Replies to post #91966 on Ayala Pharmaceuticals Inc (ADXS)

[Bourbon_on_my_cornflakes]

if you discount the best ever GOG results in cervical cancer, the 8 of 9 patients who were recurrence free 42 months for anal cancer (Brown study) and the more than doubling OS of dogs with osteosarcoma

yet the great mystery is this:

If the results were so frickin good, where's the big cash deals?

Not one after YEARS!!! and AMGN bails!!! and not one accelerated approval!!!

Either the results are overhyped, or mgt are such clowns that no one wants to get into bed with them.

Nothing about ADXS makes any frickin sense!

[fbg0316]

Best ever compared to Avastin, which is dated treatment compared to newer generation such as PD1. The 8 of 9 from anal is for early stage - SOC surgery is over 80% effective so ADXS did not add much. Besides, as I recall the ADXS for late stage anal was not very impressive. I agree, the dog cancer data was excellent, but that's a limited market because Dan gave it away to Aratana, and the pediatric bone cancer market is small.

[raja48185]

Well, I guess if you discount the best ever GOG results in cervical cancer, the 8 of 9 patients who were recurrence free 42 months for anal cancer (Brown study) and the more than doubling OS of dogs with osteosarcoma, I can see your point.

You have a valid point. However consider a couple of things. In the world of pharma when it comes to trial data/results the market looks at sample size and revenue potential (if approved). That is why it is important to pick your battles. Trying to cure every cancer while living on borrowed money is dangerous to the health of the company. Add to it the misery of inefficient management that stumbled along the way.

While there is a need to cure all cancers and making money should not be the only motive, BP and Wallstreet do not follow that noble ideology. If there is enough money to be made they will venture into any area of medicine.

Take the case of anal cancer - to keep it simple, what if the sample size were 100 instead of 9 and then 90 patients(approx.90%)were recurrence free 42 months? Also consider how many cases of anal cancer are reported annually in the US,Europe or globally that can generate enough revenue to excite BP? Can anyone living in countries beyond NA and Europe afford the cost of treatment considering the fact that the total number of cases to begin with is relatively small to even discuss cost efficiencies?

If anal cancer was to be among the top 3 cancers in US and ADXS had run a trial with about 100 patients with results similar to that being discussed above, then BP would have bought them out when the results came out. Fact is ADXS did not pick the right assignment to begin with and so they did not get a worthy grade(too small sample, excellent results = meaningless; wrong cancer type to target from revenue point of view = useless in BP/Wallstreet world)

ADXS management would have done better if they had invested their resources,(time, money - limited resource, but they had enough to get at least one drug to the market and effort)in getting a cure for cervical cancer. By this time they would have had a FDA approved drug with decent revenue to boast. They could have then focused on Anal, Nail and even imaginary cancer. Now thanks to their misadventures, they are neither here no there, confused, starting/stopping trials, saying one thing and doing and running out every other Qtr. They had the money, they blew it for nothing.