University of Houston part of multi-investigator $5.2M CPRIT award for prostate cance

[News]

A pair of University of Houston (UH) researchers and their colleagues will begin work to develop new methods for treating the most severe form of prostate cancer thanks to $5.2 million in grants recently awarded by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT).

More... (http://www.news-medical.net/news/20110402/University-of-Houston-part-of-multi-investigator-2452M-CPRIT-award-for-prostate-cancer-research.aspx)

[gdpawel]

Lynda Chin is used to getting what she wants.

Chin, a physician who is the wife of Dr. Ronald DePinho, the president of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, submitted a plan on March 12 seeking what would be the largest grant yet awarded by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, or CPRIT.

Chin had every reason to believe her seven-page application would win funding. She had received an $8 million enticement to move her cancer research lab from Boston to Houston last year after her husband accepted the M.D. Anderson position, and prospects for the success of her grant application seemed encouraging.

"We'll make it work," the cancer center's lead commercial grant officer had told her six days earlier.

But the same day it was submitted, Chin's application hit a snag.

"I don't think they are ready," Jerry Cobbs, the senior staff member who oversees commercialization grants for CPRIT, wrote his boss in an email after reviewing the application. He suggested consideration of the application be delayed.

Nevertheless, by the end of March, Chin had landed her grant - approximately $18 million for a single year.

A monthlong Houston Chronicle investigation suggests that CPRIT, a 3-year-old initiative backed by $3 billion in taxpayer funds, handled the grant application in a hasty manner designed to circumvent its own scientific reviewers.

Hundreds of internal emails obtained through a public records request shed new light on the forces at work in the application process - particularly the role of a Houston venture capitalist, Charles Tate, who invests in companies that commercialize drugs and who has ties to M.D. Anderson and to CPRIT.

The emails indicate that Tate, one of 11 members of CPRIT's oversight committee, was instrumental in shepherding Chin's proposal through the review process. He denied doing so.

In the past month, controversy over CPRIT's handling of the grant proposal has led to the resignation of its chief scientific reviewer, an investigation by the University of Texas System and a decision by CPRIT to resubmit the grant for a new review that will consider scientific as well as commercial factors.

Funding 'incubators'

The story begins last year when CPRIT, approved by voters to fund efforts to cure cancer, sought to expedite the movement of promising cancer drugs from laboratory tests into patient treatment.

Just 17 percent of the $670 million in grant funds CPRIT has awarded have gone to such "commercialization" efforts, primarily through relocating promising biotech companies to Texas.

Now CPRIT's leaders wanted to fund "incubators," organizations that nurture small companies through the arduous drug development process. It invited applications from interested parties.

In one email characterizing this process, CPRIT executive director Bill Gimson wrote, "Charles (Tate) was very engaged (and vocal) about the proposed structure of the incubator." Tate wanted rules that would enable incubators to fund research without project-by-project review by CPRIT committees, Gimson's email suggests.

In September 2011, Rice University submitted a proposal that was favorably reviewed by a committee of out-of-state business experts, CPRIT's "commercialization review council." Rice sought $12 million over three years.

Joining Rice's bid

Late in 2011 it was suggested that M.D. Anderson join Rice's incubator bid before its final approval. It's unclear who first proposed this, but Tate's enthusiasm for the idea is apparent in the emails.

"We decided to definitively move forward with putting the two together (on) Dec. 1st, 2011, through (two meetings) first with Charles Tate at which point he indicated that (our institute) would fit very well with the incubator concept," Chin wrote in an email to Cobbs.

Although the Rice grant request was a plan to commercialize drugs, it wasn't clear that Chin's lab fit with the original commercial concept. In a Jan. 4 email, Claire Myers, who helps CPRIT manage its grant reviews, wrote: "Per Jerry's (Cobbs) conversation with Charles Tate, change some wording to broaden the scope to include incubators that would serve earlier-stage programs, such as Lynda Chin's endeavor ..."

This was a critical issue because, if the M.D. Anderson grant were considered scientific rather than commercial, it would be reviewed by a scientific panel headed by Nobel laureate Dr. Alfred Gilman. Ultimately this step was avoided, and even the commercial reviewers had just 17 days to examine the proposal before a final vote would be taken at the March 29 oversight committee meeting.

Reviewers' concerns

After Gilman learned of the M.D. Anderson request, he asked Cobbs about it. Cobbs replied on March 12, "Much too complicated as presented," and said it would have to be considered later. He made the same recommendation to Gimson.

Two days later the landscape changed when Tate intervened, the emails indicate.

"Charles just called me - he is concerned about the timing and bifurcated approach" to the incubator, Gimson wrote to Cobbs.

Tate wanted the two applications considered jointly in time for a March 29 vote. The M.D. Anderson plan was then sent to five commercial reviewers. Some of them had concerns about the project.

Arizona drug development businessman Jack Geltosky characterized M.D. Anderson's program as "deep biology." Another reviewer, New York biotech consultant Kapil Dinghra, wrote that the amount of money Chin was seeking would pay for "several real and tangible biotech companies," as opposed to hypothetical companies that might emerge from the M.D. Anderson proposal.

Dinghra recommended a "deeper dive" into the proposal.

Three days later Cobbs sent an email to Chin, Rice Provost George McLendon and Gimson, informing Chin that CPRIT was moving forward with a $20 million grant for both institutions, up to $18 million of which would go to M.D. Anderson. Tate was the only oversight committee member copied on the email. Gimson followed up with a note offering to update Tate on the project, adding, "I'm open anytime."

Dewhurst donor

On March 29, the oversight committee unanimously approved the combined grant.

Tate told the Chronicle via email that he had never urged that M.D. Anderson be included in the grant. When presented with evidence to the contrary, he did not respond.

Tate was appointed to CPRIT's board in June 2008 by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. Tate, who gave $350,000 to Dewhurst between 2005 and 2010, is one of the U.S. Senate candidate's top 10 contributors. Dewhurst could not be reached for comment.

Tate is on the executive committee of M.D. Anderson's Board of Visitors, which raises funds for the institution. He also has ties to M.D. Anderson through his venture capital firm, Capital Royalty.

The firm has a four-person "strategic advisory committee" that guides it on biotech investments. One of the four is John Mendelsohn, DePinho's predecessor, who led M.D. Anderson for 15 years. Another is Henri Termeer, who is on the board of directors of Aveo Pharmaceuticals, a company co-founded by DePinho and Chin in Boston.

'No direction'

Gimson, in an interview, declined to say why he ignored recommendations to delay the M.D. Anderson grant vote.

Asked about Tate's role, Gimson was unequivocal: "There was no pressure and no direction from Charles Tate for me to move this forward. I want to make that absolutely clear."

chron.com

[gdpawel]

The National Cancer Institute confirmed that federal officials are taking a closer look at a troubled $3 billion cancer-fighting effort in Texas that is under a criminal investigation over a lucrative taxpayer-funded grant awarded by the state agency.

The Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas has coveted status as an NCI-approved funding entity — an exclusive group headlined by the nation's most prominent cancer organizations. The list is fewer than two dozen and includes the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and federal entities like the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

The designation is a federal seal-of-approval that signals high peer review standards and conflict of interest policies. Yearlong turmoil within the Texas institute, or CPRIT, reached a new peak this week when the agency's beleaguered chief executive asked to resign and prosecutors opened cases following an $11 million grant to a private company that was revealed to have bypassed an independent review.

NCI spokeswoman Aleea Farrakh Khan told The Associated Press that officials are "evaluating recent events" at CPRIT. She said officials have not made decisions or contacted the agency directly.

NCI designation is not required for CPRIT to continue running the nation's second-largest pot of cancer research dollars, Khan said. But jeopardizing that status — and especially losing it — would be a severe blow to CPRIT's reputation, which already has been battered by sweeping resignations, internal accusations of politics trumping science and now a criminal investigation.

A recent internal audit at CPRIT discovered an $11 million funding request from Dallas-based Peloton Therapeutics was approved without the agency ever scrutinizing the proposal's merits. The revelation came only months after two Nobel laureates and other top scientists left the agency in protest over a $20 million grant some accused of being rushed to approval without a proper peer review.

While CPRIT is funded by taxpayers, donors to cancer nonprofits might look to an NCI designation for assurance that their money is in good hands.

"It says, 'If I'm donating money to this agency, if NCI is approving them, that means NCI says it's handling its money well,'" Khan said.

Khan added that CPRIT's inclusion on the list does not mean all of its funding mechanisms are NCI-approved.

An entire page of CPRIT's website is devoted to boasting its NCI designation. The agency says the status is important because it means cancer centers in Texas seeking its own NCI designation — so as to reassure patients or bolster recruitment — can include CPRIT research dollars in their calculations to maintain levels needed to be NCI approved.

"This enhances Texas' ability to leverage additional federal funding for cancer research and raises Texas' profile as a center for cancer research," according to the website.

Executive Director Bill Gimson submitted his resignation letter Tuesday but offered to stay on through January. He has described Peloton's improper funding as an honest mistake and said no one associated with CPRIT stood to personally profit from the company's award.

Prosecutors have not made any specific criminal allegations. Launching separate investigations into CPRIT are the Texas attorney general's office and the Travis County district attorney's public integrity unit, which investigates criminal misconduct within state government.

modernhealthcare.com