RE:RE:RE:QuestionsMy read on the perceived defensiveness is the opposite. I thought both Paul and Christian wanted to keep pointing out that they achieved these results on unbelievably hard to treat patients nearing death and not remotely considered for the actual target. I thought it was a way to politely push the analysts asking all those unimportant questions to say, "guys, we achieved some darn good first in human signals in a ridiculously hard to treat class of patient AND in a part of the trial not remotely optimized for any efficacy signals what so ever. Think about what we're telling you!".
I see many comments that start to build the foundation around a proof of concept that clearly excited them. You can conclude a few things that we really had no idea if they would work in humans like they did in mice. That's a massive leap.
SORT1 is a valid target for some advanced tumors and their PDC technology did attach and internalize. The fact it worked on that one patient where two taxol-based chemos failed shows this and the fact it is bypassing the MDR efflux once internalize and going to work. That is an amazing fact right there that there is no drug in the industry I know of showing it is actually bypassing MDR1 in cells. I think showing any remote sign on these type of patients is probably a bit of a "miracle" for these oncologists. I would have loved to see the MD Anderson comment on that, but clearly the Gettysburg guy is pretty pumped with what he's witnessed. I would assume the leads will be part of the full data dump and paper for the conference and there was a mention of a future full data set release. Save the big guns for the big industry conference reveal.
So the targets valid, the toxins getting in the cells at concentrated levels no doubt, it's bypassing resistance, it's shrinking tumors, lowering markers, and doing it all with minimal side effects --in a massively sub-optimal patient population. That's pretty darn good in my book.
I've often stated they need to start showing the market that the worst case failure is not in the cards for the PDC and that alone should increase a fair valuation by eliminating a large portion of the negative tail and increase the positive probabilities and move the average future valuation a bit higher. This should start that recognition. We obviously are tempered because of the overall market, the starting point for all this (which is crazy low now), and the fact there is not a credible oncology analyst that even knows of these results. It won't surprise me only the Research Capital guy mentions the importance of some of these first in human results, and it will be mild. The other two it's probably a sentance or two, followed by stuffing fistfull's of Cheetos.....
On a comp basis looking at some other ADC/oncology names, this shouldn't be a $250mil market cap. The worst case is moving away and the best case is coming in to view. Lot's more data and work needed, but it's a much larger and far better cohort of patients. I find it hard to believe we won't see other solid tumors react like some of what we've seen. Remember. --blow out results that are commercially viable would be ORR's >30-40%, tumor shrinkage of any size and a DOR that adds 4-6 months to their life. Patient #2 saw that and went for 8 months more, starting with a lower dose, and left the trial to resume normal end-of-life living (likely had other morbidity issues as a result of the extensive battle). That annecdote, while not statistically significant, is way over the commercial thresehold.
Elif shoudl send this to all the cancer analysts she knows and ask if they want to talk to Christian to understand it better, if for no other reason that it can impact some of their existing coverage in another 6 months to a year. A technology, target and platform they should know and understand and not be ignorant on in 6 months. Lot's for her to do.
SPCEO1 wrote: Different people hear things differently. I did not sense any defensiveness. Christian seemed pretty pleased with the results and was happy to share the details. To get any results on efficacy at all in this trial is good. He also mentioned one tumr completely vanished in the person who saw the 53% reduction, so I am assuming that was not one of the targetted tumors they were focused on. I heard a lot of confidence.
qwerty22 wrote: Seems to me they were quite defensive over oncology. I'm wondering if they are concerned that with 18 enrolled and only one clear PR that this data will be seen negatively.
For me this update is pretty good. The only real downside is it came 6 months late. It is blown away data but they hit everything they needed to hit.
I guess they are looking forward to a sizeable data set coming out of 1b and as we have said it's likely too early for that to have materialized yet.
I thought some of the colour Christain gave on the "responders" was useful. There's certainly a suggestion that there's some resistance around those patients given that in prior treatments they quickly failed on taxols. You could surmise with the PR response patient that they "beat" docetaxel.
Overall though I get the sense they are still being very cautious and conservative. Could be a while before we hear about 1b patients. Feels like a big derisk but no fanfare about that.
StableGenius97 wrote: We out here showing cancer efficacy in cancer and we out here talking about egrifta. Not the game. Egrifta. We talking about egrifta