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

Comment by qwerty22on Sep 17, 2021 6:01pm
175 Views
Post# 33882014

RE:RE:RE:RE:Cancer Trial Status

RE:RE:RE:RE:Cancer Trial Status

When people are treated with docetaxel they can be metastatic, with multiple tumours and a heavy tumour burden or the can be people with one primary tumour that's been removed by surgery and the chemo is there to mope up any left behind cells. You don't read about different safety signals happing in these two extremes of tumour material. I've read many ADC safety and pK papers and lots of reviews about targeted cancer treatments like ADCs and PDCs. I've never read anybody describe differential safety outcomes between patients with tumours containing the target and patients with no target. Outside of JFM I've never read anybody even suggest this might be an issue. I'm happy to read stuff if somebody can find it. From my experience (which is limited and non-expert) I'd say if Th1902 suffered from this problem it looks like it would be fairly unique.

I don't want to trade guesses on how much drug enters the tumour and trade guesses on what that might mean. I'd rather see something in the science literature to talk about this as even a theoretical issue because even if we could nail down some of the relevant stats my problem is I've no evidence this is even an issue. I think I've read enough of the right types of papers that if it was an issue it would have been highlighted by some of them. I've never read anything like that. I think you read some of these science papers? Ever see anything in any other drug that says a patient with a tumour with target has a different safety profile to a patient with no target?


Wino115 wrote: Above my paygrade, but I think in the KOL Belivieu threw out the 2-5% as the amount in the "old world" of passive chemo that gets through to the tumor.  I think he implies that targeted chemo gets a lot more through to the tumor.

I'm not sure what other stats help there but they show the half life of the ligand progranulin is 4 minutes versus 6-10 hours for an ADC (both of doxerubicin) and that this rapid internalization within the tumor provides a "kinetic" advantage of a PDC versus an ADC. 

They also show the amount of uptake in healthy versus tumor cells (admitedly preclinic) and it's around 50/50 with plain taxel and around 10/90 with TH1902.  Obviously human's will be different.  

I don't know if that points out to more than the 35% chemo you have going in to the tumor versus 65% not.  I don't know how to interpret that 4 mininute half life comment he made though. 
 

qwerty22 wrote:

Should have said in red. Also I corrected an error here.

 

qwerty22 wrote:

 

 

SPCEO1 wrote: I wish the company would be a bit more forthcoming on the status of the phase 1a but we can do our best to infer where things are at despite that. This entails assumptions and that means we can be off the mark by a decent amount due to incorrect assumptions. But some on this board may have the knowledge to help hone those assumptions.

Here are a couple of assumptions:

1.) THTX would have to inform us if the trial was halted as that would be viewed as a material event.

2.) If two patients had toxic reactions, the trial would stop moving to higher dose level and a new group of patients would be treated at the lower dose to make sure they did not have toxicity at the lower dose level to confirm the previous result. But apparently, there are also appeal methods regarding whether or not what was judged to be toxicity was actually toxic for the patient. If TH pursued such an appeal process, let's assume the process takes three weeks.

So, since we have not been informed that the trial has stopped, we can pretty much assume it was ongoing at the end of August (three weeks ago assuming a three week appeal process and a notification that the trial was halted tomorrow). If so, and assuming there were not any signiifcant wiggles in the trial's progress earlier, then can we feel confident that patients have received a dosage level that is pretty high without a toxic reaction through the latter part of August? 

Clearly, the more Docetaxel that can be pushed into a cancerous cell, the better the potential ouotcome on the efficacy front. In the case of TH-1902, what I am hoping for is not only some efficacy on those phase 1a patients who presented with sortilin overexpressing tumors (hopefully 2/3rds of them) but also no neutropinia so that the combination of efficacy and the length of time treatment can be pursued is better than any other treatment alternative.

Also, another question for the science team - for those patients in the phase 1a who do not have sortilin overexpressing tumors, I assume the PDC washes out through their system without causing any harm. Is that correct? Or would some of the Docetaxel still negatively impact healthy cells if it could not find any sortilin receptor to adhere to? Also, since we are now at higher dose levels, could the non-sortilin expressing tumor patients be facing some nasty side-effects since there likely are some sortilin receptors on healthy cells since the heavier Docetaxel doses are potentially putting more sortilin into healthy cells? Could that lead to the trial being stopped? 

 

For this question you have to think about the amount of drug that interacts with the tumour. Beliveau in the KOL event quote 2-5% of anti-cancer agents effectively reach tumours. I've seen other papers say it's as low as 0.5%. If we took the top number (5%) and combined that with improved uptake from scavenging Sortilin (7X higher accumulation in vitro) then the highest amount of drug interacting with the tumour is about 1/3 of the circulating drug. That's a top end number, accumulation could easily be less in the tumour of a patient. So in a scenario where a patient has Sort+ tumours the majority of the drug just circulates in the bloodstream. So let's say in a SORT+ patient 65% can just circulate in the blood doing harm and in a SORT- patient 100% circulates. Can you spot a different safety signal between those two patients? It's possible but remember in the dose escalation process drug is increased by factors much larger than that and the range of doses for clinical use of docetaxel is also greater than that difference. I think the amount of drug interacting with the tumour is likely to be lower than that 35% and the likelihood of seeing a different safety signal in SORT- versus SORT+ is also likely lower. Maybe with a very, very large cohort of patients you might see a statistical difference appear due to a small quantitative difference. I don't expect to see a qualitative difference between SORT+ and SORT- patients. JFM likes to pump this idea but I've never seen him consider the actual amount of drug that interacts with tumours versus the amount that freely circulates away from the tumour, this to me is a very important factor in considering if SORT+ and SORT- patients react differently. Ultimately though we'll only know for sure by actually seeing how patients react.

Sorry in advance for all the assumptions, questions and general lack of knowledge (or ability to fully remember when these things were addressed previously).

It seems to me that the stock should logically creep upward every day that w e do not have an indication that the trial has stopped as the chances for success are likely improved with each passing day. 


 

 


 




<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>