Replies to post #153616 on Biotech Values

[genisi]

Re: Phase-2 data for PFE’s PD-991

Thus, it’s reasonable to infer that the HR for PFS in part 2 of the study was even better than the superb blended HR of 0.37 (95% CI: [0.21-0.63]).

True under the assumption that they have identified predictive biomarkers. Not clear that cyclin D1 amplification and/or p16 loss actually add as selection markers on top of ER+/HER2–. Here are part 1 results:

PFS was significantly greater in the L + P arm vs. L (HR = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.86; p = 0.015).

http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/suppl_2/ii43.abstract

[iwfal]

Re: Phase-2 data for PFE’s PD-991

Thus, it’s reasonable to infer that the HR for PFS in part 2 of the study was even better than the superb blended HR of 0.37 (95% CI: [0.21-0.63]).

Add to this that the PFS data was stronger than the ORR data - which substantially increases the odds that the OS data will be even stronger than the PFS data. May be even a more spectacular breakthrough than Criz or Xalkori.