Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘PD1’


Aduro Biotech Phase II Pancreatic Cancer Trial CRS-207 plus cancer vaccine GVAX Fails

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D

From Biospace News

May 16, 2016
By Alex Keown, BioSpace.com Breaking News Staff

BERKELEY, Calif. – Shares of Aduro Biotech (ADRO) have fallen more than 25 percent this morning following news that the company’s Phase II trial for its combination pancreatic cancer drug, CRS-207 did not meet its primary endpoint of survivability.

Aduro said its Eclipse trial of CRS-207 failed to show an improvement in overall survival for patients with pancreatic cancer who had failed at least two prior therapies in the metastatic setting. Median overall survival was 3.8 months for patients treated with the immunotherapy regimen of CRS-207 and the cancer vaccine GVAX pancreas, 5.4 months for patients treated with CRS-207 alone and 4.6 months for patients administered chemotherapy. Aduro said there were no reported safety concerns during the trial and full study findings will be presented at a later date.

Stephen T. Isaacs, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Aduro, called the findings a disappointing and “unexpected outcome.’

“While we are well aware of the very difficult-to-treat nature of late-stage metastatic pancreatic cancer, we are surprised by the divergence of these data from the results of our Phase IIa study. At the same time, we continue to look forward to the interim results later this year from our ongoing Stellar trial, which is evaluating CRS-207 and GVAX Pancreas with and without the anti-PD1 checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab as a second-line therapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer,” Isaacs said in a statement.

For full story please see http://www.biospace.com/News/aduro-biotechs-stock-craters-after-pancreatic/419628/source=TopBreaking

Also from FierceBiotech

UPDATED: Aduro combo fails in a key pancreatic cancer study

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Cyclic Dinucleotides and Histone deacetylase inhibitors

Curators: Larry H. Bernsten, MD, FCAP and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

LPBI

 

New Class of Immune System Stimulants: Cyclic Di-Nucleotides (CDN): Shrink Tumors and bolster Vaccines, re-arm the Immune System’s Natural Killer Cells, which attack Cancer Cells and Virus-infected Cells

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

The Immunotherapeutics and Vaccine Research Initiative (IVRI), a UC Berkeley effort funded by Aduro Biotech, Inc.

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/04/24/new-class-of-immune-system-stimulants-cyclic-di-nucleotides-cdn-shrink-tumors-and-bolster-vaccines-re-arm-the-immune-systems-natural-killer-cells-which-attack-cancer-cells-and-virus-inf/

A new class of immune system stimulants called cyclic di-nucleotides have shown promise in shrinking tumors and bolstering vaccines against tuberculosis, and research that could help re-arm the immune system’s natural killer cells, which normally attack cancer cells and virus-infected cells, to better fight tumors.

Much of the excitement around combining these two areas — the immunology of cancer and the immunology of infectious disease — comes from the amazing success of immunotherapy against cancer, which started with the work of James Allison when he was a professor of immunology at UC Berkeley and director of the Cancer Research Laboratory from 1985 to 2004. Allison, now at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, discovered a way to release a brake on the body’s immune response to cancer that has proved highly successful at unleashing the immune system to attack melanoma and is being tried against other types of cancer. Allison’s technique uses an antibody that blocks an immune suppressor called CTLA4, antibodies that block another immune suppressor, PD1. This has been successful in treating melanoma, renal cancer and a type of lung cancer. Both CTLA4 and PD1 antibodies are now FDA-approved as cancer therapies.

Another promising avenue involves a protein in cells that responds to foreign DNA to launch an innate immune response — the first response of the body’s immune system. The protein, dubbed STING, is triggered by small molecules called cyclic di-nucleotides (CDN), and makes immune cells release interferon and other cytokines that activate disease-fighting T cells and stimulate the production of antibodies that together kill invading pathogens and destroy cancer cells. Listeria bacteria, for example, secrete a CDN directly into infected cells that activates STING.

Russell Vance, a UC Berkeley professor of molecular and cell biology and current head of the Cancer Research Laboratory, discovered several years ago that the chemical structure of these di-nucleotides is critical to their ability to work in humans. Aduro has since developed a CDN designed to work in humans and found that injecting it directly into a tumor in mice caused the tumor to shrink.

Sarah Stanley, an assistant professor of public health, has found evidence that CDNs can help improve the imperfect vaccines we have today against tuberculosis.

 

Researchers at UC Berkeley will have access to Aduro’s novel technology platforms for research use, including its STING pathway activators, proprietary monoclonal antibodies and the engineered listeria bacteria, referred to as LADD (listeria attenuated double-deleted). David Raulet, professor of molecular and cell biology and director of IVRI has contributed to making these cells a new focus of cancer research. As tumors advance, NK cells inside the tumors appear to become desensitized, he said. Recent research shows that some cytokines and other immune mediators Raulet discovered are able to “wake them up” and get them to resume their elimination of cancer cells.

 

Histone deacetylase inhibitors: molecular mechanisms of action

W S Xu1,2, R B Parmigiani1,2 and P A Marks1

Oncogene (2007) 26, 5541–5552; http://dx.doi.org:/10.1038/sj.onc.1210620

This review focuses on the mechanisms of action of histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors (HDACi), a group of recently discovered ‘targeted’ anticancer agents. There are 18 HDACs, which are generally divided into four classes, based on sequence homology to yeast counterparts. Classical HDACi such as the hydroxamic acid-based vorinostat (also known as SAHA and Zolinza) inhibits classes I, II and IV, but not the NAD+-dependent class III enzymes. In clinical trials, vorinostat has activity against hematologic and solid cancers at doses well tolerated by patients. In addition to histones, HDACs have many other protein substrates involved in regulation of gene expression, cell proliferation and cell death. Inhibition of HDACs causes accumulation of acetylated forms of these proteins, altering their function. Thus, HDACs are more properly called ‘lysine deacetylases.’ HDACi induces different phenotypes in various transformed cells, including growth arrest, activation of the extrinsic and/or intrinsic apoptotic pathways, autophagic cell death, reactive oxygen species (ROS)-induced cell death, mitotic cell death and senescence. In comparison, normal cells are relatively more resistant to HDACi-induced cell death. The plurality of mechanisms of HDACi-induced cell death reflects both the multiple substrates of HDACs and the heterogeneous patterns of molecular alterations present in different cancer cells.

histone deacetylase, histone deacetylase inhibitor, apoptosis, mitotic cell death, senescence, angiogenesis

Acetylation and deacetylation of histones play an important role in transcription regulation of eukaryotic cells (Lehrmann et al., 2002;Mai et al., 2005). The acetylation status of histones and non-histone proteins is determined by histone deacetylases (HDACs) and histone acetyl-transferases (HATs). HATs add acetyl groups to lysine residues, while HDACs remove the acetyl groups. In general, acetylation of histone promotes a more relaxed chromatin structure, allowing transcriptional activation. HDACs can act as transcription repressors, due to histone deacetylation, and consequently promote chromatin condensation. HDAC inhibitors (HDACi) selectively alter gene transcription, in part, by chromatin remodeling and by changes in the structure of proteins in transcription factor complexes (Gui et al., 2004). Further, the HDACs have many non-histone proteins substrates such as hormone receptors, chaperone proteins and cytoskeleton proteins, which regulate cell proliferation and cell death (Table 1). Thus, HDACi-induced transformed cell death involves transcription-dependent and transcription-independent mechanisms (Marks and Dokmanovic, 2005Rosato and Grant, 2005Bolden et al., 2006;Minucci and Pelicci, 2006).

Table 1 – Nonhistone protein substrates of HDACs (partial list).   Full table

http://www.nature.com/common/images/table_thumb.gif

In humans, 18 HDAC enzymes have been identified and classified, based on homology to yeast HDACs (Blander and Guarente, 2004;Bhalla, 2005Marks and Dokmanovic, 2005). Class I HDACs include HDAC1, 2, 3 and 8, which are related to yeast RPD3 deacetylase and have high homology in their catalytic sites. Recent phylogenetic analyses suggest that this class can be divided into classes Ia (HDAC1 and -2), Ib (HDAC3) and Ic (HDAC8) (Gregoretti et al., 2004). Class II HDACs are related to yeast Hda1 (histone deacetylase 1) and include HDAC4, -5, -6, -7, -9 and -10 (Bhalla, 2005Marks and Dokmanovic, 2005). This class is divided into class IIa, consisting of HDAC4, -5, -7 and -9, and class IIb, consisting of HDAC6 and -10, which contain two catalytic sites. All class I and II HDACs are zinc-dependent enzymes. Members of a third class, sirtuins, require NAD+ for their enzymatic activity (Blander and Guarente, 2004) (see review by E Verdin, in this issue). Among them, SIRT1 is orthologous to yeast silent information regulator 2. The enzymatic activity of class III HDACs is not inhibited by compounds such as vorinostat or trichostatin A (TSA), that inhibit class I and II HDACs. Class IV HDAC is represented by HDAC11, which, like yeast Hda 1 similar 3, has conserved residues in the catalytic core region shared by both class I and II enzymes (Gao et al., 2002).

HDACs are not redundant in function (Marks and Dokmanovic, 2005Rosato and Grant, 2005Bolden et al., 2006). Class I HDACs are primarily nuclear in localization and ubiquitously expressed, while class II HDACs can be primarily cytoplasmic and/or migrate between the cytoplasm and nucleus and are tissue-restricted in expression.

The structural details of the HDAC–HDACi interaction has been elucidated in studies of a histone deacetylase-like protein from an anerobic bacterium with TSA and vorinostat (Finnin et al., 1999). More recently, the crystal structure of HDAC8–hydroxamate interaction has been solved (Somoza et al., 2004Vannini et al., 2004). These studies provide an insight into the mechanism of deacetylation of acetylated substrates. The hydroxamic acid moiety of the inhibitor directly interacts with the zinc ion at the base of the catalytic pocket.

This review focuses on the molecular mechanisms triggered by inhibitors of zinc-dependent HDACs in tumor cells that explain in part: (I) the effects of these compounds in inducing transformed cell death and (II) the relative resistance of normal and certain cancer cells to HDACi induced cell death. HDACi, for example, the hydroxamic acid-based vorinostat (SAHA, Zolinza), are promising drugs for cancer treatment (Richon et al., 1998Marks and Breslow, 2007). Several HDACi are in phase I and II clinical trials, being tested in different tumor types, such as cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, acute myeloid leukemia, cervical cancer, etc (Bug et al., 2005Chavez-Blanco et al., 2005Kelly and Marks, 2005;Duvic and Zhang, 2006) (Table 2). Although considerable progress has been made in elucidating the role of HDACs and the effects of HDACi, these areas are still in early stages of discovery.

Table 2 – HDACi in clinical trials.  Full table

http://www.nature.com/common/images/table_thumb.gif

Recent phylogenetic analyses of bacterial HDACs suggest that all four HDAC classes preceded the evolution of histone proteins (Gregoretti et al., 2004). This suggests that the primary activity of HDACs may be directed against non-histone substrates. At least 50 non-histone proteins of known biological function have been identified, which may be acetylated and substrates of HDACs (Table 1) (Glozak et al., 2005Marks and Dokmanovic, 2005;Rosato and Grant, 2005Bolden et al., 2006Minucci and Pelicci, 2006Zhao et al., 2006). In addition, two recent proteomic studies identified many lysine-acetylated substrates (Iwabata et al., 2005Kim et al., 2006). In view of all these findings, HDACs may be better called ‘N-epsilon-lysine deacetylase’. This designation would also distinguish them from the enzymes that catalyse other types of deacetylation in biological reactions, such as acylases that catalyse the deacetylation of a range of N-acetyl amino acids (Anders and Dekant, 1994).

Non-histone protein targets of HDACs include transcription factors, transcription regulators, signal transduction mediators, DNA repair enzymes, nuclear import regulators, chaperone proteins, structural proteins, inflammation mediators and viral proteins (Table 1). Acetylation can either increase or decrease the function or stability of the proteins, or protein–protein interaction (Glozak et al., 2005). These HDAC substrates are directly or indirectly involved in many biological processes, such as gene expression and regulation of pathways of proliferation, differentiation and cell death. These data suggest that HDACi could have multiple mechanisms of inducing cell growth arrest and cell death (Figure 1).

Figure 1.  Full figure and legend (90K)

Multiple HDACi-activated antitumor pathways. See text for detailed explanation of each pathway. HDAC6, histone deacetylase 6; HIF-1, hypoxia-induced factor-1; HSP90, heat-shock protein 90; PP1, protein phosphatase 1; ROS, reactive oxygen species; TBP2, thioredoxin binding protein 2; Trx, thioredoxin; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor.

http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v26/n37/images/1210620f1.jpg

HDACi have been discovered with different structural characteristics, including hydroximates, cyclic peptides, aliphatic acids and benzamides (Table 2) (Miller et al., 2003Yoshida et al., 2003Marks and Breslow, 2007). Certain HDACi may selectively inhibit different HDACs. For example, MS-275 preferentially inhibits HDAC1 with IC50, at 0.3 m, compared to HDAC3 with an IC50 of about 8 m, and has little or no inhibitory effect against HDAC6 and HDAC8 (Hu et al., 2003). Two novel synthetic compounds, SK7041 and SK7068, preferentially target HDAC1 and 2 and exhibit growth inhibitory effects in human cancer cell lines and tumor xenograft models (Kim et al., 2003a). A small molecule, tubacin, selectively inhibits HDAC6 activity and causes an accumulation of acetylated -tubulin, but does not affect acetylation of histones, and does not inhibit cell cycle progression (Haggarty et al., 2003). No other HDACi for a specific HDAC has been reported.

HDACi selectively alters gene expression

HDACi-induced antitumor pathways

  • HDACi induces cell cycle arrest
  • HDACi activates the extrinsic apoptotic pathways
  • HDACi activates the intrinsic apoptotic pathways
  • HDACi induces mitotic cell death
  • HDACi induces autophagic cell death and senescence
  • ROS, thioredoxin and Trx binding protein 2 in HDACi-induced cell death
  • Antitumor effects of HDAC6 inhibition
  • Activation of protein phosphatase 1
  • Disruption of the function of chaperonin HSP90
  • Disruption of the aggresome pathway
  • HDACi inhibits angiogenesis

HDACi can block tumor angiogenesis by inhibition of hypoxia inducible factors (HIF) (Liang et al., 2006). HIF-1 and HIF-2 are transcription factors for angiogenic genes (Brown and Wilson, 2004). The oxygen level can control HIF activity through two mechanisms. First, under normoxic conditions, HIF-1 binds to von Hippel–Lindau protein (pVHL) and is degraded by the ubiquitination–proteasome system. Second, HIF activity depends on its transactivation potential (TAP), which is affected by the interaction with the coactivator p300/CBP among others. This complex can be disrupted by Factor Inhibiting HIF (FIH). Hypoxic conditions activate HIF through repression of the hydroxylases responsible for HIF degradation and loss of function.

 

Combination of HDACi with other antitumor agents

The HDACi have shown synergistic or additive antitumor effects with a wide range of antitumor reagents, including chemotherapeutic drugs, new targeted therapeutic reagents and radiation, by various mechanisms, some unique for particular combinations (Rosato and Grant, 2004Bhalla, 2005Marks and Dokmanovic, 2005Bolden et al., 2006).

Clinical development of HDACi

At least 14 different HDACi are in some phase of clinical trials as monotherapy or in combination with retinoids, taxols, gemcitabine, radiation, etc, in patients with hematologic and solid tumors, including cancer of lung, breast, pancreas, renal and bladder, melanoma, glioblastoma, leukemias, lymphomas, multiple myeloma (see National Cancer Institute website for CTEP clinical trials, ctep.cancer.gov or clinicaltrials.gov, and website of companies developing HDACi; Table 2).

The resistance to HDACi

Conclusions and perspectives

HDACs have multiple substrates involved in many biological processes, including proliferation, differentiation, apoptosis and other forms of cell death. Indeed, the fact that HDACs have histone and multiple nonhistone protein substrates suggests these enzymes should be referred to as ‘lysine deacetylases’. HDACi can cause transformed cells to undergo growth arrest, differentiation and/or cell death. Normal cells are relatively resistant to HDACi. HDACi are selective in altering gene expression, which may reflect, in part, the proteins composing the transcription factor complex to which HDACs are recruited. Both altered gene expression and changes in non-histone proteins caused by HDACi-induced acetylation play a role in the antitumor activity of HDACi. This is reflected in the different inducer-activated antitumor pathways in transformed cells (Figure 1). The functions of HDACs are not redundant. Thus, a pan-HDAC inhibitor such as vorinostat may activate more antitumor pathways and have therapeutic advantages compared to HDAC isotype-specific inhibitors.

Almost all cancers have multiple defects in the expression and/or structure of proteins that regulate cell proliferation and death. Compared to other antitumor reagents, the plurality of action of HDACi potentially confers efficacy in a wide spectrum of cancers, which have heterogeneity and multiple defects, both among different types of cancer and within different individual tumors of the same type. The multiple defects in a cancer cell may be the reason for transformed cells being more sensitive than normal cells to HDACi. Thus, given the relatively rapid reversibility of vorinostat inhibition of HDACs, normal cells may be able to compensate for HDACi-induced changes more effectively than cancer cells.

HDACi have synergistic or additive antitumor effects with many other antitumor reagents – suggesting that combination of HDACi and other anticancer agents may be very attractive therapeutic strategies for using these agents. Complete understanding of the mechanisms underlying the resistance and sensitivity to HDACi has obvious therapeutic importance. Targeting resistant factors will enhance the antitumor efficacy of HDACi. Identifying markers that can predict response to HDACi is a high priority for expanding the efficacy of these novel anticancer agents.

References  ….

NEWS AND VIEWS   Blocking HDACs boosts regulatory T cells

Nature Medicine News and Views (01 Nov 2007)

RESEARCH   

Dimethyl sulfoxide to vorinostat: development of this histone deacetylase inhibitor as an anticancer drug

Nature Biotechnology Research (01 Jan 2007)

Comments of reviewer:

 

The complexity of cancer has been known for almost a century, in large part from the seminal work of Otto Warburg in the 1920s using manometry, and following the work of Louis Pasteur 60 years earlier with fungi.

 

The volume of work and our unlocking of mitotic activity, apoptosis, mitochondria, and the cytoskeleton has taken us further into the cell interior, cell function, metabolic regulation, and pathophysiology.  Despite the enormous contributions to our knowledge of genomics, there is a large body of work in pathways of cell function that resides in no small part in activity of protein catalysts and enzymes.

 

The work that has been described covers only cyclic dinucleotides and HDACi’s.  Some of the activities described have relevance to microorganisms as well as cancer.  As we have seen, blocking HDACs boosts the activity of regulatory T-cells. There are many specific functional alterations elucidated above.

 

The first presentation is of an antibody that blocks an immune suppressor called CTLA4, antibodies that block another immune suppressor, PD1. This also involves a protein in cells that responds to foreign DNA to launch an innate immune response — the first response of the body’s immune system. The protein, dubbed STING, is triggered by small molecules called cyclic di-nucleotides (CDN), and makes immune cells release interferon and other cytokines that activate disease-fighting T cells and stimulate the production of antibodies that together kill invading pathogens and destroy cancer cells. Listeria bacteria, for example, secrete a CDN directly into infected cells that activates STING.

 

The second is resident in acetylation status of histones and non-histone proteins is determined by histone deacetylases (HDACs) and histone acetyl-transferases (HATs). HATs add acetyl groups to lysine residues, while HDACs remove the acetyl groups. In general, acetylation of histone promotes a more relaxed chromatin structure, allowing transcriptional activation. HDACs can act as transcription repressors, due to histone deacetylation, and consequently promote chromatin condensation. HDAC inhibitors (HDACi) selectively alter gene transcription, in part, by chromatin remodeling and by changes in the structure of proteins in transcription factor complexes (Gui et al., 2004).  The description focuses on the molecular mechanisms triggered by inhibitors of zinc-dependent HDACs in tumor cells that explain in part: (I) the effects of these compounds in inducing transformed cell death and (II) the relative resistance of normal and certain cancer cells to HDACi induced cell death.

 

HDACs have multiple substrates involved in many biological processes, including proliferation, differentiation, apoptosis and other forms of cell death. Indeed, the fact that HDACs have histone and multiple nonhistone protein substrates suggests these enzymes should be referred to as ‘lysine deacetylases’. HDACi can cause transformed cells to undergo growth arrest, differentiation and/or cell death. Normal cells are relatively resistant to HDACi. HDACi are selective in altering gene expression, which may reflect, in part, the proteins composing the transcription factor complex to which HDACs are recruited. Both altered gene expression and changes in non-histone proteins caused by HDACi-induced acetylation play a role in the antitumor activity of HDACi.

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »


Meeting Announcement: Cancer Immunotherapy and Combinations June 15-16 2016

 

Cancer Immunotherapy & Combinations – June 15-16, 2016 in Boston, MA

YouTubeLinkedInTwitter#CHIWPC16

Final Brochure PDF | Learn More | Sponsorship & Exhibit Details | Register by March 4 & SAVE up to $400!

Cambridge Healthtech Institute’s inaugural Cancer Immunotherapy and Combinations meeting will convene immuno-oncology researchers, cancer immunotherapy developers, and technology providers to discuss next-generation approaches and combinations, including small molecule development, to enhance the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors.

BISPECIFIC ANTIBODIES – DUAL TARGETING

FEATURED PRESENTATION: ANTI-PD1 OR CD137 ENHANCES NK-CELL CYTOTOXICITY TOWARDS CD30+ HODGKIN LYMPHOMA INDUCED BY CD30/CD16A TANDAB AFM13
Martin Treder, Ph.D., CSO, R&D, Affimed

In vivo Efficacy of Bispecific Antibodies Targeting Two Immune-Modulatory Receptors
Jacqueline Doody, Ph.D., Vice President, Immunology, F-star Biotechnology, Ltd

Dual-Targeting Bispecific Antibodies for Selective Neutralization of CD47 on Cancer Cells
Krzysztof Masternak, Ph.D., Head, Biology, Therapeutic Antibody Discovery, Novimmune

Update on MCLA-134: A Biclonics® Binding Two Immunomodulatory Targets Expressed by T Cells
Mark Throsby, Ph.D., CSO, Merus

The ImmTAC Technology: A Cutting-Edge Immunotherapy for Cancer Treatment
Samir Hassan, Ph.D., Director, Translational Research & Development, Immunocore Ltd.

RADIOTHERAPY AND CHEMOTHERAPY – PD-1 COMBINATIONS

Rational Development of Combinations of Antiangiogenic Therapy with Immune Checkpoint Blockers Using Mouse Models of HCC and Cirrhosis
Dan Duda, D.M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Steele Laboratories for Tumor Biology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School

Harnessing the Immune Microenvironment of Gastrointestinal Cancers Using Combined Modalities
Osama Rahma, M.D., Assistant Professor, Internal Medicine/Oncology, University of Virginia

AGONIST – PD-1 AND CTLA-4 COMBINATIONS

The Role of the Target in the Disposition and Immunogenicity of an Anti-GITR Agonist Antibody
Enrique Escandón, Ph.D., Senior Principal Scientist, DMPK and Disposition, Merck

Combination of 4-1BB Agonist and PD-1 Antagonist Promotes Antitumor Effector/Memory CD8 T Cells
Changyu Wang, Ph.D., Director, Cancer Immunology, Pfizer

Combination Immunotherapy with Checkpoint Blockade, Agonist Anti-OX40 mAb, and Vaccination Rescues Anergic CD8 T Cells
William Redmond, Ph.D., Associate Member, Laboratory of Cancer Immunotherapy, Earle A. Chiles Research Institute, Providence Portland Medical Center

Interactive Breakout Discussion Groups with Continental Breakfast

This session features various discussion groups that are led by a moderator/s who ensures focused conversations around the key issues listed. Attendees choose to join a specific group and the small, informal setting facilitates sharing of ideas and active networking. Continental breakfast is available for all participants.

Topic: Small Molecule Targeting of IDO1 and TDO for Cancer Immunotherapy

Moderator: Rogier Buijsman, Ph.D., Head, Chemistry, Netherlands Translational Research Center B.V. (NTRC)

  • Overcoming challenges of current IDO1 inhibitors lacking selectivity over TDO and having suboptimal drug-like properties
  • Advances in IDO1 and TDO inhibitor screening
  • Is selective IDO1 or TDO inhibitors is required, or a dual IDO1/TDO inhibitor is preferred to obtain optimal efficacy and safety in the clinic?

Topic: Strategies for Developing Bispecific Antibodies for Cancer Immunotherapy

Moderator: Krzysztof Masternak, Ph.D., Head, Biology, Therapeutic Antibody Discovery, Novimmune

  • Considerations for efficacy in vitro and in vivo: selectivity for tumor cells, ADCP, ADCC, in vivo efficacy (xenograft models)
  • Insights into mechanisms of action
  • Safety considerations: binding selectivity, PK and tox studies

Topic: Combining Standard Antiangiogenic Therapy with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Moderator: Dan Duda, D.M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Steele Laboratories for Tumor Biology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School

  • Will checkpoint combination with chemotherapy or other targeted agents prove to have too many toxicity issues?
  • How do we minimize overlapping toxic effects of radiation and immunotherapy?
  • How to optimize the sequencing of these two treatment modalities?

SMALL MOLECULE INHIBITORS AS SINGLE AND CHECKPOINT COMBINATION AGENTS

Selective Small Molecule Inhibitors of IDO1 and TDO for Cancer Immunotherapy
Rogier Buijsman, Ph.D., Head, Chemistry, Netherlands Translational Research Center B.V. (NTRC)

Potent and Selective Small Molecule USP7 Inhibitors for Cancer Immunotherapy
Suresh Kumar, Ph.D., Director, R&D, Progenra, Inc.

Epigenetic Agents for Combination with Cancer Immunotherapy
Svetlana Hamm, Ph.D., Head, Biology, Translational Pharmacology, 4SC Group

VACCINES AND CHECKPOINT BLOCKADE IMMUNOTHERAPY

Immunotherapy for Mesothelioma with an in vivo DC Vaccine and PD-1/PD-L1 Blockade
Huabiao Chen, M.D., Ph.D., Principal Investigator, Vaccine and Immunotherapy Center, Massachusetts General Hospital

Bringing Together Checkpoint Inhibition with Vaccines Using Customizing Capsids
Willie Quinn, Ph.D., President & CEO, Bullet Bio

Recommended All Access Package:

June 14 SC1: Immunosequencing: Generating a New Class of Cancer Immunotherapy Diagnostics*

June 14 SC5: Convergence of Immunotherapy and Epigenetics for Cancer Treatment*

June 14 SC8: Rational Design of Cancer Combination Therapies*

June 15-16: Cancer Immunotherapy and Combinations

June 16-17: Tumor Models for Cancer Immunotherapy

* Separate registration required.

Exhibit booth space has sold out! The few remaining spaces are being sold via sponsorship only. To customize yoursponsorship package, please contact:
Joseph Vacca, M.Sc., Associate Director, Business Development, 781-972-5431, jvacca@healthtech.com

For more information visit

WorldPreclinicalCongress.com/Cancer-Immunotherapy-Combinations

Cambridge Healthtech Institute, 250 First Avenue, Suite 300, Needham, MA 02494 healthtech.com
Tel: 781-972-5400 | Fax: 781-972-5425

This email is being sent to sjwilliamspa@comcast.net. This email communication is for marketing purposes. If it is not of interest to you, please disregard and we apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.
Visit www.chicorporate.com/corporate_unsubscribe.aspx to update usage.

Read Full Post »


Notes from Opening Plenary Session – The Genome and Beyond from the 2015 AACR Meeting in Philadelphia PA; Sunday April 19, 2015

 

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

The following contain notes from the Sunday April 19, 2015 AACR Meeting (Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia PA) 9:30 AM Opening Plenary Session

The Genome and Beyond

Session Chairperson: Lewis C. Cantley, Ph.D.

Speakers: Michael R. Stratton, Tyler Jacks, Stephen B. Baylin, Robert D. Schreiber, Williams R. Sellers

  1. A) Insights From Cancer Genomes: Michael R. Stratton, Ph.D.; Director of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute
  • How do we correlate mutations with causative factors of carcinogenesis and exposure?
  • Cancer was thought as a disease of somatic mutations
  • UV skin exposure – see C>T transversion in TP53 while tobacco exposure and lung cancer see more C>A transversion; Is it possible to determine EXPOSURE SIGNATURES?
  • Use a method called non negative matrix factorization (like face pattern recognition but a mutation pattern recognition)
  • Performed sequence analysis producing 12,000 mutation catalogs with 8,000 somatic mutation signatures
  • Found more mutations than expected; some mutation signatures found in all cancers, while some signatures in half of cancers, and some signatures not found in cancer
  • For example found 3 mutation signatures in ovarian cancer but 13 for breast cancers (80,000 mutations); his signatures are actually spectrums of mutations
  • kataegis: defined as localized hypermutation; an example is a signature he found related to AID/APOBEC family (involved in IgG variability); kataegis is more prone in hematologic cancers than solid cancers
  • recurrent tumors show a difference in mutation signatures than primary tumor before drug treatment

 

  1. B) Engineering Cancer Genomes: Tyler Jacks, Ph.D.; Director, Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research
  • Cancer GEM’s (genetically engineered mouse models of cancer) had moved from transgenics to defined oncogenes
  • Observation that p53 -/- mice develop spontaneous tumors (lymphomas)
  • then GEMs moved to Cre/Lox systems to generate mice with deletions however these tumor models require lots of animals, much time to create, expensive to keep;
  • figured can use CRSPR/Cas9 as rapid, inexpensive way to generate engineered mice and tumor models
  • he used CRSPR/Cas9 vectors targeting PTEN to introduce PTEN mutations in-vivo to hepatocytes; when they also introduced p53 mutations produced hemangiosarcomas; took ONLY THREE months to produce detectable tumors
  • also produced liver tumors by using CRSPR/Cas9 to introduce gain of function mutation in β-catenin

 

See an article describing this study by MIT News “A New Way To Model Cancer: New gene-editing technique allows scientists to more rapidly study the role of mutations in tumor development.”

The original research article can be found in the August 6, 2014 issue of Nature[1]

And see also on the Jacks Lab site under Research

  1. C) Above the Genome; The Epigenome and its Biology: Stephen B. Baylin
  • Baylin feels epigenetic therapy could be used for cancer cell reprogramming
  • Interplay between Histone (Movers) and epigenetic marks (Writers, Readers) important for developing epigenetic therapy
  • Difference between stem cells and cancer: cancer keeps multiple methylation marks whereas stem cells either keep one on or turn off marks in lineage
  • Corepressor drugs are a new exciting class in chemotherapeutic development
  • (Histone Demythylase {LSD1} inhibitors in clinical trials)
  • Bromodomain (Brd4) enhancers in clinical trials
  1. D) Using Genomes to Personalize Immunotherapy: Robert D. Schreiber, Ph.D.,
  • The three “E’s” of cancer immunoediting: Elimination, Equilibrium, and Escape
  • First evidence for immunoediting came from mice that were immunocompetent resistant to 3 methylcholanthrene (3mca)-induced tumorigenesis but RAG2 -/- form 3mca-induced tumors
  • RAG2-/- unedited (retain immunogenicity); tumors rejected by wild type mice
  • Edited tumors (aren’t immunogenic) led to tolerization of tumors
  • Can use genomic studies to identify mutant proteins which could be cancer specific immunoepitopes
  • MHC (major histocompatibility complex) tetramers: can develop vaccines against epitope and personalize therapy but only good as checkpoint block (anti-PD1 and anti CTLA4) but personalized vaccines can increase therapeutic window so don’t need to start PD1 therapy right away
  • For more details see references Schreiker 2011 Science and Shankaran 2001 in Nature
  1. E) Report on the Melanoma Keynote 006 Trial comparing pembrolizumab and ipilimumab (PD1 inhibitors)

Results of this trial were published the morning of the meeting in the New England Journal of Medicine and can be found here.

A few notes:

From the paper: The anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival and had less high-grade toxicity than did ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-006 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01866319.)

And from Twitter:

Robert Cade, PharmD @VTOncologyPharm

KEYNOTE-006 was presented at this week’s #AACR15 conference. Pembrolizumab blew away ipilimumab as 1st-line therapy for metastatic melanoma.

2:02 PM – 21 Apr 2015

Jeb Keiper @JebKeiper

KEYNOTE-006 at #AACR15 has pembro HR 0.63 in OS over ipi. Issue is ipi is dosed only 4 times over 2 years (per label) vs Q2W for pembro. Hmm

11:55 AM – 19 Apr 2015

OncLive.com @OncLive

Dr Antoni Ribas presenting data from KEYNOTE-006 at #AACR15 – Read more about the findings, at http://ow.ly/LMG6T 

11:25 AM – 19 Apr 2015

Joe @GantosJ

$MRK on 03/24 KEYNOTE-006 vs Yervoy Ph3 stopped early for meeting goals of PFS, OS & full data @ #AACR15 now back to weekend & family

9:05 AM – 19 Apr 2015

Kristen Slangerup @medwritekristen

Keytruda OS benefit over Yervoy in frontline #melanoma $MRK stops Ph3 early & data to come @ #AACR15 #immunotherapy http://yhoo.it/1EYwwq8 

2:40 PM – 26 Mar 2015

Yahoo Finance @YahooFinance

Merck’s Pivotal KEYNOTE-006 Study in First-Line Treatment for…

Merck , known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today announced that the randomized, pivotal Phase 3 study investigating KEYTRUDA® compared to ipilimumab in the first-line treatment of…

View on web

 

Stephen J Williams @StephenJWillia2

Progression free survival better for pembrolzumab over ipilimumab by 2.5 months #AACR15 @Pharma_BI #Cancer #Immunotherapy

11:56 AM – 19 Apr 2015

 

Stephen J Williams @StephenJWillia2

Melanoma Keynote 006 trial PD1 inhibitor #Immunotherapy 80% responders after 1 year @Pharma_BI #AACR15

 

References

  1. Xue W, Chen S, Yin H, Tammela T, Papagiannakopoulos T, Joshi NS, Cai W, Yang G, Bronson R, Crowley DG et al: CRISPR-mediated direct mutation of cancer genes in the mouse liver. Nature 2014, 514(7522):380-384.

 

Other related articles on Cancer Genomics and Social Media Coverage were published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal, include the following:

Cancer Biology and Genomics for Disease Diagnosis

Introduction – The Evolution of Cancer Therapy and Cancer Research: How We Got Here?

Methodology for Conference Coverage using Social Media: 2014 MassBio Annual Meeting 4/3 – 4/4 2014, Royal Sonesta Hotel, Cambridge, MA

List of Breakthroughs in Cancer Research and Oncology Drug Development by Awardees of The Israel Cancer Research Fund

2013 American Cancer Research Association Award for Outstanding Achievement in Chemistry in Cancer Research: Professor Alexander Levitzki

Genomics and Epigenetics: Genetic Errors and Methodologies – Cancer and Other Diseases

Cancer Genomics – Leading the Way by Cancer Genomics Program at UC Santa Cruz

Genomics and Metabolomics Advances in Cancer

Pancreatic Cancer: Genetics, Genomics and Immunotherapy

Multiple Lung Cancer Genomic Projects Suggest New Targets, Research Directions for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

 

Read Full Post »