Cancer’ category

One of the recent trends at cancer conferences that I have noticed has been the creative use of social media by some cancer and urology Society organizations such as AACR, ASCO, AUA and ASH to promote their events and communicate with attendees before, during and after conferences.   It’s not all American organisations either, with some European societies also becoming increasingly digitally aware, including ESMO, EAU and EHA all gradually building an online presence beyond their websites.

With SoMe, we have also seen an uptick in digitally savvy attendees using tools such as Twitter to tweet snippets from different conference sessions, drive traffic to their posters, meet up with others at different sessions and generally engage in scientific or clinical discussions around various hot topics.

Last year, the American Urological Association (AUA) started nicely with baby steps, setting up Twitter and YouTube accounts and a fledgling Facebook page, although only the Twitter account was really active at the 2010 annual meeting.

Following on from that successful experiment, this year they are much more active on Twitter and Facebook, announcing events, press briefings, running competitions and responding promptly to attendees queries.

A bunch of us at a satellite society at the Grand Hyatt found ourselves without heat or wifi on Saturday, so we tweeted under the conference hashtag to alert the organisers over at the convention center.  I personally was delighted that the temperature improved in the afternoon of the Society for Basic Urological Research (SBUR) meeting, as the frozen Tundra-temperatures shed an icy pall over the excellent morning presentations from Dr. Charles Sawyers and others.  Tweeting polite feedback does bring results!

Here’s the AUA Facebook page, which is actively managed, with photos, news, links and other interesting snippets:

AUA Facebook Page

There are also light booths around the convention centre advertising the Facebook page:

AUA 2011

Another first was a training course over the weekend for physicians on how to use social media to market their urology practices was held for interested attendees. I thought this was a great idea and this is one area I expect to see grow as more urologists get involved with social media and incorporate the tools into their business marketing – engagement with people and potential patients can pay off in the long run.

Eventually, I think we will see more social media develop for learning opportunities especially in the CME environment or incorporated into more skills training, for example, to YouTube videos to explain surgical techniques and aftercare for patients.  The start is a good one, but we’re only just seeing the tip of the iceberg begin to emerge.

Meanwhile, thanks to Wendy and Dana at AUA for a job well done on social media at the 2011 annual meeting in DC!

 

4 Comments

Today it’s Friday 13th and we’re heading off on the road again, this time to Washington DC for the much anticipated annual meeting of the American Urology Association (AUA).

We’ll be covering the hot topics on urologic cancers, including bladder and prostate cancers and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). I’m particularly interested in castrate resistant prostate cancer and updates on the abiraterone (Zytiga) data following the recent approval post chemotherapy in the US, and also the long term data for Medivation/Astellas’ MDV3100 from their phase I/II trial. It’s always important to know how patients in the early trials are doing.

We will post various updates here on Pharma Strategy Blog over the weekend including blog posts, podcasts and of course, video highlights. Do check back daily for news and snippets about what’s hot here at AUA.

In the meantime, you can also follow the aggregated tweets from the attendees – if you have a question, please don’t hesitate to ask me on Twitter (@maverickny) using the offical conference hashtag #aua2011 or in the blog comments below:

2 Comments

A PSB reader wrote in asking whether an update on the PARP inhibitors and the clinical trials would be possible.   Following on from the last update in January that covered Sanofi’s negative iniparib phase III data in triple negative breast cancer and AstraZeneca’s decision in February not to pursue olaparib in hereditary BRCA1 and 2 positive breast cancers, it would be a good idea to see what’s left of this once highly promising class of compounds.

I first wrote about PARP inhibitors way back in 2006 and like many, I’m rather disappointed with the results we’ve seen so far.  However, all is not lost.  Abbott’s veliparib is going strong, while Pfizer (PF-01367338) and Cephalon (CEP-9722) are just getting started with their programs.

Iniparib was probably the weakest inhibitor of the class and perhaps not potent enough, since there was no increase in toxicities in the TNBC study (that can be a good and a bad thing), while olaparib has proven to be potent but challenging to combine with chemotherapy.  It doesn’t mean that a different compound or clinical approach will be unsuccessful.

The saddest thing about the iniparib trial is the lack of BRCA1 and 2 testing, given the heterogeneous nature of triple negative breast cancer. We will likely never know which different subsets responded and why from that trial, it probably could have been better designed and included more rigorous biopsies for biomarker analysis, but once done it is too late.  This is one of the dangers of applying old-style chemotherapy trial designs to targeted therapies – first know your molecular targets – or potential targets – and evaluate the biomarkers over time in response to therapy.  Otherwise, it’s a bit like blindfolding an archer and asking him to hit a target s/he can’t even see.

I don’t think all is lost with AstraZeneca’s olaparib yet, but we will have to wait and see what the current ongoing studies bring in terms of answers.  Certainly, both AstraZeneca and Abbott have a broad range of clinical trials that may yield some interesting results. We shall see.

I took a quick look at the clinical trials database and sifted through the available data for PARP inhibitors. This is what we have so far:

Parp Inhibitors

One trial I’m eagerly awaiting the results of is the ISPY2 trial in neoadjuvant breast cancer, which included veliparib as one of the treatment options in a molecular based approac,h much in the same way the BATTLE trial worked in lung cancer.  For those interested in the background to this approach in breast cancer, you can find the details in an interview with Sue Desmond-Hellmann (UCSF), when the trial was first announced.  It will be a while before we know the results, but one that is very eagerly awaited in the breast cancer community.

11 Comments

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

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

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

From an oncology perspective, the big drama played out in advanced high risk prostate cancer at this meeting. There were three new approvals in US last year and approval of some of them in Europe is immiment, including sanofi-aventis’s cabazitazel (Jevtana), which was approved by the EMEA at the EAU conference.

2010 and 2011 are therefore promising to be great years for increased patient and physician choice.

We took a quick look at the new data and what new therapies will likely impact the landscape for this disease in the near term, including abiraterone:

This is my first videoblog but more will be coming, including a snapshot later this week of what’s hot at the AACR meeting next weekend. Do feel free to add any comments below.

Watch this space for more!

2 Comments

Whew, this has been one very busy European Association of Urology (EAU) meeting here in Vienna this weekend! By that, I mean the medical sessions, as I’ve been too busy attending multiple presentations and symposia to sightsee.

Yesterday, Drs Johann De Bono and Bertrand Tombal did an excellent job in the plenary session discussing issues and emerging new treatments around high risk prostate cancer.

Dr De Bono provided an update on the anti-androgen inhibitor abiraterone after treatment with docetaxel.  This novel agent was filed in December in the US, EU and Canada and fast track approval is expected soon in the US, perhaps in time for the sister meeting, the American Urology Association (AUA), which takes place in Washington DC in May.  Interestingly, he was the first person at this meeting to talk about patients and how they deserve better treatments than we have now.

Dr Tombal took a broader perspective, discussing how the focus in Europe is gradually turning to multidisciplinary teams of surgeons, urologists, radiation oncologists and medical oncologists to coordinate the care of prostate cancer patients.  He was particularly vehement about the silo mentality that has evolved:

“Claiming that abiraterone is a drug for urologists because it is orally available and cabazitaxel is a drug for medical oncologists because it is chemotherapy is wrong.  This will send us back in time, into the dark age of cancer treatment.  The only wise choice is in a multidisciplinary setting.”

I agree with this concept in general, but the reality is that turf wars are rife in urology and it will take time for a multidisciplinary approach to evolve and catch up with other cancers.  This also means that ultimately, a more rigorous approach is needed, both in the science and biology of the diseases and in rigourous randomised clinical trials to evaluate the benefits of new surgical techniques, therapies and technologies.

Change is happening, but it will likely be an evolution rather than a revolution.

Yesterday was a busy day for prostate cancer in general with sanofi aventis also announcing that cabazitaxel (Jevtana) is now approved in Europe for castrate resistant prostate cancer after treatment with Taxotere.

The EAU conference organisers have done a very nice job gathering the recordings of the sessions for anyone interested in following remotely.  I heartily encourage any of you interested in castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) to check out Dr De Bono and Tombal’s talks, which you can access here – just select Day 3 and scroll down about 3/4 of the way and click on the play button to see the slides and hear the accompanying audio.

I’m planning on catching up on several other scientific and translational sessions that clashed with ones I attended myself, but to see the talks up the next morning is excellent.

Nice job from @uroweb!  You can follow the tweets from the meeting via Twitter using the hashtag #EAU11 or read them in the aggregator here.

 

This weekend I’m at the annual meeting of the European Association of Urology (EAU), which takes place here in Vienna, Austria.  It promises to be an interesting meeting, with new developments in the areas of bladder/urothelial, prostate and renal cancers being discussed.

For those of you interested in following remotely, here are the links to the scientific programme and the podcasts.  You can also browse the abstracts online.

According to the EAU:

“For the 2011 edition, more than 3,700 abstracts were submitted and reviewed by the EAU Scientific Congress Office. As a result, 1,111 abstracts and 50 video abstracts were accepted, and will be presented at 92 poster sessions and 8 video sessions.”

While not as big as it’s American cousin, the AUA, that’s still an impressive number of abstracts submitted for the meeting.  They have an active presence on Twitter, you follow them via @uroweb.

I’m going to try and aggregate my thoughts and tweets from the sessions, depending upon the availability of wifi access.  Most of the sessions I’m interested in will be from Saturday to Monday.  Unfortunately, my iPad didn’t arrive in time so the iPhone and wifi will sadly have to suffice, although coverage may be spotty with thousands of people also trying to access the network.

Check back over the weekend for any live tweeting for the hashtag #EAU11 (#EAU is unfortunately used for other things, including water tweets), but you can follow the #EAU11 coverage in the widget below:

If any one has any questions or observations, please do add them in the comments below.

2 Comments

AACR PI3K-mTOR special conference

Recently, while in San Francisco for the AACR special conference on the PI3K-mTOR pathway in cancer, I was particularly struck by several important learnings that have since make me think more deeply about oncology drug development going forward:

  1. With targeted therapies, we need to more carefully select the patients, based on a clearly defined patient population
  2. We need to identify both the driving mutations and the adaptive pathway
  3. Aberrant activity is often also ligand driven

This means that in the future, targeted treatment may evolve in smaller subsets of disease with more logical double or even triple combinations.  It also means that there will be more, smaller phase II trials with translational research incorporated, across multiple combinations to tease out the critical, defining protocol.  Think more adaptive trial designs similar to the BATTLE and I-Spy series in lung and breast cancer, respectively.

Of course, Pharma’s immediate reaction is going to be “oh my, that’s going to be very expensive and difficult to do with novel-novels in clinical trials!”

The reality, however, is that it may not actually be sustainable to keep charging exhorbitant prices and smart companies with deep pockets and strong commitment will build portfolios with a wide range of different targets either in house, through licensing or acquisitions.  The trend in this direction is slowly, but surely, happening as knowledge of the biology of different cancers and subsets improves.

It was therefore no surprise that two articles appeared last week in Science and Translational Medicine and piqued my interest.  Goldstein, Zong and Witte (2011) provided some thoughtful commentary on research by Ateeq et al., (2011) on the SPINK1 mutation in prostate cancer.  They observed:

The concept of one-size-fits-all therapeutics is becoming increasingly less relevant, because any one therapy is unlikely to be effective for all individuals with a complex disease such as cancer.  For the hundreds of thousands of men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer each year, their tumors do not all share the same molecular machinery, pathways, or targets.

Ateeq et al., describe how SPINK1 contributes to the aggressive phenotype.  Forced expression of recombinant SPINK1 increased prostate cancer cell proliferation and invasiveness, whereas knockdown of SPINK1 gene expression or treatment with a SPINK1-directed monoclonal antibody resulted in decreased cell division, invasiveness, and tumour growth.

SPINK1 is highly expressed in ~10% of prostate cancers, and expression has been correlated with aggressive disease.

Interestingly, SPINK1 mediated its neoplastic effects partly through interactions with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR).  Ateeq et al’s experiments showed that antibodies to both SPINK1 and EGFR blocked the growth of SPINK1+/ETS tumours more than either antibody alone, and did not affect SPINK1- tumours.

In the graphic below (courtesy of Goldstein et al., 2011), you can see that in part (a) SPINK1 secreted from prostate cancer cells can stimulate EGFR dimerization, phosphorylation, and downstream signaling through phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), or janus kinase (JAK) pathways in an autocrine loop.

In part (b), in addition to small-molecule agents that block AR, PI3K/AKT, MAPK, or JAK signaling pathways, monoclonal antibodies against EGFR or SPINK1 could inhibit signal transduction by blocking the physical interaction between EGFR and the SPINK1 ligand:

SPINK1 in Prostate Cancer

In the research, an approved monoclonal antibody to EGFR, cetuximab, was used, together with an un-named SPINK1 antibody with better results than either alone. We should remember though, as Goldstein et al., note:

However, disappointing results in trials of EGFR-targeted therapies for prostate cancer with gefitinib, lapatinib, or cetuximab raise doubts about the importance of the EGFR signaling pathway for most prostate cancers.

What do these results mean?

Although animal research doesn’t always translate to positive results in humans in the clinic, it is entirely possible that better patient selection and the right combinations may be necessary to target a driving mutation, ligand and adaptive pathway in order to yield better results than previously seen with EGFR inhibitors.

Overall, I think this latest research does provide a solid rationale for the development of humanised anti-SPINK1 monoclonal antibodies for targeting a subset of patients with SPINK1 positive and ETS-negative prostate cancer in clinical trials. There are mouse antibodies available for research, but I couldn’t find a humanised one in development. It will be interesting to see any company takes up the challenge going forward.

References:

ResearchBlogging.orgGoldstein, A., Zong, Y., & Witte, O. (2011). A Two-Step Toward Personalized Therapies for Prostate Cancer Science Translational Medicine, 3 (72), 72-72 DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3002169

Ateeq, B., Tomlins, S., Laxman, B., Asangani, I., Cao, Q., Cao, X., Li, Y., Wang, X., Feng, F., Pienta, K., Varambally, S., & Chinnaiyan, A. (2011). Therapeutic Targeting of SPINK1-Positive Prostate Cancer Science Translational Medicine, 3 (72), 72-72 DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3001498

error: Content is protected !!