Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Theratechnologies Inc T.TH

Alternate Symbol(s):  THTX

Theratechnologies Inc. is a Canada-based clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. The Company is focused on the development and commercialization of therapies addressing unmet medical needs. It markets prescription products for people with human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV) in the United States. The Company's research pipeline focuses on specialized therapies addressing unmet medical needs in HIV, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and oncology. Its medicines include Trogarzo and EGRIFTA SV (tesamorelin for injection). Trogarzo (ibalizumab-uiyk) injection is a long-acting monoclonal antibody which binds to domain 2 of the CD4 T cell receptors. EGRIFTA SV (tesamorelin for injection) is approved in the United States for the reduction of excess abdominal fat in people with HIV who have lipodystrophy. Its portfolio includes Phase I clinical trial of sudocetaxel zendusortide (TH1902), a novel peptide-drug conjugate (PDC), in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.


TSX:TH - Post by User

Bullboard Posts
Comment by PinnacleXon Dec 14, 2019 3:07pm
72 Views
Post# 30455557

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:oncology

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:oncology
juniper88 wrote: First line treatment is carboplatin + Taxol. Preferably debulking surgery first then 6 chemos to kill anything microscopic, but if not possible then 3 chemos then debulking then 3 chemos. I have not posted much the last 2 years because as I wrote earlier I am busy with personal issues. Well, oct 2017 my wife was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, Stage V b with ascites. So, I see the mice model results and how well Taxol worked on triple negative breast cancer. A lot better than doxorubicin on ovarian cancer. So, I question why use a first line treatment on breast cancer but not ovarian? To you this is an investment but for me it is also a hope.
qwerty22 wrote: It seems surgery plus taxane-based chemo are the preferred first line treatments. If a patients tumour is refractory (resistant) to taxanes then dox is used as a second line treatment. Refractory/remission patients have a much lower success rate with ALL forms of treatment. It may be that they are targeting 2nd line treatment because this is where the unmet medical need lies. I think you are right if they were to target first line treatment they would probably have to go after a safer Pacitaxel, because they arent I assume they have a different strategy. They havent outlined the details of any cancer clinical program, I would suggest when they do they will be talking about refractory/remission (r/r) ovarian cancer rather than 1st line cancer. Just my best guess.

I think if they targeted 1st line treatment they would still need to show superiority to pre-existing treatments. Maybe you would be looking at much larger (and longer) trials for 1st line because you would probably need to show non-inferiority in terms of long term outcomes. Maybe 2nd line treatment offers better regulatory pathways (accelerated approval etc). You can always go after 1st line after first proving efficacy in 2nd line treatment. Maybe as you say dox might just be a drug with characteristics more amenable to improvement with this tech. I'm sure there are multiple different factors to consider when choosing the right clinical program.

As they get closer to an IND they will probably outline things in more detail. Its probably reasonable to trust them on overall strategy at this point and pick it apart when they detail it.



juniper88 wrote: What concerns me about using doxorubicin is that from the clinical trials that I have seen it has a response rate of about 20% for ovarian cancer patients. That includes both complete and partial response and most of the responses were only partial. Perhaps the response rate is so low because toxicity of doxorubicin limits the dosage and that this mechanism of delivery will all for higher dosages. Still i wonder if the scientists tried other substances that could kill ovarian cancer cells? Did they try docetaxel and doxorubicin worked better? How about natural substances that are poorly absorbed like curcumin or berberine? I'm just not convinced that doxorubicin is the best choice.
palinc2000 wrote: Actually the indication for the phase 3 trial was endometrial cancer,,,the ovarian cancer trial at that time as a phase 2 
Here is a summary

Zoptarelin Doxorubicin Zoptarelin doxorubicin is a complex molecule that combines a synthetic peptide carrier with doxorubicin, a well-known chemotherapy agent. The synthetic peptide carrier is an LHRH agonist, a modified natural hormone with affinity for the LHRH receptor. The design of the compound allows for the specific binding and selective uptake of the cytotoxic conjugate by LHRH receptor-positive tumors. Potential benefits of this targeted approach include a better efficacy and a more favorable safety profile with lower incidence and severity of side effects as compared to doxorubicin alone. We believe that zoptarelin doxorubicin has the potential to become the first FDA-approved medical therapy for advanced, recurrent endometrial cancer, potentially resulting in the compound's rapid adoption as a novel core therapy for patient treatment and management, representing a significant potential market opportunity for the Company. Moving forward, we will continue to develop our commercialization plans regarding zoptarelin doxorubicin in this indication. In addition, contingent on the success of the ZoptEC (Zoptarelin Doxorubicin in Endometrial Cancer) Phase 3 clinical trial, we have additional areas of interest for further therapeutic development, including ovarian, prostate, triple negative breast cancer and potentially bladder cancer. On April 16, 2015, we announced that we had filed an application for a European patent on a novel method of manufacturing zoptarelin doxorubicin. Because this compound is a complex molecule, it is expensive to synthesize, and the requested patent, if granted, may make it difficult for generic manufacturers to produce zoptarelin doxorubicin on a financially feasible basis once our composition of matter patent on the compound expires. Further, the claimed manufacturing process is expected to result in a significant reduction in cost of goods sold, providing a stronger competitive position for the Company. On April 27, 2015, we announced that an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board ("DSMB") for the pivotal Phase 3 ZoptEC clinical trial with zoptarelin doxorubicin in women with advanced, recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer had completed a pre-specified first interim futility analysis (after 128 events). The DSMB recommended that the Phase 3 clinical trial continue as planned. 
 
Results
Item 5.1 Full Description of Material Change On May 1, 2017, the Company announced that the ZoptEC Phase 3 clinical study of Zoptrex™ (zoptarelin doxorubicin) in women with locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer did not achieve its primary endpoint of demonstrating a statistically significant increase in the median period of overall survival of patients treated with Zoptrex™ as compared to patients treated with doxorubicin. The median overall survival period for patients treated with Zoptrex™ was 10.9 months compared to 10.8 months for patients treated with doxorubicin. This is not a statistically significant, clinically meaningful increase in overall survival and thus the ZoptEC Phase 3 clinical study did not meet its primary endpoint. In addition, Zoptrex™ generally performed no better than the comparator drug with respect to the secondary efficacy endpoints. For example, the median period of progression-free survival of the patients in the Zoptrex™ arm of the study was identical to that for patients in the doxorubicin arm. Finally, there was no meaningful difference between the two arms with respect to safety; the number of patients with cardiac disorders was similar – eight in the Zoptrex™ arm and nine in the doxorubicin arm. The results of the study are not supportive to pursue regulatory approval,

 

 





Sorry to hear your wife is stage 4, I was stage 3 and took 8 years for me after chemo, radition, stem cell transplant. 

Again exccellet points here, like I mentioned the red devil is so toxic thats why its known  as the red devil, it has very good response in some cancers and very low in others, its still the go to drug.  This is why they tried something else here, dox is expensive aswell. Whatever TH has its better to use it in Cancer then it is in HIV. 

Thats was a tremendous news release by this company and once again nothing happened. 
Bullboard Posts