RE:RE:RE:10 questions from RBC January 8 I see cancer as data driven, it's hard to ignore ORR or DOR, they should speak loadly, I guess you could ignore them if you want to focus on corporate competence.
Here's a meta-analysis of mTNBC lots of numbers to pick out of that but my summary of the present tested drugs.
https://breast-cancer-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13058-019-1210-4#Tab1
10-20% ORR
4-6months DOR
12-18months OS
50-66% grade 3+ toxicities
This is what the drug needs to beat to look promising. Sutro is doing that but in Ovarian and the SP over the past 12-18 months looks great even with a drug related death.
I actually also see NASH as data driven and in that case very focused on the biopsy endpoints as the foundation for a program. I still think collectively we are under-estimating the importance of that weakness at least to the perception of the program.
scarlet1967 wrote: Most of questions are relevant but it seems there are so much pending doubts regarding company's ability to execute so even when they produce good results it won't be factored in by the market, I believe the problem is the failed IR and inability to convince the investors of course the recent deal wasn't helpful at all.
But if company can address these questions in a convincing manner going forward it will definitely help the valuation imo, therefore they need to have a serious discussions re changing their failed strategy.