Replies to post #142449 on Biotech Values

[biomaven0]

If you take CLDX's name out and put a mid/big cap pharmas

But the difference is the size of the trial would have been at least double this one, and so the numbers would give a lot more confidence.

It is important to understand the triple-neg patients basically respond to nothing after their first treatment. So seeing some responses in this very heavily treated population is definitely encouraging. That said, it's not like this is a huge breakthrough - this is not a miracle drug.

Peter

[iwfal]

CLDX -

If you take CLDX's name out and put a mid/big cap pharmas, everyone would be claiming blockbuster

I respectfully disagree. I agree it is good data for randomized ORR data. But that modifier (ORR data) is important - ORR often doesn't translate well up the clinical benefit ladder to PFS and then OS. (See, for instance, the roughly equivalent ORR data for ARRY's drug mapped to only an OS HR of 0.80 (preliminary data - but if had kept anywhere near the benefit seen in the ORR it would have been a LOT better)).

Also note that the treatment population, if everything goes well, is perhaps 15% of the BC market (assuming that trial entry criteria captured 50% (WAG) of the BC population - but only about 1/3 of that group were subgroups that showed efficacy.). So it isn't a huge market.


That said, I don't see the data as a disappointment either. So a drop in stock price is surprising.