Advances in Understanding the Biology of Talimogene ... · T-VEC (Herpes Virus) Modifications...
Transcript of Advances in Understanding the Biology of Talimogene ... · T-VEC (Herpes Virus) Modifications...
Advances in Understanding the Biology of Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC)
Howard L. Kaufman
Disclosures
• Advisory Boards
– Amgen, Celldex, Compass Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Merck, Prometheus, Turnstone Biologics
• Speaker’s Bureau
– Merck (funds given to Rutgers University)
• Research Funding
– Amgen, BMS, Merck, Viralytics
– NCI, The Gateway Foundation
Why Immunotherapy?
• Specificity
• Memory
• Adaptability
Credited Jim Allison, PhD
Why Oncolytic Viruses?
• Cytotoxicity
• Immunity
• Safety
T-VEC (Herpes Virus)Modifications Rationale
JS-1 strain Improved Cancer Cell Lysis
Deletion of ICP34.5 Cancer Cell Specific Replication
Early Expression of US11
Cancer Cell Specific Replication
Deletion of ICP47 Permits Antigen Presentation
Insertion of GM-CSF Augments anti-tumor Immune response
Kaufman, Kohlhapp, and Zloza Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015 Sep;14(9):642-62
Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC; Imlygic™): Engineered HSV-1 Oncolytic Virus
T-VEC has profound lytic effect against SK-MEL-28 melanoma cells
7
Anti-tumor activity of T-VEC in other tumor cell lines in vitro
Cell lines Tissue Cell survival (%) (MOI=1)
24 hrs 48 hrs 3 days 6 days
A549 Lung cancer 82.5 76.0 55.8 43.1
H460 Lung cancer 65.2 64.0 44.0 27.6
CALU-1 Lung cancer 71.1 60.0 41.9 40.4
PANC-1 Pancreatic cancer 74.6 57.6 24.1 9.4
MIA PACA-2 Pancreatic cancer 66.5 38.5 18.6 1.4
CAPAN-1 Pancreatic cancer 81.0 42.2 56.6 20.3
BxPC-1 Pancreatic cancer 57.6 15.1 16.1 8
HCT116 Colorectal cancer 65.7 27.4 14 1.1
HT29 Colorectal cancer 51.6 22.0 24.3 3.9
SW620 Colorectal cancer 80.4 66.8 45.0 3.9
COLO205 Colorectal cancer 49.8 20.0 9.7 3.1
MTT assays(Higher MOI’s result in complete lysis of all cells)
8
T-VEC improves PFS in patients with melanoma
•Modified PFS was defined as time from the first dose of study treatment until death or development of
the first clinically significant progression for which no objective response was subsequently achieved
Perc
en
t P
rog
ressio
n F
ree
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
GM-CSF
T-VEC
Unadjusted Log Rank: P < 0.0001*
Hazard Ratio: 0.42 (0.32, 0.54)
Study Month0 5 10 15 20
141295
29175
1696
257
00
2.9 (2.8, 4.0) months
8.2 (6.5, 9.9) months
Median (95% CI)
GM-CSF (N = 141)
T-VEC (N = 295)
*P-value is descriptive
only
Risk set, n
163 (55.3%)
Events n (%)
84 (59.6%)
Antdbacka, Kaufman, Collicio et al. JCO 2015 17
9
T-VEC improved overall survival in patients with melanoma
Patients at risk:
T-VEC
GM-CSF 295 269 230 187 159 145 125 95 66 36 16 2
0141 124 100 83 63 52 46 36 27 15 5 0
Events / N (%)Median (95% CI)
in Months
T-VEC 189 / 295 (64) 23.3 (19.5 - 29.6)
GM-CSF 101 / 141 (72) 18.9 (16.0 - 23.7)
HR = 0.787 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.00)
Unadjusted Log-rank P = 0.051
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Ka
pla
n-M
eie
r P
erc
en
t
Survival T-VEC GM-CSFDifference
% (95% CI)
12-month 73.7% 69.4% 4.3 (-4.9, 13.5)
24-month 49.6% 41.3% 8.3 (-1.9, 18.5)
36-month 40.6% 27.8% 12.8 (1.0, 24.6)
Antdbacka, Kaufman, Collicio et al. JCO 2015
10
T-VEC has more profound effect in patients
with stage III and IV M1a tumors
Study Month
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Log Rank: p = 0.7094 (descriptive)Hazard Ratio: 1.07 (95% CI: 0.75, 1.52)
T-VECRisk set, n
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
13111284 58 46 41 32 22 15 13 6 1 0GM-CSF 55 46 35 28 20 17 16 14 10 5 3 0
Stage IVM1b/cStage IIIB/C, IVM1a
16315714612911310493 73 51 23 10 1 086 78 65 55 43 35 30 22 17 10 2 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Study Month
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Log Rank: p = 0.0009 (descriptive)Hazard Ratio: 0.57 (95% CI: 0.40, 0.80)
0
T-VECGM-CSF
Risk set, n
Ka
pla
n-M
eie
r P
erc
en
t
T-VEC 13.4 (11.4-16.2)
GM-CSF 15.9 (10.2-19.7)
T-VEC 41.1 (30.6, NE)
GM-CSF 21.5 (17.4, 29.6)
0 0
Events / N (%)
60 / 183 (49)
57 / 86 (66)
109 / 131 (83)
44 / 55 (80)
Median (95% CI), mos Events / N (%) Median (95% CI), mos
Antdbacka, Kaufman, Collicio et al. JCO 2015
Tumor regression in injected lesions is greater than in non-injected lesions
Part-1
How does T-VEC kill tumor cells?
HSV-1 Life Cycle
Melanoma cell lines exhibit a range of permissiveness to T-VEC infection
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
50
100
MOI
Perc
en
t su
rviv
al
10_24
_16 T-VEC _5 days
M14_TVEC_5day
SK_2_T-VEC_5day
SK_5_T-VEC_5day
SK_28_T-VEC_72hr
LOX_28_T-VEC_72hr
Kaufman, Kohlhapp, and Zloza Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015 Sep;14(9):642-62
HSV-1 enters cells through HVEM, Nectin-1 and Nectin-2
SKMEL5 and SKMEL28: BRAF V600E; N-RAS WT
PE Isotype average MFI: 629
HVEM triplicate
average MFI: 2711
PE Isotype average MFI: 629
NECTIN1 triplicate
average MFI: 1349
APC Isotype average MFI: 2061
NECTIN2 triplicate
average MFI: 8329
HSV-1 utilizes HVEM, Nectin-1 and Nectin-2 to enter tumor cells
SKMEL5
SKMEL28
T-VEC induces calreticulin expression on the surface of SK-MEL28 cells in a dose-dependent manner*
0.1 MOI (10X) 1.0 MOI (10X)
10.0 MOI (10X) 1.0 MOI (40X)
*Shown at 18 hours post-infection
SK28
-CTR
L-soup-3
6hr
SK28
-T-V
EC-1
MOI-s
oup-36h
r0
10
20
30
AT
P n
M
SK28-ATP-assay
p=0.02
SM
1-CTR
L-soup-3
6hr
SM
1-TV
EC-1
MOI-s
oup-36h
r0
5
10
AT
P n
M
SM1-ATP assay
p=0.001
T-VEC induces extracellular ATP release following infection of melanoma cells
T-VEC induces minimal apoptosis in melanoma cells, which can be enhanced by MEK inhibition
SKMEL 28
T-VEC induces minimal apoptosis in melanoma cells, which can be enhanced by MEK inhibition
-T-V
EC 0
.5 m
oi2
4h
r+M
eki 1
uM
3
6 h
rs
-MEK
i1U
M 3
6 h
rs
-T-V
EC 0
.5 M
OI 2
4 h
r
-No
tre
atm
ent
Vinculin
Cleaved casp3
-T-V
EC 0
.5 m
oi2
4h
r+M
eki 1
uM
3
6 h
rs
-MEK
i1U
M 3
6 h
rs
-T-V
EC 0
.5 M
OI 2
4 h
r
-No
tre
atm
ent
-20-10
-15
T-VEC induces caspase 3 cleavage in the presence of MEK inhibition
TVEC
TVEC+4
0nM
Tra
mei
nib
TVEC+2
50uM
ZVA
D
contr
ol0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
MOI 0.12 3days
Lu
min
iscen
ce
TVEC
TVEC+40nM Trameinib
control
TVEC+250uM ZVAD
p=0.15
p=0.01
ns
Caspase 3/7 assay
T-VEC induces minimal apoptosis in melanoma cells, which can be enhanced by MEK inhibition
T-VEC does not appear to induce autophagy
PKR and IRF7 protein expression is variable across melanoma cell lines:
Correlation with T-VEC-mediated lysis
IRF3 protein expression is variable across melanoma cell lines: Correlation with T-VEC lysis
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
50
100
MOI
Perc
en
t su
rviv
al
10_24
_16 T-VEC _5 days
M14_TVEC_5day
SK_2_T-VEC_5day
SK_5_T-VEC_5day
SK_28_T-VEC_72hr
LOX_28_T-VEC_72hr
STING expression correlates with tumor cell resistance to T-VEC infection
Conclusions: T-VEC tumor cell killing
• Melanoma cell express variable levels of HSV entry receptors (HVEM, Nectin-1 and Nectin-2)– All cell susceptible to infection but receptor expression is
variable across cell lines– Nectin may be important for viral entry
• T-VEC induces immunogenic cell death/releases DAMPs– Calreticulin, ATP and HMGB-1
• T-VEC induces apoptosis– Effect can be enhanced by MEK inhibition
• T-VEC does not appear to induce autophagy• T-VEC-mediated lysis may depend on PKR and IRF3/7
Part-2
Can combinations treatment enhance T-VEC-mediated tumor cell lysis?
Herpes virus replicates more efficiently in RAS-mutated tumor cells
29 Cuddington and Mossman J Virol 2014
MEK inhibition sensitizes melanoma cell line to T-VEC lysis
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 100
20
40
60
80
100
MOI
sk28 T
VE
C a
lon
e
TVEC+MEKi
sk28 TVEC alone
5nM Trametinib + TVEC
10nM Trametinib + TVEC
T-VEC contributes to MEK inhibitor cell killing in a dose-dependent manner
SK MEL 28
Increased cell lysis by combination T-VEC/MEKimay be due to increased viral replication
-SK
28
_Cel
ls o
nly
-SK
28
_Cel
ls+
1 M
OI-
T-V
EC
-SK
28
_Cel
ls+
1 M
OI-
T-V
EC+
DM
SO
-SK
28
_Cel
ls+
MEK
Inh
ibit
or
10
nM
-SK
28
_cel
ls +
DM
SO
-SK
28
_Cel
ls+
10
nm
MEK
Inh
ibit
or+
1 M
OI-
T-V
EC
HSV1 gD ~43kD
Vinculin
Sk28 cells pretreated with 10nM Trametinib for 12 hours and then infected with T-VEC 1 MOI for 16 hours. Protein lysate collected and 40ug is loaded.
Indicated cells were pretreated with 10nM MEKi for 12 hours and then infected with 0.1 MOI
T-VEC; 36 hrs post-infection viral titers were measured from supernatants by plaque assay.
MEK Inhibition increases viral titers in T-VEC treated Melanoma cell lines
Lumacyte uses radiance via velocity histogram to identify T-VEC infected cells
Example of typical histogram data
Radiance infection metric measures viral infection
Principal Component Analysis differentiates infected vs. non-infected, and MEK-inhibited vs. uninhibited cells
10/26 11/1 11/15 11/290
200
400
Tu
mo
r vo
lum
e
T-VEC10^6 pfu_MEK_1mg/kg NSG Data
Contol
T-VEC
MEK Inhibitor
Combo
Initial studies suggest Combination T-VEC and MEKiinduce anti-tumor immunity in murine melanoma
Conclusions
• MEK inhibition enhances T-VEC-mediated cell killing in vitro in a dose-dependent manner
• Combination treatment changed the morphology of tumor cells and infection can be detected by changes in cell radiance and velocity
• MEK inhibition may allow an increase in viral replication
• MEK inhibition may enhance T-VEC-mediated melanoma killing in vivo
Part-3
Immunological effects of T-VEC
Nectin1 expression is required for T-VEC-mediated lysis in murine B16 melanoma cells
5 10 15 20 25
-100
0
100
200
300
400
mm
2
PBS
T-VEC
5 10 15 20 25
-100
0
100
200
300
400
mm
2
PBS
T-VEC
Left FlankRight Flank
T-VECInfection
Contralateral B16-Nectin Treated with T-VEC
B16 B16-nectin-1
CD3
CD
11
c
16.2% 31.4%
PBS T-VEC
4 Days Post Injection
PBS T-VEC0
10
20
30
40
%C
D1
1c+
**
PBS T-VEC
CD3
CD
11
c
31.5% 27.8%
PBS T-VEC
7 Days Post Injection
PBS T-VEC0
10
20
30
40
%C
D1
1c+
ns
PBS T-VEC
T-VEC Increases Monocyte Infiltration
PBS T-VEC0
5
10
15
20
25
PBS T-VEC0
2
4
6
8
CD3
6.7% 19.5%
PBS T-VEC
4 Days Post Injection
CD3
NK
1.1
4.6% 3.0%
PBS T-VEC
7 Days Post Injection
%N
K1
.1+
ns
PBS T-VEC
%N
K1
.1+
**
PBS T-VEC
NK
1.1
T-VEC Increases NK Cell Infiltration
CD3
CD
8
16.7% 19.3%
PBS T-VEC
4 Days Post Injection
CD3
CD
8
9.6% 48.8%
PBS T-VEC
7 Days Post Injection
PBS T-VEC0
20
40
60
%C
D8
+
p < 0.056
PBS T-VECPBS T-VEC0
5
10
15
20
25
%C
D8
+
ns
PBS T-VEC
T-VEC Increases CD8 T Cell Infiltration
PBS T-VEC0
20
40
60
CD3
0.8% 15.2%
PBS T-VEC
4 Days Post Injection
CD3
HSV
-1 T
et
0.0% 42.9%
PBS T-VEC
7 Days Post Injection
%H
SV-1
Tet
+
**
PBS T-VECPBS T-VEC0
10
20
30
40
%H
SV-1
Tet
+
ns
PBS T-VEC
HSV
-1 T
et
T-VEC Increases HSV-1 gD-Specific CD8 T Cell Infiltration
HSV gD-specific CD8+ T cells accumulate in both injected and uninjected tumors
Conclusions from Immunologic Effects
• Tumor regression is more pronounced in injected tumors but does occur in non-injected tumors
• T-VEC appears to induce local innate and adaptive immune responses
• HSV-specific CD8+ T cells are detected in both injected and un-injected tumors (hypothesis: chemokine gradient?)
• Cross presentation of tumor antigens is being evaluated
The “inflamed” vs. “non-inflamed” tumor microenvironment
“Inflamed”
“Non-inflamed”
Patient #1
Patient #2
a Dosing of T-VEC was 4 mL × 106 PFU/mL once, then after 3 weeks, 4 mL × 108 PFU/mL Q2W.
Ipilimumab 3mg/kg IV Q3W x 4
Primary Endpoint: Incidence of dose-limiting toxicities / ORR per mirRC
Key Secondary Endpoints: ORRirRC, Safety / PFS, OS, BORR, time to response, duration of response
Study schema of phase 1b/II trial of combination T-VEC and ipilimumab
Unresectable Stage IIIB-IV
Melanoma:
•Injectable
•Treatment naive
•ECOG PS 0 or 1
•No CNS mets
T-VEC Intralesional
106 PFU/mL, after 3 weeks 108 PFU/mL Q2Wa
Week 6
Phase Ib N = 19
Phase II N=198
T-VEC dosing until CR, all injectable tumors disappeared, PD per irRC, or intolerance whichever comes first.
Week 1
Puzanov et al. JCO 2016Chesney et al. Submitted, 2017
Ph II stratification:Disease stageBRAF status
Spider plot of individual subject responses in Phase Ib T-VEC and Ipilimumab trial
51Puzanov et al. JCO 2016
52
Phase 1b: Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events*
Preferred TermTotal
N (%)
Grade 3
N (%)
Any event 19 (100) 5 (26)
Any attributed to T-VEC 17 (90) 3 (16)†
Any attributed to ipilimumab 15 (80) 3 (16)†
Chills 11 (58) -
Fatigue 11 (58) 1 (5)
Pyrexia 11 (58) 1 (5)
Nausea 9 (47) 2 (11)
Rash 9 (47) -
Diarrhea 8 (42) 1 (5)
Headache 8 (42) -
Pruritis 7 (37) -
Decreased appetite 4 (21) -
Hyperglycemia 4 (21) -
Vomiting 4 (21) 1 (5)
ALT increased 3 (16) -
Back pain 3 (16) 1 (5)
Influenza-like illness 3 (16) 1 (5)
Pain 3 (16) -
Vision blurred 3 (16) -
*All events of any grade occurring in > 15% of patients during treatment or up to 30 days after last T-VEC or 60 days after last
ipilimumab, whichever is later; †Grade 3 events in these patients: pyrexia attributed to T-VEC; hypophysitis and abdominal
distention attributed to ipilimumab; and nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, influenza-like illness, vomiting, adrenal insufficiency, and
dehydration attributed to both; ALT: alanine aminotransferase
• The only grade 3 event
occurring in > 1 patient was
nausea
• The only two grade 4 events
were in a patient with elevated
amylase and lipase (attributed
to ipilimumab)
• There was one grade 5 event of
metastases to central nervous
system (preferred term)
Puzanov et al. JCO 2016
Changes in activated CD4+ICOS+ and CD8+DR+T cells after T-VEC and Ipilimumab
53Puzanov et al. JCO, 2016
CD4+ICOS+ T cells
CD8+DR+ T cells
Phase II baseline patient/tumor characteristics
Chesney et al. Submitted, 2017
Incidence of Adverse Events
Waterfall plots of response rates
Output: f14-04-001-001-eff-waterfall-bestchg-tum-burd-itt-p2-l.rtf (Date Generated: 06FEB17 13:57) Source Data: adtminv, adsl
Program: /userdata/stat/amg678/onc/20110264/analysis/pa_p2_201610_ub_f/figures/f-eff-waterfall-bestchg-tum-burd-p2.sas
Evaluable subjects are defined as subjects who had baseline and at least one post baseline tumor burden.
Perc
enta
ge C
hange f
rom
Baselin
e
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
2:Stage IV M1c (N=26)2:Stage IV M1b (N=10)2:Stage IV M1a (N=15)2:Stage IIIC (N=27)2:Stage IIIB (N=8)
1:Stage IV M1c (N=26)1:Stage IV M1b (N=19)1:Stage IV M1a (N=13)1:Stage IIIC (N=27)1:Stage IIIB (N=4)
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
2:Stage IV M1c (N=26)2:Stage IV M1b (N=10)2:Stage IV M1a (N=15)2:Stage IIIC (N=27)2:Stage IIIB (N=8)
1:Stage IV M1c (N=26)1:Stage IV M1b (N=19)1:Stage IV M1a (N=13)1:Stage IIIC (N=27)1:Stage IIIB (N=4)
100% 17 (19.8%)
≥50% 30 (34.9%)
Any 46 (53.5%)
Max. decrease
200
400
600
2:Ipilimumab (N=86)
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
100% 22 (24.7%)
≥50% 45 (50.6%)
Any 53 (59.6%)
Max. decrease
200
400
600
1:Talimogene Laherparepvec + Ipilimumab (N=89)
Chesney et al. Submitted, 2017
T-VEC and Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumabresponse rates
There is no difference in PFS between combination T-VEC/Ipi and ipilimumab alone
||||||||||||
||
||||||||||||||
||| |
|
|||||| |
||
|| |||| | | |
|||
||
|||
||
|| || | |
||| |||
||
| |
|
|||
|
||| |||
| | || | |
|
100 50 31 23 18 16 6 3 3 3 3 1 0
98 59 44 36 30 21 16 7 5 2 1 1 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
Study Month
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Kapla
n-M
eie
r P
erc
ent
Ipil imumab
Talimogene Laherparepvec+Ipil imumab
Talimogene Laherparepvec + Ipilimumab (N = 98) Median (95% CI) 8.2 (4.2, 21.5)
Ipilimumab (N = 100) Median (95% CI) 6.4 (3.2, 16.5)
Censor indicated by vertical |.
Subjects that have not had an event of death or disease progression are censored at their last evaluable tumor assessment date.
Progression-free survival (PFS) is defined as time from randomization to the date of f irst of confirmed disease progression per modif ied irRC criteria, or death, w hicheveroccurs earlier.
N = Number of subjects in the analysis set. CI = Confidence Interval. One month = 365.25/12 days.
Program: /userdata/stat/amg678/onc/20110264/analysis/pa_p2_201610_ub_f/figures/f-eff-km-pfs-mirrc-p2.sas
Output: f14-04-004-001-eff-km-pfs-mirrc-itt-p2-l.rtf (Date Generated: 01NOV16 14:49) Source Data: adtte, adsl
||||||||||||
||
||||||||||||||
||| |
|
|||||| |
||
|| |||| | | |
|||
||
|||
||
|| || | |
||| |||
||
| |
|
|||
|
||| |||
| | || | |
|
100 50 31 23 18 16 6 3 3 3 3 1 0
98 59 44 36 30 21 16 7 5 2 1 1 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
Study Month
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Kapla
n-M
eie
r P
erc
ent
Ipil imumab
Talimogene Laherparepvec+Ipil imumab
Log Rank: p = 0.348
Hazard Ratio: 0.83 (0.56, 1.23)
Number of Subjects at Risk:
Talimogene Laherparepvec + Ipilimumab (N = 98) Median (95% CI) 8.2 (4.2, 21.5)
Ipilimumab (N = 100) Median (95% CI) 6.4 (3.2, 16.5)
Censor indicated by vertical |.
Subjects that have not had an event of death or disease progression are censored at their last evaluable tumor assessment date.
Progression-free survival (PFS) is defined as time from randomization to the date of f irst of confirmed disease progression per modif ied irRC criteria, or death, w hicheveroccurs earlier.
N = Number of subjects in the analysis set. CI = Confidence Interval. One month = 365.25/12 days.
Program: /userdata/stat/amg678/onc/20110264/analysis/pa_p2_201610_ub_f/figures/f-eff-km-pfs-mirrc-p2.sas
Output: f14-04-004-001-eff-km-pfs-mirrc-itt-p2-l.rtf (Date Generated: 01NOV16 14:49) Source Data: adtte, adsl
Disease subset analysis
Response rate Disease control rate
Progression-free survival
60Chesney et al. Submitted, 2017Hodi et al. NEJM 2010
Overall survival for T-VEC + Ipilimumab
61
Chesney et al. Submitted, 2017Hodi et al. NEJM 2010
Pembrolizumab and T-VEC in melanoma
Long et al. SMR Abstract 2015
Conclusions
• T-VEC is the first oncolytic virus to achieve regulatory approval for the treatment of melanoma
• Patients with stage III/IV M1a and in first-line setting has the best outcomes
• Combination T-VEC and T cell checkpoint inhibitors appears promising
• T-VEC kills melanoma cells through immunogenic and apoptotic mechanisms, releases, and lysis may be enhanced by MEK inhibition
• T-VEC releases DAMPs and appears to generate an HSV-specific T cells responses (and tumor-specific?)
Acknowledgments
Clinical Trial Investigators• Robert Andtbacka, MD• Jason Chesney, MD• Frances Collichio, MD• Philip Friedlander, MD• Claus Garbe, MD• John Glaspy, MD• Omid Hamid, MD• Axel Hauschild, MD• Celeste Lebbe, MD• Ted Logan, MD• Mohammed Milhem, MD• Igor Puzanov, MD• Merrick Ross, MD• Parminder Singh, MD
Study Participants & Supporters
• Patients and Families
• Jennifer Gansert, MD, PhD
• Lisa Chen
• Jenny J. Kim
Acknowledgments
Rutgers Cancer Institute of NJ
• Ann Silk, MD
• James Goydos, MD
• Vadim Koshenkov, MD
• Janice Mehnert, MD
• Tracie Saunders, RN
• Jennifer Bryant, RN
• Andrew Zloza, MD, PhD
• Dan Medina, PhD
• Megha Shettigar, PhD
• Praveen Bommareddy
• Ricardo Estupinian
Mass General Hospital• Sam Rabkin, PhD• Robert Martuza, PhD
• Don Lawrence, MD• Keith Flaherty, MD, PhD• Ryan Sullivan, MD• Justine Cohen, DO• Ken Tanabe, MD
FundingNCI UM1 CA 186716-01NCI NO1 CA 10-034NCI RO1 CA 093696 The Gateway Foundation