Pharma Strategy Blog

Commentary on Pharma & Biotech Oncology / Hematology New Product Development

Posts from the ‘Technology’ category

This morning I was pondering a triangulation of several random thoughts that appeared in my Twitter stream, many from BIO, about various topics:

  1. Discussing the patent cliffs and lack of revenue generation some companies such as Lilly will no doubt be facing with John Carroll (Fierce Biotech) and Matt Herper (Forbes Health)
  2. Christiane True (PharmaLive) at the annual BIO meeting quoted a speaker as saying “doing more with less” which seems pretty much de rigeur these days
  3. Ron Leuty tweeted a quote from Chris Viehbacher’s (Sanofi) presentation at BIO, “Not doing more with less, but doing different things.”
  4. Christiane also quoted Viehbacher, “Still not enough of bright science making its way to patient benefit.”

The last point particularly made me wonder, because quite a few oncology companies have broad and deep pipelines, often with more compounds than they can possibly advance at once.  Even big Pharma or Biotech has to rationalise resources, budgets and people or nothing would get done.

How do those decisions get made?

Some are smart at life cycle management (GSK and Roche spring to mind), some think strategically about their portfolios, others get mired down in politics or – even worse – distracted by numerous committees focusing on what I call ‘fluffy puffy’ abstract things instead of moving the compounds rapidly through the pipeline to become safe and effective drugs that make a difference to patients lives.

The future of successful cancer drug development is likely going rest heavily on investment in basic science, molecular biomarkers and diagnostics, and novel-novel clinical trials that target multiple aberrations driving the disease.

Investors aren’t interested in any of these things, though; most just want a rapid or high return on their investment.  Spending less on R&D is much more in tune with their short term thinking:

Viebacher: If you sit down with investors, they clamor to stop spending on R&D, just do a buyback. #BIO2011

Tweet from Christiane True (PharmaLive) at BIO

The thing is, if pharma companies are going to rely on buying or licensing late stage compounds from Biotech, there is only so much small to medium Biotechs will be able to do going forward, because the future will mean more diagnostics and biomarkers, which are very expensive in cancer research, and in some cases, prohibitively so.  This will require closer, earlier collaboration with Academia and even different types of trials thanwe have been used to in the old chemotherapy world.

There are sometimes more challenges with clinical trial designs in small biotechs going from phase II to III, as Sanofi discovered with BiPar and iniparib and Novartis with Antisoma and ASA-404.  If we want to reduce the number of phase III failures, we have to get smarter about more iterative studies in phase II, better patient selection, incorporation of biomarkers, more logical combinations and yes, all of these will cost more dollars that will likely give investors insomnia.

Finding out more about the compound earlier will be the new name of the game – it is obviously better to abandon a weak agent on phase I or II than expensive phase III trials.

In the end, the companies who will win out in the long run are often those who think strategically, drive innovation, focus on science-based research, license earlier rather than later, invest in biomarker/diagnostic research, work in close knit cross-functional collaborative groups, avoid the twin pitfalls of bad karma and politics and ultimately ‘see’ things more clearly than the pack allows them to translate that into meaningful action.

It occurred to me that if you have to ask who the KOLs and experts are, then you have a long way to go and that doesn’t inspire confidence in the agent you’re developing.  If you have too much greed in the boardroom C-level that’s clearly going to hamper things as well, especially if they want to implement cuts down the line.  All of these myriad of factors surprisingly do matter when it comes to riding out patent cliffs and maintaining R&D momentum.

I should probably add ‘corporately ignore the short term investors for long term solid gains,’ but that would be a bit cheeky, perhaps 😉

Ultimately, what I would really like to see is less talk and more effective action:

A lot of talk about benefits and challenges with personalised healthcare but no mention of solutions #BIO2011

Tweet from Pieter Droppert in the Personalised Medicine session at BIO

I guess that’s why the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) remains my favourite meeting in the annual conference calendar – at least Academic attendees are presenting data and discussing solutions in informal chats in corridors or poster sessions on how to address the practical issues of improving cancer research.  Inevitably, the smart companies are tapping into this resource and working alongside each other to unravel the complex mysteries.


This week I’m preparing an in depth mini series on the molecular target landscape associated with prostate cancer, which will be scheduled for next week, so do check back if that is a topic of interest to you.

In the meantime, I came across this video from MD Anderson, where the new President-elect Dr Ronald DePinho talks about the near term future of cancer research and where he thinks we will be going.

It’s less than four minutes long, easily understandable and well worth watching:

http://youtu.be/pWAUd1PV8Ao

For those of you interested in my perspectives on some of the early clinical trial approaches, there’s a guest blog post on PharmaLive’s R&D Directions entitled “ASCO followup: Patients, pathways, progress in practice” today – check it out!

.

Over the rest of this week I’m going to take some topics related to oncology and discuss them in more detail as part of a mini series about how cancer research is changing.

We all know that cancer isn’t one disease, but actually a myriad of different subsets, often even within each tumour type.  You can see the gradual shift aware from treating a type of cancer eg breast, lung, lymphoma, leukemia, melanoma etc to finding the driving the mutations and matching the patient to the therapy.

London Eye and Houses of Parliament

Having just returned from the European Hematology Association (EHA) meeting in London, I can say I was absolutely fascinated by the phase II data on brentuximab vedotin or Adcetris as it is now known (Seattle Genetics and Millennium), the antibody drug conjugate (ADC) in anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). Previously, we discussed the amazing data in Hodgkin Lymphoma but the photos of the patient responses in ALCL before and after treatment were amazing.

The connection?

Targeting the CD30 antibody on the surface of the cancer cells.

We can clearly see that as we learn more from basic research about the underlying mechanisms of growth, proliferation, survival and metastases, so our knowledge and ability to slow down disease progression and perhaps even stop the disease in it’s tracks also improves dramatically in some areas.

In the future, I can see triple negative breast cancer being segmented in various subtypes, for example, each with a different driving mutation and treating accordingly with carefully selected therapies, rather than treating them all as one homogenous subset of breast cancer, when they are in fact, heterogeneous.

There are several areas where we have made huge strides over the last five years:

  1. Earlier diagnosis
  2. Chemoprevention and slowing the inflammatory response
  3. Identifying biomarkers, both prognostic and predictive of responses
  4. Preventing metastases
  5. Translational scientist-clinicians

Over the next few days, I’m going to take a deeper look at these areas and discuss some of the new technology and research that is emerging in oncology as part of an updated landscape overview in cancer research.

If you have any other areas you would like covered, please do make suggestions in the Comments below.

3 Comments

It’s that time of year again and boy, does the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) come round all too quickly! It’s almost like Battime, Batplace…

As usual, I’ll be aggregating the conference tweets using the official #asco11 hashtag, so that all of you not going to the event can follow along remotely – do feel free to join in the conversation and ask questions or post comments using #asco11 on Twitter:

 

 

This widget will run for the duration of ASCO until close of play on Wednesday, so do check back regularly for new tweets and conversation!

Next Thursday, I’ll be at the European Hematology Association (EHA) meeting in London, so a new tweet aggregator will be added then.

2 Comments

The beauty of social media is that sometimes someone shares something monumental before you even pick it up yourself in a journal you’re subscribed to. I love that – it’s a great way to see how others find things with what I call ‘interestingness’.  This morning, John Carroll of Fierce Biotech tweeted something that gave me goosebumps.

What was hot this morning you may all be wondering?

Crossing the blood-brain barrier (BBB)?

Wow, now that is something that really grabs my attention!  Normally, when you try to target drugs to the brain, you find that the endothelium acts as an impenetrable and largely impervious layer that forces you to keep adding more and more drug in an effort to get a small amount through.  This approach obviously increases side effects and the reality is so little drug actually gets through that efficacy is severely limited.

It also explains why we haven’t made much progress with brain related diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Glioblastoma (a malignant brain cancer).

We’ve talked a bit about nanotechnology on this blog and it’s companion, Biotech Strategy Blog, as a way to make things small enough to potentially cross the BBB, but I was keen to see what this was all about.  Enthusiastically, I checked out the original article in Science and Translational Medicine myself (see references below).  The editorial commentary associated with it began:

“As impenetrable as the walls of ancient Troy, the tight endothelial cell layer of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) allows only a few select molecules to enter the brain. Unfortunately, this highly effective fortress blocks passage of therapeutic antibodies, limiting their usefulness for treating diseases of the brain and central nervous system.”

Oof, a tad dramatic perhaps, but what did the Genentech scientists do that was different?

Well, the research team were looking at using a BACE-1 antibody to block the enzyme involved in amyloid production, but the BBB prevented little drug from getting through, despite higher doses.

The engineers then developed a new antibody to take advantage of the fact that cells need iron by creating an antibody with two arms:

  • One arm held anti-BACE1 drug
  • The other arm hosted a receptor called transferrin that carries iron to brain cells, providing a ferry across the barrier

In other words, they made use of the body’s natural transport system in much the same way the Trojan horse carried men.  Perhaps the analogy wasn’t so dramatic after all…

This novel approach allowed the scientists to use lower concentrations of the new drug to get the active therapy through.  This should limit side effects and hopefully, increase efficacy.  According to the authors:

“BACE1 can be targeted in a highly selective manner through passive immunization with anti-BACE1, providing a potential approach for treating Alzheimer’s disease. Nevertheless, therapeutic success with anti-BACE1 will depend on improving antibody uptake into the brain.”

Note my emphasis… I can just see the anti-immunisation crowd up in arms before we even get started on this.

Implications of this research

The obvious potential benefits from this novel approach are in Alzheimer’s Disease research, although I caution that we still need to see results from human trials.

However, what piques my interest is how the technological approach of the iron receptor could be used for other brain diseases such as Parkinson’s Disease and brain tumours such as glioblastoma (GBM), which is a nasty malignant cancer limited by how much drug we can get inside the tumour cells. It crossed my mind that it might not take long for Genentech scientists and engineers to use the iron transport concept to bolt together a new monoclonal antibody combining the transferrin receptor and bevacizumab (Avastin), which is already approved as a treatment for GBM. Who knows how that might pan out, but the idea is very appealing indeed.

It is the development and spreading of novel and creative ideas like these that really excites me as a scientist and reminds me what I loved about it as kid.

Crazy Deranged Fools

This idea is so creative, so simple, so brilliant that I’m giving the Genentech scientists my Crazy Deranged Fool (CDF) award of the month for having the temerity to try something so boldly different – check out Hugh’s cartoon at Gaping Void to find out what that is!

References:

ResearchBlogging.orgAtwal, J., Chen, Y., Chiu, C., Mortensen, D., Meilandt, W., Liu, Y., Heise, C., Hoyte, K., Luk, W., Lu, Y., Peng, K., Wu, P., Rouge, L., Zhang, Y., Lazarus, R., Scearce-Levie, K., Wang, W., Wu, Y., Tessier-Lavigne, M., & Watts, R. (2011). A Therapeutic Antibody Targeting BACE1 Inhibits Amyloid-  Production in Vivo Science Translational Medicine, 3 (84), 84-84 DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3002254

1 Comment

A lot of people have asked me over the last year how I keep up with so much information in cancer research.  I thought it would be a nice idea to illustrate one way I consume information on a daily basis.

Since getting an iPad2, my life has changed for the better.  There are a number of really useful apps that let you browse information in a more user-friendly way.  Four of these include:

  1. Flipboard
  2. Zite
  3. Reeder
  4. Feedly

After trying them all over time, I found that for me, the one that resonated most for me was Flipboard.

What you get starts out like this:

Oh dear, that wasn’t welcome news this morning, bearing in mind I’m flying to ASCO in Chicago and then to London for the European Hematology Association meeting back to back in a few weeks.  The return of #ashcloud tweets on Twitter looks imminent!

Here’s how Flipboard works…

  1. Select your Twitter lists
  2. Other people’s curated Twitter lists you follow
  3. RSS feeds for blogs, journals, pubmed searches, etc

And the inside of the magazine becomes organised into recognisable categories:

You can then flip through the categories and see what’s interesting to you for further reading.  It also enables you to see broad trends much more easily.

Here’s an example from my journal and Pubmed feeds, since I have searches for all the key pathways that are associated with cancer.  Some are more active than others, but over time, you get a mix of new articles whenever you browse them.

This is much easier to browse than reading lists and lists of things in Google Reader – Flipboard brings them life:

Now you can sort the chaff from the wheat – we know that the BRAF V600E mutation is important in melanoma, but not colon cancer for example, but I sure didn’t know it might have a role to play in thyroid cancer!

Reading the abstracts this way is much more impactful and user-friendly.

Another thing that is useful is browsing one’s Twitter lists on topics such as Cancer, Medicine etc.  In the latter, I spotted an interesting tweet about how an app could be used to record your ECG on an iPhone – how cool is that?


You can see the play button for the video on the iPad (it obviously won’t work on the photo though, in case you just clicked on it ;)) – you just click and listen while travelling or sitting in the comfort of your office.

The way technology has evolved over the last couple of years is simply amazing, but best of all, it makes processing information you have selected as relevant to your personal interests much more user-friendly and digestible.

That’s a big win for busy people on the go!

What apps do you like?  Do share them in the comments below.

 

 

1 Comment

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

Yesterday, Roche/Genentech announced that they have submitted the New Drug Application (NDA) filing for PLX4032 (vemurafenib) in BRAF V600E mutation-positive metastatic melanoma, based on BRIM2 and BRIM3 trials to both the FDA and EMA.

I’ve posted quite a bit on BRAF inhibitors such as vemurafenib on this blog – check out the related posts feature at the bottom if you want to learn more about the history of this class of drugs.

Interestingly, Roche have also submitted the companion diagnostic, cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test, which means that oncologists in the community will be able to more easily test patients for the mutation, since these patients are more likely to respond to therapy with BRAF inhibitors such as vemurafenib.

Source: wikipedia

Although melanoma is treatable in the early stages, unfortunately once it becomes metastatic, it becomes more difficult to contain.

Roche have conducted two large-scale clinical trials (BRIM3 and BRIM2) to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of vemurafenib in mestatatic melanoma patients who have the V600E mutation. According to the Company:

“BRIM3 is a global, randomised, open-label, controlled, multicentre, Phase III study that compared vemurafenib to dacarbazine chemotherapy, a current standard of care, in 675 patients with previously untreated BRAF V600 mutation-positive, unresected or locally advanced metastatic melanoma.

The study met its two co-primary endpoints and showed that participants who received vemurafenib lived longer (overall survival) and also lived longer without their disease getting worse (progression-free survival) compared to those who received dacarbazine chemotherapy.

The safety profile was consistent with previous vemurafenib studies.”

The BRIM2 study also formed part of the global filing:

“BRIM2 is a global, single-arm, multicentre, open-label Phase II study that enrolled 132 patients with previously treated BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. The primary endpoint of the study was overall response rate as assessed by an independent review committee.

The study showed that vemurafenib shrank tumours in 52 percent of trial participants. People who participated in the trial lived a median of 6.2 months without their disease getting worse (median PFS).”

Like many of us, I’ve known family and friends or friends of friends who have been lost to this devastating disease.  Six months doesn’t sound very long, but when you look at many of the oncologic filings over the last decade, very few have actually shown six months improvement in overall survival.  In that context, this represents a dramatic advance for patients.

Of course, we can still do better, and as we learn more about the biology of the disease, so we can develop smarter therapeutic strategies for overcoming malignant melanoma.  This could take the form of new combinations or other BRAF inhibitors that do not target CRAF as well as BRAF, for example:

“The most frequent Grade 3 adverse event observed in clinical trials of vemurafenib was cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, a common skin cancer treated by local excision (minor surgery done in a physician’s office).

The most common adverse events were rash, photosensitivity, joint pain, hair loss and fatigue.”

It has been shown that activating CRAF, for example, is most likely responsible for the squamous cell proliferation on the skin in some patients.  It appears to be reversible once treatment is stopped.  However, that said, this is still a huge advance and should be applauded as such.

More BRAF and RAF inhibitors are on the way

BRAF inhibitors

Interestingly, Bayer also announced yesterday that their multi-kinase RAF/VEGF/Tie2/RET/KIT inhibitor, regorafenib, was granted Fast Track designation by the FDA for the treatment of patients with metastatic and/or unresectable gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) whose disease has progressed despite at least imatinib and sunitinib as prior treatments.  This is an incredibly small population so I don’t expect the trial to accrue speedily.  GIST is largely KIT or PDGF rather than RAF driven.  The trial began enrolling in January this year and accrual is still open – in all, Bayer plan to enroll 170 patients.

I will be interested to see whether regorafenib also activates CRAF as well as RAF – if so, we can expect some squamous cell proliferation in the adverse events – while multi-kinase inhibitors can be effective, we also have seen some off-kinase side effects, as shown with sorafenib and sunitinib.

What does this data mean?

The vemurafenib filing is excellent news for patients based on the data and pictures I have seen of responses in various conference presentations to date.  It’s a great success story of finding an aberrant mutation, developing a diagnostic to enable widespread testing for it and matching the patient to the treatment.

What I also like is the fervour with which the melanoma scientist-physician community is researching the methods of resistance and looking at new combinations with BRAF inhibitors almost as soon as they detect them – a great showcase for what to do.

We can also expect update on the BRIM2 and 3 trials at the forthcoming annual meeting at ASCO next month – I can’t wait to see how the data is maturing!

Assuming that vemurafenib is approved, it will also be interesting to see what happens post-approval, since Daiichi Sankyo bought Plexikkon, complicating the potential marketing and sales roll-out considerably.  One can wonder at the old adage that two’s company, but three becomes a crowd to manage.

7 Comments

“In God we trust, all others must bring data.”

W. Edwards Deming

The beauty of following many people on social media sites such as Twitter is that people in various communities, ie science, cancer, market research, PR and communications, etc all share links daily.  Occasionally, one catches my eye and reveals a hidden gem.

This morning was one of those days.                                                 Follow MaverickNY on Twitter

Take a look at this quick but useful (12 pages) slide deck on mobile health from Susannah Fox of Pew Internet:

Social media is changing the way we interact and do a lot of things

Mobile and access to wifi is very much part of facilitating that change.  Go out on a busy street at lunchtime and notice how many people are using their iPhone, iPad or Android PDA to access data or do something.   Wifi access is included in this category – can you remember the last time you connected your laptop or desktop to an ethernet cable – I can’t.  Everything is now wireless, even printing.

The consequence of this trend is that many people are now searching for health information online, via their mobile or wifi (6 in 10 according to the Pew Research).

Does this trend have an impact on Pharma?

Absolutely it does. This social change actually has many useful implications for Pharma and their agencies:

  1. Are your brand or unbranded sites optimised for mobile?
  2. Are your sites Flash heavy?
  3. Is it easy to access health or disease information you generate through apps?
  4. Is your site optimised for languages such as Spanish?

It always amuses me (not) how many Agencies have flash heavy sites when a client calls and desires a recommendation for a new vendor, which actually happens quite often.  PR and Communications agencies are notoriously bad at this.  If I’m trying to send a link to your site to someone on an iPhone and they can’t read it, I’m not going to refer you. Fixing this glitch and dragging your agency into the digital age will improve your image enormously – image matters.

Imagine what the experience would be for patients trying to find out health information on the go and they can’t access anything because it’s coded in ugly Flash?  They will quickly go elsewhere for health information.

Scaling a website from a desktop or laptop to a mobile device is very different, both in the look and feel.  This blog, for example, looks very different on a mobile device than on a PC screen – check it out for yourselves.  The optimisation makes it much easier to read a blog post.

If I have a horrid time trying to find the incredibly tiny Prescribing Information or Reimbursement link on your brand site on a laptop, it’s going to be very difficult for a patient or caregiver to find it on a mobile device.  That’s something that is very easy to fix and will improve things for patients immediately.

Optimise it with big clickable, easy to see and read buttons!  Make the text large, navigation and UI a breeze to read and use.  Easy to use sites will ensure repeat visits, increased customer loyalty and sharing of the content.  Hard to use sites will not.

The Pew Report highlighted two key trends in online health discussions that I think are really important to Pharma, which they defined as:

  1. The Mobile difference
  2. The Diagnosis difference

Where the Diagnosis difference is helping people find, read and share information about a disease or diagnosis.  This could be a patient or caregiver, but interestingly, 1 in 4 adults use apps on their Smart phones.

WebMD is a still a main destination site for people seeking independent health information, but apps are becoming increasingly important.  That one area where Pharma companies can make an impact in a thoughtful, rather than promotional way.  My big assumption here though, is that patients themselves are consulted for ideas through focus groups and involved in the development of tools for monitoring their condition that are useful to them.

The end result?  People are more likely to share links or apps virally and blog about them to others, thereby helping to increase awareness, adoption and hopefully, longevity if the site or app is really useful and fills an unmet need.

Overall, this is an interesting area where Pharma can get easily involved in Web 2.0 – what are your thoughts or comments?

2 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
error: Content is protected !!