Partnership or licensing news on the HDC Platform is on deck. If I was pharma I would be pressing this forward as fast as I could. The preclinical results indicate it could be game changing for cancer treatment all by itself. Completely changing how much chemo you need to give at any time and the maximum amount you can give over a lifetime. And it works.
I don't oppose your enthusiasm, and I wish for wonder from Synta. I have seen much suffering on cancer from family and friends. I don't mind losing some money on hope. However, business success need good implementation on good concept. Right now, the company is fighting against the wind. With too much bashing and skepticism from market, the company need one big hit to turn around the wind and win the favor from potential partners. They need tune their focus to make sure either GALAXY or ENCHANT success before they expand too fast on HDC platform. We will see if some kind drama like Imclone will happen on Synta.
Maybe we small shareholders just wish for a wonder drug and CEO dreams for a wonder company. I am happy if he can become Steve Jobs type CEO.
Always good to keep things moving on multiple fronts. Prevents big news gaps. Enchant will be the big win this year and Galaxy will have a strong interim update next year. But we need short term revenue ideally. I think that was the concept behind the platform and they fully intend to begin monitizing. And eventually all those smaller studies the Company is coordinating will begin to produce news worthy results.
don't forget it is just a published patent application. There is nothing issued yet. I think it would be too early for big pharma to jump on this. Why are you so excited about this or do I miss something?
For one thing remember how excited everyone was about CLSN. If it had worked to deliver chemo preferentially to tumors it was going to be the next big thing. This actually does what CLSN promised. The chemo will be molecularly linked forming an inactive substrate that will only be released after a certain amount of time in the body. Our linked chemo would accumulate 90 percent preferentially in tumor cells where it would be released.
Unfortunately for CLSN the chemo was tremendously free floating and did not for any reason preferentially distribute to the cancer tissue. CLSN's gimic was that heat would open the vessels of the tumor preferentially leading to greater influx of chemo into the tumor and the heat would release the chemo from the liposome shell. Problem was they couldn't actually increase the dose of chemo administered and had no evidence that concentration of chemo inside the tumor was any higher than outside.
Add to that a difficult to treat cancer with distant metasteses and you have a serious problem in a Ph3 trial.
The patent itself is not the issue. I mean who is going to be challenging their patents linking chemo to their drug. It seems rather proprietary.
"The present invention provides pharmacological compounds including an effector moiety conjugated to a binding moiety that directs the effector moiety to a biological target of interest. Likewise, the present invention provides compositions, kits, and methods (e.g., therapeutic, diagnostic, and imaging) including the compounds. The compounds can be described as a protein interacting binding moiety-drug conjugate (SDC-TRAP) compounds, which include a protein interacting binding moiety and an effector moiety. For example, in certain embodiments directed to treating cancer, the SDC-TRAP can include an Hsp90 inhibitor conjugated to a cytotoxic agent as the effector moiety."