jonesdexter, Don't be so stupid. The looming government shutdown and the prospects the imbecile tea party will push the country to default over the debt ceiling is what the problems are now.
lexkyvol, ha, ha, you are a phony guy. I will stack my accurate and sober posts about SNTA against those by the superficial pumper JFK anytime. I feel sorry for you if you think that guy is a font of wisdom. Here is one of mine you from Sept 25th that you should read.
"Respitamycin had liver and ocular toxicity issues because of its hydrophobicity. INFI converted it to a salt, respitamycin:HCl in the hopes the ionic form would not have toxicity issues. the problem is that 50% of the salt converts in the blood, due to blood pH) back to the free base. They had to lower the dosage to make sure it wouldn't reach toxic levels and there was no guarantee the salt would be as efficacious.
The idea that if one HSPi inhibitor fails means all will fail is absurd. there are many tyrosine kinase inhibitors on the market and they have different efficacies in different cancer types. An excellent example is the comparison of Sutent and Nexavar. The failure of Respitamycin is INFI specific, and as such I think this is a buying opportunity regarding SNTA"
oops. "the HR in the 6mo just needs to remain where it was" should have read ""the HR in the 6mo population just needs to remain where it was."
syenfrout, the Galaxy-1 data doesn't have to be a home run, the HR in the 6mo just needs to remain where it was. There were enough patients in the last interim report for me to say there is a good chance that will happen, and it will be a good positive for SNTA. I assume SNTA will announce a stock offering soon after. The wild-card is the Enchant-1 data update, which I believe won't be until early 2014.
So much for the major positive our resident board pumper JFK was touting regarding the recent SNTA poster. It was a essentially a rehash of previously reported data. If the government shutfdwn wasn't looming, I don't think SNTA stock would have moved much on the "news".
""I do know (only because I have family members who are very experienced biologists) that fast track approval increases the likelyhood of FDA approval -its only given to drugs that show promis in treating life threatening conditions for which no other drug exists. ""
Wrong. Fast track approval cuts the review time. The comment about you supposedly knowing very experienced biologists isn't relevant as it is about an FDA review process, not biology.
Richard, good post. I will point out that the Enchant-1 trial is front line breast cancer patients.
I took jfk off ignore to read just to see what stewart was talking about. The guy jfk is clueless yet deems him or herself as an expert to attack others.
Here is a great example. jfk wrote ""Blah blah. What overkill. This drug is not receiving approval for mitigating metastasis. You should know that. The effect on cancer spread is an additional benefit that has been noted, and if one day they want to push Ganetespib for treatment of metastasis, then they can do the additional research.""
Wow!! Are you freaking kiddign me?? Metastases are the major source of lethality in cancer patients. If a drug can block or delay the formation of new METs that is a major plus and will almost certainly generate an increase on overall survival (OS) if the drug isn't too toxic and the inhibition of metastasis is great enough. That makes inhibition of new METs is likely a good surrogate marker for OS.
I am most definitely a long, and once the ONX buyout is officially completed SNTA will be my largest biotech holding. However, I sure as hell aren't going to let some pumper talk up mostly old news as some kind of major advance. We need to see the final Galaxy-1 data in the 6 mo progressor group to get a good fell for the chances on the phase III Galaxy-2 trial as that is the patient population in which it will be used. I am also anxiously looking to see if women continue to do so well in the NSCLC trial in the Ganetespib + Docetaxel arm.
""I would expect any oncodrug that claims to mitigate metastasis to have appropriate CTC enumeration data for peer review.""
You have it backwards. Yes, one could use CTCs as a surrogate measure early in treatments to assess either potential benefits of that treatment overall as well as for assessing the ability block formation of new metastatic lesions. However, monitoring CTCs isn't nearly as good as actually monitoring the formation of new METs during the course of treatment, nor is it more important than OS. Having said that, I would certainly like to see some measurement of CTCs in the Enchant-1 trial.
The problem with monitoring CTCs is there is no set standard. I do agree and would welcome some measure, especially in phase I or phase I/II trials of a new drug where they are trying to set a therapeutic dosage. PGNX is doing that for its anti-PMSA conjugated MAbs in prostate cancer. However, what matters for SNTA is OS in Galaxy-1 and more importantly Galaxy-2.
As far as skepticism, SNTA did stuff like in this initial Galaxy-1 report, they grouped former smokers with non-smokers to show efficacy. As more data came in, they grouped smokers and former smokers. It would have been far better to just show the data in each of the three groups initially and do nothing else. When more data came in, they should have still reported each separately, and then make a point by pooling the current smokers and former smokers. Adam Feuerstein made a big deal out of SNTA using the 6 month form diagnosis progressors (now called chemosensitive) for their phase III NSCLC, and he mocked it by saying they just pulled it out of thin air. SNTA made a rationale explanation for why they did it, and in presentation subsequent ot the Galaxy-1 update, showed the large list and large percentage of recently approved anti-cancer treatments had some sort of progression restriction in their usage. What matters is that a lot more patients were treated after such as designation was made, and it has held up quite well.
wilderguide, the bone assays are in place for cancers where bone metastases are common, like prostate cancer. As both of us are EXEL investors, we know the latter well. As far as CTCs, they are more useful for early stage studies, not the Galaxy-2 phase III NSCLC trial in progress. The Enchant-1 trial does separate the triple negative cancers for analysis. As far as biomarkers, some drugs are more amenable to such analyses.
Billydbaseball and wilderguider, you are both on target with your posts. The NSCLC data released for the current ESMO is basically the same presentation as was shown at ASCO earlier this year. The final data release is what we need to see, and that won't be until later this year. The inhibition of new metastatic lesions is intriguing and may provide the solid rationale for improved OS, but again that was presented at ASCO earlier this year. Wilder, your comment on OS is exactly right.
As far as JFK, he appears to be some kind of boiler room pumper so I wouldn't worry too much about what he or she says. It helps to put people like that on ignore as I did. I am also anxious to see updated results from Enchant-1, especially the combination arm of Ganetespib + paclitaxel as that is how Ganetepsib will almost certainly be used in breast cancer rather than as a monotherapy.
Perry, From your post I see the ignorant and cowardly little weasel dung-king is back spewing his usual non-sense. What a waste of life.
Petco, if you really did read my posts and compared them to the voluminous repetitive, rambling and often contradictory posts of JFK, and somehow find me lacking and him valuable, there are two obvious conclusions. You are either JFK using an alias, or you come from the same boiler room operation. The childish and unwarranted name calling makes the former more likely. In any event, You, like him are now on ignore.
JFK, you are an ignorant troll and a liar. You will be put on ignore like quorthon as neither of your provides anything of value. I.have never advocated buying and never selling. In fact, quite the opposite and I have done so a few times with SNTA. What I mock is fools like you fretting over every single movement of the stock price multiple times each day. Quite frankly, your combination of ignorance and arrogance is disturbing. My focus is on the long term, and while I welcome the HSPi conjugation platform, it is too early to value. I liked the Enchant breast cancer data, but it is too early and too small of a same size to get too excited now. I am very excited about seeing the combo data from Enchant.. Goodbye you idiot.
Factspls, a smart move to sell some on the rise and buy on the dips. There are definitely no guarantees of success, and I have made that clear. If you look back after the announcement of the HSPi drug conjugates,I expressed my opinion, about how far away it was from having value or proving itself, so I ascribed no value to it. This is in stark contrast to some of the name calling repetitive posters who attack me as being a blind supporter of Snta. One of these was talking up the conjugates as being a dramatic development for SNTA.
There was nothing remotely technical about the transient drop in snta price this morning. It was obviously a reaction to the INFI trial. I explained why I thought it was unwarranted.
Respitamycin had liver and ocular toxicity issues because of its hydrophobicity. INFI converted it to a salt, respitamycin:HCl in the hopes the ionic form would not have toxicity issues. The problem is that 50% of the salt converts in the blood, due to blood pH) back to the free base. They had to lower the dose to make sure it wouldn't reach toxic levels and there was no guarantee the salt would be as efficacious.
The idea that if one HSPi inhibitor fails means all will fail is absurd. There are many tyrosine kinase inhibitors on the market and they have different efficacies in different cancer types. An excellent example is the comparison of Sutent and Nexavar. The failure of Respitamycin is INFI specific, and as such I think this is a buying opportunity regarding SNTA.
Your comments about monotherapy being crucial for the bottom line are ludicrous. Avastin is used as a combo therapy ant it sells billions. Just how in the world does Ganetespib lose value if it gets approved as a combo with paclitaxel as opposed to Ganetespib alone? The announcement about the addition of a third arm to Enchant was made based on clinical and pre-clinical data after Enchant was started. SNTA would have been foolish to not add it as part of the Enchant phase II trial. They need to find the best treatment prior to starting a phase III and they will continue enroll lung monotherapy patients. Finally, you have been very childish with your name calling. You also just won't stop posting multiple worthless posts here day after day. Get lost.
Wow JFK, it is good you are ending this now. SNTA reported enchant data because it passed the threshold for responses needed to move onto the second part of Emchant. you could say tjat they set the threshold too low if you want, but it was a meterial event that needed to be reported. i am not sure how That becomes hype. Previous clinical data indicates that Ganetespib is more effective in combination therapy and its good safety profile makes it amenable to many types of combination therapy. So, maximizing Ganetespib efficacy via combination therapy is the smart and prudent approach based on clinical data. How in the world can anyone call it boiler plate language is beyond me. I have my eyes wide open and am thinking long term. The problem with technical based traders and traders in general is they have no patience and go into a frenzy over minor things, especially if it means a short term delay. I am very pleased that Snta recognizes that combination therapy is the way to go with Ganetespib. Quite frankly, your comments about monotherapy vs combination therapy regarding money are ludicrous.