Biotech Values

[DonShimoda]

I hope you don't mind if i chime-in. With tivantinib's recent failure, MetMab certainly has the lead to market in Met+ NSCLC, however, I do think it's worth noting that MetMab's P2 results were not statsig for either PFS or OS. Clearly there are different mechanisms of action between tivantinib and MetMab. For example, ARQL enrolled non-squamous nsclc hoping it would capture a high percentage of MET+ pts however in the MetMab trial the hazard ratio for PFS in this same patient population was only .98 The same is true for the mutant KRAS cohort where MetMab basically showed no improvement over placebo (HR=1.04) while Tivantinib had an HR=0.18. http://cancergrace.org/lung/files/2010/08/schiller-arq-197efficacy-by-subgroups.jpg

If MetMab's P3 demonstrates a meaningful OS, I seriously doubt whether ARQL or its partners would pursue the indication further, however, given that MetMabs P2 results were inconclusive, I'm not ready to write the NSCLC indication off entirely especially if the KRAS mutant trial results expected 1H2013 turn out to be particularly compelling.