Download OSUCCC-James State of Cancer Program

Welcome to the
Cancer Drug Development
Roundtable at Ohio State
May 4, 2011
Public Session
Michael Caligiuri, MD
(Co-host and Panelist)
OSUCCCJames
Director, OSUCCC;
CEO, The James
Ellen Sigal, PhD
(Co-host)
Friends of
Cancer
Research
Chair and Founder
James Doroshow, MD
(Panelist)
NCI
Director, Division of Cancer
Treatment and Diagnosis
Eric Rubin, MD
(Panelist)
Merck
VP, Oncology Clinical Research
Janet Woodcock, MD
(Panelist)
FDA
Director, Center for Drug
Evaluation & Research
Robert Brueggemeier, PhD
(Q&A Moderator)
Ohio State
Dean, College of Pharmacy
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center –
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove
Research Institute
2
Additional Roundtable Participants
Brian Cummings
Ohio State
VP, Technology
Commercialization
Anthony Dennis
PhD
BioOhio
President and CEO
Richard Gaynor
MD
Eli Lilly and
Company
VP, Clinical Development & Medical
Affairs, Oncology Business Unit
Courtney Granville
PhD, MSPH
Battelle
Toxicologist/Study Director
OSUCCCJames
Chair & Professor, Dept of Internal
Medicine; Associate Dean of Medical
Services; Co-Leader, Experimental
Therapeutics Program
Michael Grever
MD
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center –
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove
Research Institute
3
Additional Roundtable Participants
Joanne Lager
MD
SanofiAventis
Senior Director and Oncology Drug
Project Head
Michael Mitchell
JD
Ohio State
Assistant VP and
Associate General Counsel
Christine Poon
MBA
Ohio State
Dean, Fisher College of Business
David Roth
MD
Pfizer
VP, Early Development,
Oncology Business Unit
David Schmickel
JD, PhD
FoxKiser
Legal Counsel
Allen Singer
DVM
Battelle
VP, Center for Life Sciences Research
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center –
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove
Research Institute
4
Additional Roundtable Participants
Ira Steinberg
MD
SanofiAventis
Associate VP & Global Medical
Affairs Leader
Miguel Villalona
MD
OSUCCCJames
Director, Division of Medical Oncology
& Professor, Dept of Internal Medicine
Tim Wright
Signal Hill
Advisors
Biotech and Pharmaceutical Consultant
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center –
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove
Research Institute
5
Ellen Sigal, PhD
Chair and Founder,
Friends of Cancer Research
Janet Woodcock, MD
Director
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
James Doroshow, MD
Director
Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis
National Cancer Institute
Developing Experimental Drug Combinations:
Opportunities and Challenges
James H. Doroshow, M.D.
Director
Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, NCI
OSU Comprehensive Cancer Center
Columbus, OH
May 4, 2011
Challenges to Development of
Combination Targeted Therapeutics
•
Incomplete understanding of mechanisms of action for a
growing number of targeted agents available for trial
Inability to assess target effect
•
Lack of preclinical models for combinations
•
Clinical trials methodology
•
Intellectual property & regulatory challenges to novel
combinations
•
–
–
–
–
Lack of assays, imaging tools
Lack of assay standardization
Lack of commercially-available agents formulated for in vitro use
Lack of available investigational agents for in vitro use
–
To evaluate efficacy, schedule effects, biomarker utility, toxicity
–
–
–
–
Need to screen large numbers of patients?
Need for tumor biopsies?
Is histologic homogeneity relevant?
Pharmacokinetic interactions? SD vs RR?
Lack of Molecular Markers
with Proven Clinical Utility
Drug
Biomarker
Anti-estrogens
ER, PR, genomic signature
Trastuzumab
Her2 FISH, IHC
EGFR small molecule inhibitors
Mutation status
B-Raf, ALK inhibitors
Mutation status
Anti-VEGF/VEGFR agents
??
IGF-I receptor antagonists
??
Src inhibitors
??
Cdk/Cyclin D1 inhibitors
??
HDAC/DNMT inhibitors
??
Anti CTLA-4 Antibody
??
Pharmacodynamic Assay Development
Concept
Target
Application
γ-H2AX Protein
(tumor)
γ-H2AX Protein
(tumor)
Top 1 Protein
DNA
Damaging Agents
DNA
Damaging
Agents
TOPO Inhibitors
MET
TK domain and Grb2
Docking Site
MET
TK domain and Grb2
Docking Site
PARG mRNA
PARP 1 mRNA
PARP 1,2 Activity
(PAR levels)
PARP 2 mRNA
Stem Cell Proteins
-ALDH 1A1
-OCT 3/4
-NANOG
-CD44v6
KEY:
Feasibility & Development
Analytical Preclinical Specimen
Validation Modeling
SOPs
Assay
Transfer
Launch
Support Transfer to
Clinical
NCI Clinical Scientific
Validation
Trials Community
Biopsy Assays
ELISA
P
P
l
qIFA
P
P
P
P
P
ELISA
P
P
P
l
P
P
P
l
l
l
l
Custom
Reagents
P
P
P
l
RT-qPCR
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
R
RT-qPCR
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
R
IA
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
l
RT-qPCR
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
R
IFA
P
l
H
l
l
l
l
IFA
Commerci
Kinase Inhibitors
al
Reagents
Kinase Inhibitors
PARP
Inhibitors
PARP
Inhibitors
PARP
Inhibitors
PARP
Inhibitors
Tumor Stem Cell
Inhibitors
l
l
l
Platform Feasibility Development
Validation
IFA
In Progress
P
Delayed
CA Commercially Available
Technical Difficulty
X
Completed
H On Hold
Dropped
NA/UIN
Not Applicable or Uninformative
R
Ready
l
Standard 18 gauge Bx
Cryobiopsy: Excise
Cryobiopsy: Freeze
Excisional Biopsy
Challenges to Development of
Combination Targeted Therapeutics
•
Incomplete understanding of mechanisms of action for a growing
number of targeted agents available for trial
Inability to assess target effect
•
Lack of preclinical models for combinations
•
Clinical trials methodology
•
Intellectual property & regulatory challenges to novel combinations
•
–
–
–
–
Lack of assays, imaging tools
Lack of assay standardization
Lack of commercially-available agents formulated for in vitro use
Lack of available investigational agents for in vitro use
–
To evaluate efficacy, schedule effects, biomarker utility, toxicity
–
–
–
–
Need to screen large numbers of patients?
Need for tumor biopsies?
Is histologic homogeneity relevant?
Pharmacokinetic interactions? SD vs RR?
NCI “COMBO Plates”
Plated Compounds for Combination Studies
• COMBO set 1
– 87 compounds of diverse mechanism
– Includes many older FDA-approved anticancer agents
• FDA-approved COMBO set (9/09):
Molec. Cancer Ther. 9:1451-1460, 2010
Challenges to Development of
Combination Targeted Therapeutics
•
Incomplete understanding of mechanisms of action and a growing
number of targeted agents available for trial
Inability to assess target effect
•
Lack of preclinical models for combinations
•
Clinical trials methodology
•
Intellectual property & regulatory challenges to novel combinations
•
–
–
–
–
Lack of assays, imaging tools
Lack of assay standardization
Lack of commercially-available agents formulated for in vitro use
Lack of available investigational agents for in vitro/in vivo use
–
To evaluate efficacy, schedule effects, biomarker utility, toxicity
–
–
–
–
Need to screen large numbers of patients?
Need for tumor biopsies?
Is histologic homogeneity relevant?
Pharmacokinetic interactions? SD vs RR?
Challenges to Development of
Combination Targeted Therapeutics
•
Incomplete understanding of mechanisms of action and a growing
number of targeted agents available for trial
Inability to assess target effect
•
Lack of preclinical models for combinations
•
Clinical trials methodology
•
Intellectual property & regulatory challenges to novel combinations
•
–
–
–
–
Lack of assays, imaging tools
Lack of assay standardization
Lack of commercially-available agents formulated for in vitro use
Lack of available investigational agents for in vitro/in vivo use
–
To evaluate efficacy, schedule effects, biomarker utility, toxicity
–
–
–
–
Need to screen large numbers of patients?
Need for tumor biopsies?
Is histologic homogeneity relevant?
Pharmacokinetic interactions? SD vs RR?
Modeling Therapeutic Combinations in NCI 60
For any 2-drug combination:
MALME-3M
M14
MDA-MB-435
SK-MEL-2
Bars to left
SK-MEL-28
SK-MEL-5
indicate loss
UACC-257
of benefit relative UACC-62
IGROV1
OVCAR-3
to best singleOVCAR-4
OVCAR-5
OVCAR-8
agent results
NCI/ADR-RES
SK-OV-3
786-0
A498
ACHN
CAKI-1
RXF-393
SN12C
TK-10
UO-31
PC-3
DU-145
MCF7
Bars to right indicate
overall benefit to
using combo relative
to best single-agent
results
Doxorubicin + Rapamycin
-10
Cell line
Cell line
CCRF-CEM
HL-60(TB)
K-562
MOLT-4
RPMI-8226
SR
A549/ATCC
EKVX
HOP-62
HOP-92
NCI-H226
NCI-H23
NCI-H322M
NCI-H460
NCI-H522
COLO 205
HCC-2998
HCT-116
HCT-15
HT29
KM12
SW-620
SF-268
SF-295
SF-539
SNB-75
SNB-19
U251
LOX IMVI
MALME-3M
M14
MDA-MB-435
SK-MEL-2
SK-MEL-28
SK-MEL-5
UACC-257
UACC-62
IGROV1
OVCAR-3
OVCAR-4
OVCAR-5
OVCAR-8
NCI/ADR-RES
SK-OV-3
786-0
A498
ACHN
CAKI-1
RXF-393
SN12C
TK-10
UO-31
PC-3
DU-145
MCF7
MDA-MB-231/ATCC
HS 578T
BT-549
T-47D
MDA-MB-468
Bortezomib + Cladribine (2CDA)
-5
0
123127_226080
5
CCRF-CEM
HL-60(TB)
K-562
MOLT-4
RPMI-8226
SR
A549/ATCC
EKVX
HOP-62
HOP-92
NCI-H226
NCI-H23
NCI-H322M
NCI-H460
NCI-H522
COLO 205
HCC-2998
HCT-116
HCT-15
HT29
KM12
SW-620
SF-268
SF-295
SF-539
SNB-75
SNB-19
U251
LOX IMVI
MALME-3M
M14
MDA-MB-435
SK-MEL-2
SK-MEL-28
SK-MEL-5
UACC-257
UACC-62
IGROV1
OVCAR-3
OVCAR-4
OVCAR-5
OVCAR-8
NCI/ADR-RES
SK-OV-3
786-0
A498
ACHN
CAKI-1
RXF-393
SN12C
TK-10
UO-31
PC-3
DU-145
MCF7
MDA-MB-231/ATCC
HS 578T
BT-549
T-47D
MDA-MB-468
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
681239_606869
20
25
CCRF-CEM
HL-60(TB)
K-562
MOLT-4
RPMI-8226
SR
A549/ATCC
EKVX
HOP-62
HOP-92
NCI-H226
NCI-H23
NCI-H322M
NCI-H460
NCI-H522
COLO 205
HCC-2998
HCT-116
HCT-15
HT29
KM12
SW-620
SF-268
SF-295
SF-539
SNB-75
SNB-19
U251
LOX IMVI
MALME-3M
M14
MDA-MB-435
SK-MEL-2
SK-MEL-28
SK-MEL-5
UACC-257
UACC-62
IGROV1
OVCAR-3
OVCAR-4
OVCAR-5
OVCAR-8
NCI/ADR-RES
SK-OV-3
786-0
A498
ACHN
CAKI-1
RXF-393
SN12C
TK-10
UO-31
PC-3
DU-145
MCF7
MDA-MB-231/ATCC
C
HS 578T
BT-549
T-47D
MDA-MB-468
718781_707545
718781_45388
226080_718781
609699_718781
718781_102816
732517_718781
67574_718781
718781_105014
226080_409962
226080_221019
123127_226080
681239_105014
681239_707545
681239_606869
732517_755
732517_221019
732517_246131
83265_732517
747971_122758
747971_71423
613327_721517
123127_745750
750690_102816
19893_241240
609699_266046
609699_82151
609699_707545
613327_105014
123127_312887
266046_19893
266046_105014
cellname
Challenges to Development of
Combination Targeted Therapeutics
•
Incomplete understanding of mechanisms of action and a growing
number of targeted agents available for trial
Inability to assess target effect
•
Lack of preclinical models for combinations
•
Clinical trials methodology
•
Intellectual property & regulatory challenges to novel combinations
•
–
–
–
–
Lack of assays, imaging tools
Lack of assay standardization
Lack of commercially-available agents formulated for in vitro use
Lack of available investigational agents for in vitro/in vivo use
–
To evaluate efficacy, schedule effects, biomarker utility, toxicity
–
–
–
–
Need to screen large numbers of patients?
Need for tumor biopsies?
Is histologic homogeneity relevant?
Pharmacokinetic interactions? SD vs RR?
Principles of Combination Therapy:
Then (1975) and Now (2010)
Cytotoxic
•
•
•
•
Targeted
Drugs are each active against the •
tumor in question (ORR)
Drugs have different mechanisms of •
action to minimize resistance
Drugs have different clinical toxicities
to allow full dose therapy
Intermittent intensive > continuous •
treatment for cytoreduction & to
reduce immunosuppression
•
Frei, Cancer Res., 32: 2593, 1972
DeVita, Cancer, 35: 98, 1975
Agent has therapeutic effect on molecular
pathway in vivo
Agents have complementary effects on
the same target or
other targets in the same pathway or
pathways that cross-talk to control tumor
growth
Toxicities do not overlap with cytotoxics
and are moderate to allow prolonged
administration
Schedule chosen to maximize target
inhibition: Either continuous Rx or high
dose to suppress target a reasonable
goal
Kummar, Nat. Rev. Drug Disc., 9: 843, 2010
of Cancer Treatment
DCTD Division
and Diagnosis
Developmental
Therapeutics
Jerry Collins
Joe Tomaszewski
Melinda Hollingshead
Ralph Parchment
Robert Kinders
Tom Pfister
Jay Ji

Center for Cancer
Research
Yves Pommier
Lee Helman
Bob Wiltrout
Shivaani Kummar
William Bonner
Accelerating Cancer Diagnosis and Drug
Development
DCTD
Jason Cristofaro
Barbara Mrochowski
Michael Difilippantonio

CTEP
Jamie Zweibel
Jeff Abrams


Cancer Imaging
Paula Jacobs

Cancer Diagnosis
Barbara Conley

Eric Rubin, MD
Vice President
Oncology Clinical Research
Merck
Approaches to solving the
combinations problem in
oncology therapeutics
Eric H Rubin
Merck Research Laboratories
The Most Effective Treatments Involve Combinations
•
Probability of drug-resistant cells = 1 – e[-x(N-1)],where N
is number of cells and x is the spontaneous drug
resistance rate
– Assuming a resistance rate of 1 of every million cells, for a 1 mm3
tumor, this probability is 0.64
•
Principles of combination chemotherapy
– Additive or synergistic anti-tumor activity without additive toxicity
– Non-cross-resistance
Combinations Problem in Oncology
•
•
•
For every 10 new drugs approved, 45 trials would be
required to test each possible 2-drug combination
If the trials were done separately and sequentially, this
would take about 90 years
This problem is amplified by a need to identify
responsive subgroups (e.g. by biomarkers)
The Combinations Problem in Cancer:
Lung Cancer Example
Standard-of-care drugs (2)
–EGFRi
(e.g. erlotinib)
–VEGFRi
(e.g. bevacizumab)
New Compounds (5)
–
–
–
–
–
AKTi
HGFi
IGFRi
mTORi
CHK1i
Biomarkers (4)
–
–
–
–
RAS
IGFR
MET
EGFR
Possible drug doublets = (7 x 6)/2 -1 (SOC doublet) = 20 possible all comer ph2 trials
Possible biomarker groups (if independent) = 24 = 16 possible patient subgroups
Possible drug doublet-biomarker groups = 20 x 16 = 320 possible enrichment ph2 trials
Solutions to the Combinations Problem
1. Identify most promising combinations from preclinical
studies and combine them early in the clinic
– IGF1Ri + mTORi
– AKTi + MEKi
– Caveat is that the historical success rate of preclinical prediction is low
2. Use branched adaptive trials
– BATTLE – lung cancer
– I-SPY – breast cancer
Enhancer Screen for IGF1R inhibition
IGF1Ritreated
cell lines
(dalotuzumab)
siRNA
Library
Candidate
Enhancers
Untreated
Cell lines
Rationale for Combined mTOR and IGFR1 Targeting
Dalotuzumab Enhancer Screen
mTOR shRNA
•
•
Anti-proliferative effect
shRNA=small hairpin RNA
mTOR is top hit in dalotuzumab
enhancer screen
IGF1R is top hit in ridaforolimus
enhancer screen
Rationale for Combined mTOR and IGFR1 Targeting
DALOTUZUMAB
IGFR-1
Feedback activation of AKT following
mTOR inhibition by rapalogs
IRS
PI3K
PTEN
PDK1
Akt
pAKT-S473 staining
PIP3
Tumor sample of a patient on treatment with everolimus
pre-therapy
on-therapy
Tuberin
Co-treatment with IGFR1 inhibitor prevents feedback activation of
AKT by mTOR inhibition in preclinical models
Rheb
RIDAFOROLIMUS
TORC1
S6K
S6
4EBP1
Tabernero, et al., J Clin Oncol. 2008
Ridaforolimus (Rida) + Dalotuzumab (Dalo): Phase I
Design
Part B - 2 dose cohorts
Part A
5 dose levels
37 patients
•
Cohort 1
12 patients
Cohort 2
13 patients
Presented at oral session ASCO 2010
– DiCosimo et al, abstract # 3008
• Serena Di Cosimo, Johanna Bendell, Andres Cervantes-Ruiperez,
Desamparados. Roda, Ludmilla Prudkin, Mark Stein, Ann LeightonSwayze, Yang Song, Scot Ebbinghaus, and José Baselga
36
Example of a Partial Response to Ridaforolimus +
Dalotuzumab
•
56 year-old female
– Stage IV breast cancer
•
•
•
ER+/PR+/HER2 neg, Ki67 20%
Adjuvant chemotherapy
4 prior chemotherapy regimens
– Cyclophosphamide + doxorubicin,
docetaxel + vinorelbine, paclitaxel +
gemcitabine, capecitabine
•
3 prior hormone therapies
2 cycles
– Tamoxifen, fulvestrant, anastrazole
•
Patient remained on study treatment
for 9 months before progression
37
Summary of Efficacy Signals in Breast Cancer
•
Overall, 10 of 23 breast cancer patients had objective
evidence of anti-tumor activity
– 6 of 11 (54%) patients with ER+/high proliferation breast tumors
– 0 of 5 patients with ER+/low proliferation breast tumors
Breast Cancer
Subpopulation
N
FDG-PET PR
(EORTC)
n
%
PFS > 6
months
n
%
Tumor
Marker
n
%
RECIST PR
n
ER+
18
2
4
7
3
ER+/high proliferation
11
2
4
5
3
ER+/low proliferation
5
0
0
0
0
HER2+
3
3
0
2
0
All breast cancer
23
5
22
4
17
8
35
3
%
13.0
PR=partial response; PFS = progression-free survival; tumor marker decline > 25% for CA-125, CA15.3 or CA27.29
Inter-Company 2 NME Combination
•
•
Allosteric AKT inhibitor (MK-2206) + allosteric MEK
inhibitor (AZD6244)
Collaboration signed June 2009
– First example of two companies collaborating on combining 2 NMEs in
early development
•
•
•
First patient dosed in phase 1 trial December 2009
Results to be presented at ASCO 2011
Combination also to be studied in BATTLE2
Acknowledgements
•
Merck
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
Gary Gilliland
Stephen Friend
Pearl Huang
Keaven Anderson
Li Yan
David Mauro
Astra Zeneca
–
–
–
–
–
Alan Barge
Paul Smith
Ian Smith
Grahme Smith
Victoria Zazulina
•
MD Anderson Cancer Center
–
–
–
–
Roy Herbst
Vali Papadimitrakopoulou
J Jack Lee
Don Berry
Michael Caligiuri, MD
Director, The Ohio State University
Comprehensive Cancer Center
CEO, James Cancer Hospital and
Solove Research Institute
Success with New Trials at The James
 Developed nude rat model of
human primary CNS EBV+
lymphoma (PCNSL)
 NCI R01 funded in 1997
 Rat model of PCNSL: Identified
tumor upregulation of viral
thymidine kinase by XRT &
cytotoxicity with high dose AZT &
GCV
 Phase I clinical trial developed
 1st Patient: cured of fatal EBV+
PCNSL (10 years disease-free
survival)
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center –
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove
Research Institute
42
Success with New Trials at The James
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center –
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove
Research Institute
43
An Astonishing Range of Molecular
Interactions Occurs in Cancer Cells
Biochemical pathways control cancer-cell
growth and survival of cancer cells
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center –
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove
Research Institute
44
Drugs Designed to Target Key Molecules
In Biomedical Pathways
Turns on protective
genes that the cancer
process has turned off
Blocks PI3K,
which drives
growth
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center –
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove
Research Institute
45
Preclinical Evidence: Targeted Agents In
Combination Will Improve Patient Outcomes
 They cripple several key pathways simultaneously
 As a result, they may slow development of
resistance and extend patient lives
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center –
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove
Research Institute
46
Dr. Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy
Assistant Professor of Medical Oncology
The Ohio State University School of Medicine and Public Health

A link to the full video will be sent to those participating virtually following the session.
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center –
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove
Research Institute
47
Major Stakeholders Need to Develop
COOPERATIVE Policies and Procedures
Patient
advocacy
groups
Pharmaceutical
industry
Regulatory
agencies
Academia
National
Cancer
Institute
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center –
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove
Research Institute
48
Great First
Step by FDA
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center –
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove
Research Institute
49
CCCs & Academic
Institutions Can Help
 Basic research
 Patients
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center –
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove
Research Institute
50
CCCs & Academic
Institutions Can Help
 Basic research
 Patients
 Science-based combination
strategies
 Pre-clinical studies
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center –
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove
Research Institute
51
CCCs & Academic
Institutions Can Help
 Basic research
 Patients
 Science-based combination
strategies
 Pre-clinical studies
 Bring stakeholders together
 Academic expertise in
intellectual property
 CCCs can file
investigational new drug
(IND) applications
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center –
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove
Research Institute
52
Today’s Roundtable
Battelle
Merck
BioOhio
NCI
Eli Lilly and Company
Ohio State
FDA
OSUCCC-James
FoxKiser
Pfizer
Friends of Cancer Research
Sanofi-Aventis
Signal Hill Advisors
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center –
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove
Research Institute
53
Solve Critical Business and Legal Issues:
Co-developing Agents in Combination
Define roles
Financing
the science
Intellectual
property
Concentrated
effort on broad
coalition
Profits
Prices
Experimental
combinations
Adverse
Effects
Commercialization
Patent
protection
Draw up
agreements
Create
workable template
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center –
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove
Research Institute
54
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center –
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove
Research Institute
55
Question and Answer Session
Thank you for attending.
To view related material, please visit
cancer.osu.edu/go/CancerDrugRoundtable.