VentureBeat

Posts Tagged ‘cancer-vaccine’

TODAY’S HEADLINES:

breathe-tech-logo-150px.gifBreathe Tech raises $15M for respiratory disease – Breathe Technologies, a Fremont, Calif., medical device maker, raised $15 million in a second round of funding. Investors included Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Synergy Partners International, Delphi Ventures and Life Science Angels.

Breathe is developing “compact” and “lightweight” respiratory systems for the hospital and home markets, and estimates that annual sales of the devices its equipment could enhance or replace amount to $2 billion. The Breathe ventilators could be used by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, and other lung disorders.

pieris-logo-150px.gifProtein-drug maker Pieris takes in €25M – Pieris, a German biotech pursuing a new form of protein-based drug, raised €25 million ($38 million) in a second funding round. Investors included OrbiMed Advisors, Novo Nordisk, Global Life Science Ventures, Gilde Healthcare Partners and Forbion Capital Partners.

Pieris is the latest biotech to think it can improve on monoclonal antibodies as drug candidates by developing its own engineered protein structures. The startup calls its protein structures Anticalins — they’re derived from a class of human proteins called lipocalins — and says they’re smaller and simpler than monoclonals with similar power to selectively bind to particular molecular targets.

Pieris joins a number of other companies pursuing similar strategies, including Adnexus Therapeutics, which sold itself to Bristol-Myers Squibb for $430 million, and Molecular Partners, a Swiss biotech working on modular proteins it calls DARPins. Although these are all interesting ideas, none have yet proven themselves, and all have to address a potentially significant hurdle — the fact that none of these engineered proteins are likely to engage the immune system’s disease-fighting elements the way monoclonal antibodies often do.

apthera-logo-150px.gifApthera takes in $2.1M toward cancer vaccine – Apthera, a Scottsdale, Ariz., biotech working on therapeutic cancer vaccines, raised $2.1 million of an expected $3.9 million second funding round, VentureWire reports. Investors included the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Blackmont Capital, Land Ventures and individuals.

Apthera is developing a vaccine intended to stimulate an immune response against breast-cancer cells. The startup plans to start a late-stage, phase III trial of the vaccine in the fourth quarter of this year, and hopes to raise another $10 million later this year to finance the test.

newlink-genetics-logo-150px.jpgNewLink Genetics, an Ames, Iowa, biotech working on cancer vaccines and drugs that modulate the immune system, has so far raised about $17 million in a third funding round. The company aims to raise another $8 million in the round for a total of $25 million, according to Nicholas Vahanian, the company’s chief medical and operating officer.

In an unusual approach for a startup, NewLink is pursuing two different, but potentially related, approaches to treating cancer. The first is a therapeutic cancer vaccine designed to stimulate the immune system into attacking tumor cells, which the body’s defenses normally ignore. NewLink has identified a particular protein called a(1, 3)-Galactosyl (alpha-Gal, for short) that normally stimulates an extremely potent immune reaction.

By genetically engineering lines of cancer cells to produce that protein, the company’s scientists intend to make the cells highly “visible” to the immune system. The hope is that the body’s defenders will generate antibodies and other potent molecular weapons that will attack not only the engineered cells, but other cancer cells in the body. NewLink’s cancer vaccine is currently in mid-stage, phase II trials in lung and pancreatic cancer. Vahanian said the early data is “promising,” but declined to go into specifics until the current trials produce interim results, which may happen as soon as early next year.

The company’s second approach involves a small-molecule drug, 1MT, that inhibits an enzyme called indoleamine,-2,3-dioxygenase, or IDO. This enzyme normally down-regulates the immune system — technically, it degrades the amino acid tryptophan in the immune-system’s dendritic cells, setting off a chain of events that disarm certain of the body’s defensive components.

Inhibiting IDO should therefore improve immune response, making 1MT a potentially useful in combination with traditional chemotherapy drugs, which often have immunosuppressive side effects of their own. (Vahanian says the company’s researchers believe that chemo drugs are effective in part because they trigger immune responses.) NewLink is testing the drug as a single agent against a variety of tumors in an early-stage, phase I trial, which could complete enrollment by this fall.

Investors in the round included Iowa Capital Group, Ames Seed Capital, Chicagoland Investors, Midwest Oilseeds and NLG Advisors. NewLink has roughly 50 employees and was founded in 1999. The company has also received a non-equity, forgiveable loan from Iowa’s Department of Economic Development, Vahanian said.

TODAY’S HEADLINES:

5AM Ventures puts $3.3M into new immune-related startup – I’ve moved this item to a standalone post here.

NewLink Genetics raises $17M for cancer vaccine, immune drugs – I’ve moved the item to a standalone post here.

Biochip, stem-cell biotech Minerva Bio ousts CEO Jim Czirr and sues – This item is now a standalone post here.

Sonexa Therapeutics takes $30M for Alzheimer’s treatment – San Diego’s Sonexa Therapeutics (no Web site), a specialty pharma, raised $30 million in a first funding round. The proceeds will go toward licensing a so-far undisclosed compound from a Japanese pharmaceutical company that Solexa says is “being tested as a therapeutic to treat Alzheimer’s disease.”

Solexa will have worldwide rights to the experimental drug, excepting Japan and certain Asian countries. Investors in the round included Domain Associates, Scale Venture Partners, Alta Partners, AgeChem Venture Fund and MC Life Science Ventures.

healionics-logo-150px.gifTissue regenerator Healionics pulls in $1.7M – Redmond, Wash.-based Healionics, a device company focused on tissue regeneration and biomaterials, raised $1.7 million in a first funding round. Individual investors, including Carl Lombardi, the former CEO of SpaceLabs Medical, and Sam Naficy, the medical director of the Naficy Plastic Surgery & Rejuvenation Center, provided the funding.

Healionics is focused on a new class of biomaterials it calls STAR, for sphere-templated angiogenic regeneration. These STAR materials are designed for insertable or implantable medical devices that need to integrate smoothly with and promote healing of the body’s tissues. In particular, Healionics claims that the materials are specifically engineered with “tightly controlled pore geometry” that maximizes the growth of blood vessels and tissue entry while minimizing the body’s tendency to “wall off” implants with scar tissue.

The company, founded last March, says it has established “multiple partnerships” for advancing the development of its materials. Possible applications include diabetes, wound care and infusion therapy.

egeen-logo.gifEGeen, clinical research organization, receives $245K –EGeen, a contract research organization in Mountain View, Calif., raised $245,433 to expand its global operations, VentureWire reports. Ambient Sound Investments provided the funding.

EGeen conducts clinical trials for pharma and biotech companies in Estonia and other Eastern European nations. It has recently established a presence in the Ukraine and Romania. The company has previously raised $4.8 million in two funding rounds.

Immunotope, a Doylestown, Pa., biotechnology company working on cancer vaccines, raised a second $350,000 investment (PDF) from Ben Franklin Technology Partners.

An earlier $350,000 investment allowed the company to manufacture its cancer vaccine, which is initially aimed at ovarian and breast tumors. The new funding will supposedly permit Immunotope to fund early-stage patient-treatment and evaluation studies, although it’s really not clear how much the company can expect to accomplish with these relatively tiny investments. Cancer vaccines are pretty complex beasts, and even early-stage “phase I” trials aren’t anywhere near this cheap.

In fact, that’s probably why Immunotope CEO Edward Erickson told VentureWire (subscription required) that he’ll be looking for another $800,000 seed funding by the end of this year and a $20 million to $30 million first round in the second quarter of 2008.

dendreon-logo.jpg(UPDATED: See below.) For almost two months, it has seemed that the FDA might be ready to approve an entirely new attack on cancer — a “cancer vaccine” that immunizes patients with tumor fragments in order to activate the body’s immune defenses against cancerous cells.

That dream suffered a major setback earlier today, when the FDA threw up a fresh roadblock to the approval of Dendreon’s Provenge, the first such cancer vaccine to go before the agency for regulatory approval. In March, an FDA advisory panel recommended approval of Provenge as a treatment for prostate cancer, despite some reservations about its efficacy in clinical trials. Instead, the FDA issued what is known as an “approvable” letter — a misnomer that actually means the agency won’t approve a drug’s application without additional data. Providing that sometimes requires additional lengthy and expensive clinical trials.

Although the near-term impact on Dendreon’s stock was severe — its shares plunged by 60 percent on the news — chances are good that Provenge or at least one of many other cancer vaccines now in clinical trials will eventually work. To explain why, I’ll set the stage in this post with a walk through the troubled history of cancer vaccines in general and Provenge in particular. In subsequent posts, I’ll take a look at other vaccines currently in late-stage trials and the efforts of venture companies in this area.

First, though, a quick note on terminology: This class of therapeutic cancer vaccines shouldn’t be confused with more traditional infectious-disease vaccines like Merck’s Gardasil. The Merck product protects against the human papilloma virus linked to cervical cancer, but isn’t really a “cancer vaccine” except in the loosest possible sense of the term.

One of the things that makes tumors dangerous is the way they evade the immune-system surveillance that guards against infection by bacteria and viruses. The goal of most cancer vaccines is to somehow stimulate the body’s defenders to identify tumor cells as enemy “others,” effectively calling in the immune system’s beat cops and strike teams to swarm and overwhelm them. (For a detailed description of how this should work in practice, click here.)

The problem has long been figuring out exactly how to trigger an immune response strong enough to attack the tumor but specific enough to leave other healthy parts of the body alone. There are two basic challenges: Identifying proteins specific to tumors that can be used to inoculate cancer patients, and finding the right way to expose those “antigens” to the guardians of the immune system.

Researchers have tried a variety of approaches, most of which have failed. In recent years, for instance, Antigenics has seen a cancer vaccine directed against “heat shock” proteins extracted from patients’ own tumors fail twice in large trials — once against kidney cancer, and again in skin cancer. A vaccine against pancreatic cancer made by Therion Biologics didn’t improve patient survival, effectively imploding the closely held company. Similarly, a startup called CancerVax pulled the plug on a melanoma vaccine in mid-2005 and later effectively vanished in a reverse merger with the European biotech Micromet.

Provenge, known generically as sipuleucel-T, took a different yet still relatively straightforward approach. Prostate-cancer patients underwent pheresis to filter out certain immune-system cells known as “antigen-presenting cells.” In the lab, researchers then cultured the cells together with a tumor protein called prostatic acid phosphatase in order to “prime” them for attack once they were reintroduced to the patient.

But Provenge’s history has been anything but smooth. The company’s first large-scale trial of the vaccine failed to demonstrate that the vaccine could hold prostate cancer in check, although Dendreon tried to argue that it appeared to work better in men with less aggressive prostate cancer — an after-the-fact analysis that amounted to moving the goalposts during the game. (For a technical summary of clinical-trial statistics and why Dendreon’s strategy didn’t hold water, click here.) The company rejiggered an existing trial to study Provenge’s effect in this particular subgroup of men, only to discover that a followup analysis of the original patients showed that men who received Provenge appeared to live longer than their counterparts. That analysis, however, involved just 127 men, a group so small that no one could be sure if the survival data was merely a statistical fluke.

Although the second trial also suggested that Provenge improved survival, it was also quite small and failed tests of statistical significance. What’s more, neither trial showed that the vaccine could actually slow the progress of the disease — a paradox that concerned experts assembled for an FDA advisory panel in March, although it nevertheless ended up recommending approval of Provenge by a 13-4 vote.

Dendreon’s shares shot up almost fivefold following that recommendation, although naysayers continued to warn that the vaccine hadn’t proven itself. Two no-voting members of the advisory panel wrote letters to FDA — which quickly leaked to the newsletter Cancer Letter — urging rejection of Provenge. In the end, the FDA apparently agreed, although it isn’t yet clear what sort of additional data the agency is looking for. Under one scenario, Dendreon may have to complete a large clinical trial that’s already underway, but which may not report data until 2010.

UPDATE: I’ve revised the description of Provenge’s clinical-trial history for accuracy.

Next: The outlook for other late-stage cancer vaccines.

Top Stories

Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Featured Guest Columnists

Job Board

Links

Venturebeat Writers

  • For advertising, contact .
  • Log in

Font Size