jodi, can't agree with you more; however, those who invest (not talking about traders) know that the end game is getting the drug approved and not the daily price action. the real reward for enduring the games being played by hedge funds and mm is the real price jumps that comes after getting great results from the pivotal trial. everything up to that point is just noise and chump change.
special ed tim, it's so tiring reasoning with you; it's like trying to squeeze water out of a rock. but let me try once again, the game is not about trying to "outfox the fox", it's about taking advantage of the market's shortsightedness and irrational fear to find undervalued companies that can be sold back to the market at a premium once the pendulum swings back the other way. Is that too hard to understand? keep up the good work special ed tim.
beach, if the market was any good at predicting the future, there wouldn't be any bubbles or opportunities to buy undervalued companies. So, it's good for you and i that the market is dumb like our institutionalized expert special ed tim.
haha, swing, says today's trading in cldn was due to a misunderstanding b/c some idiot traders got cldn confused with cgi. quite possible since any fool with a few dollars can trade but let us not forget that it's swing who's saying it, A guy who's NEVER been correct on anything. So, i'll just threat this like any other excrement that's come from him and flush it down the toilet.
as for the Nab, this is old news that has been mentioned by the company from day one, you just have to go listen to one of their calls. something i'm sure swing has not done.
for those who is like swing and is hearing about the nab for the very first time, think of it as an opportunity for mydicar. these are 700,000 with Nab that could potentially be treated with mydicar. Now, for those who think this is bad news, they must not think 300,000 patients per year in the USA alone is a good enough market b/c that's the number of people who are Nab negative.
why are you glad seymour? with all your thld losses, you should be kicking yourself for parking your money into thld instead of mack. it's still not too late, correct your mistake by selling the losser thld and buying the winner mack. this way, us thld longs don't have to hear your constant bellyaching and regret about your thld position.
expect the unexpected? you know this is a biotech without any earnings right? you know this type of company live or die by their trial data right? you know this type of company are considered speculative right? you know with the risk comes huge reward should the drug get approved right? finally, you know that if cupid 2 data confirms cupid 1 data, that the stock price will rocket so high so fast that your'll never be able to buy at these cheap prices ever again right?
if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
tjones, the third pivotal is the new NSCLC phase II trial. STS interim data is expected mid sept. if it's not stopped then, the final data is expected mid 2015. as for PC, enrollment should be complete by end of this year and final data is expected around the end of 2015.
mclim, not only was the sample size small, this data set also excluded ECOG 2 where as ECOG 2 made up 11% in the pemetrexed trials. excluding ECOG 2, the survival for the pemetrexed arm was 9 months instead of 8. So, the control arm for the th-302 nsclc trail should do better; however, if the treatment arm can repeat the 14 months os seem in the phase 1/2 trial, th-302 will easily pass with good marks.
you can get the poster here meetinglibrary.asco.org\content\60703?format=posterImg
we should get pr when the trigger is reached... should be any day now.
NSCLC stage III-IV patients who failed one prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen, ≥ 1 measurable lesion by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 were eligible. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) with vitamin B12 and folic acid q3w alone or combined with erlotinib 150 mg daily. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), time-to-treatment failure (TTTF), response and toxicity.
Of 165 randomised non-squamous patients, 159 were treated (pemetrexed: 83; pemetrexed+erlotinib: 76). The median PFS (months; 95% CI) was 2.89 (1.94, 3.38) for pemetrexed versus 3.19 (2.86, 4.70) for pemetrexed+erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.63; 95% CI: (0.44, 0.90); P = 0.0047). The median OS (months; 95% CI) was 7.75 (5.29, 10.41) for pemetrexed versus 11.83 (8.18, 16.66) for pemetrexed+erlotinib (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.98; P = 0.019). The median TTTF (months: 95% CI) was 2.4 (1.74, 2.99) for pemetrexed versus 3.0 (2.23, 4.07) for pemetrexed+erlotinib (HR 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.89; P = 0.0034). One patient died in pemetrexed+erlotinib arm due to febrile neutropenia. Grades 3/4 drug-related toxicities (in ≥ 5% of patients) in pemetrexed/pemetrexed+erlotinib were febrile neutropenia (2.4%/10.5%), diarrhoea (1.2%/5.3%), rash (1.2%/9.2%); anaemia (6%/11.8%), leukopenia (9.6%/23.7%), neutropenia (9.6%/25.0%), and thrombocytopenia (4.8%/14.5%).
Purpose: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with advanced non—small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with chemotherapy.
Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had a performance status 0 to 2, previous treatment with one prior chemotherapy regimen for advanced NSCLC, and adequate organ function. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) day 1 with vitamin B12, folic acid, and dexamethasone or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV day 1 with dexamethasone every 21 days. The primary end point was overall survival.
Results: Five hundred seventy-one patients were randomly assigned. Overall response rates were 9.1% and 8.8% (analysis of variance P = .105) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.9 months for each arm, and median survival time was 8.3 versus 7.9 months (P = not significant) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. The 1-year survival rate for each arm was 29.7%. Patients receiving docetaxel were more likely to have grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.2% v 5.3%; P
car, no doubt the market still see gene therapy as high risk due to safety concerns. but those who continues to live in the past will see the future pass them by. mydicar safety concerns will quickly diminish with every passing day as we get closer to cupid 2 results.
cash, the stock is undervalued b/c investors have been burned too often by drugs that have generated good results in small trials only to go up in flames in larger confirmatory trials. So, now, these investors have just assumed that all data from small trials are untrustworthy. Instead of digging into the data and making a bet based on the data and science, they have decided to just play the odds and sit on the sideline while we wait for the results from CUPID 2.
This is a good thing b/c it allows those who are brave enough to stick to their DD to generate HUGE returns if they are correct in their assessment. So, i'm only too happy to buy at these low prices while we wait for the CUPID 2 results.
yin, if you look at the filings carefully, you will see that all these filings were for the same institution and the same sale. so, there were not multiple sales of 13988, but just one that was filed multiple times.
cash, your answer is in the circulation publication of the cupid results. I've included the snippet relevant to your question below. if you want to read the full article (which is free) get it here: circ.ahajournals.org/content/124/3/304.full.pdf+html
Some baseline imbalances in age (placebo patients were somewhat older) and cardiovascular history (higher proportion of patients with coronary artery disease, hypertension, myocardial infarction in the placebo group versus high-dose group) were not predictive of study results when analyses were stratified by these
factors. Overall, both pre-specified adjustment for baseline values and additional sensitivity analyses have consistently shown that between-group differences in baseline values were not predictive of study outcomes.
mclim, i wouldn't put too much weight on glufosfamide. this drug has been bounced from so many companies that i would be amazed if it's ever approved.
Glufosfamide was originally developed from a research collaboration between Asta Medica (Degussa) and the Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ) in Heidelberg, Germany. In October 2001, Baxter International acquired the oncology division of ASTA Medica, and renamed it Baxter Oncology GmbH. According to its 2002 Annual Report, Baxter announced that it was terminating development of glufosfamide. Subsequently, Baxter and Threshold Pharmaceuticals entered into an exclusive licensing and development agreement in August 2003. Threshold has responsibility for the development and commercialisation of glufosfamide, primarily for use as an antitumour agent. After failing the phase III trial for second line PC, thld dumped this drug on Eleison who had nothing in their pipeline.
beach, they only know how to lie and cheat and they're not even good at that never mind investing. you would have to be an idiot to believe anything they say.