Replies to post #217663 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

...I'm *very* pessimistic in this indication—[RCC]—for epacadostat.

Can you quantify what you mean by that?

[DewDiligence]

The NKTR-214+Opdivo IST in sarcoma has already had at least one, and possibly two, “durable” responses. This is an indication where PD-1 monotherapy didn't work, even for patients with high PD-L1 expression.

[mcbio]

NKTR has 22 evaluable RCC patients with 0 or 1 prior line of therapy and accrued 11 responses (1 CR) in 22 patients, or 50%.

INCY had 19 evaluable patients with 0 or 1 prior line of therapy* and accrued 9 responses (1 CR) for 47%. I don't have exact breakdown of how many were 0 and how many were 1 prior therapy, but the enrollment ratio was 3:4. FWIW, I'm *very* pessimistic in this indication for epacadostat.

Isn't it also very important to detail the number of patients that were PD-L1 negative? It looks to me like 10 of the RCC patients in NKTR trial were PD-L1 negative. See slide 13 of: http://ir.nektar.com/static-files/dd4fbd52-b125-4c73-8dd4-d07ce4343b05 . What was that figure for the INCY trial?

[ghmm]

NKTR:

For what its worth if one believes in actions speak louder than words one of the two planned early (mid '18) Phase 3 initiations is RCC the other being Melanoma.

Oncology is certainly an area I don't know well. In my NKTR-214 position, I've thought Melanoma and Sarcoma where two of the indications I felt had a higher chance of success. I am sure Howard Robin highlighted what was better data to share and there are/will be some indications where 214 doesn't do as well. Maybe the stock will have some disappointment when that happens? On the plus side though Nektar may soon have some other molecules that could generate some additional buzz which may give the illusion (false or real?) of them being more than a one-trick pony.