Replies to post #153774 on Biotech Values

[mcbio]

Sorry if not clear. Pfs is surrogate endpoint because in settings where it is believed that death is a direct consequence of tumor progression. In the age where there was limited options, even a weak pfs can translate into an Os benefit.
As the number of treatment options increases the Pfs- OS correlation relationship breaks down, especially in front line therapy where os is so long that between pd and death additional anti ca rx can be given, assessment of Pfs still is a treatment comparison, however the OS analysis becomes comparison of the sequences of treatment plus subsequent treatments. All I am saying is that in this subset of patients who has almost exhausted treatment options after 5to 6 chemos already.

Is your ultimate point that the market should have priced in positive OS results from the prior positive PFS results and that we shouldn't expect a big pop on Monday? If so, to be clear, I'm not assuming a big positive jump as I know enough not to assume anything when it comes to hopes for a positive market reaction. But I think, at a minimum, this has to increase the chances of CLDX finding a partner down the road.

Well regarding imbalance there are lots more prognostic factors than just prior nmber of treatment.

That's a fair point but that's also why I bolded the two separate parts of that quote. I.e., it's not just the number of treatments received language but it's also the fact that the state of the disease itself seems balanced in both arms give the language that "nearly all patients had Stage IV, or metastatic, disease."

Now, is it possible that the small segment of presumably healthier patients (i.e., the group outside of the "nearly all" reference) were solely in the high G/TNB 011 arm and also that patients in that arm also received fewer prior numbers of treatment? Sure, that's possible. But, taking the totality of the language, I find that unlikely.