Thurly,
I think you have a point to which I would add the following:
Let's put aside the cc and up or down a penny for a moment and review the bidding in 2nd line NSCLC.
Thanks to FTM excellent research review we know that doxy showed a 5.5% orr in the study that led to doxy being the SOC for 2nd line NSCLC. In the PPHM study of doxy + bavi it is reasonable to assume give or take a percentage point they should get at least that percentage for just the doxy.
Now in front line NSCLC we see Bavi having excellent effect as well as in MBC. Since we know chemo acts in an anti-mitotic MOA which is completely different from Bavi MOA (which is immuno upregulation and anti-angiogenesis), IMO we might imply that failure in chemo (leading to a 2nd line patient) would not in any way much bias Bavi MOA on that same patient.
If Bavi has "half" the effect in 2nd line NSCLC that it did in Front Line then it would triple to quadruple the 5.5% orr from the doxy SOC study. If Bavi has "one fourth" the effect it had in front line in 2nd line NSCLC then it will increase the ORR vs the SOC study by roughly 150%.
Of course, if Bavi had the same effect in 2nd line NSCLC (add on effect) that it did in 1st line then PPHM could exceed the SOC by 500-600%. Of course, again, we don't even want to think about that.
Garnick of course can get to the math much faster than I can. Put that together with his FDA conversational "listening" and with the fact that their has been no improvement in the SOC in this deadly unmet need for over a decade and QED Garnick decides to pursue 2nd line NSCLC as his lead point of attack.
All IMO of course but the math is the math.
Be of good cheer. We have a smart guy at PPHM.
RRdog
