Marker Therapeutics Inc (MRKR)

[Phantom Lord]

For context global psoriasis market is roughly $25B annually (SOURCE). Worldwide roughly 125M people suffer from it.

The global AML market size is roughly between $1B and $2B annually. I’m seeing different numbers. (SOURCE 1 SOURCE 2). About 20k cases each year in the US (SOURCE). Note that this is total, not post-transplant. Of AML cases I think roughly 80% of them ultimately end up having a transplant.

The global Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma market is currently roughly $8.5B annually (SOURCE 1 SOURCE 2 SOURCE 3). Roughly 80k cases each year in the US (SOURCE). Note here that Marker is specifically targeting patients who have failed or are ineligible for CAR-T.

The global pancreatic cancer market is roughly $2B annually. (SOURCE 1 SOURCE 2). Roughly 65k cases each year in the US (SOURCE).

I fully believe it is worth going after pancreatic cancer. Below is reposted from my previous post regarding my thoughts on pancreatic:

"This one gets a lot of flak from people saying they shouldn't be pursuing it. Ultimately, I disagree. They might consider putting it on hold to save as much money as they can but I believe it makes sense to pursue. Pancreatic cancer is basically a death sentence and treatment options are limited. I believe the bar to an approval is relatively low. The PI done at BCM yielded one CR. If I remember correctly that CR was noted well beyond where it would have been seen with chemo alone. It's obviously a long shot but given how cheap Marker's therapy is to produce, the low bar for approval (IMO), and the CR we saw in the PI I think it at least warrants further exploration. The more shots on goal the better."

is MRKR trying to make money (profits) or are they trying to be altruistic even if the market size (and potential profits) are small?

I can't 100% answer this. I can only provide my opinion based on what I know about the people currently in charge and I fully believe that Vera and Wilson, first and foremost, care about the patients and trying to provide therapies for unmet needs. It does mean smaller patient populations which means potentially less profits. Especially with how cheap the therapy is to produce. That being said, they can't really be focused on profits right now anyways as their main focus needs to be showing success in their current trials. Do right by the patients. If that works out they will have done right by they shareholders.