These slides provide an overview of 100 therapeutic cancer vaccines in development, a look at some of the failures, what's been and is being done to address the clinical development of these vaccines and a snapshot of some deals, terms and the number of companies seeking commercializations partners.
2. Therapeutic CancerVaccines-The Genesis
Over a century ago, Dr.William B. Coley, a bone surgeon,
developed a method of immunotherapy
Believing that bacterial toxins stimulated the immune system, he
injected a cancer patient with live bacteria; the patient made a
complete recovery1,2
Dr. Coley went on to develop a safe and effective mixture of bacteria
for treating cancer patients known as Coley’s mixed bacterial toxins
Through the decades followingColey’s introduction of
immunotherapy, many attempts have been made to develop and
bring cancer vaccines to market
Success, however, has been elusive
Prepared by 2911 Advisers
1American Cancer Society
2 www.cancerresearch.org/about/history
3. Therapeutic CancerVaccines
Therapeutic cancer vaccines, orTCVs, as with the whole of
immunotherapy, hold a tremendous amount of promise
Some of that promise has already been realized in several approved
immunotherapeutics, but only oneTCV
The pipeline for biologics is robust
PhRMA reports over 900 biologics in development in 15 different
therapeutic areas, targeting a wide range of indications1
Cancer vaccines comprise nearly 36% of all biologic vaccines in
development in the report2 and 28% of all cancer biologics being
developed
Preventative cancer vaccines are included in the report
These slides focus only onTCVs
Prepared by 2911 Advisers
1 PhRMA 2013 Medicines in Development: Biologics
2Trials for 3 vaccines have been stopped and a product acquisition has lowered the reported number
5. TCVs in Development
One hundredTCVs are included in this review
These include most of the vaccines in the PhRMA report, and those
identified through searches on clinicaltrials.gov, the InternationalTrials
Registry, and company pipelines
New and/or discontinued indications were identified during the
searches of company pipelines
Trials conducted by the NCI and other agencies, research centers and
universities are not included, unless the trial is being conducted on
behalf of a company
A 2011 University of Michigan found that there were 231TCVs in
clinical development1; a more recent report2 shows 196TCVs being
developed
Prepared by 2911 Advisers
1 HumVaccin. 2011 Nov;7(11):1124-9
2 Kaloroma
6. A Snapshot
Among the 100TCVs, a total of 34 different cancer indications are
targeted
Ten indications have received orphan designation, 6 received fast track
designation, and 4 were designated both orphan and fast track
There are 12 specific types of vaccines, i.e. dendritic cell, among the
100 in development
Twenty-six of the vaccines are in Phase 3 clinical trials
Four of these trials have been completed, of which two missed their
primary endpoints: Merck KGaA/Oncothyreon (NSCLC) and Kael-GemVax
(pancreatic)
Seventy-three companies are represented
Prepared by 2911 Advisers
7. Targeted Indications andTypes ofTCVs
Indication Number
Prostate 16
Breast 15
Glioblastoma 14
NSCLC 12
Melanoma 12
Solid tumors 10
Hematological 10
Type Number
Peptide 20
Genetically-
modified
14
Dendritic 12
Cell
(autologous/alloge
nic)
12
mAB 9
Recombinant 8
Prepared by 2911 Advisers
Other targeted cancers are renal,
SCLC, sarcoma, endometrial, ovarian, colorectal,GI,
pancreatic, bladder, head & neck, colon, urogenital, and
mesothelioma
Other types of vaccines include DNA,
virus vector, virus replicon virus, antibody,
bacterial and polyclonal antibody
8. TCVs by Clinical Stage
The vaccines in development are shown by their respective
clinical stage in the table below. Note that none are in
regulatory review
Prepared by 2911 Advisers
Stage Number
Phase 0 3
Phase I 28
Phase II 34
Phase III 26
Phase I/II 31
Phase II/III 3
Clinical stage includes recruiting, ongoing, ongoing and recruiting, ongoing but not recruiting
Phase 1, 2 or 3 ready and completed.Trials with an unknown status are not included.
12. TCVs-Long on Promises………….
Cancer vaccines targeted by many as
the ‘holy grail’ for tumors
Promising CancerVaccineCould
ShrinkTumors By 80 Percent
Brain CancerVaccine Promising
Prostate CancerVaccine Looks
Promising in EarlyTrial
Personalized Immunotherapy Shows
Promise in Mantle Cell Lymphoma
PANVAC for breast, ovarian cancer
shows early promise
Surgical Oncologist Presents
Promising Data for Novel Pancreatic
CancerVaccine
CouldThis BeThe End Of Cancer?
…scientists say vaccines could hold
the key—not just to a cure but to
wiping out cancer forever
Therapeutic polyvalent vaccine
shows promise against melanoma
MUC1 peptide vaccines still show
promise for lung cancer victims
Prepared by 2911 Advisers
Consider these headlines
13. ………..But Short on Approvals
The preceding headlines come from press releases issued by
companies either developingTCVs while some represent to failed
TCVs
And whileTCVs and their promises continue to excite physicians,
patients, investors, scientists and analysts
a speaker at ASCO 2013 reminded his audience that the promises of
immunotherapy extend back at least 40 years, displaying the March 19,
1973 cover ofTime Magazine featuring noted immunologist Robert
Good
Although new types ofTCVs are in clinical trials including, antigen,
dendritic cell, vector-based, DNA and tumor cell and show positive
results, Provenge remains the only FDA-approvedTCV and none
are approved in the EU
Prepared by 2911 Advisers
14. Failure Is Not An Option
The path to approval is littered with failures; Phase 2 vaccines that have
shown great promise fail in Phase 3; below are some examples
Prepared by 2911 Advisers
Biopharmaceutical companies with failed cancer vaccines
Genzyme: Melan-A Genitope: MyVax
Imclone: Mitumomab IDM Pharma: UVIDEM and COLLIDEM
Titan Pharmaceuticals: CeaVac Therion: PANVAC-VF
TeloVac: GV1001 CancerVax: Canvaxin
Corixa: Melacine Oncothyreon/Merck KGaA: Stimuvax*
Oxford Biomedica: TroVax Cell Genesys: GVAX prostate
*Despite missing its primary Phase 3 endpoint for NSCLC, the companies decided to proceed with an ongoing
late-phase trial in Asia and is weighing the options of starting a further study. A decision, partly dependent on
the outcome of talks with regulators, is expected this year.
15. Some Failures Get a Second Chance
PROSTVAC failed to demonstrate a reducedTTP for prostate
cancer
Two years later, it was discovered that PROSTVAC had demonstrated a
statistically significantOS; Bavarian Nordic licensed the drug, which is
now in Phase 3
Aduro Biotech resurrected twoTCVs it acquired, one for metastatic
pancreatic cancer, now in Phase 2, and the second for prostate
cancer (preclinical)
Prepared by 2911 Advisers
16. Why DoTCVs Fail?
A recently published paper suggested that someTCV failures can be
blamed on a self-sabotaging adjuvant1; instead of destroying tumors,
T-cells accumulate at the vaccination site, with the miss-targeting due
to incomplete Freund's adjuvant
Trial design: selection of clinical trial endpoints, disease stage, patient
population, and trial duration2
A retrospective analysis of 23 completed or terminated P3 studies
showed that 74% (17/23) failed to demonstrate significant efficacy in
the primary endpoint, suggesting tumor burden may not be the only
prognostic factor3
Considering the above, the current oncology drug development
paradigm doesn’t fit
Prepared by 2911 Advisers
1 Nature Medicine:Willem Overwijk,Assistant Professor, MD AndersonCancer Center
2 http://obroncology.com/documents/OBR_JAN10_CV.pdf
3 www.landesbioscience.com/journals/vaccines/article/23917/
17. It’s Not a One-Size-Fits-All Development
Paradigm
Conventional Oncology Drug Development Paradigm, designed for cytotoxics
Phase N (variable) Purpose
1 20 to 80 healthy
volunteers, or patients
(may or may not have
target disease)
Determine safety, dose
range, MTD, DLT
Characterize pK If mixed
population, find target
2 100 to 300 patient
volunteers with targeted
disease
Evaluate effectiveness, look
for side effects. May
provide estimate of effect
size for Phase 3
Discuss continuation with regulatory authorities
3 500 to 1,000 patient
volunteers
Verify effectiveness,
monitor adverse reactions
from long- term use
4 Large number of patients Post-marketing surveillance
Prepared by 2911 AdvisersModified from CheneyT. & Kaspar P. Overview of Clinical Research, 1996.
18. The Conventional Paradigm Doesn’t Fit:
TCVs Are Not Cytotoxics
Prepared by 2911 Advisers
General principles of oncology drug
development
Why these principles don’t adapt to
cancer vaccines
Increasing dose increases efficacy MTDs aren’t optimal doses; cancer vaccines
usually have low toxicity; no proof for a linear
dose-potency relationship
PK is relevant for finding optimal dose Cancer vaccines aren’t metabolized; not evident
that a MTD will be coincident with the optimal
dose to reach the vaccine effect
Objective responses (OR) predict clinical benefit OR is not a good predictor of survival
Endpoints based on selected tumor size Tumors may progress prior to immune response
and regression
Mixed tumor trials for target selection Many cancer vaccines are designed to address
only one tumor type
Objective progression is considered a failure;
drugs aren’t active if tumor is growing
Cancer vaccines could be actives beyond
disease progression; translating immune
response into antitumor response takes time
19. Changing the Paradigm
Over the course of a year, the CancerVaccineClinicalTrialWorking
Group, comprised of more than 50 individuals from academia, the
pharmaceutical and biotech industries, and regulatory bodies
developed and proposed changes to the existing paradigm1
The Cancer Immunotherapy Consortium of the Cancer Research
Institute, from 2004 to 2009, evaluated an immunotherapy-focused
development paradigm, creating principles for redefining trial
endpoints2
Other scientists, researchers, regulatory officials and academicians
reviewed the current paradigm and proposed changes3
Prepared by 2911 Advisers
1The CancerVaccine ClinicalTrialWorking Group, J Immunother Jan 2006
2 JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst,Vol 102, Issue 18 Pp. 1388-1397
3 Cancer vaccines:Will we ever learn? Expert Review of AnticancerTherapy, January 2009,Vol. 9, no. 1, Pages 67-74
20. Recommendations for a New Paradigm:The
CancerVaccineClinicalTrialWorking Group
Prepared by 2911 Advisers
Phase of development Purpose Endpoints
Proof-of-Principle
-N>20
-Defined patient population with
no end stage
-No mandate to investigate exact
mechanism of action disease
-Safety database initiated
-Establish immunogenicity,
biologic activity, clinical activity
-Use established and reproducible
immune assays
-Cohort design determines dose
and schedule of vaccination
-Impact of the vaccine on immune
response or on investigated disease
-Sequential samples for assays
-No mandate to demonstrate
clinical activity with conventional
endpoints
Phase 2 comparative randomized,
powered for statistically significant
difference between two arms in a
well-defined population,
a well-defined primary outcome
measure (may be a surrogate)
-Expansion of safety database
-Establishment of efficacy
-Flexibility of development, e.g.
allow for sample size re-
calculation, allow for modification
of Phase 3 eligibility criteria
-Validated surrogates or
biomarkers as efficacy endpoints
-Validation needs proof-of-
correlation between outcome and
biological marker in single-arm or
randomized studies (prognostic
factor), or
-needs randomized trial showing
that intervention-induced
surrogate correlates with outcome
(immune response)
Phase 3 conventional trial
-Data from Phase 3 component not
to be pooled with Phase 2 data
www.sitcancer.org/meetings/am05/workshop_presentations/workstream_2.pdf, not all recommendations included
21. Recommendations for a New Paradigm:
The Cancer Immunotherapy Consortium
Prepared by 2911 Advisers
Source: JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst,Vol 102, Issue 18 Pp. 1388-1397
Endpoint Cellular immune response Antitumor response Survival
Challenges -Complex assays exist
-Results are highly
variable and not
reproducible across trials
-Assay procedures are not
harmonized
-Conventional and novel
response patterns are
observed
-Translating immune
response into antitumor
response takes time
-No systematic criteria to
capture new response
patterns exist
-Time it takes to translate
immune and antitumor
response into a survival
effect
-Conventional statistical
models don’t account for
non-proportional hazards
and delayed separation of
curves
Recommendations -Harmonized assay use
through SOPs that
accompany individual
assay protocols
-Identify relevant
response patterns
-Use systematic criteria
(irRC*) to reproducibly
capture new patterns
-Employ statistical
models that account for
the delayed effect
-Carefully consider use of
early interim and futility
analyses
The core aspects of all recommendations are included in Guidance for Industry:ClinicalConsiderations forTherapeuticCancerVaccines
US Dept. of Health and Human Services, FDA,CBER, October 2011
* immune-related response criteria
22. Regulatory Comments and
Considerations
May or may not determine MTD
(and that’s OK)
Vaccine-specific toxicities as
endpoint for early stage trials-
clinical activity is secondary
objective
Explore continuation of vaccine after
initial progression if
Subject continues to meet
eligibility criteria
No clinical deterioration
No curative salvage therapy
exists
Consider randomized Phase 2 trials
PFS,TTP, DFS can’t be
interpreted in single arm trials
Single arm trials may lead to
overly optimistic interpretation
of effect size
Phase 3 endpoints
PFS is preferred overTTP
OS remains the gold standard
and may be the bestTCV
endpoint as PFS has yet to be
successful
DFS in adjuvant setting
US Regulatory Considerations forTherapeutic Cancer Vaccines
Peter Bross, MD,Team Leader,Clinical Oncology, FDA CBER;2012 AACR Annual Meeting
23. CBER: Going Beyond Comments and
Considerations
CBER included the core aspects of a number of the recommendations made by
theCancerVaccine ClinicalTrialWorking Group and the Cancer Immunotherapy
Consortium in a 2011 guidance document1
Support of virology, molecular and tumor biology, and safety and efficacy
immunology studies of gene transfer and tumor vaccines has begun2,3
Improved tools for clinical trial and design are being developed
The division is evaluating and implementing novel methods to improve
reliability, sensitivity, and specificity of assays for product development and lot
release
CBER acknowledges that endpoints based on tumor assessments4 may not be
appropriate endpoints for a late phase clinical trial for a cancer vaccine
Prepared by 2911 Advisers
1 Guidance for Industry:Clinical Considerations forTherapeuticCancerVaccines,Oct 2011
2 Nat Med 2013 Apr;19(4):452-7,Coagulation factor X shields adenovirus type 5 from attack by
natural antibodies and complement. Xu Z,Qiu Q,Tian J, Smith JS, Conenello GM, MoritaT, Byrnes AP
3 CBER Strategic Plan for Regulatory Science and Research FY 2012-2016; Draft
4 Guidance for Industry:ClinicalTrial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics; May 2007
25. Selected Deals andTerms-FailedTCVs
Licensee/Licensor Date Assets Terms
Sanofi
Aventis/Oxford
Biomedica
03/07 TroVax, renal cancer;
Phase 2
WW license; $38.6M upfront, $25.3M
development milestone; total deal
value $690M
SanofiAventis/IDM
Pharma
07/01 UVIDEM, melanoma
Phase 2
WW license; up to $545M
MerckSerono/Canva
x
12/04 Canvaxin, melanoma License; $25M upfront, $12M in
equity, up to $253M in milestones
Takeda/CellGenesys 03/08 GVAX prostate, Phase
3
AcquiredWW rights; $50M upfront,
up to $270M in milestones, tiered
double-digit royalties on net sales in
US, flat double-digit RoW
26. Selected Deals andTerms-TCVs in
Development
Licensee/Licensor Date Assets Terms
Aduro
Biotech/BioSante
Pharma
04/11 GVAX pancreas,
prostate vaccines
Phase 2 & Phase 3
License; milestones, royalties when
commercialized
02/13 All GVAX vaccines;
Phase 1, Phase 2
and Phase 3
Acquisition; $1M upfront, additional
milestones & royalties when
commercialized
Merck/Vical 06/05 Non-viral gene
delivery technology
Exercised 3 options to licenseVical
technology forTCVs; $3M upfront,
milestones, royalties
Accentia/Biovest 04/03 Biovax ID; Phase 3 $20M equity (81% stake)
Pfizer/Celldex
(Pfizer returned
rights in 2010)
04/08 Peptide vaccine,
glioma; Phase 2
WW license; $40M upfront, $10M
equity, over $390M in milestones,
royalties, fund development
27. Selected Deals andTerms-TCVs in
Development
Licensee/Licensor Date Assets/Phase Terms
Private
investor/Argos
Therapeutics
11/08 Dendritic cell
vaccine; Phase 1/2
$35.2M Series C financing
Merck KGaA/Biomira
(nowOncothyreon)
05/01 Stimuvax &
Theratope vaccines
WW license; $33.5M in upfront and
equity, share development costs, 50/50
sales split in US, Canada, royalties
elsewhere
01.06 Stimuvax; Phase 3 Acquisition of full US rights; royalties
and regulatory milestones
12/08 Manufacturing;
Phase 3
License/acquisition; $13M to license
mfg. rights and acquire mfg. assets for
Stimuvax
Novartis/Transgene 03/10 Genetically-
modified vaccine;
Phase 2
Option toWW rights; $10M upfront,
additional $950M if option exercised
28. PartneringTCVs in Development
There are 5 partnerships identified among the 73 companies in this
review
B-MS/Medarex (B-MS has acquired Medarex)
Merck KgaA/Oncothyreon
Merck/Vical
Transgene/Novartis
GlobeImmune/Celgene (Celgene has an exclusive option to license all
of GlobeImmune’s oncology programs)
A review of the partnering strategies of the remaining companies
reveals at least 44 are or will be seeking a commercialization
partner
29. About 2911 Advisers
2911 Advisers is a Life Sciences consulting firm in Nashua, NH
and is owned by Michael Sheckler, MBA.With a focus on
oncology and pain management, he assists clients with
business/strategy development, product & technological
assessment, opportunity identification, market valuation,
market/competitive analysis and negotiating licenses.
He can be reached at 603 809-9936 or at
michael.sheckler@gmail.com.
Prepared by 2911 Advisers