RE:RE:How Barclays Capital values Small Cap Oncology namesInteresting you say this because as I was reading through the report I kept thinking some of the drugs as they were described needed the help of the SORT1 carrier! As you can imagine, there's a lot of varying approaches to TNBC, lung cancers, etc.. since they are prevalent and still deadly. A lot of the approaches seemed unbelievably complicated to me and I would think, boy, that could be improved a lot if you attached it to the THTX trojan horse. I realize that comment mostly shows I don't understand the futuristic science behind some of the drugs. But many seemed to have really negative spill-over effects or targeted super rare and specific mutations of various things. I like where THTX is aiming for - a well-known toxin being delivered at a massively higher but tolerable dose.
On Qwerty's post, that point on Phase 1 data from disruptive medicines is one of the three reasons stated as to why they thought SMID Cap oncology would outperform the market. One that did and was up 100% is that Xencor one. They're in the engineered antibody immune space, lots of partnerships to use their technology with other company drugs. Since most of their drugs are still Phase 1, it was likely some of this Phase 1 data that showed ok tolerability, some response rate (but not high), and some effect that backed up the in vivo data. And those trials were anywhere from 15 to 50 people. It's not one they liked, but does show you that anything showing some minimal level of tolerability and efficacy is a huge deal for these cancers drugs. I think THTX should start adding that term "disruptive platform" to their SORT1 description because it seems it is.
Lastly, there is also an entire section on M&A. The gist of it is that over the last 5 years the average takeout multiple to trailing 12 month revenues is 12.8x (median is 7.3x). On average they were done at 100% premiums to market cap. Biggest buyers over last 5 years were Bristol Myers, Pfizer and Gilead.
jfm1330 wrote: The key aspect of the oncology platform Thera has is the fact that it is not properly a drug, but a targeted drug carrier. The theoretical beauty of it is the fact that it could work with many different drugs.
Some will say I make a fixation on it, but if I would be a scientific decision maker at Thera I would push hard to have their peptide tested asap with a chelating linker and isotopes Lu177 and Ga68. It would open imaging and therapeutic avenues. Some chemotherapy drugs can work or not on some cancer types, but cell internalized radiotherapy is hard for cancer to defend against since it is breaking the DNA strands. The problem though with Lu177 is that it only do single strand damage on DNA since its beta emission is not strong enough. Single dtand damage can allow for some DNA reparation by the cell and a lower death rate of the cancer cells.
But, I learned recently that they are developping a second generation of Lutathera or Dotatate-Lu177. In this second generation they would replace Lutetium177 a lower energy beta emitter, by an isotope with a different type of radiation, much stronger that can do much more damage to the DNA, doing double strand damage on the DNA and more. This isotope is Actinium225 an alpha emitter. It is not approved yet, in fact it is still a few years away from approval since they need to assess toxicity elswhere in the body, espicially to the kidneys, but it really look like a promising cancer cell killer that could be available in the relatively near future. So it would be good for Thera to know if their peptide is able to carry isotopes with the proper chelating linker.
https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/494760