RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Cost of Lutathera in CanadaI just found an incredibly good comparator to Thera in oncology. In a sense it seems positive, but in another it's negative. I still need to read about it, but it's a company that is where Thera could be in one or two years. One thing is sure, this will be a competitor and the company to beat, but on the other hand, it provides some validation in the field of enhancing generic cancer drugs.
SPCEO1 wrote: It is worth remembering that PL said earlier this year, before they added more tumors to their list that the addressable market was $12 billion. That is the revenues currently earned in the cancer markets they would hope to be in. So, just a starting point. But they have been thinking about this since early this year at least.
scarlet1967 wrote: There are many reports re PDC market about, some even mentioning THTX all need to be purchased and quite frankly those research companies behind the reports to me don't look legit.
I didn't want them to release the full analysis but the part which had to do with financial opportunities of the drug which is the reason they committed themselves to the project. Point is if those returns are good enough for a cash strap company to start the project and institutional investors buy into it why not motivate thousands of retail investors re the potential rewards of investing in the company by letting them know the financial potentials of the program.
jeffm34 wrote: No company is going to release their internal analysis publicly. The best investors can hope for is to get an idea of the potential market size for TH1902. A good starting point to estimate that is sales of docetaxel broken down by cancer type. I haven't been able to find that other than paying $4000 for a report. If you have that info please share as it would be helpful for everyone.
scarlet1967 wrote: No company big or small would start a multi billion project unless they have done a proforma full analysis in advance. It's not only the size of the targeted market, drug pricing, competitions, agencies' policies, insurers's policies and of course thei strength of their science and probability of success and cost of the trial but all of it. So they have already an internal report so stating a protocol is high risk high return is absolutely correct and everyone gets it but talk more about the return to motivate investors.
jeffm34 wrote: There is a report available that may given an indication of potential market size for TH1902. It cost $4000 though.
https://www.360marketupdates.com/global-docetaxel-market-13717105 scarlet1967 wrote: I absolutely agree with you, point is there not many comps. We can look at some ADC drugs but again although a targeted drug delivery they are more expensive to manufacture and have some clinical disadvantages which should translate to less commerciality compared to an approved PDC. They really need to start educating the market re their financials of their PDC if and when approved. Again bicycle put a nice chart for the size of each cancer their drug is targeting. I am pretty sure they have presented their science and the financial opportunities of it to those institutions who participated in the offering now why not educate the retail investors so they also start investing in their oncology program. They didn't have efficacy or safety dats back in January yet they managed to get the attention of institutional investors ( low price probably did also help) so they don't need to wait for hard data to get the attention of retail. The difference between the retail and institutional investors is most retail investors don't understand the science that well but all of them understand revenues.
Wino115 wrote: This is a key point for their potential profitability. While PL and Marsolais always state the characteristics around TH1902 may be a new paradigm for the way you treat cancer, PL and Dubuc need to start highlighting that this also, by definition, means it could lead to a new financial model paradigm as a result. The characteristic of possibly longer patient treatment periods and more frequent dosing supports a far more robust commercial model versus standard cancer company treatments. This point needs to be incorporated into their presentation if this supposition is true, which it seems preclinical would support.
jfm1330 wrote: I found a pricing reference for Lutathera in Canada. It also includes the pricing for Sandostatin LAR, a peptide drug, and also the cost of chemotherapy drugs for neuroendocrine cancers. The cost of Lutathera is 140,000$ CAN for four cycles, so 35,000$ per dose. Initiation of treatment is four cycles every two months, maybe more if they see good tumor regression. If it's only stable disease, they will treat again when they will see cancer progression again.
The cost of Sandostatin LAR (Octreotide LAR 60 mg) is 4000$ CAN per dose, with a dose every four weeks, so 52,000$ per year only for a long acting release formulation of the peptide. So it gives a good idea of the pricing TH1902 and other PDCs derived from TH19P01 could achieve. I did not find the pricing in the US, but it is surely higher by a good margin.
So imagine the pricing for a PDC like TH1902 with treatment cycles of three weeks, instead of two months. You could end up maybe with 10 to 20 cycles of treatment given the expected wider therapeutic window. Obviously, it needs to be efficaciuous.
https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/Reviews2019/10142LutetiumLu177dotatateGEP-NET_inEGR_NOREDACT-ABBREV_Post_31May2019_final.pdf