FWIW - Short interest surged in the 2 mos after the Rintega announcement to 25.5m, as one would expect.
But, since late May it has dropped 5m (as of 8/31).
I don't know whether any children were included in the Rindo studies but saw this today. The need for Rintega has never been greater.
A new government study reveals brain cancer has now surpassed leukemia as the deadliest cancer for children and teens in the United States, according to the National Center for Health and Statistics, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Brain cancer accounts for 30% of pediatric cancer deaths in children and teens ages 1 to 19.
Thx Btc and Whip for the added input. I hadn't considered the possible positive ruboff from the melanoma study for other cancer studies especially the Metric study. I remember maybe 2 yrs ago, the discussion was Rintega, while good, would not be the potential money makers that Glemba and Varli would. I hoping for some positive results over the next 6 mos. It's been a long wait.
From what I understand, the Glemba Metric trial won't be fully enrolled until Q1 '17. Any guesses as to how early in Q1? Then, how long after full enrollment will it be before we hear of any topline data? Assuming good results, will this topline be enough to proceed to an FDA application or do they have to wait for complete results? If the latter, will that be close to the end of '17?
The Ph 2 study showed good results in the subset of triple negative with gpnmb overexpressed. That's the group the Metric study is being conducted among. I read using Roche's Xeloda for the control will improve Glemba's chances for a positive outcome i.e. a significant survival benefit. So, based on enrolled the most appropriate target and, perhaps, an easier control to beat, one would expect a very positive outcome for Glemba's use against breast cancer.
Anything else others can add. I thought I saw one poster who was concerned with the delay into '17 (and all the breast cancer studies going on), that competition could be catching up. I wonder how many of these studies are targeting the same triple negative area like Glemba.
Whip checked into the what open label meant and it does not mean that Cldx is aware of the results.
This article is referring to one patient, who with positive results shared his success with the treatment. We need to wait for topline data from the full glemba study. Heck, it needs to get fully enrolled first before we can move on to results.
The analysts and writers I've read all expect positive results. But, they all expected that with Rintega, as well. We just have to wait. Maybe some of these fall presentations will give us some modest encouragement.
1. Couldn't the Rintega arm still be compared against other controls (e.g. the control in Phase 2 or even the control in the React study). Though the controls were probably different in these studies; the fact is these controls are treatment regimens used to treat glioblastoma. It's not perfect but could be added with other data to help build the case.
2. Weren't some patients in the Act !V enrolled back in 2012? Hence, there may be a small subgroup that had been in the study 3+ years.
However, as someone mentioned this week, the patient needs to live long enough for the effect (or benefit) to kick in.
We can only hope that Cldx mgmt is taking all their ammunition to the FDA to make their case.
It sounds like full enrollment won't be achieved until early in '17. After full enrollment, how long before the first readout - 6 mos or the end of '17?
The slow enrollment is primarily due to the number of breast cancer studies taking place. I've up to 330. That could represent a lot of competition. I assume these studies are all in various phases (1 thru 3)? Is competition catching up to Glemba because of these delays or are all these studies getting delayed.
I hope the small design changes you mentioned for Glemba study a) improve enrollment and b) don' t impact having a proper readout.
Finally, the FDA must be aware of this breast cancer study logjam. I wonder if they are considering any steps to move these studies along faster.
The alternative to the deal not going thru is BK. You know that, especially after reading the proxy. Going with CG, you get all the previous benefits of TC plus an undervalued CG and some interesting opportunities. TC will help take some of the geographic risk out of CG, as will CG going to a 50/50 JV on Kumtor.
Let me know here what you learn of others.
Has everyone gotten lost due to the Yahoo chg. I see you've posted on Stockhouse.
Where has Ultra gone. Do you know if he is staying with CG.
Canadian or US dollars?
Since March, CG has had several catalysts..
Higher gold prices
Agreement on Kyrgyz mine thru 12/16
Approval from Mongolian govt on the mine there
TC acquisition at a good price (and all of TC's upcoming catalysts)
This statement seems confusing. Are their shares non voting shares?
Kyrgyzaltyn, which has a 33 percent stake in Centerra, said on Thursday it had not been informed about the planned deal in advance and opposed it because the move would dilute Kyrgyzaltyn's holdings.
Kyrgyzaltyn said it would look at the deal in more detail once it received the required information from Centerra. The Kyrgyz company cannot block the deal.
From a Dec 2015 news article...
"Centerra, which operates Kumtor, has been in talks with Kyrgyzstan for almost two years on a deal that would involve the ex-Soviet republic swapping its 32.7 percent stake in Centerra for half of a joint venture that would control the gold deposit."
Also, "RBC analyst Stephen Walker said the move should be neutral to Centerra shares,"
You've just laid out some of the reasons to move on. If you vote for it, you get to move on. If you vote against it, you'll have the same mgmt team and 0 cents.