Recent

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

Puma Biotechnology, Inc. Message Board

allanacetone 19 posts  |  Last Activity: Jun 22, 2015 2:57 PM Member since: Jan 8, 2007
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    What agent is used in control arm?

    by brightgreen68 Jun 18, 2015 11:39 PM
    allanacetone allanacetone Jun 22, 2015 2:57 PM Flag

    In a previous clinical trial, it was shown that there was no additional benefit taking Herceptin for an additional year. The current ExteNET trial shows that there is a significant benefit in taking neratinib in the second year. In this respect, Herceptin can be viewed as a "historical placebo".

  • Reply to

    UBS Securities - Valuation: Buy; $300 PT

    by framus.morrigan Jun 13, 2015 11:07 AM
    allanacetone allanacetone Jun 16, 2015 7:17 PM Flag

    oliver, I am usually in full agreement with you with respect to Puma. However, with respect to ONTY, at its current price, its worth the gamble. I especially like its potential for treating brain mets. Standard of care is terrible in that respect.

  • Reply to

    Keep Repeating

    by sschatzi33 Jun 11, 2015 12:36 PM
    allanacetone allanacetone Jun 11, 2015 3:11 PM Flag

    Go to the Puma Web site and listen to the presentation they made yesterday. See how the diarrhea issue is being handled. In other ongoing trials it is quite manageable. Study the facts before you make conclusions.

  • Reply to

    I don't get it

    by vaniganti Jun 10, 2015 5:30 PM
    allanacetone allanacetone Jun 11, 2015 1:12 AM Flag

    Go to the Puma web site and listen to the presentation to investors that was made today. You will see that there is plenty of potential value in this company assuming you are technically inclined.. Clearly, given it current market cap, many others see this potential value.

  • Reply to

    Comeuppance and a cat fighting back.

    by bcsurvivor67 Jun 6, 2015 9:30 AM
    allanacetone allanacetone Jun 9, 2015 9:31 AM Flag

    Jet, did we hear from all the "experts" who were at the ASCO or just a few? Are you sure that there is not a difference of opinion between physicians? If you were a physician treating a patient who after standard care had her BC return (9% of them will), how would you feel that you could have improved her odds by having her take neratinib?

  • Reply to

    Comeuppance and a cat fighting back.

    by bcsurvivor67 Jun 6, 2015 9:30 AM
    allanacetone allanacetone Jun 9, 2015 9:25 AM Flag

    Finally, someone who knows what's what. First time I have seen the T790M mutation mentioned on this board. I wonder when Boehringer Ingelheim will begin paying royalties on the sale of afatinib (Gilotrif).

  • Reply to

    Many investors are still missing the point…

    by jetcloud100 Jun 3, 2015 9:09 AM
    allanacetone allanacetone Jun 3, 2015 11:11 PM Flag

    Keep in mind that in addition to this extended adjuvant trial, there are 9 other trials for other indications currently ongoing that are in phases II or III. Success in any of these will clearly impact sales.

  • Reply to

    Many investors are still missing the point…

    by jetcloud100 Jun 3, 2015 9:09 AM
    allanacetone allanacetone Jun 3, 2015 11:54 AM Flag

    Haha, the author of that article is a well known basher.

  • Reply to

    Many investors are still missing the point…

    by jetcloud100 Jun 3, 2015 9:09 AM
    allanacetone allanacetone Jun 3, 2015 9:30 AM Flag

    First, you didn't hear from all MD's at ASCO, just a few. I will repeat a post I made earlier since it is relevant to what you have posted.

    Actually, after correcting for the Her2 status assignments, it comes to about 4% of the patients that will be less likely to have a recurrence (The 2-year DFS rate for the centrally confirmed patients in the neratinib arm was 94.7% and the 2-year DFS rate for the centrally confirmed patients in the placebo arm was 90.6%)

    Now let's look at this in human terms. For a sample of 100 patients, without neratinib, a bit more than 9 patients will have the cancer return, while those who did take the drug, a bit more than 5 patients will will have the cancer return. So, 4 out of 100 patients would have benefited. If you or a relative were one of the 9 patients who didn't take the drug, how would you feel, knowing the odds would have better if the drug was taken? Consider the physician who treated one of those 9 patients who had the cancer return, how would he feel knowing that the patient would have had a better chance if she took the drug?

  • Reply to

    I wonder if you are a cancer patient

    by stockgangster Jun 2, 2015 1:21 PM
    allanacetone allanacetone Jun 3, 2015 9:17 AM Flag

    First of all, correcting for the Her2 status, the DFS comes out to about 4%. If the cancer returns, then the patient would be Ineligible for this extended adjuvant study. "Overall survival" is not an endpoint of this study. One would assume that if the cancer does return, other treatments will be initiated.

  • Reply to

    I wonder if you are a cancer patient

    by stockgangster Jun 2, 2015 1:21 PM
    allanacetone allanacetone Jun 2, 2015 10:32 PM Flag

    Can't you read. He did not say that the "drug results in 2% imprv in death rate". Those are your words. He is implying that if the cancer returns, it is likely to ultimately be a cause of death.

  • Reply to

    I wonder if you are a cancer patient

    by stockgangster Jun 2, 2015 1:21 PM
    allanacetone allanacetone Jun 2, 2015 5:51 PM Flag

    Actually, after correcting for the Her2 status assignments, it comes to about 4% of the patients that will be less likely to have a recurrence (The 2-year DFS rate for the centrally confirmed patients in the neratinib arm was 94.7% and the 2-year DFS rate for the centrally confirmed patients in the placebo arm was 90.6%)

    Now let's look at this in human terms. For a sample of 100 patients, without neratinib, a bit more than 9 patients will have the cancer return, while those who did take the drug, a bit more than 5 patients will will have the cancer return. So, 4 out of 100 patients would have benefited. If you or a relative were one of the 9 patients who didn't take the drug, how would you feel, knowing the odds would have better if the drug was taken? Consider the physician who treated one of those 9 patients who had the cancer return, how would he feel knowing that the patient would have had a better chance if she took the drug?

  • Reply to

    Patent Protection

    by glenn_zax May 31, 2015 6:02 PM
    allanacetone allanacetone May 31, 2015 8:08 PM Flag

    Sir. Before you make statements you are not qualified to make, do some research. There are multiple patents covering neratinib, its use, formulations, etc. For example, the main patent covering the actual entity specifically is US7982043 issued in 2011. You will not find neratinib specifically named in the 2001 patent.

  • allanacetone allanacetone May 22, 2015 9:18 AM Flag

    The study was designed to include only Her2+ patients. ER+ patienta were supposed to be excluded, as were double negative patients. I would agree that if the cancer has already disseminated even after surgery. Either drug, Herceptin or neratinib, would be less effective in the adjuvant setting. Nevertheless, adding neratinib in the 2nd year results in improved DFS overall. Sure, it would be better if neratinib extended DFS for longer than 2 years. At this time, those studies haven't been done or haven't been reported. You can't expect to see "numbers needed to treat ratio" in a short abstract. Wait for the presentation. How did you determine that there was manipulation of statistics from the abstract? Not that is matters, but I also did cancer research.

  • allanacetone allanacetone May 22, 2015 1:23 AM Flag

    Sir, you are correct. There is a nuance to the data which most people would not have noticed in the abstract, but which should be made clear in the presentation. It involves how the patients were evaluated for their Her2 status. The control group patients were evaluated at a central location, while the neratinib group were evaluated locally. It turned out that the local evaluations for Her2 status were not as accurate as those which were evaluated at the central location. A subsequent evaluation of the neratinib group at the central location showed that a portion of the patients in that group were not Her2 positive. Those patients didn't and shouldn't respond to neratinib treatment. If one now corrects for those misassigned patients, the hazard ratio is greatly improved and the percentage of those patients benefiting from the neratinib treatment will be much closer to what the investor expected. This should be made clear at the actual presentation.

  • allanacetone allanacetone May 21, 2015 11:40 PM Flag

    Sorry Doc, but it seems you don't understand this study at all. It is an extended adjuvant study. Meaning that the patients do not currently have detectable breast cancer ( the cancer was removed by surgery). The patients then receive standard adjuvant treatment with Herceptin for 1 year (clinical studies showed no benefit for a second year of Herceptin treatment). This is an extended adjuvant study with neratinib where the drug is given for the second year. The goal of the treatment is to prevent a recurrence of the cancer. it appears that 2nd year treatment with neratinib gives better results than a 2nd year treatment with Herceptin (that's the placebo of this study). In contrast to what you say, the study results are statically significant. Your comments about the stage of the disease in the treatment groups are meaningless since the patients don't have detectable cancer at the start of the study. Finally, prophylactic treatment with imodium greatly reduces the occurrence of grade 3 diarrhea. I suggest you wait for the full ASCO presentation before making conclusions about these results.

  • allanacetone allanacetone May 18, 2015 5:58 PM Flag

    WOW! Can someone really be this ignorant? You are likely doing too much of what your handle suggests and it's killing some brain cells.

  • allanacetone allanacetone Apr 8, 2015 9:32 AM Flag

    More impeccable logic. The smart way to increase the value of a Biotech is to name it after a cat.

  • allanacetone allanacetone Apr 7, 2015 10:42 PM Flag

    Your logic is impeccable. Since the stock symbol PBYA is very close to the Puma symbol PBYI then clearly PBYA should be worth the same a PBYI. Maybe even more since "A" come before "I" in the alphabet.

PBYI
113.43+1.32(+1.18%)Jul 6 4:00 PMEDT