review article

Improved Cancer Drug Development with Drug DISCO

Samuel Stewart1, Dalit Barkan2, Richard Lampe3, David Warshawsky3*,Chand Khanna1

1Ethos Veterinary Health, Woburn, Massachusetts, USA

2Department of Human Biology and Medical Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

3Vuja De Sciences Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, USA

*Corresponding author: David Warshawsky, Vuja De Sciences Inc, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA. Tel: +1-8572043628; Email: dw@vujade-life.com

Received Date: 15 March, 2019; Accepted Date: 22 March, 2019; Published Date: 25 March, 2019

Citation: Stewart S, Barkan D, Lampe R, Warshawsky D, Khanna C (2019) Improved Cancer Drug Development with Drug DISCO. Ann Med Clin Oncol 2: 116. DOI: 10.29011/AMCO-116.000116

Abstract

Cancer drug development is inefficient, costly, and rarely leads to effective new drugs. Game-changing therapies that transform cancer care are the exception rather than the norm. As a solution, Drug DISCO (Development Incentivization Strategy in Comparative Oncology) is suggested as a means to re-position Comparative Oncology as a parallel and integrated approach to cancer drug development that includes dogs with spontaneous cancer during human clinical trials. This distinct approach recognizes the broader integrated/parallel value of Comparative Oncology for clinical development teams to use data from studies in the dog to answer questions as a means to optimize Phase II and Phase III human trials. This alternate focus will result in better definitions of dose, schedule, indication, and biomarkers of response of targeted therapies, and will collectively increase the chance of success in human trials beyond phase I studies. Ideally this will result in greater iteration within a drug development path rather than the existing binary succeed or fail approach. Drug DISCO also provides an opportunity to enhance the development of drugs that can prevent metastatic recurrence. Collectively we expect important therapeutic advances from this approach.



Figure 1: Drug-DISCO Overview.


  1. Hay M, Thomas DW, Craighead JL, Economides C, Rosenthal J (2014) Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat Biotechnol 32: 40-51.
  2. DiMasi JA, Reichert JM, Feldman L, Malins A (2013) Clinical approval success rates for investigational cancer drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther 94: 329-335.
  3. Hutchinson L, Kirk R (2011) High drug attrition rates--where are we going wrong? Nat Rev Clin Oncol 8: 189-190.
  4. Fojo T, Parkinson DR (2010) Biologically targeted cancer therapy and marginal benefits: are we making too much of too little or are we achieving too little by giving too much? Clin Cancer Res 16: 5972-5980.
  5. Salas-Vega S, Iliopoulos O, Mossialos E (2017) Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated with New Cancer Medicines. JAMA Oncol 3: 382-390.
  6. Rubin EH, Gilliland DG (2012) Drug development and clinical trials--the path to an approved cancer drug. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 9: 215-222.
  7. Yap TA, Sandhu SK, Workman P, de Bono JS (2010) Envisioning the future of early anticancer drug development. Nat Rev Cancer 10: 514-523.
  8. Herter-Sprie GS, Kung AL, Wong KK (2013) New cast for a new era: preclinical cancer drug development revisited. J Clin Invest 123: 3639-3645.
  9. Moreno L, Pearson AD (2013) How can attrition rates be reduced in cancer drug discovery? Expert Opin Drug Discov 8: 363-368.
  10. Seymour L, Ivy SP, Sargent D, Spriggs D, Baker L, et al. (2010) The design of phase II clinical trials testing cancer therapeutics: consensus recommendations from the clinical trial design task force of the national cancer institute investigational drug steering committee. Clin Cancer Res 16: 1764-1769.
  11. Arrowsmith J (2011) Trial watch: phase III and submission failures: 2007-2010. Nat Rev Drug Discov 10: 87.
  12. Fisher R, Pusztai L, Swanton C (2013) Cancer heterogeneity: implications for targeted therapeutics. Br J Cancer 108: 479-485.
  13. Vogelstein B, Papadopoulos N, Velculescu VE, Shibin Zhou S, Diaz LA, et al. (2013) Cancer genome landscapes. Science 339: 1546-1558.
  14. Shearin AL, Ostrander EA (2010) Leading the way: canine models of genomics and disease. Dis Model Mech 3: 27-34.
  15. Morgensztern D, Campo MJ, Dahlberg SE, Doebele RC, Garon E, et al. (2015) Molecularly targeted therapies in non-small-cell lung cancer annual update 2014. J Thorac Oncol 10: S1-63.
  16. Weinstein JN, Collisson EA, Mills GB, Shaw KR, Ozenberger BA, et al. (2013) The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan-Cancer analysis project. Nat Genet 45: 1113-1120.
  17. Gadd S, Huff V, Walz AL, Ooms AHAG, Armstrong AE, et al. (2017) A Children's Oncology Group and TARGET initiative exploring the genetic landscape of Wilms tumor. Nat Genet 49: 1487-1494.
  18. Ma X, Liu Y, Liu Y, Alexandrov LB, Edmonson MN, et al. (2018) Pan-cancer genome and transcriptome analyses of 1,699 paediatric leukaemias and solid tumours. Nature 555: 371-376.
  19. Liu D, Xiong H, Ellis AE, Northrup NC, Rodriguez CO et al. (2014) Molecular homology and difference between spontaneous canine mammary cancer and human breast cancer. Cancer Res 74: 5045-5056.
  20. Hedan B, Thomas R, Motsinger-Reif A, Abadie J, Andre C, et al. (2011) Molecular cytogenetic characterization of canine histiocytic sarcoma: A spontaneous model for human histiocytic cancer identifies deletion of tumor suppressor genes and highlights influence of genetic background on tumor behavior. BMC Cancer 11: 201.
  21. Belin L, Kamal M, Mauborgne C, Plancher C, Mulot F, et al. (2017). Randomized phase II trial comparing molecularly targeted therapy based on tumor molecular profiling versus conventional therapy in patients with refractory cancer: cross-over analysis from the SHIVA trial. Ann Oncol 28: 590-596.
  22. Von Hoff DD, Stephenson JJ, Rosen P, Loesch DM, Borad MJ, et al. (2010) Pilot study using molecular profiling of patients' tumors to find potential targets and select treatments for their refractory cancers. J Clin Oncol 28: 4877-4883.
  23. Lipinski KA, Barber LJ, Davies MN, Ashenden M, Sottoriva A, et al. (2016) Cancer Evolution and the Limits of Predictability in Precision Cancer Medicine. Trends Cancer 2: 49-63.
  24. Dagogo-Jack I, Shaw AT (2018) Tumour heterogeneity and resistance to cancer therapies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 15: 81-94.
  25. Zardavas D, Irrthum A, Swanton C, Piccart M (2015) Clinical management of breast cancer heterogeneity. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 12: 381-394.
  26. Alix-Panabieres C, Pantel K (2016) Clinical Applications of Circulating Tumor Cells and Circulating Tumor DNA as Liquid Biopsy. Cancer Discov 6: 479-491.
  27. Heitzer E, Ulz P, Geigl JB (2015) Circulating tumor DNA as a liquid biopsy for cancer. Clin Chem 61: 112-123.
  28. Mochizuki H, Kennedy K, Shapiro SG, Breen M (2015) BRAF Mutations in Canine Cancers. PLoS ONE 10: e0129534.
  29. Zehir A, Benayed R, Shah RH, Syed A, Middha S, et al. (2017) Mutational landscape of metastatic cancer revealed from prospective clinical sequencing of 10,000 patients. Nat Med 23: 703-713.
  30. Iorio F, Knijnenburg TA, Vis DJ, Bignell GR, Menden MP, et al. (2016) A Landscape of Pharmacogenomic Interactions in Cancer. Cell 166: 740-754.
  31. Hyman DM, Puzanov I, Subbiah V, Faris JE, Chau I, et al. (2015) Vemurafenib in Multiple Nonmelanoma Cancers with BRAF V600 Mutations. N Engl J Med 373: 726-736.
  32. Pietrantonio F, Petrelli F, Coinu A, Di Bartolomeo M, Borgonovo K, et al. (2015) Predictive rolé of BRAF mutations in patients with advanced colorectal cancer receiving cetuximab and panitumumab: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 51: 587-594.
  33. Kopetz S, Desai J, Chan E, Hecht JR, O'Dwyer PJ, et al. (2015) Phase II Pilot Study of Vemurafenib in Patients With Metastatic BRAF-Mutated Colorectal Cancer. J Clin Oncol 33: 4032-4038.
  34. Chalmers ZR, Connelly CF, Fabrizio D, Gay L, Ali SM, et al. (2017) Analysis of 100,000 human cancer genomes reveals the landscape of tumor mutational burden. Genome Med 9: 34.
  35. Bertotti A, Papp E, Jones S, Adleff V, Anagnostou V, et al. (2015) The genomic landscape of response to EGFR blockade in colorectal cancer. Nature 526: 263-267.
  36. Yaeger R, Cercek A, O'Reilly EM, Reidy DL, Kemeny N, et al. (2015) Pilot trial of combined BRAF and EGFR inhibition in BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 21: 1313-1320.
  37. Cunanan KM, Gonen M, Shen R, Hyman DM, Riely GJ, et al. (2017) Basket Trials in Oncology: A Trade-Off Between Complexity and Efficiency. J Clin Oncol 35: 271-273.
  38. Chaffer CL, Weinberg RA (2011) A perspective on cancer cell metastasis. Science 331: 1559-1564.
  39. Steeg PS (2016) Targeting metastasis. Nat Rev Cancer 16: 201-218.
  40. Ding L, Ellis MJ, LiS, Larson DE, Chen K, et al. (2010) Genome remodelling in a basal-like breast cancer metastasis and xenograft. Nature 464: 999-1005.
  41. Yachida S, Jones S, Bozic I, Antal T, Leary R, et al. (2010) Distant metastasis occurs late during the genetic evolution of pancreatic cancer. Nature 467: 1114-1117.
  42. Yates LR, Gerstung M, Knappskog S, Desmedt C, Gundem G, et al. (2015) Subclonal diversification of primary breast cancer revealed by multiregion sequencing. Nat Med 21: 751-759.
  43. Lambert AW, Pattabiraman DR, Weinberg RA (2017) Emerging Biological Principles of Metastasis. Cell 168: 670-691.
  44. Yuan Y, Jiang YC, Sun CK, Chen QM (2016) Role of the tumor microenvironment in tumor progression and the clinical applications (Review). Oncol Rep 35: 2499-2515.
  45. Maman S, Witz IP (2018) A history of exploring cancer in context. Nat Rev Cancer 18: 359-376.
  46. Venkatakrishnan K, Friberg LE, Ouellet D, Mettetal JT, Stein A, et al. (2015) Optimizing oncology therapeutics through quantitative translational and clinical pharmacology: challenges and opportunities. Clin Pharmacol Ther 97: 37-54.
  47. van Marion DM, Domanska UM, Timmer-Bosscha H, Walenkamp AM (2016) Studying cancer metastasis: Existing models, challenges and future perspectives. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 97: 107-117.
  48. Day CP, Merlino G, Van Dyke T (2015) Preclinical mouse cancer models: a maze of opportunities and challenges. Cell 163: 39-53.
  49. Postel-Vinay S, Gomez-Roca C, Molife LR, Anghan B, Levy A, et al. (2011) Phase I trials of molecularly targeted agents: should we pay more attention to late toxicities? J Clin Oncol 29: 1728-1735.
  50. Geier B, Kurmashev D, Kurmasheva RT, Houghton PJ (2015) Preclinical Childhood Sarcoma Models: Drug Efficacy Biomarker Identification and Validation. Front Oncol 5: 193.
  51. Newell H, Sausville E (2016) Cytotoxic drugs: past, present and future. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 77: 1.
  52. Wong H, Choo EF, Alicke B, Ding X, La H, et al. (2012) Antitumor activity of targeted and cytotoxic agents in murine subcutaneous tumor models correlates with clinical response. Clin Cancer Res 18: 3846-3855.
  53. Singh M, Lima A, Molina R, Hamilton P, Clermont AC, et al. (2010) Assessing therapeutic responses in Kras mutant cancers using genetically engineered mouse models. Nat Biotechnol 28: 585-593.
  54. Siolas D, Hannon GJ (2013) Patient-derived tumor xenografts: transforming clinical samples into mouse models. Cancer Res 73: 5315-5319.
  55. Francia G, Cruz-Munoz W, Man S, Xu P, Kerbel RS (2011) Mouse models of advanced spontaneous metastasis for experimental therapeutics. Nat Rev Cancer 11: 135-141.
  56. Schiffman JD, Breen M (2015) Comparative oncology: what dogs and other species can teach us about humans with cancer. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 370.
  57. Gordon I, Paoloni M, Mazcko C, Khanna C (2009) The Comparative Oncology Trials Consortium: using spontaneously occurring cancers in dogs to inform the cancer drug development pathway. PLoS Med 6: e1000161.
  58. Khanna C (2017) Leveraging Comparative Oncology in the Hopes of Improving Therapies for Breast Cancer. Semin Oncol 44: 301.
  59. Angstadt AY, Thayanithy V, Subramanian S, Modiano JF, Breen M (2012) A genome-wide approach to comparative oncology: high-resolution oligonucleotide aCGH of canine and human osteosarcoma pinpoints shared microaberrations. Cancer Genet 205: 572-587.
  60. Klopfleisch R, Klose P, Weise C, Bondzio A, Multhaup G, et al. (2010) Proteome of metastatic canine mammary carcinomas: similarities to and differences from human breast cancer. J Proteome Res 9: 6380-6391.
  61. LeBlanc AK, Breen M, Choyke P, Dewhirst M, Fan TM, et al. (2016) Perspectives from man's best friend: National Academy of Medicine's Workshop on Comparative Oncology. Sci Transl Med 8: 324-325.
  62. Mazcko C, Thomas R (2015) The Establishment of the Pfizer-Canine Comparative Oncology and Genomics Consortium Biospecimen Repository. Vet Sci 2: 127-130.
  63. LeBlanc AK, Mazcko CN, Khanna C (2016) Defining the Value of a Comparative Approach to Cancer Drug Development. Clin Cancer Res 22: 2133-2138.
  64. Ranieri G, Gadaleta CD, Patruno R, Zizzo N, Daidone MG,e t al. (2013) A model of study for human cancer: Spontaneous occurring tumors in dogs. Biological features and translation for new anticancer therapies. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 88: 187-197.
  65. Knapp DW, Ramos-Vara JA, Moore GE, Dhawan D, Bonney PL, et al. (2014) Urinary bladder cancer in dogs, a naturally occurring model for cancer biology and drug development. Ilar j 55: 100-118.
  66. Gordon IK, Khanna C (2010) Modeling opportunities in comparative oncology for drug development. Ilar j 51: 214-220.
  67. National Cancer Policy F, Board on Health Care S, Institute of M, et al. (2015) In The Role of Clinical Studies for Pets with Naturally Occurring Tumors in Translational Cancer Research: Workshop Summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) 2015.
  68. Burton JH, Mazcko C, LeBlanc A, Covey JM, Ji J, et al. (2018) NCI Comparative Oncology Program Testing of Non-Camptothecin Indenoisoquinoline Topoisomerase I Inhibitors in Naturally Occurring Canine Lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res 24: 5830-5840.
  69. Paoloni MC, Mazcko C, Fox E, Fan T, Lana S, et al. (2010) Rapamycin pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic relationships in osteosarcoma: a comparative oncology study in dogs. PLoS ONE 5: e11013.
  70. Saba C, Paoloni M, Mazcko C, Kisseberth W, Burton JH, et al. (2016) A Comparative Oncology Study of Iniparib Defines Its Pharmacokinetic Profile and Biological Activity in a Naturally-Occurring Canine Cancer Model. PLoS ONE 11: e0149194.
  71. Dog Genome Assembled: Canine Genome Now Available to Research Community Worldwide. National Human Genome Research Institute 2004.
  72. Foundation AC Animal Cancer Foundation Announces $1 Million Gift to Inaugurate Canine Cancer Genome Project.
  73. Finn OJ (2012) Immuno-oncology: understanding the function and dysfunction of the immune system in cancer. Ann Oncol 8: viii6-9.
  74. Adams JL, Smothers J, Srinivasan R, Hoos A (2015) Big opportunities for small molecules in immuno-oncology. Nat Rev Drug Discov 14: 603-622.
  75. Maekawa N, Konnai S, Takagi S, Kagawa Y, Okagawa T, et al. (2017) A canine chimeric monoclonal antibody targeting PD-L1 and its clinical efficacy in canine oral malignant melanoma or undifferentiated sarcoma. Sci Rep 7: 8951.
  76. Mata M, Gottschalk S (2016) Man's Best Friend: Utilizing Naturally Occurring Tumors in Dogs to Improve Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell Therapy for Human Cancers. Mol Ther 24: 1511-1512.
  77. Mudaliar MA, Haggart RD, Miele G, Sellar G, Tan KA, et al. (2013) Comparative gene expression profiling identifies common molecular signatures of NF-kappaB activation in canine and human diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). PLoS ONE 8: e72591.
  78. Mucha J, Majchrzak K, Taciak B, Hellmén E, Król M (2014) MDSCs mediate angiogenesis and predispose canine mammary tumor cells for metastasis via IL-28/IL-28RA (IFN-lambda) signaling. PLoS ONE 9: e103249.
  79. Glover J, Man TK, Barkauskas DA, Hall D, Tello T, et al. (2017) Osteosarcoma enters a post genomic era with in silico opportunities: Generation of the High Dimensional Database for facilitating sarcoma biology research: A report from the Children's Oncology Group and the QuadW Foundation. PLoS ONE 12: e0181204.

© by the Authors & Gavin Publishers. This is an Open Access Journal Article Published Under Attribution-Share Alike CC BY-SA: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License. With this license, readers can share, distribute, download, even commercially, as long as the original source is properly cited. Read More.

Annals of Medical and Clinical Oncology

slot starlight princessslot gacor pgsoftakun gacor olympusrtp slot onlinejam gacor slot pg softtrik gacor slot aztecfitur scatter hitam slot mahjongsugar rush modal recehcheat apk engineslot mahjong gokil histerisinfo rtp harianrtp mahjong untungcheat mahjong bandar rungkatmodal receh olympusslot online thailandpola jitu starlightscatter naga hitamrtp gacor banjir wildslot88 jackpot kalitrik pola x5000olympus x500depo dana modal recehpg soft mudah gacorrahasia menang slotrtp balik modalcandu menang slot mahjongslot deposit danatips ampuh bermain slot mahjong waystrik slot sugar rushakun pro mahjong gacorrtp slot terjituslot mahjong ways gacorcara dapetin maxwin olympuspancing scatter mahjong ways 1rekomendasi slot mahjong ways 2scatter mahjong terbarupola mahjong ways hari inimahjong ways modal recehcuan mahjong waysdemo slot pg softnaga awal julyrtp slot awal julymahjong bulan mudamodal receh slotlink slot mahjongwinrate tinggi rtpslot server filipinavolatility pg softwaktu tepat slot gacorjam gacor saldo bancarfitur bonus lucky neko4 simulasi jackpot mahjongtrik sepuh mantan napiamantotorm1131