Recent

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

ONYX Pharmaceuticals, AŞ Message Board

  • amwdman amwdman Nov 15, 2007 11:56 PM Flag

    Nexavar marginal results

    I wonder how much Cramer knows about liver cancer. I happen to know quite a lot. Those pumping Nexavar probably have never heard of or don't want you to know about the newer really effective treatments for liver cancer the last few years. Dr Choti, at John Hopkins, is one of the country's best authorities on liver cancer. Do a search on some of his articles about the subject. Chemoembolization (with doxorubicin, cisplatin, and mitmycin) and Y-90 microspheres usually just require an overnight stay at the hospital and have results that will want to make you want to sell this stock. Radiofrequency ablation, for example, has shown a 90% success rate in destroying liver tumors of up to 3 centimeters! I repeat a 90% success rate in 3 centimeter tumors and still useful on tumors up to 5 centimeters! So, the question is not whether the FDA will approve this, but why any doctor would bother with such a marginal treatment, when really good treatments exist. Good treatments that can both actually significantly shrink the tumors and drastically lower tumor marker levels. I saw a tumor marker level go from 400 to 50 (near normal) after just 2 chemoembolization treatments! Sometimes these treatments can shrink the tumor enough that a resection (the best option for long term survival) becomes an option that did not exist before treatment.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • " The great majority of patients who presently get chemoembolization will still die of liver cancer."

      Yes...they will most likely die of liver cancer....chemoembolization is not a cure. Maybe chemoembolization will now include Nexavar!!! Good luck longs and shorts.

    • >>Hmmmmm....so it looks like the good doctor pumping Nexavar sure believes in chemoembolization.<<

      1. Chemoembolization is not suitable for most liver cancer patients.
      2. In those for which it is suitable, the survival advantage due to chemoembolization is no more impressive than with Nexavar taken by worse-off patients.
      >>Because the trial was stopped early, a proper analysis comparing the survival benefits of chemoembolization to arterial embolization could not be performed. However, the researchers estimated that 82 percent of patients who received chemoembolization would survive for one year and 63 percent for two years, compared with 75 percent and 50 percent, respectively, of patients who received embolization. They estimated that 63 percent of patients receiving conservative treatment would survive for one year and 27 percent for two years.<<
      http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/results/chemoembolization0602
      3. The great majority of patients who presently get chemoembolization will still die of liver cancer. In the future most will take Nexavar before, after or in combination with chemoembolization.

      micro

    • "Chemoembolization, RFA and ethanol ablation are useful. Howver, they are useful only in the population where there is a single small tumor or a very few small localized tumors"

      You are the one misrepresenting the facts....think about it. You just actually do 2 chemoembolizations to do 2 large tumors. Duhhh! My father had 2 large tumors, one 5 centimeters and one 7 centimeters. They did chemoembolization on the 5 centimeter tumor first. Then they did chemoembolization on the 7 centimeter tumor six weeks later. Remember, the good Dr Llovet calls it the "standard of care" for a reason. He just conveniently fails to mention his own past studies on chemoembolization when he is pumping Nexavar to the Associated Press....how much does he get in "consulting fees" from ONXX??????

    • aren't most cancer treatments of today mostly marginal though? so, besides the Cramer pump, how different is this drug??

    • That was then Past History.
      Nexavar is now the future.

    • What you also fail to grasp is that the standard of care statement that was mentioned inthe CV is prior to Nexavar usage and now approval.

    • amwdman,

      You do love to misrepresent information. Chemoembolization, RFA and ethanol ablation are useful. Howver, they are useful only in the population where there is a single small tumor or a very few small localized tumors. MOreover,these techniques are only available in areas of the world where highly trained physicians are available.

      I am glad when someone makes money, even a short like you. However, you disgrace yourself by spouting statements that are either wild exagerations or outright lies, such as Nexavar is only a marginal advance.

    • I know nothing about kidney cancer...I know nothing about it. So, I believe you, if you say it works for kidney cancer. With liver cancer, I have a good background from first hand experience and talking to experts directly.

      As you recall, I said that the best time to short heavily was on the announcement, then it would fall like a stone (buy rumor; sell fact, you heard it from me)...my prediction came true and I was able to do very well playing it today. I am a very short-term trader. I took my very quick money and am on to my next short-term trade. Thanks longs...but you made a killing if you bought it at $10, so you are the big winners.

      I will leave everyone with this thought....Dr Josep Llovet (who has been quoted raving about Nexavar and is, I believe, a consultant to ONXX) was involved in research 5 years ago on chemoembolization...the results showed significant increases in long-term survival. You might want to look at his own link on the Mount Sinai website. I posted it below..."Chemoembolization improves survival of patients with advanced HCC"....at the end of the paragraph it states "This treatement is now considered the standard of care"....Hmmmmm....so it looks like the good doctor pumping Nexavar sure believes in chemoembolization. Good luck to everyone (both long and short).

      http://www.mssm.edu/faculty/llovej01/cv.pdf

    • >>As opposed to Nexavar, where none of the patients experience a reduction in tumor size.<<

      You continue to display your complete ignorance of this drug. MOST Nexavar patients have displayed some reduction in tumor size. In some cases it is greater than 25%.

      >>202 RCC patients received 12 weeks of open label Necavar therapy; following radiological assessment of tumor state, patients experiencing >25% reduction in tumor size continued open label treatment (n=79) ...<<
      http://www.centerwatch.com/patient/drugs/dru887.html

      In any case, reduction in tumor size is irrelevant. Increasing survival time is what is important to patients.

      >>Data presented today at the 43rd annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has shown that Nexavar (sorafenib) tablets significantly extended overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), or primary liver cancer versus those taking placebo by 44% (HR=0.69; p-value=0.0006).<<
      http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/73056.php

      micro

    • >>$1 billion in revenues in 2008!!! (maybe from more stock sales) $6 EPS in 2008!!! You boiler room guys got to keep it more realistic. Nobody is that stupid to believe that.<<

      Wait and see. Live and learn.

      micro

    • View More Messages