Search company, investor...

Founded Year

2013

Stage

Acq - P2P | Acquired

Total Raised

$161M

Valuation

$0000 

About Neon Therapeutics

Neon Therapeutics operates as an immuno-oncology company. A neoantigen-based product engine allows Neon to develop multiple treatment modalities, including next-generation vaccines and T-cell therapies targeting both personalized and shared neoantigens. Neon serves the Healthcare sector. The company was founded in 2013 and is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In May 2020, Neon Therapeutics was acquired by BioNTech.

Headquarters Location

40 Erie Street Suite 110

Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139,

United States

617-337-4701

Loading...

Loading...

Neon Therapeutics Patents

Neon Therapeutics has filed 6 patents.

The 3 most popular patent topics include:

  • clusters of differentiation
  • immune system
  • immunology
patents chart

Application Date

Grant Date

Title

Related Topics

Status

11/22/2019

5/16/2023

Clusters of differentiation, Immune system, Immunology, Cytokines, Transcription factors

Grant

Application Date

11/22/2019

Grant Date

5/16/2023

Title

Related Topics

Clusters of differentiation, Immune system, Immunology, Cytokines, Transcription factors

Status

Grant

Latest Neon Therapeutics News

Lenvatinib/Pembrolizumab/Chemo Induces Inferior OS vs Pembrolizumab/Chemo in Previously Untreated NSCLC

Jan 5, 2024

January 5, 2024 Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD Lenvatinib (Lenvima) plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda), pemetrexed, and carboplatin or cisplatin did not improve treatment outcomes compared with placebo plus pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and carboplatin or cisplatin when given as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without targetable EGFR or ALK alterations, according to data from the final analysis of the phase 3 LEAP-006 trial (NCT03829319) presented at the 2023 ESMO Immuno-Oncology Annual Congress . At a data cutoff of August 11, 2023, and a median follow-up of 36.8 months (range, 28.4-46.4), the median overall survival (OS) in the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and carboplatin or cisplatin (n = 375) was 21.8 months (95% CI, 18.6-24.0), and the median OS in those who received placebo plus pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and carboplatin or cisplatin (n = 373) was 22.1 months (95% CI, 19.7-24.2). The 36-month OS rate was 33.0% for patients treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and carboplatin or cisplatin and 22.1% for those treated with placebo plus pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and carboplatin or cisplatin. The HR was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.88-1.26) with a 1-sided P value of .708. The median progression-free survival (PFS) at the final analysis was 12.2 months (95% CI, 10.5-15.0) and 9.2 months (95% CI, 8.3-10.7) in patients in the lenvatinib and placebo arms, respectively. The 36-month PFS rate was 21.9% for patients in the lenvatinib arm and 21.5% for those in the placebo arm. The HR was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.74-1.04). “The efficacy of pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and carboplatin or cisplatin was consistent with that observed in the pivotal [phase 3] KEYNOTE-189 study [NCT02578680],” Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, explained in a presentation of the data. “Pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed and carboplatin or cisplatin remains a standard of care for this population.” Herbst is an ensign professor of medicine (Medical Oncology), a professor of pharmacology, and deputy director of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, as well as chief of Medical Oncology and director of the Center for Thoracic Cancers at Yale Cancer Center and Smilow Cancer Hospital. He also serves as assistant dean for translational research at the Yale School of Medicine. In KEYNOTE-189, patients with previously untreated stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC without targetable EGFR or ALK alterations derived significant OS, PFS, and overall response rate (ORR) benefits from treatment with pembrolizumab added to pemetrexed and carboplatin or cisplatin vs treatment with pemetrexed and carboplatin or cisplatin alone. This investigation shifted the treatment paradigm for this patient population, though investigators are still looking to provide better outcomes for patients, Herbst noted in the presentation of the data. The hypothesis that the oral TKI lenvatinib may modulate the tumor microenvironment to an immune-stimulatory state prompted the investigation of this agent in combination with pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and carboplatin or cisplatin. Patients were eligible for enrollment onto the randomized, double-blind trial if they presented with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC; had no indication for EGFR-, ALK-, or ROS1-directed therapy; no prior therapy for stage IV NSCLC; no prior PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA-4 inhibitor in any setting; provision of a tumor sample for PD-L1 evaluations; and an ECOG performance status (PS) of 0 or 1. Approximately 714 patients were randomly assigned to the lenvatinib or placebo arms. Patients in the lenvatinib arm received 8 mg of lenvatinib orally once daily, 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks, and 500 mg/m2 of pemetrexed intravenously every 3 weeks, plus carboplatin at an AUC of 5 mg/mL/min or cisplatin at 75 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 4 cycles, followed by 8 mg of oral lenvatinib daily plus 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks and 500 mg/m2 of pemetrexed intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity for up to 35 total cycles of pembrolizumab. Patients in the placebo arm received daily oral placebo given with the same pemetrexed and carboplatin or cisplatin therapy combination for up to 4 cycles, followed by daily oral placebo plus 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks and 500 mg/m2 of pemetrexed intravenously every 3 weeks, with the same cutoff criterion as the lenvatinib arm. Notably, patients were stratified by their PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS < 50% vs ≥ 50%), geographic region (East Asia vs not east Asia, and ECOG PS (0 vs 1). The dual primary end points of the study were PFS per RECIST v1.1 criteria by blinded independent central review (BICR) and OS. The secondary end points of the study were ORR and duration of response (DOR) per RECIST v1.1 criteria by BICR; health-related quality of life; and safety. Of the patients in the lenvatinib arm, the median age was 63 years (range, 18-85); most were male (67.7%); 30.9%, 66.1%, and 0.5% were Asian, White, or other, respectively; 29.6% were from East Asia and 70.4% were from the rest of the world; 36.0% had an ECOG PS of 0; 85.3% were current or former smokers; 13.3% had brain metastases; 16.8% had liver metastases; 1.3% had received prior neoadjuvant therapy; 5.6% had received prior adjuvant therapy; 24.8% had received prior radiotherapy; 6.4% had received prior thoracic radiotherapy; 24.0% had a PD-L1 TPS of 50% or greater; and 82.9% and 16.5% had received prior carboplatin and cisplatin chemotherapy, respectively. Among the patients in the placebo arm, the median age was 64 years (range, 28-87); most were male (66.2%); 30.6%, 63.5%, and 1.3% were Asian, White, or other, respectively; 30.0% were from East Asia and 70.0% were from the rest of the world; 35.7% had an ECOG PS of 0; 81.0% were current or former smokers; 9.9% had brain metastases; 9.9% had liver metastases; 1.3% had received prior neoadjuvant therapy; 4.3% had received prior adjuvant therapy; 18.5% had received prior radiotherapy; 4.8% had received prior thoracic radiotherapy; 24.4% had a PD-L1 TPS of 50% or greater; and 85.3% and 14.5% had received prior carboplatin and cisplatin chemotherapy, respectively. In total, 1469 participants were screened, and 748 patients were randomly assigned and included in the intention-to-treat population. Notably, of the 375 patients allocated to the lenvatinib arm, 373 received at least 1 dose of a study drug, 31 remained on at least 1 study drug at data cutoff, 14 completed the study treatment, and 328 discontinued all study drugs due to adverse effects (AEs; n = 103), complete response (n = 1), physician decision (n = 8), progression (n = 196), withdrawal of consent (n = 15), or another reason (n = 5). Of the 373 patients allocated to the placebo arm, 372 received at least 1 dose of a study drug, 44 remained on at least 1 study drug at data cutoff, 12 completed the study treatment, and 316 discontinued all study drugs due to AEs (n = 78), physician decision (n = 10), progression (n = 210), withdrawal of consent (n = 16), or another reason (n = 2). The ORRs were 60.0% (95% CI, 54.8%-65.0%) and 53.6% (95%, 48.4%-58.8%) in the lenvatinib and placebo arms, respectively. In the lenvatinib arm, 53.6% of patients had a partial response, and 6.4% of patients had a complete response. These rates were 44.8% and 8.8%, respectively, in the placebo arm. The median DOR was 15.8 months (range, 1.6-41.7+) for patients on the lenvatinib arm and 13.7 months (range, 1.2+-41.6+) for those on the placebo arm. The 36-month DOR rates were 34.3% and 28.1% for patients in the lenvatinib and placebo arms, respectively. Overall, the median duration of any therapy was 10.8 months (range, 0.03-44.5) in patients on the lenvatinib arm and 9.3 months (range, 0.03-44.7) in patients on the placebo arm. The median number of treatment cycles was 15 (range, 1-61) and 13 (range, 1-65) in each respective arm. Regarding safety, 97.3% and 95.2% of patients on the lenvatinib and placebo arms, respectively, experienced any AEs. On the lenvatinib arm, 69.7% of patients experienced a grade 3, 4, or 5 AE; 37.5% of patients experienced a serious AE; 5.6% of patients experienced an AE that led to death; and 37.3% of patients experienced an AE that led to treatment discontinuation. On the placebo arm, 55.6% of patients experienced a grade 3, 4, or 5 AE; 26.9% of patients experienced a serious AE; 2.7% of patients experienced an AE that led to death; and 27.7% of patients experienced an AE that led to treatment discontinuation. “There were no unexpected AEs for the combination of lenvatinib, pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and carboplatin or cisplatin,” Herbst concluded. Editor’s Note: Dr Herbst has disclosed consulting roles with AbbVie Pharmaceuticals, ARMO Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Biodesix, Bolt Biotherapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cybrexa Therapeutics, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Halozyme Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, I-Mab Biopharma, Immunocore, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, MSD, Mirati Therapeutics, Nektar, Neon Therapeutics, NextCure, Novartis, Oncternal Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Shire, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, STCube Pharmaceuticals, Symphogen, Takeda, Tesaro, Tocagen, and WindMIL Therapeutics; advisory board membership with AstraZeneca, Bolt Biotherapeutics, Cybrexa Therapeutics, EMD Serono, I-Mab Biopharma, Immunocore, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Neon Therapeutics, Novartis, and STCube Pharmaceuticals; research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, and MSD; and non-executive board membership with Junshi Pharmaceuticals and Immunocore. The LEAP-006 study, as well as medical writing and editorial assistance in support of this presentation, were funded by Eisai Inc. and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc. Reference Herbst RS, Cho BC, Zhou C, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum (len + pembro + chemo) as first-line therapy for metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): phase 3 LEAP-006 study. Ann Oncol. 2023;20(suppl 1):100535. doi:10.1016/iotech/iotech100535 Related Videos

Neon Therapeutics Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

  • When was Neon Therapeutics founded?

    Neon Therapeutics was founded in 2013.

  • Where is Neon Therapeutics's headquarters?

    Neon Therapeutics's headquarters is located at 40 Erie Street, Cambridge.

  • What is Neon Therapeutics's latest funding round?

    Neon Therapeutics's latest funding round is Acq - P2P.

  • How much did Neon Therapeutics raise?

    Neon Therapeutics raised a total of $161M.

  • Who are the investors of Neon Therapeutics?

    Investors of Neon Therapeutics include BioNTech, Access Industries, PFM Health Sciences, Wellington Management Company, Fidelity Investments and 10 more.

  • Who are Neon Therapeutics's competitors?

    Competitors of Neon Therapeutics include Harpoon Therapeutics, Pionyr Immunotherapeutics, OncoResponse, Immune-Onc Therapeutics, Epsilogen and 7 more.

Loading...

Compare Neon Therapeutics to Competitors

OncoResponse Logo
OncoResponse

OncoResponse develops therapeutic antibodies for the treatment of cancer by probing the adaptive immune system of cancer patients who have responded exceptionally well to Checkpoint Inhibition (CPI). It develops cancer immunotherapies and therapeutic antibodies against immuno-oncology targets by interrogating the human immune system. The company was founded in 2015 and is based in Seattle, Washington.

I
ImmunoMet Therapeutics

ImmunoMet Therapeutics is a development-stage biotechnology company focused on utilizing cellular metabolism to develop anti-tumor and immuno-oncology therapies. The company develops a molecule that targets the oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) pathway in mitochondria and decreases aberrant cell growth in fibrosis and selects cancer cells. It was founded in 2015 and is based in Houston, Texas.

Immune-Onc Therapeutics Logo
Immune-Onc Therapeutics

Immune-Onc Therapeutics is a clinical-stage company that focuses on the development of novel myeloid checkpoint inhibitors in the healthcare and biotechnology industry. The company's main offerings include the development of immunotherapies for cancer, harnessing the body's own immune system to fight against disease, with a particular focus on blood cancers and solid tumors. Immune-Onc primarily sells to the healthcare industry, specifically in the field of cancer treatment. It was founded in 2016 and is based in Palo Alto, California.

F
Fortis Therapeutics

Fortis Therapeutics is a company focused on the development of novel, first-in-class therapeutics in the healthcare and biotechnology industry. The company's main offerings include precision therapies that target CD46 proteins in cancer cells, while sparing normal tissues. The company primarily serves the healthcare industry, specifically the oncology sector. It was founded in 2016 and is based in La Jolla, California.

Macrophage Pharma Logo
Macrophage Pharma

Macrophage Pharma is an immuno-oncology company focused on the discovery and development of novel therapies designed to enhance anti-tumour immune responses. The Company's technology platform is designed to deliver small molecule drugs to tumour associated macrophages in a highly selective manner to activate the body's natural immune system to fight cancer.

E
Epsilogen

Epsilogen focuses on the development of immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies. The company's main offerings include the development of IgE-based drugs that are designed to treat solid tumors, leveraging the potency, enhanced tumor access, and long tissue half-life of IgE. It primarily serves the oncology sector of the healthcare industry. Epsilogen was formerly known as IGEM Therapeutics. It was founded in 2016 and is based in London, United Kingdom.

Loading...

CBI websites generally use certain cookies to enable better interactions with our sites and services. Use of these cookies, which may be stored on your device, permits us to improve and customize your experience. You can read more about your cookie choices at our privacy policy here. By continuing to use this site you are consenting to these choices.