RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:September = Time for $THERF and its executives to deliver I guess in a nutshell "pretty" would have been data that supported the idea that they would hit their targets in 1b. Not that the 1a data suggested they wouldn't. Just one Partial Response and a lack of transparency on all the enrolled patients leaves a question mark. Maybe two PRs would have swung it for me so we are talking about marginal things here.
But look, I think 1a hit it's targets. We wait to see if 1b does the same.
SPCEO1 wrote: What do you need to see to upgrade your take on TH-1902 to "pretty"?
qwerty22 wrote: I'm pretty sure if a drug already has an approval it has a much higher chance of success. Does that mean having docetaxel on board improves their chances (possibly a lot?)? Of course the peptide can deliver it to the wrong address. Does that make much difference to the chances of success? I think it's best to judge it on it's individual merits. ATM that's hard to do. The drug profile looks neither ugly nor pretty atm.
Wino115 wrote: Also it shows the real high bar is phase 2 into 3, not phase 1 into 2. 1 to 2 is very high (60%+). That would say we should be in an era of better than 50% chance of success now, and phase 2 will be tougher. I'm not sure that would be the case with this approach, but that's what the numbers say.
Wino115 wrote: Interesting find. Oncology is actually a bit lower for Ph1 to approval. Solid Tumors may even be slightly lower. It's all sort of hard to handicap given the data ends in 2015 and many of the targeted ADC/PDCs and other targeted therapies are newer and been pretty successful while the immuno and other genetic approaches have been harder and have had more safety issues thwarting them. So maybe your 10% is about right. One positive factor is the time to approval is the quickest in oncology which likely represents the "unmet need" and priority development.