Download File - JOHN J. HADDAD, Ph.D.
Download File - JOHN J. HADDAD, Ph.D.
Download File - JOHN J. HADDAD, Ph.D.
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
166 Bot and Obrocea<br />
index, efficacy-to-noise ratio, diminishing the size of the clinical trials, and<br />
improving the odds that a specific investigational agent studied will gain market<br />
approval by the regulatory authorities. An obvious subcategory of biomarkers<br />
considered is that of target molecules themselves. If the target molecule is not<br />
expressed within the tumor tissue, irrespective of the MOA, the likelihood of<br />
clinical response is diminished should there be no significant “off target” effects.<br />
Well-known examples for such biomarkers in support of antibody-based treatment<br />
are Her-2/Neu expression or CD20 expression by tumor cells defining<br />
patients eligible for transtuzumab or rituximab treatment, respectively; but the<br />
paradigm spans other categories of molecular targeted therapies such as small<br />
molecules (bcr/abl in the case of imatinib, and EGFR polymorphism for<br />
gefitinib). It is not difficult to imagine that by not having a biomarker-based<br />
approach to stratify patients what would have been the fate of trastuzumab<br />
(Herceptin 1 ) since the treatment is relevant to only *35%ofbreastcarcinoma<br />
patients that display upregulation of Her-2/Neu. Due to the indirect and<br />
complex MOA, the challenges faced by active immunotherapy in light of this are<br />
considerably more significant. It would be ideal to have appropriate reagents and<br />
methodologies to determine and quantify the targets in clinical setting since the<br />
target molecules in many cases are MHC-peptide complexes expressed by the<br />
tumor cells. Unfortunately, this field is not mature yet; nevertheless, there is<br />
exciting new research on a new generation of antibody-like molecules that directly<br />
recognize MHC-peptide complexes (5). In the absence of measuring the target<br />
molecules, the next best approach—used by several groups developing antigenbased<br />
cancer vaccines—is to measure by immunohistochemistry the target antigen<br />
and MHC class I expression. Due to the fact that antigen processing and presentation<br />
is heterogeneous and subject to a variety of immune escape phenomena,<br />
this is obviously only a surrogate for target (MHC-peptide) molecule expression.<br />
A difficult aspect related to using such biomarkers is the correlation of the<br />
pharmacological activity with their biomarkers’ level of expression; in addition,<br />
the magnitude of the activity may depend to a high extent on the nature and<br />
potency of the investigational drug. Other approaches, for example, based on<br />
whole tumor lysates, allogeneic tumor cells or in general, not directed to a specific<br />
but a collection of antigens may not benefit from a target-related biomarker<br />
strategy. This increases considerably the risk throughout development. If we just<br />
consider the fact that a significant percentage of tumors show clear immune escape<br />
phenomena via MHC class I and/or TAP defects (between 20 and 50%), a lack of<br />
patient stratification based on target molecule expression may have drastic consequences<br />
in terms of reduction in response rate (even assuming an excellent<br />
pharmacological effect of the investigational drug). Conversely, use of such biomarker-based<br />
approaches to direct the testing of investigational agents in select<br />
populations—when afforded by the immunotherapeutic strategy—may have a<br />
negative impact on the number of patients treated in a specific disease setting.<br />
However this may ultimately result in an enhanced opportunity from medical and<br />
commercial standpoint due to a likely increased efficacy in clinic.