PTP1B deficiency enables the ability of a high fat diet to drive the invasive character of PTEN-deficient prostate cancers.

Diet affects the risk and progression of prostate cancer (PCa), but the interplay between diet and genetic alterations in this disease is not understood. Here we present genetic evidence in the mouse showing that PCa progression driven by loss of the tumor suppressor Pten is mainly unresponsive to a high fat diet (HFD), but that coordinate loss of the protein tyrosine phosphatase Ptpn1 (PTP1B in human) enables a highly invasive disease. PCa in Pten-/-Ptpn1-/- mice was characterized by increased cell proliferation and Akt activation, interpreted to reflect a heightened sensitivity to IGF-1 stimulation upon HFD feeding. Prostate-specific overexpression of PTP1B was not sufficient to initiate PCa, arguing that it acted as a diet-dependent modifier of prostate cancer development in Pten-/- mice. Our findings offer a preclinical rationale to investigate the anticancer effects of PTP1B inhibitors currently being studied clinically for diabetes treatment as a new modality for management of prostate cancer.
Copyright ©2016, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) (Free AACR Whitepaper).

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!


Intracranial Efficacy of Crizotinib Versus Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From PROFILE 1014.

Intracranial efficacy of first-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy was compared prospectively in the phase III PROFILE 1014 study in ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.
Patients were randomly assigned to receive crizotinib (250 mg twice daily; n = 172) or chemotherapy (pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) or carboplatin at area under the curve 5 to 6, every 3 weeks for ≤ six cycles; n = 171). Patients with stable treated brain metastases (tBM) were eligible. Intracranial efficacy was assessed at baseline and every 6 or 12 weeks in patients with or without known brain metastases (BM), respectively; intracranial time to tumor progression (IC-TTP; per protocol) and intracranial disease control rate (IC-DCR; post hoc) were measured. The intent-to-treat population was also assessed.
Of 343 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 23% had tBM at baseline. A nonsignificant IC-TTP improvement was observed with crizotinib in the intent-to-treat population (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; P = .069), patients with tBM (HR, 0.45; P = .063), and patients without BM (HR, 0.69; P = .323). Among patients with tBM, IC-DCR was significantly higher with crizotinib versus chemotherapy at 12 weeks (85% v 45%, respectively; P < .001) and 24 weeks (56% v 25%, respectively; P = .006). Progression-free survival was significantly longer with crizotinib versus chemotherapy in both subgroups (tBM present: HR, 0.40; P < .001; median, 9.0 v 4.0 months, respectively; BM absent: HR, 0.51; P < .001; median, 11.1 v 7.2 months, respectively) and in the intent-to-treat population (HR, 0.45; P < .001; median, 10.9 v 7.0 months, respectively).
Compared with chemotherapy, crizotinib demonstrated a significantly higher IC-DCR in patients with tBM. Improvements in IC-TTP were not statistically significant in patients with or without tBM, although sensitivity to detect treatment differences in or between the two subgroups was low.
© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) (Free ASCO Whitepaper).

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!


Pyrexia in dabrafenib-treated melanoma patients is not associated with common genetic variation or HLA polymorphisms.

Pyrexia is a common adverse event (AE) on dabrafenib treatment (monotherapy or combination with trametinib). Since germline SNPs and HLA alleles are implicated in drug-induced AEs, this study investigated their association with pyrexia.
1006 melanoma subjects from five dabrafenib-trametinib clinical studies underwent genotyping for genome-wide SNPs, which enabled imputation of 150 HLA alleles. SNP/HLA allele frequencies were compared between pyrexia cases (n = 218) and controls (n = 361) out of the 1006 subjects by meta-analysis.
This analysis had adequate power to detect association of common SNPs or HLA alleles with moderate to large effects on pyrexia (odds ratio >6), but no significant association was found.
The study suggests that common genetic variation or HLA polymorphisms do not contribute substantially to dabrafenib-induced pyrexia.

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!


Comparison of prognostic and predictive impact of genomic or central grade and immunohistochemical subtypes or IHC4 in HR+/HER2- early breast cancer: WSG-AGO EC-Doc Trial.

Potential prognostic and predictive markers in early, intermediate-risk breast cancer (BC) include histological grade, Ki-67, genomic signatures, e.g. genomic grade index (GGI), and intrinsic subtypes. Their prognostic/predictive impact in hormone receptor (HR: ER and/or PR) positive/HER2- BC is controversial. WSG-AGO EC-Doc demonstrated superior event-free survival (EFS) in patients with 1-3 positive lymph node receiving epirubicin/cyclophosphamide-docetaxel (EC-Doc) versus 5-fluoruracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (FEC).
In a representative trial subset, we quantify concordance among factors used for clinical chemotherapy indication. We investigate the impact of central histology (n = 772), immunohistochemistry for intrinsic subtyping and IHC4, and dichotomous (GG) or continuous (GGI) genomic grade (n = 472) on patient outcome and benefit from taxane chemotherapy, focusing on HR+/HER2- patients (n = 459).
Concordance of local grade (LG) with central (CG) or genomic grade was modest. In HR+/HER2- patients, low (GG-1: 16%), equivocal (GG-EQ: 17%), and high (GG-3: 67%) GG were associated with respective 5-year EFS of 100%, 93%, and 85%. GGI was prognostic for EFS within all LG subgroups and within CG3, whereas IHC4 was prognostic only in CG3 tumors.In unselected and HR+/HER2- patients, CG3 and luminal-A-like subtype entered the multivariate EFS model, but not IHC4 or GG. In the whole population, continuous GGI entered the model [hazard ratio (H.R.) of 75th versus 25th = 2.79; P = 0.01], displacing luminal-A-like subtype; within HR+/HER2- (H.R. = 5.36; P < 0.001), GGI was the only remaining prognostic factor.In multivariate interaction analysis (including central and genomic grade), luminal-B-like subtype [HR+ and (Ki-67 ≥20% or HER2+)] was predictive for benefit of EC-Doc versus FEC in unselected but not in HR+/HER2- patients.
In the WSG-AGO EC-Doc trial for intermediate-risk BC, CG, intrinsic subtype (by IHC), and GG provide prognostic information. Continuous GGI (but not IHC4) adds prognostic information even when IHC subtype and CG are available. Finally, the high interobserver variability for histological grade and the still missing validation of Ki-67 preclude indicating or omitting adjuvant chemotherapy based on these single factors alone.
The WSG-AGO/EC-Doc is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02115204.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected].

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!


ImmunoCellular Therapeutics Announces 2015 Financial Results

On March 30, 2016 ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. ("ImmunoCellular") (NYSE MKT: IMUC) reported financial results for 2015 (Press release, ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, MAR 30, 2016, View Source [SID:1234510218]).

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!

Andrew Gengos, ImmunoCellular Chief Executive Officer, commented: "We made important progress in advancing the company in 2015. In particular, we designed and began executing what we believe is the best possible phase 3 registration trial for ICT-107 in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. We took full advantage of about five years of placebo-controlled survival data and immune monitoring results from the phase 2 trial, conversations with key opinion leaders in the field of glioblastoma and discussions with major regulatory bodies in designing this trial. The process of bringing clinical sites online and screening patients in the US is accelerating, and we anticipate that all sites in the US, Canada and Europe will be activated by the end of 2016. In addition, our research relationships and collaborations with prestigious academic institutions, including the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Stanford University and the University of Maryland, are progressing well, and represent value-enhancing opportunities for our Company. We are proud of the progress we made in 2015, and are looking forward to delivering another year of growth and achievement in 2016."

For the year ended December 31, 2015, ImmunoCellular incurred a net loss of $12.8 million, or $0.15 per basic and diluted share, compared to a net loss of $9.4 million, or $0.16 per basic and diluted share, for the year ended December 31, 2014. During 2015 the Company incurred $10.9 million of research and development expenses compared to $6.0 million in 2014. The $4.9 million increase primarily reflects the additional expenses associated with the phase 3 trial of ICT-107. General and administrative expenses increased in 2015 to $4.6 million from $3.9 million in 2014, primarily due to additional professional fees and payroll-related expenses. During 2015, the Company recorded a credit to other income of $2.9 million to reflect a write-down in the Company’s warrant liability compared to a credit to other income of $530,000 in 2014. For the quarter ended December 31, 2015, the Company recorded a net loss of $4.8 million, or $0.05 per basic and diluted share, compared to $2.1 million, or $0.03 per basic and diluted share, during the same period in 2014. The increase in the net loss between periods reflects the additional costs of the phase 3 trial of ICT-107.

The Company also reported that cash used in operations in 2015 was $19.0 million compared to $9.9 million in 2014. In addition to the incremental expenses associated with starting the phase 3 trial of ICT-107, the Company also purchased $2.2 million in supplies and made additional vendor deposits of $3.7 million related to the trial. These items will benefit future periods and are reflected on the Company’s balance sheet at December 31, 2015.

During 2015, the Company raised $14.6 million net of offering costs from the issuance of 26,650,000 shares of common stock and warrants to purchase 18,655,000 shares. The warrants have a term of five years and an exercise price of $0.66. During the third quarter of 2015, the Company was awarded $19.9 million from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) that the Company will be entitled to receive as patients are enrolled in the phase 3 trial of ICT-107, and during the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company received $4.0 million in its first award payment from CIRM. The next award payment is anticipated to be $3.0 million when the next enrollment milestone is achieved. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had $22.6 million in cash.

The Company has agreed in principle with the staff of the SEC on a proposed settlement framework to an investigation related principally to its former Chief Executive Officer involving conduct between November 2011 and August 2012. If the settlement is approved, the Company would consent to the entry of an administrative order requiring that we cease and desist from any future violations of Sections 5, 17(a), and 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, without admitting or denying any allegations. The proposed settlement also involves the adoption of certain corporate governance amendments to the Company’s policies and practices, in particular as it relates to the retention of investor relations and public relations firms. The proposed settlement is contingent upon execution of a formal offer of settlement and approval by the Commissioners of the SEC, neither of which can be assured. Based upon the settlement framework with the staff of the SEC, the Company has not accrued and does not currently expect to accrue a liability related to this matter. However, any final settlement must be approved by the Commissioners. If the Commissioners do not approve the settlement, the Company may need to enter into further discussions with the SEC to resolve the investigated matters on different terms and conditions. As a result, there can be no assurance as to the final terms of any settlement including its financial impact or any future adjustment to the financial statements.