IMV Inc IMVIF

Comparison with STR-002

[Breakthorough]

Yesterday, Sutro Biopharma announced results of its ovarian cancer trial. Same population of DPX (including after Parp inhibitors): - ORR 30% (10 out of 31). DPX, 26'3% - PFS at 12 months: 13%. DPX, 20% https://www.pharmiweb.com/press-release/2020-12-03/sutro-biopharma-announces-encouraging-interim-data-on-stro-002-phase-1-dose-escalation-study-for-pat

[Breakthorough]

To be fair: 13% of patients still on treatment after a year. I guess 12month PFS should then be ab this number when the trial ends...

[qwerty22]

https://www.sutrobio.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Investor-Meeting-with-KOLs-3-Dec-2020-FINAL-FOR-WEBCAST-compressed.pdf They don't give a PFS number. It looks to me they are still earlier in the study than IMV, they still have 10 patients on treatment so only 21 have completed. Maybe pfs atm should be 4/21, if you follow IMV's rule and include somebody who almost reached 12 months

[qwerty22]

Because both studies are still on going it's hard to do a head-to-head on durability but here goes. Reach 18 months IMV 1 (still ongoing) STRO 0 reached that time point yet Reach 12 month (or almost 12 months) IMV 4 (1 ongoing) STRO 4 (3 ongoing) Reach 6 months IMV 2 (only just) STRO 6 (1 ongoing) Below 6 months IMV 12 (none ongoing) STRO 18 (10 ongoing) Promblem is STRO is still early

[Breakthorough]

Thanks, qwerty22. I guess you wanted to say 1 (not 10) ongoing below six months. Anyway, the maximum of patients that can reach 12 months in this trial is 11 out of 31 (36% aprox). There will most probably be less than that, of course.The number of patients with "clinical benefit" at 12 months in the DPX trial is 26%.

[qwerty22]

I'm going by the swimmers plot here https://www.sutrobio.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Investor-Meeting-with-KOLs-3-Dec-2020-FINAL-FOR-WEBCAST-compressed.pdf Page 12, yellow arrows. That's where I got 10  

[Breakthorough]

Of course. And the distribution of the 10 is 3 over 12 months, 6 over 6 months, 1 below 6 months. The total number of 4 that have reached 12 months include 3 ongoing. It means thay only 7 of the ongoing 10 could (in the best of cases) add to these four. The final number will be between 11 (36%) and 4 (13%). A different thing is that in the dose-expansion trial the numbers become a bit better, due

[Breakthorough]

More accurately. With the 10 still on treatment (I correct the distribution: 3 below six months, 4 more than 6 months and les than 12 months, 3 more than 12 months), the outcome os this STRO-002 trial (future dose-expansion arms apart) regarding total patients on treatment are: At 6 months, 14-17 (45-55%; DPX, 37%). At 12 months, 4-11 (13-36%, DPX, 26'3%). Very similar, with time apparently

[cribbons]

See page 14  ( including 4 patients deriving clinical benefit post-progression per investigator assessment)  so maybe only 6 getting a benefit?

[Breakthorough]

If you look at page 12, all of the arrows ("on treatment") are at least in SD (but, may be, one of the three that passed the 12 months, thay looks at the very limit of PD). May be it speaks about other 4 not "on treatment" per protocol because of progression, and so not bearing an arrow as the 10 "on treatment" do, but still having "clinical benefit". I

[qwerty22]

If Fred likes the idea of chemo + dpx then STRO-002 + dpx survivac would fit the bill, I don't expect it will happen but they look complementary. I think both these drugs look like potential improvement over what already exists given what the KOLs say.