Welcome to BioSeeker Group!

Lymphoma Drug Development Strategies at Work - Define Your Competition

Additional Information

Published Date Jun 22, 2009
Special Offer

You can deduct the full value of this report within 30 days of purchase towards a Cancer Highlights subscription.
Read more about becoming a Cancer Highlights subscriber here.

Pages 535
PDF Fact Sheet View Fact Sheet for the report Lymphoma Drug Development Strategies at Work - Define Your Competition in PDF
Format PDF
Publisher BioSeeker Group
Product Line View All Available Cancer Highlights Reports

Availability: In stock

$1,950.00

Quick Overview

This report will be an important part of creating and implementing a market development plan for any lymphoma therapeutic drug to ensure that the optimal market conditions exist by the time the product is commercialized.

Request Sample Pages or Access via 1stOncology™

  • You can request Free Sample Pages to Lymphoma Drug Development Strategies at Work - Define Your Competition.

    To find out more about Lymphoma Drug Development Strategies at Work - Define Your Competition, please read the product description below.
    We also are happy to email you out free sample pages which contain screen shots and more information on the methodology behind the product.

    Did you know that Lymphoma Drug Development Strategies at Work - Define Your Competition is part of the 1stOncology™ platform and can be accessed at no extra cost?

    1stOncology™ allows you to always stay on top of what is really going on in the world of cancer drug development and have an edge when it comes to Search & Evaluation, Indication Selection & Expansion, Target Scouting, First-in-Class analysis and much, much more.


    Or

This report includes defined and up to date development strategies for 176 lymphoma therapeutic drugs (>230 projects) within the portfolio of 106 investigators, from Ceased to Marketed. In total the report assesses five different sub-indications of lymphoma (B-cell lymphoma, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, T-cell lymphoma and Lymphoma (general)). The report is written for you to understand and assess the impact of competitor entry and corresponding changes to development strategies for your own portfolio products. It serves as an external commercial advocate for pharmaceutical companies’ portfolio planning and new product planning by:

Providing you with competitive input to the R&D organization to guide development of early product ideas and ensure efforts are aligned with business objectives

Assisting you to make informed decisions in selecting lymphoma sub-indications that are known to be appropriate for your drug’s properties

Analyzing, correlating and integrating valuable data sources in order to provide accurate data for valuation of pipeline, in-licensing and new business opportunities

Providing you with commercial analytic support for due diligence on in-licensing and acquisition opportunities

Integrating knowledge for you to consider the therapeutic target for the highest therapeutic outcome and return on investment

This report will also be an important part of creating and implementing a market development plan for any lymphoma therapeutic drugs to ensure that the optimal market conditions exist by the time the product is commercialized.

1 Executive Summary 3
2 About Cancer Highlights 4
3 Methodologies 6
4 Table of Contents 8
4.1 List of Figures 16
4.2 List of Tables 16
5 Introduction 22
5.1 The Scope of this Report 22
5.2 Definitions 25
5.3 Abbreviations 25
6 Consider the Therapeutic Target for the Highest Therapeutic Outcome and Return on Investment 26
6.1.1 Carboxy-lyase Activity Targets 28
6.1.2 Catalytic Activity Targets 29
6.1.3 Cell Adhesion Molecule Activity Targets 33
6.1.4 Chaperone Activity Targets 34
6.1.5 Cysteine-Type Peptidase Activity Targets 36
6.1.6 Cytokine Activity Targets 38
6.1.7 DNA Binding Targets 41
6.1.8 DNA Repair Protein Targets 42
6.1.9 DNA Topoisomerase Activity Targets 43
6.1.10 DNA-Directed DNA Polymerase Activity Targets 46
6.1.11 Glutathione Transferase Activity Targets 52
6.1.12 G-Protein Coupled Receptor Activity Targets 53
6.1.13 Growth Factor Activity Targets 54
6.1.14 Hormone Activity Targets 55
6.1.15 Hydrolase Activity Targets 56
6.1.16 Kinase Activity Targets 57
6.1.17 Kinase Regulator Activity Targets 64
6.1.18 Ligand-Dependent Nuclear Receptor Activity Targets 65
6.1.19 Ligase Activity Targets 68
6.1.20 Lipid Kinase Activity Targets 70
6.1.21 Lipid Phosphatase Activity Targets 72
6.1.22 MHC Class I Receptor Activity Targets 73
6.1.23 Molecular Function Unknown Targets 74
6.1.24 Motor Activity Targets 76
6.1.25 Oxidoreductase Activity Targets 77
6.1.26 Phosphorylase Activity Targets 81
6.1.27 Protein Binding Targets 83
6.1.28 Protein Serine/Threonine Kinase Activity Targets 85
6.1.29 Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase Activity Targets 99
6.1.30 Protein-Tyrosine Kinase Activity Targets 107
6.1.31 Receptor Activity Targets 118
6.1.32 Receptor Binding Targets 134
6.1.33 Receptor Signaling Complex Scaffold Activity Targets 137
6.1.34 RNA Binding Targets 141
6.1.35 Serine-Type Peptidase Activity Targets 142
6.1.36 Structural Constituent Of Cytoskeleton Targets 143
6.1.37 Superoxide Dismutase Activity Targets 144
6.1.38 T Cell Receptor Activity Targets 146
6.1.39 Transcription Factor Activity Targets 150
6.1.40 Transcription Regulator Activity Targets 158
6.1.41 Translation Regulator Activity Targets 162
6.1.42 Transmembrane Receptor Activity Targets 165
6.1.43 Transmembrane Receptor Protein Tyrosine Kinase Activity Targets 170
6.1.44 Transporter Activity Targets 193
6.1.45 Other Targets 194
6.2 The Cancer Genome Project and Lymphoma Targets 196
6.2.1 Lymphoma Targets Present in the Cancer Gene Census and in the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer 196
6.3 Structure-based Drug Design in Lymphoma is Stimulated by Available Structure Data on Biological Targets 199
6.4 Target-Target Interactions among Identified Lymphoma Targets 202
6.5 The Drug-Target Interactome 206
6.6 Protein Expression Levels of Identified Drug Targets of Lymphoma Drugs 211
6.7 Pathway Analysis of Lymphoma Drug Targets 214
7 The Rise of New Products: How Mature, Unique and Clinically Validated are the Drug Target Profiles Identified in the Lymphoma Pipeline? 251
7.1 Terminated Drug Target Profiles in Lymphoma 254
7.2 Pre-Registration to being Marketed: New and Unique Drug Target Profiles in the Lymphoma Pipeline 256
7.3 Phase III Clinical Development: New and Unique Drug Target Profiles in the Lymphoma Pipeline 258
7.4 Phase II Clinical Development: New and Unique Drug Target Profiles the Lymphoma Pipeline 259
7.5 Phase I Clinical Development: New and Unique Drug Target Profiles in the Lymphoma Pipeline 262
7.6 Preclinical Development: New and Unique Drug Target Profiles in the Lymphoma Pipeline 265
7.7 Development Profiles of All Lymphoma Drug Target Profiles 266
8 Compound Strategies at Work: Competitive Benchmarking of Lymphoma Pipeline by Type of Compound 281
8.1 Small Molecules 283
8.1.1 Background 283
8.1.2 Targets in Lymphoma 284
8.2 Peptide/Protein Drugs 291
8.2.1 Background 291
8.2.2 Targets in Lymphoma 292
8.3 Antibodies and Antibody-like Structures 295
8.3.1 Background 295
8.3.2 Targets in Lymphoma 295
8.4 Nucleic Acid Therapies 299
8.4.1 Background 299
8.4.2 Targets in Lymphoma 300
8.5 Gene Therapy 301
8.5.1 Background 301
8.5.2 Targets in Lymphoma 301
8.6 The Competition Through Close Mechanistic Approximation Among Drugs in Lymphoma 303
8.7 Compound Strategies based on Sub-Cellular Localization of Lymphoma Drug Targets 307
9 Selecting a Sub-Indication of Lymphoma for Drug Development 313
9.1 B-cell Lymphoma 314
9.1.1 Players and their Compared Pipeline 314
9.1.2 Where is the Real Competition? 318
9.1.3 How Successful are They in Their Targeting Strategy? 319
9.2 Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 321
9.2.1 Players and their Compared Pipeline 321
9.2.2 Where is the Real Competition? 324
9.2.3 How Successful are They in Their Targeting Strategy? 324
9.3 Lymphoma (general) 326
9.3.1 Players and their Compared Pipeline 326
9.3.2 Where is the Real Competition? 330
9.3.3 How Successful are They in Their Targeting Strategy? 331
9.4 Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 333
9.4.1 Players and their Compared Pipeline 333
9.4.2 Where is the Real Competition? 340
9.4.3 How Successful are They in Their Targeting Strategy? 342
9.5 T-cell Lymphoma 346
9.5.1 Players and their Compared Pipeline 346
9.5.2 Where is the Real Competition? 349
9.5.3 How Successful are They in Their Targeting Strategy? 349
10 Portfolio Planning: Competitive Benchmarking of Lymphoma Pipeline by Investigator 351
10.1 Abbott 353
10.2 Abiogen 355
10.3 AEgera 357
10.4 Aeterna Zentaris 359
10.5 Affimed Therapeutics 360
10.6 Aida Pharmaceuticals 362
10.7 Alfa Wassermann 363
10.8 Alfacell 364
10.9 Allos Therapeutics 366
10.10 Amgen 367
10.11 Anadys Pharmaceuticals 369
10.12 Antigenics 370
10.13 Archer Biosciences 372
10.14 Ariad 373
10.15 Ascenta Therapeutics 374
10.16 Astellas 375
10.17 AstraZeneca 377
10.18 Attenuon 379
10.19 AVEO 380
10.20 Benitec 381
10.21 BioCryst Pharmaceuticals 382
10.22 Biogen Idec 383
10.23 Biolex 387
10.24 Boehringer Ingelheim 389
10.25 Borean Pharma 390
10.26 Bristol-Myers Squibb 392
10.27 BTG 395
10.28 Calistoga Pharmaceuticals 398
10.29 Cell Therapeutics 399
10.30 Cephalon 401
10.31 Cyclacel 403
10.32 Cylene Pharmaceuticals 404
10.33 Cytokinetics 405
10.34 Daiichi Sankyo 406
10.35 Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma 407
10.36 Dara Biosciences 409
10.37 Dynavax Technologies 410
10.38 Eisai 411
10.39 Eli Lilly 413
10.40 Enzon 415
10.41 EpiCept 416
10.42 Exelixis 417
10.43 Favrille 419
10.44 Gemin X Pharmaceuticals 421
10.45 Genentech 422
10.46 Genmab 426
10.47 GenPat77 429
10.48 Genta 430
10.49 Genzyme 431
10.50 GlaxoSmithKline 432
10.51 Gloucester Pharmaceuticals 436
10.52 Hayashibara 437
10.53 Hoffmann-La Roche 438
10.54 Human Genome Sciences 441
10.55 Hy BioPharma 443
10.56 ImClone Systems 444
10.57 Immunomedics 445
10.58 Inex 449
10.59 Innate Pharma 450
10.60 InNexus Biotechnology 451
10.61 Intracel 454
10.62 Italfarmaco 456
10.63 Johnson & Johnson 457
10.64 Kissei 458
10.65 Kyowa Hakko Kirin 460
10.66 Ligand 462
10.67 Lorus Therapeutics 463
10.68 MacroGenics 465
10.69 Meda 466
10.70 Medarex 468
10.71 MedImmune 471
10.72 MethylGene 472
10.73 Micromet 473
10.74 Nektar Therapeutics 474
10.75 National Institute of Health (USA) 475
10.76 Novartis 476
10.77 Oncothyreon 480
10.78 Pfizer 481
10.79 Pharmacyclics 484
10.80 PharmaMar 486
10.81 ProNAi Therapeutics 487
10.82 Reata Pharmaceuticals 488
10.83 Rigel 489
10.84 Sanofi-Aventis 490
10.85 Santaris Pharma 493
10.86 SBIO 494
10.87 Seattle Genetics 495
10.88 Shire 497
10.89 SuperGen 498
10.90 Takeda 499
10.91 Telik 500
10.92 Titan Pharmaceuticals 501
10.93 TopoTarget 502
10.94 Transgene 503
10.95 Trubion 504
10.96 Vaccinex 506
10.97 Vertex Pharmaceuticals 508
10.98 VGX Pharmaceuticals 509
10.99 Vion Pharmaceuticals 510
10.100 VioQuest 512
10.101 Wyeth 513
10.102 Xencor 515
10.103 Yakult Honsha 517
10.104 Zenyaku Kogyo 519
10.105 ZymoGenetics 521
10.106 Non-industrial Source 523
11 Disclaimer 525
12 Drug Index 526
13 Company Index 531

4.1 List of Figures
Figure 1: Overall Breakdown of the Included Lymphoma Therapeutic Pipeline by Sub-Indication and Stage of Development 22
Figure 2: Visualization of Target-Target Interactions Among Lymphoma Drug Targets 205
Figure 3: The Drug-Protein Interactome of Lymphoma Drugs –Clusters I 208
Figure 4: The Drug-Protein Interactome of Lymphoma Drugs – Clusters II 209
Figure 5: Head-to-Head Targeting Interactome of Lymphoma Drugs 210
Figure 6: Distribution of Compound Types among Lymphoma Drugs 307
Figure 7: Primary Sub-cellular Localization of Drug Targets 308
Figure 8: Breakdown of the B-cell Lymphoma Pipeline (I) - Displaying Number of Drugs, Target Profiles and Investigators by Stage of Development 316
Figure 9: Breakdown of the B-cell Lymphoma Pipeline (II) - Displaying the Number of Drugs by Compound Strategy and Stage of Development 317
Figure 10: Breakdown of the Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Pipeline (I) - Displaying Number of Drugs, Target Profiles and Investigators by Stage of Development 322
Figure 11: Breakdown of the Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Pipeline (II) - Displaying the Number of Drugs by Compound Strategy and Stage of Development 323
Figure 12: Breakdown of the Lymphoma (general) Pipeline (I) - Displaying Number of Drugs, Target Profiles and Investigators by Stage of Development 328
Figure 13: Breakdown of the Lymphoma (general) Pipeline (II) - Displaying the Number of Drugs by Compound Strategy and Stage of Development 329
Figure 14: Breakdown of the Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Pipeline (I) - Displaying Number of Drugs, Target Profiles and Investigators by Stage of Development 338
Figure 15: Breakdown of the Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Pipeline (II) - Displaying the Number of Drugs by Compound Strategy and Stage of Development 339
Figure 16: Breakdown of the T-cell Lymphoma Pipeline (I) - Displaying Number of Drugs, Target Profiles and Investigators by Stage of Development 347
Figure 17: Breakdown of the T-cell Lymphoma Pipeline (II) - Displaying the Number of Drugs by Compound Strategy and Stage of Development 348

4.2 List of Tables
Table 1: Competitive Pressure Force Among Lymphoma Drugs 22
Table 2: Overview of Drug Target Profile Themes 26
Table 3: Drug Targets of Lymphoma Drugs Present in the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer and in the Cancer Gene Census 197
Table 4: Identity of Lymphoma Drug Targets with Available Biological Structures 200
Table 5: Number of Target-Target Interactions among Lymphoma Drug Targets 202
Table 6: Drug-Protein Interactome Clusters 206
Table 7: Lymphoma Drug Targets with Available Protein Expression Profiles 211
Table 8: Pathway Summary 214
Table 9: Drug Targets without any Identified Assigned Pathways 214
Table 10: Pathway Profile According to BioCarta of Lymphoma Drug Targets 215
Table 11: Pathway Profile According to KEGG of Lymphoma Drug Targets 230
Table 12: Pathway Profile According to NetPath of Lymphoma Drug Targets 246
Table 13: Number of Drug Target Profiles by their Highest Developmental Stage and Uniqueness 251
Table 14: Top Competitive Lymphoma Target Profiles 252
Table 15: Terminated Drug Target Profiles in Lymphoma 254
Table 16 New and Unique Lymphoma Targets in Pre-Registration to Marketed 256
Table 17: New and Unique Lymphoma Targets in Phase III Clinical Development 258
Table 18: New and Unique Lymphoma Targets in Phase II Clinical Development 259
Table 19: The Competition Through Close Mechanistic Approximation Between Phase II Lymphoma Drugs 261
Table 20 New and Unique Lymphoma Targets in Phase I Clinical Development 262
Table 21: The Competition Through Close Mechanistic Approximation Between Phase I Lymphoma Drugs 264
Table 22: New and Unique Lymphoma Targets in Preclinical Development 265
Table 23: The Progression, Maturity and Competitive Comparison of Lymphoma Drug Target Profiles in Development 266
Table 24: Overview of Compound Strategy Competition in Lymphoma 282
Table 25:Overview of the Competitive Landscape of Small Molecular Drugs in Lymhpoma 284
Table 26: Head-to-head Target Competing Small Molecule Drugs for the Treatment of Lymphoma 284
Table 27: The Competition Through Close Mechanistic Approximation Between Small Molecule Drugs in Lymphoma 285
Table 28: The Progression, Maturity and Competitive Comparison of Small Molecule Lymphoma Drug Target Profiles in Development 287
Table 29: The Progression, Maturity and Competitive Comparison of Peptide Based Lymphoma Drug Target Profiles in Development 292
Table 30:Overview of the Competitive Landscape of Protein Based Drugs in Lymhpoma 292
Table 31: The Competition Through Close Mechanistic Approximation Between Protein Based Drugs in Lymphoma 293
Table 32: The Progression, Maturity and Competitive Comparison of Protein Based Lymphoma Drug Target Profiles in Development 294
Table 33:Overview of the Competitive Landscape of Antibody Drugs in Lymhpoma 295
Table 34: The Competition Through Close Mechanistic Approximation Between Antibody Drugs in Lymphoma 296
Table 35: The Progression, Maturity and Competitive Comparison of AntibodyLymphoma Drug Target Profiles in Development 297
Table 36:Overview of the Competitive Landscape of Nucleic Acid Therapy Drugs in Lymhpoma 300
Table 37: The Progression, Maturity and Competitive Comparison of Nucleic Acid Lymphoma Drug Target Profiles in Development 300
Table 38: Vectors in Gene Therapy 301
Table 39: The Progression, Maturity and Competitive Comparison of Gene Therapy Lymphoma Drug Target Profiles in Development 302
Table 40: The Competition Through Close Mechanistic Approximation Among Drugs in Lymphoma 303
Table 41: Compound Strategies based on Sub-Cellular Localization of Lymphoma Drug Targets 308
Table 42: Competitive Summary of Lymhpoma Drugs by Sub-Indication 313
Table 43: Players in the Field of B-cell Lymphoma Drug Development and their Compared Pipeline 314
Table 44: The Competition Through Close Mechanistic Approximation Between B-cell Lymphoma Drugs 318
Table 45: The Progression, Maturity and Competitive Comparison of Drug Target Profiles in B-cell Lymphoma Drug Development 319
Table 46: Players in the Field of Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Drug Development and their Compared Pipeline 321
Table 47: The Competition Through Close Mechanistic Approximation Between Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Drugs 324
Table 48: The Progression, Maturity and Competitive Comparison of Drug Target Profiles in Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Drug Development 324
Table 49: Players in the Field of Lymphoma (general) Drug Development and their Compared Pipeline 326
Table 50: The Competition Through Close Mechanistic Approximation Between Lymphoma (general) Drugs 330
Table 51: The Progression, Maturity and Competitive Comparison of Drug Target Profiles in Lymphoma (general )Drug Development 331
Table 52: A) Investigators with Multiple Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Drugs in Development B) Investigators with Ceased, Discontinued or Suspended Drugs 333
Table 53: Players in the Field of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Drug Development and their Compared Pipeline 334
Table 54: The Competition Through Close Mechanistic Approximation Between Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Drugs 340
Table 55: The Progression, Maturity and Competitive Comparison of Drug Target Profiles in Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Drug Development 342
Table 56: Players in the Field of T-cell Lymphoma Drug Development and their Compared Pipeline 346
Table 57: The Competition Through Close Mechanistic Approximation Between T-cell Lymphoma Drugs 349
Table 58: The Progression, Maturity and Competitive Comparison of Drug Target Profiles in T-cell Lymphoma Drug Development 349
Table 59: Abbott’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 353
Table 60: Abiogen’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 355
Table 61: AEgera’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 357
Table 62: Aeterna Zentaris’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 359
Table 63: Affimed Therapeutics’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 360
Table 64: Aida Pharmaceuticals’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 362
Table 65: Alfa Wassermann’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 363
Table 66: Alfacell’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 364
Table 67: Allos Therapeutics’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 366
Table 68: Amgen’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 367
Table 69: Anadys Pharmaceuticals’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 369
Table 70: Antigenics’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 370
Table 71: Archer Biosciences’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 372
Table 72: Ariad’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 373
Table 73: Ascenta Therapeutics’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 374
Table 74: Astellas’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 375
Table 75: AstraZeneca’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 377
Table 76: Attenuon’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 379
Table 77: AVEO’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 380
Table 78: Benitec’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 381
Table 79: BioCryst Pharmaceuticals’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 382
Table 80: Biogen Idec’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 383
Table 81: Biolex’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 387
Table 82: Boehringer Ingelheim’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 389
Table 83: Borean Pharma’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 390
Table 84: Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 392
Table 85: BTG’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 395
Table 86: Calistoga Pharmaceuticals’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 398
Table 87: Cell Therapeutics’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 399
Table 88: Cephalon’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 401
Table 89: Cyclacel’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 403
Table 90: Cylene Pharmaceuticals’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 404
Table 91: Cytokinetics’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 405
Table 92: Daiichi Sankyo’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 406
Table 93: Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 407
Table 94: Dara Biosciences’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 409
Table 95: Dynavax Technologies’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 410
Table 96: Eisai’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 411
Table 97: Eli Lilly’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 413
Table 98: Enzon’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 415
Table 99: EpiCept’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 416
Table 100: Exelixis’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 417
Table 101: Favrille’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 419
Table 102: Gemin X Pharmaceuticals’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 421
Table 103: Genentech’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 422
Table 104: Genmab’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 426
Table 105: GenPat77’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 429
Table 106: Genta’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 430
Table 107: Genzyme’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 431
Table 108: GlaxoSmithKline’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 432
Table 109: Gloucester Pharmaceuticals’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 436
Table 110: Hayashibara’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 437
Table 111: Hoffmann-La Roche’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 438
Table 112: Human Genome Sciences’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 441
Table 113: Hy BioPharma’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 443
Table 114: ImClone Systems’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 444
Table 115: Immunomedics’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 445
Table 116: Inex’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 449
Table 117: Innate Pharma’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 450
Table 118: InNexus Biotechnology’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 451
Table 119: Intracel’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 454
Table 120: Italfarmaco’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 456
Table 121: Johnson & Johnson’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 457
Table 122: Kissei’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 458
Table 123: Kyowa Hakko Kirin’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 460
Table 124: Ligand’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 462
Table 125: Lorus Therapeutics’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 463
Table 126: MacroGenics’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 465
Table 127: Meda’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 466
Table 128: Medarex’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 468
Table 129: MedImmune’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 471
Table 130: MethylGene’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 472
Table 131: Micromet’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 473
Table 132: Nektar Therapeutics’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 474
Table 133: National Institute of Health (USA)’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 475
Table 134: Novartis’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 476
Table 135: Oncothyreon’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 480
Table 136: Pfizer’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 481
Table 137: Pharmacyclics’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 484
Table 138: PharmaMar’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 486
Table 139: ProNAi Therapeutics’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 487
Table 140: Reata Pharmaceuticals’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 488
Table 141: Rigel’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 489
Table 142: Sanofi-Aventis’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 490
Table 143: Santaris Pharma’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 493
Table 144: SBIO’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 494
Table 145: Seattle Genetics’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 495
Table 146: Shire’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 497
Table 147: SuperGen’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 498
Table 148: Takeda’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 499
Table 149: Telik’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 500
Table 150: Titan Pharmaceuticals’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 501
Table 151: TopoTarget’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 502
Table 152: Transgene’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 503
Table 153: Trubion’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 504
Table 154: Vaccinex’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 506
Table 155: Vertex Pharmaceuticals’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 508
Table 156: VGX Pharmaceuticals’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 509
Table 157: Vion Pharmaceuticals’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 510
Table 158: VioQuest’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 512
Table 159: Wyeth’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 513
Table 160: Xencor’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 515
Table 161: Yakult Honsha’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 517
Table 162: Zenyaku Kogyo’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 519
Table 163: ZymoGenetics’ Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 521
Table 164: Non-industrial source’s Included Lymphoma Pipeline Composition and Competitive Fall-Out 523

This analysis includes 106 investigators. In addition to these, drug development partners are also listed.
Abbott
Abiogen
AEgera
Aeterna Zentaris
Affimed Therapeutics
Aida Pharmaceuticals
Alfa Wassermann
Alfacell
Allos Therapeutics
Amgen
Anadys Pharmaceuticals
Antigenics
Archer Biosciences
Ariad
Ascenta Therapeutics
Astellas
AstraZeneca
Attenuon
AVEO
Benitec
BioCryst Pharmaceuticals
Biogen Idec
Biolex
Boehringer Ingelheim
Borean Pharma
Bristol-Myers Squibb
BTG
Calistoga Pharmaceuticals
Cell Therapeutics
Cephalon
Cyclacel
Cylene Pharmaceuticals
Cytokinetics
Daiichi Sankyo
Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma
Dara Biosciences
Dynavax Technologies
Eisai
Eli Lilly
Enzon
EpiCept
Exelixis
Favrille
Gemin X Pharmaceuticals
Genentech
Genmab
GenPat77
Genta
Genzyme
GlaxoSmithKline
Gloucester Pharmaceuticals
Hayashibara
Hoffmann-La Roche
Human Genome Sciences
Hy BioPharma
ImClone Systems
Immunomedics
Inex
Innate Pharma
InNexus Biotechnology
Intracel
Italfarmaco
Johnson & Johnson
Kissei
Kyowa Hakko Kirin
Ligand
Lorus Therapeutics
MacroGenics
Meda
Medarex
MedImmune
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
MethylGene
Micromet
Nektar Therapeutics
NIH
Novartis
Oncothyreon
Pfizer
Pharmacyclics
PharmaMar
ProNAi Therapeutics
Reata Pharmaceuticals
Rigel
Sanofi-Aventis
Santaris Pharma
SBIO
Seattle Genetics
Shire
SuperGen
Takeda
Telik
Titan Pharmaceuticals
TopoTarget
Transgene
Trubion
Vaccinex
Vertex Pharmaceuticals
VGX Pharmaceuticals
Vion Pharmaceuticals
VioQuest
Wyeth
Xencor
Yakult Honsha
Zenyaku Kogyo
ZymoGenetics
This analysis includes 176 drugs. Example of drugs included are:
131I-tositumomab
amrubicin hydrochloride
bevacizumab
bexarotene
bortezomib
denileukin diftitox
elliptinium acetate
enzastaurin hydrochloride
epirubicin
forodesine hydrochloride
galiximab
HBP-347
ibritumomab tiuxetan
inotuzumab ozogamicin
interferon
irinotecan hydrochloride
mitoxantrone
oblimersen sodium
ofatumumab
pixantrone
razoxane
rituximab
sobuzoxane
temsirolimus
teniposide

Request Sample Pages or Access via 1stOncology™

  • You can request Free Sample Pages to Lymphoma Drug Development Strategies at Work - Define Your Competition.
    To find out more about Lymphoma Drug Development Strategies at Work - Define Your Competition, please read the product description below.
    We also are happy to email you out free sample pages which contain screen shots and more information on the methodology behind the product.

    Did you know that Lymphoma Drug Development Strategies at Work - Define Your Competition is part of the 1stOncology™ platform and can be accessed at no extra cost?

    1stOncology™ allows you to always stay on top of what is really going on in the world of cancer drug development and have an edge when it comes to Search & Evaluation, Indication Selection & Expansion, Target Scouting, First-in-Class analysis and much, much more.


    Or

Other selected research from the 'Companies' category:


Nordic Life Science Industry Guide 2008
The "Nordic Life Science Industry Guide 2008" is a unique CD-ROM product that contains a searchable directory of 1,500 life science companies in Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden). Learn More


European Biotech Industry Guide 2007, 5th Ed.
This exciting intelligence CD-ROM on European biotech industry has become better, stronger and more intelligent in its 5th Edition. Learn More

Other selected research from the 'Sweden' category:


Lymphoma Drug Development Strategies at Work - Define Your Competition
This report will be an important part of creating and implementing a market development plan for any lymphoma therapeutic drug to ensure that the optimal market conditions exist by the time the product is commercialized. Learn More

Other selected research from the 'Cancer Highlights' category:


Cancer Antibodies: Competitive Positioning for Success
This report is written for you to identify your competition and understand which targeting strategies are at work within antibody drug development. It allows you to pin-point which competitors drugs’ clinical out-come may have bearing on your own drug development and who are developing sequels to blockbuster drugs. This report also helps you to locate white-spots in the competitive landscape, giving you little or no competition. Conversely it may reveal unexpected competition for you. Learn More


A Decision Support Tool for Optimizing The Colorectal Cancer Pipeline: From Research and Development to Market
The colorectal cancer report part comprises defined and up to date development strategies for 347 colorectal cancer drugs within the portfolio of 182 investigators, from Ceased to Marketed. This part extensively analyses their 210 identified drug targets, organized into 205 drug target strategies, and assesses them in eight different compound strategies in colorectal cancer. Learn More

Other selected research from the 'Oncology' category:


Triple Analysis: Prostate Cancer, Angiogenesis and Antibodies
This triple analysis focuses on cancer drug development strategies in one specific cancer indication (Prostate Cancer), one mechanism/target/effect area (Angiogenesis) and one compound specific area (Antibodies). Learn More


Triple Analysis: Lung Cancer, Pancreatic Cancer and Peptides
This triple analysis focuses on cancer drug development strategies in both Lung Cancer and Pancreatic Cancer and by the compound strategy of Peptides. Learn More