Growing Pressure on Oncolytics to Demonstrate Value
Posted at valuebasedcancerdotcom, October '13 - good breakdown on changing treatment landscape in oncology, mainly from the payor's perspective....
"Targeted Therapies Dominate
Although global growth in oncology has slowed, there are signs of a rebound as a result of emerging treatments for neglected cancers. Several classes are predicted to demonstrate the most growth by 2016, with specialty drugs far outpacing traditional retail-dominated areas and with oncology by far the biggest piece of this pie.
The dominance of targeted therapies in the marketplace will shape the future, Mr Long predicted. In 2002, targeted therapies accounted for just 2% of the market, but this rose to 15% by 2007, and skyrocketed to 33% in 2012. More than 200 targeted agents are in the pipeline just for non–small-cell lung cancer and breast cancer (Figure)"
Nice article. BTW, NAVB is taking heavy flak, but I think the underlying story hasn't changed. I would write off NAV4694 to be conservative since it's not sufficiently different from Amyvid and Vizamyl and there may not be a market for such products yet; there could be potential for early detection of dementia but GE has a similar trial for VIzamyl as well which is chemically very similar to NAV4694. What I'm looking for is acceptance of Lymphoseek in its accepted indications and a potentially much expanded Lymphoseek label. Also, progress is being made with RIGScan, initially rejected in '99 but whose long term data showed better patient survival for those whose RIGScan labelled tumors were removed.
NAVB has recently become my largest contrarian hold. I agreed the Lymphoseek story appears intact, and figure a future acquisition is the impetus for the registered Crede offering. The options they hold at $3.84 make no business sense unless they can relinquish those to a suitor.