RE: Thorn17 Jun 2025 10:22
I’d give your take more credibility if the switch in discourse from STS to SGC had happened with plenty of 1b data in hand, but it didn’t, it came from the heavily pretreated 1a cohort.
That to me suggests that the signal from 1a has left management certain that SGC will be approved and it’s really as simple as that. Given one indication that’s likely to be approved and one where it’s near certain given the low hanging fruit they’ve pivoted to the latter.
In other words I imagine they still expect great results from STS but the heterogeneity makes it that little bit more risky and they are playing the percentages. The change in focus months ago tells us nothing of what the 1b data will show so there’s every chance that it *is* going swimmingly now, at this stage.