Biotech Values

[rfj1862]

INGN

>They could have dug up more data, one of their advisors could have brought these data to the company's attention, or they could just be trying to make themselves look good.<

I vote for your third option. New data or not, there’s no way that the historical RR on second-line chemotherapy changed from 20-30% last June to 5-25% now on an apples-to-apples basis. (If anything, one would expect the RR to go up over time, not down.)

Okay, maybe I'm just misreading--I admit I haven't been following the INGN story, but when they say "historical response rate" I assume the data come from the literature, not from any of their trials. So option 1 (digging up new data) or option 2 (data brought to their attention) are more likely.