I’m aware of that. You misread my post. I’m saying it’s not what people think it is. I believe from my review of others people’s research, and I’ve been looking at it a looong time, lomustine was found to be inadequate and dangerous. It never had a sufficient control study to use it for rGBM, I even wrote the FDA a while back to ask if they’d consider a black box warning on patients under 50 when used with avastin, it also can actually precipitate hyper progression after it temporarily provides a pseudo response. It never proved increased survival for rGBM in an honest control trial, only dubious pfs increase because of that pseudo response. Most Neuro-oncologists eventually learned some or all of these things, but it used to be prescribed to give that short little miracle mirage due to temporarily decreasing radiological findings.
What I’m saying is there is a historical pattern of bad drugs first moving to a smaller pharma, then losing Drug of choice status as it recently did with EANO concurrent with the GBM definitional change, then the company reads writing on wall, knows it will lose coverage, jacks up price and fades away hoping to avoid the ambulance chasers on its way out.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
