Pro-chemos would certainly be hitting at 5x or more the current accumulative dose. As long as the pK data from the trial goes as expected, I believe that this will be a very big positive.
(Griffith's definitely from the right part of the world and fantastic work through his career. Agree, there were many brave men on both sides)
Most experts providing market size will have taken the NICE and ICER into account, usually provides some base calculations. Thankfully there are experts out there who have done the hard work and provided the price of $250B on the market. Successful clinical results for preCISION would put the price in the multiples of the current chemotherapy market size.
Thanks aj, we can have physicians consultation chat another time ;0)
Rorkes I understand that you don't want to answer the question, don't worry if you don't know. I was interested.
Just to lighten the mood, did you know that Kenneth Griffith wrote the screenplay for Rorke's Drift?
Thanks aj, I agree with your points, but instead of provisionally taking this as purely med/pharm NICE and ICER equation, I'd like to find out what the health economics that Rorkes has researched.
Just looking at the figures, therapeutic sales in oncology are likely to be around $250B by 2024, (12% CAGR). With an expansion to the market due to "longer treatment cycles and wider patient eligibility", I would certainly agree to the market being closer to the $300B+ mark. Also interesting are the recent oncology acquisitions are in the billions; Array BioPharma ($11B), Five Prime ($1.9B), Grail ($8B), NBE (1.4B) and Immunomedics($21). Partnerships are also rife with Daiichi Sankyo and IDEAYA as good examples with a $3B collaboration for Genmab.
Positive pK data and this could be huge.
The benefits for immunotherapy are great in those that it works in and it's important to note however; the benefit from immunotherapy (i.e. based on OS/PFS with ORR) remains low. In many cases the cancer does not go away rapidly or at all and can take a while (relative to chemo) to work. Systemic damage is something to consider and that makes it a tough decision as you could sustain damage to major organs if the immunotherapy attacks them. It can work in the first instance but the effect can wear off and in some cases the tumour grows back. The *current* path is both chemotherapy and immunotherapy have a place for treating cancer patients and as such immunotherapy and chemotherapy combination is the route that is applied. However, as the poster mentioned that with positive results on preCISION, this is likely to shift more so towards the use of chemotherapy as the first line and would indeed take back a substantial part of the market.
ND I appreciate the point you make, see my post to Ophidian above. Wait for the phase 1a data and we will see a shift towards talk about phase 2 being sufficient. Even then phase 3 will be mentioned in passing. If you remember sng001 last year after initial data the assumption was that phase 3 wouldn't be required. RM made valid points that they wouldn't require p3 and I personally would have agreed with RM vs FDA. However a p3 was required but with substantial help from the FDA who reduced the number of patients required by 33% in an already small cohort.
If we don't see this as a digital 0 and 1 issue and who is right and wrong. From my perspective, there is a very very strong chance that p2 will become pivotal and p3 will not be required. From yours I guess it would be that there is a small chance it could.
I agree Ophidian that it doesn't / won't require a p3 and I speak from having witnessed many companies in a similar boat. The likelihood is very very small and all depends on the FDAs view. However, not many publicly listed companies and CEOs will shout this before phase 1a data. In the meantime it is best for them to talk about phase 3 at least in passing.
I would add that the moment phase 1a pK data comes through end of year/ early next, we'll see the company emphasis change more and more. If you want further details on my thoughts DM me on twitter and I'll try and expand on this when I have time.
Folks, we are all human and prone to making mistakes. Many of you, in our real lives although mainly positive, at times negatively complain about our friends, neighbours, colleagues and companies we invest in. It simply comes down to the words used, timing and the way we portray ourselves and those we associate with. The current climate makes it highly polarised. Obviously we need to get a balanced view of any company we invest in, but if we come together on this it would prove to be highly valuable.
Wyn especially has done a half decent job on the TA, although not always right, the fundamentals are there with the caveat that it is not gospel and perhaps useful to get a trading perspective on how short term investors think. If you could please continue to post with brevity. Also wyn I'd prefer it if you could update on any thoughts whenever you feel on when the company perhaps is falling short but to counterbalance the positive and where possible with evidence.
No point scoring please and as long as evidence is provided or views are given as your own, I'd like to hear more from the likes of Myles and others.
Phase 3 can be very big or in some cases relatively small. There is another covid therapeutics company on AIM. It is currently on phase 3 with data by end of year/ Q2 2022. They have less than 700 people in the trial and the FDA reduced it to less than 700 in an effort to accelerate the progress and approval. How many people in phase 3 "if" required?
Both the "if" and future n values will depend on data from phase 1 and 2. Should be fascinating over the next 2 months.
@gje, you'll find the Lecere case in point highly amusing. Seven john does (with TOR and VPN) were find to have made derogatory comments about the CEO and his publicly listed company a few years ago. Although this delayed the prosecution slightly, one of them was made an example of with a $2 million case against him. He crumbled, came clean and gave his name and a public apology for what he did (i.e. he called the ceo i quote "a clown") in the hope that the case would be dropped. Here is what he said; he was working in the construction industry and acted as an individual who had invested on the stock market many years before. He lost a large amount of money and then spent an extortionate amount of time online writing about other companies he thought shouldn't be trading publicly. When interviewed he begged the company not to proceed as he couldn't afford the $5000 legal fees and pointed out he was an ordinary guy on a very low salary in the construction industry.
The moral of the story is that it just delays the inevitable and words that we feel as ordinary people to not be harmful can in a court of law cause have severe repercussions.