% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

ArQule Inc. Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • muckfiddler muckfiddler Oct 6, 2012 4:59 PM Flag

    Analysts weigh in on ARQL

    CRC results ABSOLUTELY critical. Going in ph3 HCC doesn't really matter...we know that's going to happen but we're faced then with 2 or 3 year CRC is only thing that can help now...and I've no idea what our chances are. 9 patients in ph 1 doesn't really provide any visibility. As for pipeline, braf and 621 (or whatever it is), my guess is they're on the shelf collecting dust. I'm disappointed with the situation but those last secondary buyers...they've got to be " really disappointed"...they got zyngad!

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • muck,
      Take my word MARQUEE results for c-MET+ 2nd-line patients will be very good. Why?
      - Pucci mentioned that PFS was very good but mOS was very poor
      - Pucci also said that 200+ patients were still alive and getting Tiva. Remember that the previous Tiva Ph2 in NSCLC and historical NSCLC indicate that these 2nd-line NSCLC patients have PFS `2 months and OS~7 months. This means that 40% of MARQUEE patients who got Tiva are alive & well and their disease did not progress after more than 8+ months after getting the Tiva treatment. Again, most of these patients supposed to be dead by now but they are still alive without disease progression. So, these patients will be alive for ~12 months. This is what the best NSCLC drugs can do for the 1st-line patients.

      Tiva works in NSCLC for c-MET+ patients. MARQUEE trial was poorly designed targeting the wrong patient population. However, there are plenty of c-MET+ patients to show and to prove the Tiva efficacy in this NSCLC subgroup.

      • 3 Replies to pharmainvestor11
      • Pharma..thank you for the post and continued insight. I have been a long time investor in ARQL and disappointed by the news obviously, but I tend to agree with your analysis as far as the drug needing to be targeted at c-MET+ population. The failure of the MARQUEE trial is not inconsistent with this requirement and therefore the investment continues to make sense to me. Even though that means we are working with a smaller population and therefore a smaller market potential, I would think that success in 1 indication for a c-Met expressed population would get us back to the $6-10 range. If you believe that, this would be a perfect opportunity to lower the cost basis. I'm not one to throw good money after bad, but someone was thinking the same the other day when we were up 20% off the bottom.

      • major strategic error. in fairness, that's with benefit of hindsight. Now metmab has inside track for nsclc and we go from being maybe 18 months ahead to basically being sidelined for this indication or best case 18 months behind. Now we just have to wait with fingers crossed for CRC.

      • my point is, again with benefit of hindsight, would have been better to focus on cmet+ rather than broader population...I recognize pointless to speculate but no denying now marquee was poorly designed. Roche is focusing on cmet high pop becauase basically they had no choice...neg- effect on broader population ...obviously no guarantee they will succeed either with cmet+. mention of amgen interesting...they're now testing a cmet drug in gastric.

    • muckfiddler,

      agree mCRC data are very important. At the same time, MARQUEE data are critical to see what went wrong and whether the management is capable of leading.

      If data is good and management is bad then the company must be sold. Amylin is a good example.

      Therefore, let us and medical community see the MARQUEE and mCRC data. If the data are promising a company like AMGN can take from there. They will be more than willing to buy out ARQL Jap partners.

1.70+0.05(+3.03%)May 27 4:00 PMEDT