RE:RE:RE:RE:A few answers on IMMU I would agree - see if you succeed in those huge growing markets like TNBC, HR+ BC or Meelanoma . But I think the tight balance sheet and low valuation is on their mind and first to finish line provides most immediate impact on to that. The others can come on the back of one moving onward.
qwerty22 wrote:
I think it would be a mistake to jump at the first cancer type that crossed the finish line in 1b. It's worth six months extra to get everything done and to see what makes most sense from both a clinical and commercial perspective. The expansion to 25 can go ahead quickly and maybe that time allows for all the other cancers to at least finish 10 patients. I can imagine an initial 1b interim update that hopefully puts efficacy front and centre but after that an extended period of time where learnings are happening, multiple options might be possible and so there won't be much of a rush to come up with a definitive path forward. So back to another period of silence while they work that all out. But like I say hopefully an interim 1b with some good news before that happens.
Starting the correct registrational trial is a vital step. You probably want to have learned as much as possible before you make that leap. That means not jumping at the first opportunity.
Wino115 wrote:
Yes, they have been testing it for other indications and that was the basis on which Gilead snapped it up. I am guessing here, but at the time of the $21bil acquisition I recall there were a fair number of both mono therapy trials and combo trials they had started and they were in various phases at the time of the takeover. I believe the furthest along was for a new indication (other than metastatic TNBC) and the phase 2 readout was not that impressive compared to SOC therapies for that cancer. I think one of the combo trials was also on the "meh" side. But there are still a bunch of trials going on with the IMMU drugs Gilead bought.
I don't think I have ever heard THTX say they will immediately stop the basket trial or getting a comprehensive data set on the basket trial. They've only stated that if one tumor sees a strong data set around safety and efficacy, they will design a P2 and get FDA sign off and start going on it. From what I can see, it would be common to have a few trials going providing you see the efficacy. At that point you could easily trigger the ATM or raise capital to fund what are quite small and short trials, so why wouldn't you? Further, if you see a decent number with some level of efficacy, maybe you can add the "for all solid tumors over expressing Sort1 that are advanced and refractory, or metasticizing" . That is Christian's Holy Grail if he can get it there.
jfm1330 wrote: Don't forget that we have a smal basket trial in the basket trial. They will try it on many other cancer types. For example, in their previous corporate presentions they had neuroendocrine cancers listed as cancer type that could overexpress sortilin. this cancer is not a main basket with many patients, but they could enroll a couple of them in the basket in the basket part. By the way, since you did research on IMMU, do you know what their efficacy results were in other cancer types results. Maybe I am too optimistic, but I think they will have good enough results to justify a phase II in more than one indication.
Wino115 wrote: They seemed to focus pretty quickly on TNBC from their basket trial as the data pointed to OK response rates and efficacy. Their basket trial looks fairly similar to THTX but was spread even wider amongst tumor types.