ARQ 197 in combination with erlotinib extends PFS from 9.7 weeks to 16.1 weeks (66% improvement)
And for non-squamous cell histology (they wouldn't be the first drug to focus on this histology) PFS was extended from 9.7 weeks to 18.9 weeks (94% improvement)
For those not familiar with NSCLC trials this is a dramatic improvement in a disease that has seen many many drugs fail. By comparison if you look at the ECOG trial that led to Avastin approval in combination with carbo/paclitaxel PFS was improved from 4.5months to 6.2months (a 38% improvement). The absolute numbers for this trial were higher because these patients weren't 2/3rd line.
Good to see a familiar name can't recall where but I'm sure we've overlapped on some of these boards before.
I actually like the KERX drug while the CRC trial was smaller (but more than 24 pts) it nearly tripled PFS. That magnitude improvement counts for something. I also am convinced about the target PI3K/AKT for several reasons not worth going in to here.
I think your point however about the patient size is an important one. I once heard a presentation at AACR-NCI-EORTC meeting where the presenter claimed he never saw a phase 2 trial that failed (exageration of course). Most ph2 trials are single arm and very few of them are powered to demonstrate anything. One recent example where a stock demonstrated great ph2 results but awful ph3 results was NVLT in lung cancer. Point is that how the ph2 study was conducted means a lot, and it is this very reason that we likely see a bump at the ASCO meeting, since the ins and outs of the ph2 study data won't be scrutinized until that meeting.