Replies to post #142665 on Biotech Values

[pcrutch]

I imagine its because the number of patients with greater than 50% expression levels was quite small or there was none in the control arm to compare against. Hard to know at this point. Data needs time to mature.

I will try and give management a call about this.

[jq1234]

Look at the N for high GPNMB (>=25%) IC group, only 8 subjects, 3 subjects in triple negative and high GPNMB IC group, so most likely N would be much less than 4 for ultra high GPNMB (>=50%) IC group, probably 0 for triple negative and ultra high GPNMB, the sample is just too small to release as another separate group. People already complain high GPNMB sample size was too small.

[bladerunner1717]

re: CLDX

I don't know if this explanation makes much sense, but I was thinking that since CLDX screwed up on the ASCO application (and could not present there) and given that the full data set won't be available for a while, it might make more sense to release the full data set at a major conference, i.e., the San Antonio Breast Cancer Conference in December.

I've been going over the PR again and I noticed that the CEO stated that "patients with >25% GPNMB expression levels and patients with triple negative disease account for more than 35% of the total breast cancer population..." I believe that number is considerably higher than someone--possibly Peter or jq--had said in a post directed to me some time ago. No one here has yet commented on that statistic. If the number is valid--and I have no reason to doubt that it isn't--then CDX-011 is addressing a much larger patient population than most here had assumed.


Bladerunner