Replies to post #74374 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

THLD – Thanks for the presentation link—I’ll check it out.

I don't agree that there are amazing tumor shrinkages all the time [in small open-label cancer trials].

Within the archives of this message board, there are probably more than a dozen instances of “amazing” tumor shrinkages by drugs that ended up doing nothing in randomized controlled trials. Trust me, it’s quite common.

As far as I know, TH-302 is the only HAP compound that has ever yielded RECIST criteria responses.

You sound like the car ads that trumpet a model’s being named “best in its class” by J.D. Power & Associates when there are few, if any, other cars in the given class :- )

Comparing [TH-302] to OXGN's drug [Zybrestat], which hasn't shown to work alone or with anything, seems like a fallacious argument.

If I recall correctly, Zybrestat showed tumor responses by RECIST criteria in some of its early-stage open-label trials, so I’m not sure why you consider the comparison fallacious.

HAP's are totally different [from VDA’s].

What makes them totally different? Please elaborate.

[DewDiligence]

THLD – I have a problem with slide #9 from the BIO-CEO webcast,
which purports to illustrate a strong relationship between the
oxygen level of a patient’s tumor and survival:



What’s the problem? First, these three studies were presumably cherry-picked from among hundreds of relevant cancer studies that have been published in peer-reviewed journals during the past decade. In how many of these studies was hypoxia shown to have no meaningful correlation with survival?

Second, the oxygen threshold to define hypoxia in these three charts is not constant but rather varies from 10mm Hg to 19mm Hg — in other words, the definition of hypoxia used in this slide is post hoc.

All told, I consider the above slide—an important one in the company’s TH-302 story—to be at best silly and at worst disingenuous. Caveat emptor!