News Focus
News Focus
icon url

DFRAI

09/07/16 4:37 PM

#204157 RE: north40000 #204156

Cancer escaping treatment?

The good doctor says about 80% of cancers escape treatment (solid tumours) i think. ZIOP link to webcast today...its a good listen

https://cc.talkpoint.com/well001/090716a_ae/?entity=7_TWI4P0F

icon url

Titan V

09/07/16 6:40 PM

#204162 RE: north40000 #204156

You are right regarding the low response rates of the current checkpoint inhibitors.

Tumor Type and Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAB Non-Response rates:
Melanoma: ~60 – 80%
Triple Negative Breast: ~70 – 82%
Renal Cell Carcinoma: ~71%
Lung Carcinoma: ~79 – 83%
Head & Neck: ~80%
Bladder: ~84%
Gastric: ~69%
Source: OncoSec Corporate Presentation, slide 5

The high non-response rates to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 is due to low TILs (Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes) in patients. OncoSec (NASDAQ: ONCS) aims to increase TILs in low TIL patients using electroporation of IL-12 into the tumor microenvironment.

The Journal of Antibody Drug Conjugates published this article in April:
ONCOSEC MEDICAL’S IMMUNOPULSE IL-12 PRIMES PATIENTS FOR AN ENHANCED RESPONSE TO PD-1 BLOCKADE

In a related communication, the company said:

After treatment with ImmunoPulse® IL-12, the best overall response to anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy was 64% (9 of 14 patients). In a subset of eight (8) patients, who went straight from ImmunoPulse® IL-12 to treatment with anti-PD-1 with no intervening therapies, a best overall response of 75% (6 of 8 patients) was observed. Although this is a small subset of patients and a retrospective analysis, these observed response rates are much higher in these patients than the expected 30-40% seen with anti-PD-1 monotherapy.


In Q4, the company has said it will release interim data from its phase 2b EP IL-12 + Keytruda combo trial being carried out at UCSF. All patients in this trial went through the most accurate* biomarker test that determined them as non-responders to Keytruda. If OncoSec can convert say 30 non-responders to responders, that is a ~100% increase in Keytruda's response rate from what it can currently achieve. The great thing is, sample patients from this trial seem to be responding very well to the combo treatment as you can read from the 4th paragraph from the following Oncology Journal article. [This has not been PR'ed by the company yet. I came across this academic article during my due diligence process.]

Currently, a phase II clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02493361) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) is assessing the potential synergy between intratumoral IL-12 (given on days 1, 5, and 8 every 6 weeks) and concurrent administration of pembrolizumab (200 mg every 6 weeks). One 69-year-old female patient in the UCSF trial, with stage IV melanoma and an accessible lesion of the left inner arm, after 2 cycles of IL-12 and 4 cycles of pembrolizumab experienced a positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT)–confirmed complete response of the target lesion, and had no other sites of disease by the fifth cycle of treatment. Another female patient in the same trial (72 years old), with a treatable melanoma of the left forearm, after 4 cycles of IL-12 and 10 cycles of pembrolizumab experienced > 98% shrinkage in lesion size from baseline, based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). The most remarkable case in this cohort, however, is that of a 62-year-old male patient with at least stage III melanoma of multiple primary sites who experienced a complete clinical resolution of all treated subcutaneous lesions after only 1 cycle of IL-12 and 2 cycles of pembrolizumab. Radiographic evaluation of any distant metastases and confirmation of response are pending, but these results are expected to be good. Furthermore, another three patients have experienced interval tumor reduction, with one patient exhibiting locoregional shrinkage of distant untreated melanoma nodules.


Source: A Review of Novel Intralesional Therapies for Melanoma, With an Emphasis on a Potential Combination Approach

ONCS is very undervalued IMO. Respected The Street columnist Adam Feuerstein believes the same...

Ziopharm Oncology (ZIOP) and Oncosec Medical (ONCS) are developing similar but competing gene therapies to deliver interleukin-12, a protein which stimulates the immune system to kill cancer cells, directly into tumors.

Ziopharm's current enterprise value is almost $800 million, while OncoSec has a negative enterprise value of $2 million. But guess which company has better clinical data, to date?

Oncosec.


Source: Ziopharm Subpar Cancer Therapies Can't Support Lofty Market Valuation

ONCS will be a very good buyout candidate IMO once they release the interim Keytruda combo data this fall. Currently they have active trials in melanoma and TNBC only but have shown good results in merkel cell carcinoma and head and neck cancer [LA Times Op-Ed of H&N patient]. The latter two have been set aside for now to conserve cash. H&N was initialy set aside perhaps to wait for Keytruda to be approved for H&N cancer first. The patient received the combo treatment before Keytruda was approved for H&N cancer. Perhaps there will be a combo trial now that it has been approved.

OncoSec has also developed via REV1 Engineering a simple hand-held unit that can be introduced in a minimally invasive out-patient setting to access tumors deep in the body, increasing its range of application (NSCLC** would be a great target).
OncoSec Presents Significant Advancements in Electroporation Technology for Immunotherapy

ONCS also has collaborations with Heat Biologics (NASDAQ: HTBX), Perkin Elmer, and Plexxikon (a subsidiary of Daiichi Sankyo, Japan's 2nd largest pharma company). An update from the Plexxikon preclinical collaboration is also due.

Lastly unlike CAR-T treatments or other current combinations in general, ONCS patients have not experienced the same harsh side effects.

In my opinion, ONCS provides a very good risk/reward situation at the moment. Definitely worth a look if you are looking to speculate a little in the I/O combination therapy space.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* OncoSec Announces Peer-Reviewed Publication of T-Cell Exhaustion Marker to Predict Response to Anti-PD-1 Therapy in Melanoma

Journal of Clinical Investigation: Tumor immune profiling predicts response to anti–PD-1 therapy in human melanoma

OncoSec Collaborators Present Results of Novel T-Cell Exhaustion Marker to Predict Response to Anti-PD-1 Monotherapy

The ASCO Post: Determining Why Not All Patients Respond to PD-1 Inhibitors

** OncoSec collaborator Heat Biologics (HTBX) has an Opdivo combination trial in NSCLC with phase 1 data due in Q4. In the future ONCS could enter NSCLC via HTBX.
OncoSec / Heat Biologics poster