Replies to post #273044 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[entdoc]

BioBS. nice post. VERY interesting.

[Protector]

BioBS2012, the biomarker that PPHM PR'ed about is one that is scanned for in the blood. There is however a small 'appearance' latency that is probably due to Bavituximab's OWN latency. Let's say it needs to come up to speed.

As for the IO comparison, the Bavi+Doce did do better then Nivolumab data versus Docetaxel and on a LARGER footprint, in my opinion, we will see a same tail separation type (emphasising the bavituximab latency that we saw in previous clinical trials with chemo).

Pls note that all my info is second hand and that there may be errors in it. However I am quite confident myself about the info related to Sunrise (incl. biomarkers).

[sunstar]

"Also of interest is the late-breaking abstract for Phase III data from Roche/Genetech's Atezolizumab versus docetaxel, which is being presented at ESMO a day earlier. For reference, here are the Phase II #'s
Overall survival in the intention-to-treat population was 12·6 months (95% CI 9·7–16·4) for atezolizumab versus 9·7 months (8·6–12·0) for docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·53–0·99]; p=0·04)."
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(16)00587-0.pdf

Bio, thanks for the NEJM and Lancet links. I note the ECOG 0 or 1, yielding 12.6 months OS, was a healthier body of patients compared to the SUNRISE trial. The treatment Response Rate was 19%.

"Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1,"

"The response rate was 19% with nivolumab versus 12% with docetaxel (P=0.02). Although progression-free survival did not favor nivolumab over docetaxel (median, 2.3 months and 4.2 months, respectively)"
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1507643#t=abstract


IMO

sunstar