IMV Inc IMVIF

The pembro trial may be...

[Breakthorough]

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03990961?term=Pembrolizumab&cond=DLBCL&draw=2&rank=1 Or this: "The overall and complete response rate was 90% and 77%. With 255 months of median follow-up, 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) is 83%. PD-L1 expression was associated with non-GCB subtype, and improved PFS and survival. Pembrolizumab can safely be added to R-CHOP, and is associated with a high CR rate and 2-year PFS." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32030732/

[qwerty22]

I think that trial data and second link is first-line treatment which is different to r/r and has generally better outcomes as well. That's not comparable. The first link is the trial the analyst mentioned the ongoing pembro trial in pd-l1+ patients but I guess the data from that isn't public. If Merck have that data then the head-to-head with pembro+dpx is the best comparable

[Breakthorough]

You are right. But it opens a questions. If pembro goes to first line (with chemo), could it be used again later?

[qwerty22]

R-CHOP is first line treatment. That trial is pembro+R-CHOP. R-CHOP has pretty good numbers already in first line. It's likely they need to do a very large and long trial to prove superiority over R-CHOP alone. They have the same combo issue that IMV has. They have to prove pembro brings something extra, it's difficult to prove it on responses because they are already high, I think they

[QM45]

The more I read your stuff Qwerty, the crazier it sounds. Looks like you are one of those guys who pretends to know something by flooding the airwaves with misinformation. I can't keep up with all the hundreds of illogical posts, but it's quite amazing how consistently wrong you've been over the last few years.  I am trying to figure out if you are just confusing yourself or

[FastFF]

Thanks QM45 - these posts are most helpful as I don't understand the science stuff. The back and forth helps - hearing from all sides - seems as if people are misinterperting today and selling in fear of another analyst shelacking (which he later reversed) then I can live with the vol

[qwerty22]

The other issue I have with IMV's data presentation is it's all evaluable patient. That is they remove a number of enrolled patients who progressed rapidly before doing the analysis. In dlbcl I think they enrolled 25 and are evaluating 19. In Ovarian it's something like 45%. Other trials do this but they don't end up with so many un-evaluable the ones I've seen have a few