Coxsackievirus A21: The basic facts

Similar documents
Disclosures Information Brendan D. Curti, MD

Providence Cancer Center, Portland, OR; 2 Oncology Specialists, Chicago, IL; 3 John Wayne Cancer InsPtute, Santa Monica, CA; 4

Oncolytic Immunotherapies for Difficult-to-Treat Cancers. Annual General Meeting 23 rd November 2016

At the forefront of cancer immunotherapy. Investor Presentation January 2018

For personal use only. General Meeting 6 March 2014

Poster No: 319. Dr Nicola Annels University of Surrey, UK

At the forefront of cancer immunotherapy. Investor Presentation January 2018

Phase 1b KEYNOTE-200 (STORM):

The Galectin-3 Inhibitor GR-MD-02 for Combination Cancer Immunotherapy

Idera Pharmaceuticals

Merck Announces FDA Approval of KEYTRUDA. Provided to Investors as a Reference

Idera Pharmaceuticals. ASCO 2018 Annual Meeting Investor/Analyst Event

Innovative Combination Strategies: Oncolytic and Systemic Therapy

ONCOS-102 in melanoma Dr. Alexander Shoushtari. 4. ONCOS-102 in mesothelioma 5. Summary & closing

8 of 21 (38.1%) Achieved RECIST v1.1 Durable Complete Response (CR) in Predicted Anti-PD-1 Non-Responder Melanoma Patients at 24 Weeks

MERCK ONCOLOGY OVERVIEW AACR 2018 APRIL 16, 2018

Understanding Checkpoint Inhibitors: Approved Agents, Drugs in Development and Combination Strategies. Michael A. Curran, Ph.D.

Pembrolizumab in Metastatic Melanoma

Immunotherapy, an exciting era!!

Merck ASCO 2015 Investor Briefing

Mariano Provencio Servicio de Oncología Médica Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro. Immune checkpoint inhibition in DLBCL

Cancer immunotherapy with oncolytic viruses: more than just lysis

Coxsackievirus A21 as an oncolytic agent for the control of human cancer

NewLink Genetics Corporation

Syndax Announces Updated Results from Phase 2 ENCORE 601 Trial of Entinostat in Combination with KEYTRUDA (pembrolizumab)

ASCO 2018 Investor Meeting

NewLink Genetics Corporation Provides Operational Update and Reports Second Quarter 2015 Financial Results

For personal use only

Leerink Immuno-Oncology Roundtable Conference

Combination Therapies Based on PD-1 or PD-L1 Blockade

Inarigivir ACHIEVE Trial Results and HBV Clinical Program Update. August 2, 2018

2019 ASCO-SITC. Nektar Therapeutics Investor & Analyst Call. March 1, 2019

KEYNOTE 695: TAVO Phase 2b Melanoma Trial Preliminary Data for SITC November 6, 2018

Tumor Immunity and Immunotherapy. Andrew Lichtman M.D., Ph.D. Brigham and Women s Hospital Harvard Medical School

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: The New Breakout Stars in Cancer Treatment

ONCOSEC ARMING THE IMMUNE SYSTEM TO FIGHT CANCER NASDAQ: ONCS

June IMMUNE DESIGN The in vivo generation of cytotoxic CD8 T cells (CTLs)

Immuno-Oncology Clinical Trials Update: Therapeutic Anti-Cancer Vaccines Issue 7 April 2017

ADAPTIMMUNE INVESTOR PRESENTATION. August 2016

IMMUNOTHERAPY FOR CANCER A NEW HORIZON. Ekaterini Boleti MD, PhD, FRCP Consultant in Medical Oncology Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust

Ipilimumab ASCO Data Review and Discussion Webcast. Monday, June 2, 2008

Frédéric Triebel MD, PhD World Immunotherapy Congress Basel, October 30, 2018

More cancer patients are being treated with immunotherapy, but

ONO PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Announce Strategic Immuno-Oncology Collaboration in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan

Evan J. Lipson, M.D.

MERCK ONCOLOGY OVERVIEW ASCO 2018 JUNE 4, 2018

6/7/16. Melanoma. Updates on immune checkpoint therapies. Molecularly targeted therapies. FDA approval for talimogene laherparepvec (T- VEC)

New Avenues for the development and evaluation of therapy: Complex, multi-pronged, not one size fitting all

Idera Pharmaceuticals 36 th Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference Idera Pharmaceuticals

Overview of Intralesional Therapy for Melanoma

Combination Immunotherapy Approaches Chemotherapy, Radiation Therapy, and Dual Checkpoint Therapy

Assessment of Efficacy and Immune Related RECIST criteria

Viralytics (VLA) Another Strong Clinical Result. Keynote 200 Data Better Than Expected. Why is the Keynote 200 data so important?

New Systemic Therapies in Advanced Melanoma

Merck Pipeline. August 1, 2018

Tumor Immunology: A Primer

Immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer

MELANOMA METASTASICO: NUEVAS COMBINACIONES. Dr Ana Arance MD PhD Oncología Médica Hospital Clínic Barcelona

Immunotherapy for Upper GI Cancers

AACR 2018 Investor Meeting

Investor Webcast: Initial Data from Phase 1a/1b Trial of Cabiralizumab/OPDIVO and Early Efficacy Signal in Pancreatic Cancer.

Melanoma: What else beyond Checkpoint Inhibitor pathway?

A fresh approach to Immuno-oncology: Ex vivo analysis of drug efficacy in fresh patient tumortissue

New Data from Ongoing Melanoma Study and Clinical Development Strategy Update

Renal Cell Carcinoma: Systemic Therapy Progress and Promise

Celldex Therapeutics' Rindopepimut Demonstrates Promising Clinical Activity in Patients with EGFRvIII-positive Recurrent Glioblastoma at SNO

New paradigms for treating metastatic melanoma

3Q 2016 presentation

Paediatric strategy forum for medicinal product development of checkpoint inhibitors for use in combination therapy in paediatric patients

Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Melanoma. Marlana Orloff, MD Thomas Jefferson University Hospital

Melanoma: Immune checkpoints

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT Adi Diab 1, Nizar Tannir 1, Daniel Cho

Immunotherapies in melanoma: regulatory perspective. Jorge Camarero (AEMPS)

Wells Fargo Healthcare Conference September 6, 2018

ASCO Annual Meeting 2017 Bart Neyns MD PhD, UZ Brussel. 20th Post-ASCO Meeting, 24th June 2016

Immunotherapy Concept Turned Reality

Basic Principles of Tumor Immunotherapy. Ryan J. Sullivan, M.D. Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center Boston, MA

Novel biomarkers: pitfalls, limitations, emerging options.

ArQule Jefferies Global Healthcare Conference June 2015

Cowen Health Care Conference

Checkpoint Regulators Cancer Immunotherapy takes centre stage. Dr Oliver Klein Department of Medical Oncology 02 May 2015

Cancer immunity and immunotherapy. General principles

IMMUNOTHERAPY IN THE TREATMENT OF CERVIX CANCER. Linda Mileshkin, Medical Oncologist Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne Australia

Analyst/Investor Call

Immunotherapy for Melanoma. Caroline Robert, MD, PhD Gustave Roussy and Université Paris Sud Villejuif, France

NewLink Genetics Corporation

Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC) at the SCCA: an update

Exploring Immunotherapies: Beyond Checkpoint Inhibitors

Nuovi approcci immunoterapici nel trattamento del Melanoma: Background immunologico.

Unraveling Immunotherapy for Colorectal Cancer

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in Hodgkin and non-hodgkin Lymphoma: How do they work? Where will we use them? Stephen M. Ansell, MD, PhD Mayo Clinic

LION. Corporate Presentation June 2016 BIOTECHNOLOGIES. Leadership & Innovation in Oncology

NOYCIA Validation of the Princess Margaret Immune Oncology Prognostic Index (PM-IPI) for patients treated in immune oncology early phase trials

LAG-3: Identification & Validation Of Next Generation Checkpoint Pathway

Immunotherapy Treatment Developments in Medical Oncology

RNAi in HBV, the next backbone therapy for use in combinations? Bruce D. Given, MD COO, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals L.I.F.E.R.

IMMUNE CHECKPOINT THERAPY FOR GENITOURINARY CANCERS: KIDNEY CANCER AND TRANSITIONAL CELL CARCINOMA

Melanoma: From Chemotherapy to Targeted Therapy and Immunotherapy. What every patient needs to know. James Larkin

Overview: Immunotherapy in CNS Metastases

Immune Checkpoints. PD Dr med. Alessandra Curioni-Fontecedro Department of Hematology and Oncology Cancer Center Zurich University Hospital Zurich

Transcription:

Phase II CALM Extension study: Intratumoral CAVATAK TM increases immune- cell infiltrates and up- regulates immune- checkpoint molecules in the microenvironment of lesions from advanced melanoma padents Robert H.I. Andtbacka 1, Brendan Curti 2, Sigrun Hallmeyer 3, Zipei Peng 4, Christopher Paustian 5, Carlo Bifulco 4, Bernard Fox 4, Mark Grose 6, Darren R. Shafren 5. 1 Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; 2 Providence Cancer Center, Portland, OR; 3 Oncology Specialists, Chicago, IL; 4 Earle A Chiles Research Institute Providence Cancer Center, Portland, OR; 5 Viralytics Limited, New Lambton, Australia; 6 Viralytics Limited, Sydney, Australia 1

Disclaimer Certain statements made in this presentation are forward looking statements within the meaning of the safe harbour provisions of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward looking statements are not historical facts but rather are based on Viralytics current expectations, estimates, assumptions and projections about the industry in which Viralytics operates. Material referred to in this document that use the words estimate, project, intend, expect, plan, believe, guidance and similar expressions are intended to identify forward looking statements and should be considered an at-risk statement. These forward looking statements are not a guarantee of future performance and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, some of which are beyond the control of Viralytics or which are difficult to predict, which could cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Viralytics to be materially different from those which may be expressed or implied by these statements. These statements are based on our management s current expectations and are subject to a number of uncertainties and risks that could change the results described in the forward-looking statements. Risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, general industry conditions and competition, general economic factors, the impact of pharmaceutical industry regulation and health care legislation in the United States and internationally, and challenges inherent in new product development. Investors should be aware that there are no assurances that results will not differ from those projected and Viralytics cautions shareholders and prospective shareholders not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which reflect the view of Viralytics only as of the date of this presentation. Viralytics is not under a duty to update any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law or by any appropriate regulatory authority. 2

Coxsackievirus A21: The basic facts Common cold virus Approximately 8-85% patients lack preexisting neutralizing antibodies Non-enveloped Picornavirus A positive-strand RNA genome, ~75 nt Viral capsid approximately 25 nm diameter Major cellular receptor is intercellular adhesion molecule-1(icam-1) Rapid lytic cell infection Acid-resistant, stable in ph range 3.5-9.5 Cryo-EM CVA21-complexed with ICAM-1 3

Coxsackievirus A21 (CVA21) an oncolytic immunotherapeutic agent Proprietary formulation of the bio-selected oncolytic virus, Coxsackievirus A 21 Not genetically modified Targeted to specific receptor over expressed on cancer cells (human ICAM-1) Does NOT bind rodent ICAM-1 Rapid cytoplasmic replication Kills local and metastatic cells by oncolytic and immunotherapeutic activity Potential application across a range of cancer types Prostate, lung, melanoma, bladder and more Well tolerated in patients with to date no treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events Potential application as monotherapy or with other new agents Cytoplasmic replication of CVA21 in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer 4

Coxsackievirus A21 Oncolytic immunotherapeutic modes of action

6 Phase II CALM study: Study Design*

Phase II CALM study: Patient Response Data* Primary endpoint irpfs 6 months (CR+PR+SD) 38.6% (22/57 pts) Secondary endpoints Overall response rate * 28.1% (16/57 pts) [8CR + 8PR] # (CR+PR, irrecist 1.1): Durable response rate + 21.1% Median Time to response onset 3.4 months (95% CI: 1.5, 4.2) Median irpfs 5.7 months (95% CI: 2.8, 11.1) Median Overall survival 26.7 months (95% CI: 17.4, 34.5) 1- year survival rate: 75.4% (43/57 pts) 7 *, Inves(gator assessed #,3 CR responses unconfirmed at (me of data cut- off + Durable response is a response las(ng con(nuously for 6 months as assessed by irrecist 1.1 criteria

Phase II CALM study: Best Percentage changes in non-injected target lung and liver lesions* Best percentage change in individual target lung and liver lesions compared to baseline 1 8 6 4 2-2 -4-6 -8-1 ConfidenTal Lung lesions Liver lesions CALM extension cohort SD or PR= 62.5% PR= 37.5% 8

Phase II CALM study: Overall survival Durable responder versus Non-responder Durable responder Non-responder 1 9 8 Percent survival 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 4 6 Study Days 8 1 12 9

1 Phase II CALM extension study

Phase II CALM-ext study: Multispectral Analysis Pt 4-15 Day :Pre- treatment Day 8: Post- treatment Female: Stage IIIC with melanoma to legs Prior treatment with ipilimumab and pembrolizumab Pt 3-43 Male: Stage IIIC with melanoma to the feet Prior treatment with surgery

CVA21- induces up- regulaton of immune response genes in the micro- environment of melanoma lesions: NanoString digital RNA countng Counts are normalized across each experiment relatve to the expression of 4 housekeeping genes 12

Phase II CALM-ext study: Changes in key immune checkpoint genes in CVA21 injected melanoma lesion (NanoString digital RNA counting) CD27 CD28 CD4 CD4L CD122 4-1BB OX-4 OX-4L GITR TIM-3 CXCL1 CXCL11 IFIH1 IFIT1 ICOS A2AR B7-H3 BTLA CTLA-4 IDO LAG3 PD-1 PD-L1 PD-L2 Change in RNA expression, relative units at Day 8 compared to Day 75 625 5 375 25 125 Patients (n=9) 13

Phase II CALM-ext study: Best CVA21 injected lesion response* Progression Percentage change from baseline to final tumor measurement 1 8 6 4 2-2 -4-6 -8-1 3-45 12-1 3-42 4-14 3-43 Disease control (CR + PR+ SD) 3-44 4-15 3-48 3-46 Patient Identification *, First response assessment at day 42

Phase II CALM-ext study: Levels of T-cell infiltrates and PD-L1 expression in progressing and disease control injected lesions 6 CD3 + CD8 + PD-L1 + cells/mm 2 45 3 15 PROG: Day PROG:Day 8 DCR: Day DCR: Day 8 PROG: Day PROG:Day 8 DCR: Day DCR: Day 8 15

Phase II CALM-ext study: Levels of viral RNA response and γ-interferon induced gene expression in progressing and disease control injected lesions Change in RNA expression, relative units at Day 8 compared to Day 16 15 1 5 CXCL1 Progression CXCL11 CXCL1 CXCL11 IFIT1 IFIH1 IFIT1 Patients (n=3) IFIH1 Change in RNA expression, relative units at Day 8 compared to Day 15 1 5 CXCL1 Disease Control CXCL11 IFIH1 Patients (n=6) CXCL1 CXCL11 IFIH1 IFIT1 IFIT1

Phase II CALM-ext study: Levels of immune-checkpoint inhibitory gene expression in progressing and disease control injected lesions Change in RNA expression, relative units at Day 8 compared to Day 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5-5 -1 A2AR B7-H3 BTLA CTLA-4 Progression Patients (n=3) IDO LAG3 PD-1 PD-L1 PD-L2 TIM-3 A2AR B7-H3 BTLA CTLA-4 IDO LAG3 PD-1 PD-L1 PD-L2 TIM-3 Change in RNA expression, relative units at Day 8 compared to Day 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5-5 -1 A2AR B7-H3 BTLA CTLA-4 Disease Control Patients (n=6) IDO LAG3 PD-1 PD-L1 PD-L2 TIM-3 A2AR B7-H3 BTLA CTLA-4 IDO LAG3 PD-1 PD-L1 PD-L2 TIM-3

Phase II CALM-ext study: Levels of immune-checkpoint stimulatory gene expression in progressing and disease control injected lesions Change in RNA expression, relative units at Day 8 compared to Day 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5-5 -1 18 CD27 CD28 CD4 CD4L Progression CD122 Patients (n=3) 4-1BB OX-4 OX-4L GITR ICOS CD27 CD28 CD4 CD4L CD122 4-1BB OX-4 OX-4L GITR ICOS Change in RNA expression, relative units at Day 8 compared to Day 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5-5 -1 CD27 CD28 CD4 CD4L Disease Control CD122 Patients (n=6) 4-1BB OX-4 OX-4L GITR ICOS CD27 CD28 CD4 CD4L CD122 4-1BB OX-4 OX-4L GITR ICOS

CD122 is the β-component of the IL-2 receptor complex CD122 Hannani et al; 215, Cell Research 25:28 224 Waldmann Nature Reviews Immunology 6, 595 61 (August 26) doi:1.138/nri191

VLA-13 MITCI Phase 1b Study Design (MELANOMA INTRA-TUMORAL CAVATAK AND IPILIMUMAB) 26 Stage IIIC and IV melanoma padents at least 1 injectable lesion Immune inducdon CVA21 intralesional 3 x1 8 TCID 5 Day 1,3,5,8 and 22 then Q3W Tll Day 358 Ipilimumab 3 mg/kg IV Q3W x 4 1 o end- point : Safety 2 o endpoint: Response (irwho criteria). Day 1 Day 22

VLA-13 MITCI Phase 1b: Injected lesion Response injected ipi-n Best percentage change in the lesions cross product relative to baseline 5 25-25 -5-75 -1 ipi-n=ipilimumab naive ipi-r=ipilimumab refractory ipi-r

VLA-13 MITCI Phase 1b: Non-injected lesion response 22 Best percentage change in the lesions cross product relative to baseline 5 25-25 -5-75 -1 non-injected ipi-n ipi-r

VLA-13 MITCI Phase 1b: Best Overall Response Best percentage change in the lesions cross product relative to baseline irrc 1 75 5 25-25 -5-75 -1 + * IIIC IV M1a IV M1b IV M1c + * Prior ipilimumab + Prior anti-pd1 or PD-L1

VLA-13 MITCI Phase 1b: Response by stage Best percentage change in the lesions cross product relative to baseline 1 75 5 25-25 -5-75 -1 Ipilimumab 3 mg/kg IV Q3W x 4 IIIC IV M1a IV M1c 5 1 15 2 25 3 Study days 24

VLA-13 MITCI Phase 1b Study: Partial tumor response Stage IV M1c (Pt 13-123 ) 25

VLA-13 MITCI Phase 1b Study: Complete tumor response Stage IV M1a (Pt 13-42 ) 26 Pre-treatment Post-treatment (day 19)

VLA-13 MITCI Phase 1b Study: Complete tumor response Stage IIIC (Pt 13-51*) * Progression on prior ant- PD1 treatment (nivolumab) 27

Conclusions and Future Directions CVA21 treatment facilitated notable changes within the tumor microenvironment by inducing increases in immune cell infiltrates (CD3+CD8+) and expression of PD-L1, in particular within lesions displaying stable disease or response. CVA21 treatment significantly up-regulated a number of interferon-response and immune checkpoint inhibitory genes in injected melanoma lesions, including CXCL1, CXCL11, CTLA-4, PD-L1, LAG-3, TIM-3 and IDO. CVA21 treatment can potentially increase the immunological heat within the tumor microenvironment The CVA21-ipilimumab combination immunotherapy treatment is generally well tolerated and has displayed anti-tumor activity in local, regional and distant systemic disease. The preliminary data confirmed overall response rate (8%) in ipilimumab naïve patients is higher than published rates for either agent used alone Up-regulation of immune cell infiltrates and/or immune checkpoint inhibitory molecules in CVA21-treated lesions may be predictive of future tumor response, particularly in combination with immune checkpoint blockade strategies.

Many thanks to: The CALM and MITCI study patients and families CALM study investigators MITCI study investigators CALM and MITCI study Clinical Trials Research Staff Viralytics Clinical Development team