It is a fact that the management is incompetent. Its failures speak for itself.
The major problem is Pucci: no viable drug development plan, no getting assistance from leading biotech industry experts & consultants, and kissing a ss to the #$%$ partners.
The only question: can they learn anything good from their own mistakes and blunders?
By the ASCO time, most of Tiva results will be known. By then, either the results are good and ARQL will be take over or it will be a lost proposition.
obviously the evidence is against us at this point. The HCC trial hasn't started and getting any 'good' results from marquee are very slim at this point imop. Only other hope is the kras m trial but we're long way from anything of interest from that. Not sure if you were here back in time of Stephen Hill...he just recently became ceo of trgt...another bio with a lousy history.
- Marquee trial was a partial failure. PFS, as stated, was excellent. Therefore, some NSCLC pts subgroup greatly benefited from taking Tiva. It is well known that only c-MET+ benefit from Tiva. Tiva is detrimental to c-Met - pts. So, let us wait and see.
- Ph2 in 2nd-line mCRC was not a clinical failure.
-- PFS was increased by 1 month. It is not that bad.
-- ORR was excellent. It is almost as good as best 1st-line treatments can offer.
-- At the same time, the Tiva-arm did not reach median OS yet. OS is the oncology gold standard. The present best chemo+Avastin can only offer OS=13.5 months. I think, Tiva-arm results will exceed 13,5 months
-- Finally, these are results for a general KRASw pts population before c-MET status analysis
- Few more observations
-- Marquee and the Asian NSCLC trials have not been terminated. They are still active and going.
-- KRASm Ph2 in NSCLC open-label trial is also going.
Therefore, the reseachers are seeing somethig good, otherwise, these trials would be stopped: why continue and waste money?
In the next 3-5 months, we will have the answers about both Tiva and ARQL future.