Replies to post #150868 on Biotech Values

[poorgradstudent]

My intent is not to question whether enzalutamide is active, or better than abi or cabo, etc. It is to quantify the effect of later availability of cabo & abi to the HR and then extend that info to the SYNERGY trial as, similar to the AFFIRM trial, abi & enzalutamide got approved during the SYNERGY trial. If OGX-011 has even a minor OS advantage, would these approvals extend the HR of the SYNERGY trial in favor of OGX-011?

Off-hand I would think that the effect of the subsequent therapy would have to be big, wouldn't it? I say this because you likely have only a subset of those progressing subsequently moving onto the therapies that you're listing. If both arms move to subsequent therapies in same numbers, I would think it would do more to dilute the post-treatment effect than to accentuate it.

[biomaven0]

>>If enzalutamide extended the OS even a little bit, more patients in the enzalutamide arm were able to use cabazitaxel & abiraterone acetate

However, abiraterone after Xtandi failure is unlikely to do much at all. Abiraterone after placebo failure is likely to be very significant. That difference surely outweighs any small time advantage.

Peter