RE:RE:Silver liningReal bummer. We understood the treatment population was a very difficult population to treat and could have numerous issues to deal with, and that seems to be the case where their issues came to the fore before efficacy came about. I was hoping they were getting patients more in line with 3 or 4L kind of treatment levels where Sort1 is overexpressed and they have more than a 3 month outlook. No need to add to the doom and gloom (I'll let others do that), so I'll point to some next steps that may be possible.
Sounds like the investigators are on board that it's worth rethinking the dosage and scheduling to limit the side effects while hopefully boosting efficacy. Sort of amazing what we saw in the 1a part wasn't quite as visible, where one person was on for 33 weeks with no issues. That was my incliniation to think it was quite safe to dose at that level, at least for endometrial. I assumed the others would be similar, but guess not.
They have room to play with dosage levels given it concentrates the normal dose 4-7x, so theoretically you could cut the dose in half and go more frequently and still deliver 2-4x the normal dose and that could go a long way toward eliminating side effects but getting the chemo directly in. In hindsight, it probably would have been worth trialing a large dose at 3 weeks and a half dose at 8 days and see which gives you better parameters. That's essentially what they're planning on doing now.
Anyway, let's hear what they have to say on what they learned, what makes sense for a new trial protocal, what the investigators saw and are saying and when they can get going on the trial again. I would guess we'll hear more shortly and on the next conference call on their new plan. It would behoove them to discuss details with shareholders instead of retreating in to silence.
Real bummer and this ain't going to help their credibility unless they also saw some good things happening and have a way to optimize that and convince the market on why. The pre-clinical sure was very convincing and I'm still surprised it didn't seem to work they way they showed as well as it did. A lot of those spider charts were equal-dose, so got to hope the lower dose can still achieve those kind of numbers and low side effects. Nevertheless, not what we all hoped to see at this point!
SPCEO1 wrote: Tomorrow will be rough but there really never has been any value given to cancer, so with lower costs during the pause, earnings should be better. And only one analyst, the most recent one from Jones, had ascribed any value for cancer. So, technically, he should be the only one lowering his price target. Somehow, the others will likely do so also anyway.
It was suspicious that they had a non-cancer focused Q3 call and now I suppose we know why.
SABBOBCAT wrote: The stock price doesn't reflect any value for oncology so we have nothing to lose... Right???? Tomorrow is going to be rough