RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:So anything good coming out soon I remember once ha=ing a conversation with the ceo of a preclinical biotech I worked at. It revolved around whether we would be principally a platform offering or a product offering company. The importance being that the type of work we did and how we positioned ourselves would be different depending on which path we took. You can think of product and platform as two Poles and there being a spectrum in between. I see bcyc as very much selling a platform and their products and collaboration diversity speaks to that. Even though we think about SORT1 as a platform I actually think of THTX's cancer program as a product. Maybe with success they can shift towards platform but right now success with SORT1 is dependant on success with th1902. They will be lucky to get a second chance with a second payload if th1902 is a dud. This is also reflected in both companies histories. Bcyc being founded to develop this chemistry and SORT1 just being a bolt-on for THTX. It's also worth remembering that even now most of the R&D we see coming out of THTX is still very heavily focused on th1902 (with a smattering of th1904). Emphasizing this is all super focused on the lead product atm.
My interest was in how they report Ph1 and it's ability to generate a reaction when it's strong. More broader comparisons between to two companies start to make less sense given their differences.
SPCEO1 wrote: It would not surprise me if TH-1902 is in at least one phase II trial before the end of this year. It could be more than that if they see signs of efficacy in more than one cancer type and it sounded like a basket trial might be a possibility in phase II as well but they did not sound convinced about that. If all goes well, TH has indicated they might have an approved cancer drug by 2025. I am not sure if each of BCYC drugs target more than one cancer type. And TH may have multiple programs themselves using SN38 or trying to figure out how to incorporate siRNA technology into one of their peptides. BCYC also has some partnership agreements in place too as I think Qwerty mentioned but I do not know the importance of those.
I wish we knew why TH-1904 is no longer on the front burner as it would likely give us good insight into the issues TH needs to contend with in any PDC they devise.
jfm1330 wrote: They have three PDCs in human clinical trials, one in phase II, and they have efficacy data in many patients. Just that is more than enough to have much higher valuation. Their chemistry is also more advanced, and they use better cytotoxic agents than docetaxel, agents to which resistance is less likely. They are where Thera hope to be in a few years with more than one PDC. The only thing that in theory seems to favor Thera, is the target, sortilin.
SPCEO1 wrote: BCYC is down about 25% YTD so it does not appear the market reacted welll to this data. It does have a boatload of analysts follwoing it including GS and MS, has $437 million in cash and is only burning about as much as TH - around $14 million last year. Revenues are less than $12 million. Market cap is $1.3 billion.
From a science perspective, what is it that gives BCYC such a better valuation? What does it have that TH needs to have to getthe same level of respect?