Frontier Pharma: Gastric Cancer - Early Stage Pipeline Innovation Shows Shift Towards Targeted mAbs
Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer globally, and due to its indolent nature remains one of the most common causes of cancer-related death worldwide. Such a poor outlook, particularly for patients with advanced disease, has created a pressing need for improved therapeutic options. The gastric cancer market is undergoing a gradual change, from a focus on generic chemotherapy regimens to complex treatment landscape based on targeted therapies. Recently the market has witnessed the approval of efficacious therapies such as Cyramza, but this only benefits a small subset of patients. As the understanding of disease pathophysiology increases, new targets need to be identified and converted into improved therapeutic options. The current pipeline shows strong promise, as it shows a gradual shift from generic cytotoxic therapies to more diverse targeted therapies.
Reasons to buy
- What is the pathophysiology of gastric cancer?
- How is gastric cancer diagnosed?
- What are the current treatment options?
- What are the common targets and mechanisms of action of pipeline therapies?
- Will the pipeline address unmet needs such as a lack of diverse treatment options for gastric cancer patients?
- What implications will the increased focus on targeted therapies have on the future of gastric cancer treatment?
- What are the most promising first-in-class targets for gastric cancer?
- Will the current first-in-class targets have a broader therapeutic potential across the industry?
- How do deal frequency and value compare between target families and molecule types?
- How do licensing and co-development deals compare between first-in-class and non-first-in-class profiles?
- Understand the current clinical and commercial landscape by considering disease pathogenesis, diagnosis, prognosis, and the treatment options available at each stage of diagnosis, including a clinical comparison of marketed therapies
- Visualize the composition of the gastric cancer market in terms of dominant therapies for each patient subset along with their clinical and commercial standing. Unmet needs in the current market are highlighted to allow a competitive understanding of gaps in the current market.
- Analyze the gastric cancer pipeline and stratify pipeline therapies by stage of development, molecule type and molecular target. There are promising signs in the pipeline that the industry is seeking novel approaches to treating gastric cancer.
- Assess the therapeutic potential of first-in-class targets. Using a proprietary matrix, first-in-class products have been assessed and ranked according to clinical potential. Promising early-stage targets have been further reviewed in greater detail.
- Identify commercial opportunities in the gastric cancer deals landscape by analyzing trends in licensing and co-development deals and producing a list of gastric cancer therapies that are not yet involved in deals, and may be potential investment opportunities.
Gastric Cancer Drug Development Shifting from Small Molecules to Monoclonal Antibodies
While 99% of currently marketed gastric cancer drugs are small molecules, this dominance could give way to more innovative treatments in future, as the pipeline consists of 29% monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), according to business intelligence provider GBI Research.
The company’s latest report* states that there are currently 241 products in the gastric cancer pipeline, a number of which have different mechanisms of action and targets to the dominant marketed therapies.
Firas Nour, Associate Analyst for GBI Research, says that while Herceptin and Cyramza are the only mAbs currently on the market for gastric cancer, mAbs have shown strong clinical results and advantageous properties in numerous oncology indications, meaning they account for a relatively large proportion of many oncology pipelines.
Nour says: “Data suggest that some biologics, such as mAbs, have more favorable risk profiles and, due to their higher target specificity, frequently perform more strongly in terms of both safety and efficacy than their synthetic counterparts. Moreover, the higher technological barrier for competitors to develop biosimilars can provide a further incentive.
“However, while the diversification of therapeutic molecule types for marketed and pipeline products has opened new clinical and commercial opportunities, this in itself is not a guarantee of future success, and investment in product development as well as manufacturing facilities is significantly higher.”
GBI Research also states that the innovative gastric cancer pipeline will allow the treatment space to become more diverse and less reliant on highly cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, providing hope for sufferers who currently face very low survival rates.
Nour explains: “24% of gastric cancer products in active development are considered to be first-in-class, suggesting that the industry is pursuing novel approaches to treatment, and reducing the focus on established therapies.
“First-in-class development can be highly lucrative if clinically successful, but is also associated with high risks, as clinical efficacy is certainly not guaranteed. Therefore, it must be considered that although having a high proportion of first-in-class products is a promising indicator in a pipeline, there is substantial variation in these products regarding their clinical promise and potential market impact.”
*Frontier Pharma: Gastric Cancer - Early Stage Pipeline Innovation Shows Shift Towards Targeted mAbs
This report provides analysis of the gastric cancer treatment pipeline, stratified by stage of development, molecule type and molecular target. It includes information on the current clinical and commercial landscape, and the composition of the gastric cancer therapeutics market in terms of dominant molecule types and targets, as well as highlighting current unmet needs.
This report was built using data and information sourced from proprietary databases, primary and secondary research, and in-house analysis conducted by GBI Research’s team of industry experts.
- 1 Table of Contents
- 1.1 List of Tables
- 1.2 List of Figures
- 2 Executive Summary
- 2.1 Significant Unmet Needs in the Gastric Cancer Market
- 2.2 High Proportion of First-in-Class Innovation Offers Promise in Gastric Cancer
- 2.3 Deal Activity Varies with First-in-Class Status
- 3 The Case for Innovation
- 3.1 Growing Opportunities for Biologic Products
- 3.2 Diversification of Molecular Targets
- 3.3 Innovative First-in-Class Product Development Remains Attractive
- 3.4 Regulatory and Reimbursement Policy Shifts Favor First-in-Class Product Innovation
- 3.5 Sustained Innovation
- 3.6 GBI Research Report Guidance
- 4 Clinical and Commercial Landscape
- 4.1 Disease Overview
- 4.2 Disease Symptoms
- 4.3 Epidemiology and Etiology
- 4.4 Pathophysiology
- 4.4.1 Helicobacter Pylori
- 4.4.2 Oncogenes
- 4.4.3 Tumor Suppressor Genes
- 4.4.4 Cell Adhesion Molecules and Metastasis-Related Genes
- 4.4.5 Cell Cycle Regulators
- 4.4.6 Microsatellite and Chromosomal Instability
- 4.4.7 Growth Factor and Cytokines
- 4.5 Diagnosis and Staging
- 4.6 Classification
- 4.6.1 Intestinal Subtype
- 4.6.2 Diffuse Subtype
- 4.7 Prognosis
- 4.8 Treatment Options
- 4.8.1 Surgery
- 4.8.2 First-Line Therapy
- 4.8.3 Second-Line Therapy
- 4.9 Overview of Marketed Products in Gastric Cancer
- 4.9.1 Molecule Type and Target Analysis
- 4.9.2 Innovative Products in Gastric Cancer Market
- 4.9.3 Unmet Needs
- 5 Assessment of Pipeline Product Innovation
- 5.1 Gastric Cancer Pipeline by Molecule Type, Phase and Therapeutic Target
- 5.2 Comparative Distribution of Programs between the Gastric Cancer Market and Pipeline by Therapeutic Target Family
- 5.3 First-in-Class Pipeline Programs Targeting Novel Molecular Targets
- 6 Signaling Network, Disease Causation and Innovation Alignment
- 6.1 Complexity of Signaling Networks in Oncology
- 6.2 Signaling Pathways and First-in-Class Molecular Target Integration
- 6.3 First-in-Class Matrix Assessment
- 7 First-in-Class Target Evaluation
- 7.1 Pipeline Programs Targeting HER 3
- 7.2 Pipeline Programs Targeting Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated
- 7.3 Pipeline Programs Targeting L1 Cell Adhesion Molecule
- 7.4 Pipeline Programs Targeting Akt 1, 2 and 3
- 7.5 Pipeline Programs Targeting Fibroblast Growth Factor receptor 3
- 7.6 Pipeline Programs Targeting 3-Phosphoinositide-Dependent Protein Kinase 1
- 7.7 Conclusion
- 8 Deals and Strategic Consolidation
- 8.1 Industry-Wide First-in-Class Deals
- 8.2 Licensing Deals
- 8.2.1 Licensing Deals by Molecule Type
- 8.2.2 Licensing Deals by Molecular Target
- 8.2.3 Conclusion
- 8.3 Co-development Deals
- 8.3.1 Co-development Deals by Molecule Type
- 8.3.2 Co-development Deals by Molecular Target
- 8.3.3 Conclusion
- 8.4 First-in-Class Programs Not Involved in Licensing or Co-development Deals
- 9 Appendix
- 9.1 References
- 9.2 Abbreviations
- 9.3 Research Methodology
- 9.4 Secondary Research
- 9.4.1 Marketed Product Heatmaps and Treatment Algorithm
- 9.4.2 Pipeline Analysis
- 9.4.3 First-in-Class Matrix Assessment
- 9.4.4 First-in-Class Target Profiles
- 9.4.5 Licensing and Co-Development Deals
- 9.5 Contact Us
- 9.6 Disclaimer
- 1.1 List of Tables
- Table 1: Gastric Cancer, Tumor, Node and Metastasis Staging
- Table 2: Gastric Cancer, Key Features and Pipeline Activity of HER 3
- Table 3: Gastric Cancer, Key Features and Pipeline Activity of ATM
- Table 4: Gastric Cancer, Key Features and Pipeline Activity of L1CAM
- Table 5: Frequency of Mutations in Components in Akt Proteins, by Cancer Type
- Table 6: Gastric Cancer, Key Features and Pipeline Activity of AKT 1
- Table 7: Gastric Cancer, Key Features and Pipeline Activity of AKT 2
- Table 8: Gastric Cancer, Key Features and Pipeline Activity of AKT 3
- Table 9: Gastric Cancer, Key Features and Pipeline Activity of FGFR-3
- Table 10: Gastric Cancer, Key Features and Pipeline Activity of PDPK1
- Table 11: List of Abbreviations
- 1.2 List of Figures
- Figure 1: Innovation Trends in Product Approvals, Number of Product Approvals by FDA and Five-Year Moving Average of Products Approvals (%), 1987–2012
- Figure 2: First-in-Class and Non-First-in-Class Products, Sales Performance After Marketing Approval ($m)
- Figure 3: Gastric Cancer, Heatmap for First-Line Marketed Products
- Figure 4: Gastric Cancer, Heatmap for Second-Line Therapy Marketed Products
- Figure 5: Gastric Cancer, Overview of Marketed Products
- Figure 6: Gastric Cancer , Overview of Pipeline Products
- Figure 7: Gastric Cancer, Molecular Targets in Pipeline
- Figure 8: Gastric Cancer, Pipeline by Molecular Targets and Stage of Development
- Figure 9: Gastric Cancer, Molecular Target Family Comparison, Pipeline and Marketed Products
- Figure 10: Gastric Cancer, Molecular Target Family Comparison, Pipeline First-in-Class and Established Molecular Targets
- Figure 11: Gastric Cancer, Percentage of First-in-Class Products in Pipeline by Molecular Target Family (%)
- Figure 12: Gastric Cancer, Percentage of First-in-Class Products in Pipeline by Stage of Development (%)
- Figure 13: Gastric Cancer, First-in-Class Products in Pipeline (Part 1)
- Figure 14: Gastric Cancer, First-in-Class Products in Pipeline (Part 2)
- Figure 15: Gastric Cancer, First-in-Class Products in Pipeline (Part 3)
- Figure 16: Gastric Cancer, Target Matrix Assessment (Part 1)
- Figure 17: Gastric Cancer, Target Matrix Assessment (Part 2)
- Figure 18: Gastric Cancer, Programs Targeting HER 3
- Figure 19: Gastric Cancer, Programs Targeting ATM
- Figure 20: Gastric Cancer, Programs Targeting L1CAM
- Figure 21: Gastric Cancer, Programs Targeting AKT 1
- Figure 22: Gastric Cancer, Programs Targeting AKT 2
- Figure 23: Gastric Cancer, Programs Targeting AKT 3
- Figure 24: Gastric Cancer, Programs Targeting FGFR 3
- Figure 25: Gastric Cancer, Programs Targeting PDPK1
- Figure 26: Gastric Cancer, Deals by Stage of Development, 2006–2014
- Figure 27: Gastric Cancer, Licensing Deal Values by Stage of Development ($m), 2006–2014
- Figure 28: Gastric Cancer, Licensing Deal Value, 2006–2015
- Figure 29:Gastric Cancer, Licensing Deals by Year, 2006–2015
- Figure 30: Gastric Cancer, Licensing Deals by Stage of Development, 2006–2015
- Figure 31: Gastric Cancer, Licensing Deal Value by Stage of Development and Molecule Type, 2006–2015
- Figure 32: Gastric Cancer, Licensing Deal Value by Molecular Target, 2006–2015
- Figure 33: Gastric Cancer, Summary of Licensing Deals, 2006–2015
- Figure 34: Gastric Cancer, Co-development Deal Value, 2006–2015
- Figure 35: Gastric Cancer, Co-development Deals by Year, 2006–2015
- Figure 36: Gastric Cancer, Co-development Deals by Stage of Development, 2006–2015
- Figure 37: Gastric Cancer, Co-development by Stage of Development and Molecule Type, 2006–2015
- Figure 38: Gastric Cancer, Co-development by Stage of Development and Molecular Target, 2006–2015
- Figure 39: Gastric Cancer, Summary of Co-development Deals, 2006–2015
- Figure 40: Gastric Cancer, First-in-Class Therapies Not Involved in Deals (Part 1)
- Figure 41: Gastric Cancer, First-in-Class Therapies Not Involved in Deals (Part 2)