Replies to post #128801 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Protector]

investingdog, you missed something here:

One would expect that any chemo lung cancer treatment should work better as a first line treatment for the same reason - healthier patients.

First line SOC works better then second line SOC because first line SOC proved that. What you say would only be true of second line SOC would NEVER have competed in the first line arena. If it did it got equally healthy patients as the current first line SOC and hence must have lost the battle.

So yes, in this case 1st ln SOC works better then 2nd ln SOC.

15-25% improvement is good for me. it is a matter of appreciation. We are talking about one of the most deathliest cancers. 50% would be VERY good and all above super!

I put my expectation on good (as in sufficient for PIII design approval combined with safety profile) and hope for very good and will drink another bottle of champagne standing on my head if they are super.

So, if the results are good I'll be here to sheer you'all up because I will not be disappointed while many of you with to high expectation may be. The other way around someone of you may have to help me back on my feed with all that champagne :)

[keep_trying]

Investingdog, You are calling out some good points, I think.

Some tech posters have noted how patients in trials that are at a lower ECOG? rating can be expected to have more time during which the immune system can be activated in the presence of Bavi treatment, explaining why there is a separation tail between the control arm and Bavi arm in the KM plot. I also observe some tech posters suggesting that the higher level of exposed PS from necrosis associated with a higher ECOG rating gives opportunity for a more pronounced response to the presence of Bavi in treatment, perhaps allowing for a more pronounced Bavi difference when treating patients in a Stage 2 trial setting. I observe that this dynamic is suggesting a balance exists between time to progression and degree of progression. However, such a balance doesn't mean that receiving Bavi as part of treatment isn't best for patients in either trial setting. Rather, good 1st line results reporting over the next week would affirm Bavi benefits are experienced when treatment starts at any degree of progression.

Perhaps, subgroup analysis will shed light on whether an optimal treatment point exists, but the important take away for PPHM investors is a demonstration that Bavi being part of care outperforms the standard of care without Bavi. I will be watching if the PPHM release of that first line trial MOS gives such reinforcement.

Best wishes and IMO.
KT

[geocappy1]

Back to your 15/25% MOS improvement - In 2nd line Bavi had 100% improvement that was reduced to 60% because of the Fargo incident. Well, if Bavi only works equally well in 1st line we should get at least 60 to 100%, and if your argument about Bavi working better for healthier patients holds any water we should see 100% plus. Yet, after presenting your case fairly well you settle for a measly 15/25% MOS improvement. Please explain.

This is a false argument because it assumes that chemo works the same in 1st line as it does in 2nd line. It is quite possible that the chemo agent is much more effective in 1st line which would make it more difficult for bavi to increase results in 1st line the same as it did in 2nd line.