Biotech Values

[AlpineBV_Miller]

Yeah, welcome to HR hell.

The data were updated at ASCO recently to a HR of 0.79 in 2007 from a HR of 0.76 in 2004. Converting that to the way DNDN (and, increasingly, everyone else) uses the HR gets us 1.266 in 2007 and 1.316 in 2004.

It is common for some people to see a HR of 0.76, subtract it from 1, and call it a decrease in % risk of death -- in this case, 24%. Using the same nomenclature, the 2007 updated TAX-327 decrease in risk of death is 21%. (At some point in 2H-2006 that was just 12%, see below)

Incidentally, in 2007 for Taxotere:
http://www.asco.org/ASCO/Abstracts+%26+Virtual+Meeting/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=46&abstractID=20276

Using the 2007 numbers from the slides, not the abstract...

3yr survival = 17.9%
Patients younger than 69 did better
Patients with PSA higher than 114 did better (pts. PSA <115 were not stat sig for survival)
Patients without pain did better
Patients with a worse performance status did better
Patients with lower (worse) FACT-P scores did better

Anyone who gets the logic of that data set, let me know...

If you go through the presentation (scroll down the page a little and click on the "slides" icon), you'll see all of these analyses.

Those with eagle eyes and lots of time on their hands could note the difference between the HRs in the 2003/4, 2006, and 2007 updates. Even the 3yr survival numbers are different. This is probably worth remembering in case anyone says that aging the database makes little difference in the HR. The 2006 and 2007 numbers were almost certainly run less than 6 months apart since the presentation was made 2/2007 and the abstract deadline was (I think) 10/2006 that year). Here, we have...

2003 original HR = 0.76 (1.32)
2006 updated HR = 0.88 (1.14)
2007 updated HR = 0.79 (1.27)

My favorite slide in the presentation was the last one, to which there was a big chuckle and lots of nodding heads (though they cut the audio off on the ASCO site before that)...