I have read this part of the PR no less than 200 times. As much as I want to believe this biomarker refers to the entire population that was treated with Bave, I don't believe it does.
IMO the PR is obscure and open ended. It could easily reference that the subset identified by the biomarker draws a clear correlation between improved results with Bavi vs Doce alone. I know that CP has stated numerous times that if it does not refer to the entire Bavi dosed population then the PR is misleading. I understand where CP is coming from, but as is typical for PPHM I think they have left themselves a defensible out in regard to the wording of the PR.
I hope CP is correct. However, I am guessing the biomarker identifies a subset of the entire trial population that benefited from Bavi. Hopefully, it is a large enough % to make a material difference. As someone earlier referenced, we are talking about an overall $1 billion market for Second Line NSLC . If you start parsing that into segments that are too small, commercial success is limited and likely not economically viable.
IMO, Bavi succeeds (and we all are happy) if it is shown to be efficacious across multiple cancers. Thankfully, we have reason to believe that is the case in NSLC, Breast and Melanoma. The BEST cancer researchers in the world are spending time with Bavi - and that's a good thing.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
