Pfizer’s Xalkori – The story could get better

As far as personalized medicine goes, it doesn’t get any sweeter than Pfizer’s (PFE) Xalkori.  As the industry is moving away from a “one size fits all” model to personalized medicine, this drug sets an enviable example of how to get fast approval for a lucrative niche indication by selecting the right patients. Hailed as the poster child of personalized medicine,  Xalkori is currently approved for lung cancer patients whose tumors have rare mutations in the protein ALK, which occurs in ~4% of non-small cell lung cancer cases.

Although the ALK mutation is rare, Xalkori is expected generate $1.5B in sales based on its current label alone due to several reasons. First, as lung cancer is the most common cancer in developed countries, even a tiny fraction of the market translates to large numbers (40-50 thousand patients per year globally). In addition, as a drug for a niche indication, Xalkori enjoys very good pricing – $9,600 per month. Most importantly, the drug has overwhelming and durable activity in ALK mutated patients which means every patient diagnosed with the mutation will probably get the drug and will stay on it for a long time (8-9 months).

But Xalkori’s story could get even better, as the drug inhibits a host of additional targets besides ALK, some of which are relevant cancer targets.

Although nothing formal has been published, there appears to be another group of patients who might be candidates for Xalkori. The drug inhibits a target called ROS, which is similar to ALK in its structure. Interestingly, a similar type of rare mutations (translocation) was found with ROS in lung cancer as well as other tumors. There is very limited data on the prevalence of ROS mutations but they appear to constitute 1-2% of NSCLC cases and an unknown portion of other malignancies such as GBM and bile duct cancer (probably in the mid single digit range).

In lab experiments, cancer cells with ROS mutation were shown to be highly sensitive to Xalkori. There are no reports on the drug in actual patients but there are persistent rumors about dramatic responses in patients with mutated ROS.  Recently, Dr. Jack West from The Swedish Cancer Institute in Seattle, discussed this experience and wrote in his post that a publication on the matter is imminent (btw,his site is one of the best online sources on lung cancer and is highly recommended for anyone interested in keeping track of the field). Another sign that something is going on is Pfizer’s decision to expand the original phase I trial for Xalkori to 400 patients and the addition of ROS mutated patients to the inclusion criteria.

Another target Xalkori hits is MET, which is being explored by many companies including Genentech and Arqule (ARQL). Although Xalkori is not perceived as a MET inhibitor (even though it was initially developed as one), anecdotal cases of activity in MET amplified patients start to emerge in lung and esophageal cancer. Unlike the case with ROS, the correlation between the genetic abnormality and response is not as straightforward.   

Although ROS and MET mutations are quite rare, their cumulative incidence could represent an additional patient population of ~25 thousand patients per year. If Xalkori’s is half as effective in these patients compared to the activity in ALK mutated patients, the financial implications could be substantial. If a prevalence of 4% of NSCLC translates to annual sales of $1.5B, 1-2% of NSCLC combined with the additional smaller indications could add another $750M annually.    

17 thoughts on “Pfizer’s Xalkori – The story could get better

  1. But won’t they need to develope (and get approve) a companion diagnostics for ROS (small change for Pfizer, but still take time and validation…).

  2. I do not believe the valuations put out so confidently.
    The lung cancer field is becoming crowded and competetion
    will drive down valuations.

  3. Hello Ohad,

    the data looks good, but early and a small basis. What is your opinion?

    Array BioPharma issued a press release announcing dose-escalation/expansion data for its novel, small molecule dual p38/Tie2 inhibitor, ARRY-614. The data were presented at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Hematology in San Diego, California.

  4. We should wait until their post ASH webcast but overall positive data that merit developing both compounds. ARRY-520 is not potent enough as a single agent but it is certainly active, potentially more active than other agents that are currently in p3 (panobinostat, Anti-CS1 mAb).

    Re 614, I am not sure yet, not that familiar with the indication.

    Ohad

  5. hi Ohad!

    what’s your take on the YMI results?

    i am not too familiar with YMI – do they want to partner the drug soon?

    there is a big valuation gap between INCY and YMI – is it justified?

    Thanks!
    Christian

  6. YMI strengthening their case re the anemia effect, the transfusion dependence data cannot be dismissed anymore .

    I still didn’t drill down on the data, two points I would look into are the duration of anemia responses (press release doesn’t say much) and the splenomegaly response rate which at first glance looks a little bit low.

    On a cautionary note, the activity of YMI’s drug is still miraculous and unexplainable, given its target profile.

    Re Ylanthia, looks like a very neat platform(you were the first one to bring it to my attention earlier this year). Definitely positive but I am not sure if it will have near term impact.

    Ohad

  7. Hi Ohad,

    Do you plan on keeping ECYT in your portfolio considering the recent plunge?

    Thanks

    Chris

  8. Not to dump on you but Ohad , I had my doubts on this technology.My logic was…
    Compound X is approved and kills cancer cells.
    Now link X to a an antibody that binds to some overexpressed receptor in a cancer cell and see whether its selective.
    Now lets go back again…
    Compound X is approved and kills cancer cells.

    Now, Why do you think if you attach a bullet to an arrow
    it will increse its chances of finding the target.

  9. Targeted delivery of toxic payloads is now a validated approach thanks to Adcetris and T-DM1.
    ECYT’s molecules use small molecule as guiding systems and therefore have very short circulation time compared to ADCs

    Ohad

  10. Yes.But there is selection either with respect to processes(angiogenesis), or cell type or some mutated protein.
    Here there is no selection element at all.Here every cell in the body has a folate receptor(not that reqd. for living/dying) and the toxic payload kills very cell.There is a perception of selection (folate receptor) but that selection is not important for the normal/cancer cell to survive.The PFS
    , to me, seems subjective.I hv to see something dramatic to beleive it in such a pretreated population.

  11. Pingback: Word Press backlink creator

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *