RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:How Barclays Capital values Small Cap Oncology namesSure, always the risk -- the human response. I'm not remotely qualified to discuss pros and cons of different cleavable links and homing receptors so will leave that up to you scientifically minded. I know the science has progressed a lot in last few years according to the PDC primer (I didn't even see a discussion on this linker), but THTX needs to prove it all up. I guess one thing I like is that each tumor type and cancer type is a bit different, expressing different chemical's and cellular structures, so while they could all fail, I still like the fact they have at least 4 shots on goal with these different tumor's, maybe a fifth if they get the melanoma study done, and then more with TH1901. But caution, as you say, is warranted.
These would be good questions to get to CMO - what is their understanding of the linker versus the failed one in Zoptarelin? If anyone checks in with him, be interested to hear an answer.
Spartrap wrote: It's a bit mean to do so today, but let me bring forward the sad story of Zoptarelin Doxorubicin, just to keep our enthusiasm in check: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoptarelin_doxorubicin Passed P1 and P2 with flying colors just to miserably fail in P3. Apparently, the linker wasn't solid enough and tended to break too early within the more acidic Tumor Micro Environment.. Ended up being not superior or safer than Doxorubicin alone ;-/
Wino115 wrote: I So you may almost be able to have a 50-75% probability of success after Phase 1. This shows one of the benefits of a peptide versus an antibody approach.