Maybe if the data readouts continue to be as positive as they have been. At the end of the year, after ASH, at earliest, but i honestly hope it doesn't happen until much later because i think this company could have a $2B market cap if the data plays out as i hope.
And that price target should go up significantly as more positive data is released related to 1101 and 1202. If 1202 continues to prove to be as potent as idelalisib BUT with lower adverse events (particularly in terms of liver toxicity and potentially also other AEs such as cholitis). It is possible that 1202 may prove to be even more effective than idelalisib if the new 1202 micronized formulations do in fact lead to greater exposure in patients as TGTX's CEO hopes.
Here is what one analyst said today about Gilead's Idelalisib (and consider that these arguments could apply equally to 1202): We are raising our long-run idelalisib estimates from $773m in 2019 (vs $1.1bn consensus) to $1.5bn in 2019. We now assume $1.2bn for use in CLL /iNHL and a heavily risk-adjusted $300m (20% probability of success) for its possible use in immuno-oncology (I/O) drug combinations that target solid tumours, given the highly promising pre-clinical data showing the pivotal role that idelalisib's target PI3Kδ plays in't reg cell suppression of the anti-cancer effect of CD8+ T-cells.
Or maybe just TGTX's famous volatility - you never know. Anyway - the $10.15 AH trade was just 325 shares. I expect TGTX to be all over the map, up and down, until the next data release in mid July.
i've noticed that motley fool has tried to be provocative in their titling, not just for MACK but for many other companies, and i think they do this to increase clicks and readers. They are useless, less so than Seeking Alpha (which depending on the SA author is saying something) and should be on everyone's ignore list.
It was an interesting call. The stock was all over the place today - but i think that had to the announced in licensing of the Ligand IRAK4 program, but that is so early stage (lead development, they are close to but don't yet have a clinical candidate identified) that it's not likely to yield any data for at least a year and a half.
are you the same dbag who chides me on my investment in TGTX? C'mon on over there and change your focus from here. I have even more shares in TGTX.
Just to clarify, the reason that Tarceva was returned to OSI was not because Pfizer did not want to develop the drug, it was because Pfizer was in the process of merging with Warner Lambert which had a competing EGFR inhibitor in development. Due to potential FTC concerns, Pfizer parted with the drug that was easiest and quickest to dispose of under the circumstances, and that was Tarceva due to the pre-existing relationship with OSI. Recall that OSI's stock tripled the day it was announced that they were getting full rights to Tarceva from Pfizer. I think the situation here is quite different - in this case, Sanofi has several expensive development programs (I have noted PCSK9) and likely simply decided to drop MM-121 due to resource constraints even though it likely still sees promise in MM-121. There are other examples that are even better than the Tarceva example - focusing on PFE, they outlicensed neratinib (now being developed by Puma). PFE, i am sure, knows that neratinib holds promise and will likely become a drug but likely outlicensed it due to resource constraints. All of big pharma takes this approach - limited R & D resources force it.
i actually do not know. At most conferences like this, companies like TGTX disclose the ongoing clinical activities and recite data that is generally already known. But in some cases, new data or a deal is announced - hard to say. And i can't explain the rally in the stock except to say that TGTX is very volatile, even by biotech standards, but i like the uptrend obviously - and if i'm right it has much more to go.
Boogins - Sanofi bailed merely because of portfolio prioritization - other large pharma firms have done the same where they face a portfolio with several very expensive programs, and in doing so they often leave good clinical candidates on the table. The examples of this are too numerous to list. In this case, Sanofi has an incredibly expensive PCSK9 program which will require an M & M trial involving thousands of patients. Sanofi likely viewed MM-121 as having solid potential but maybe viewed the breast cancer space as becoming increasingly competitive. Who knows - but the bottom line is that MM-121 is still a viable candidate but this will eventually impact the funding that MACK has available for all it's programs and increases the pressure to do deals.
I reviewed the presentation and it looked quite good from my perspective. Nothing new, nothing negative - so i think this is profit taking given that the stock has run up quite a bit in one month. We won't get new data until the third week of next month so i expect TGTX to settle soon and stay flat until their next data release next month. By the way, i have many biotechs, and TGTX has been among the more volatile, and that's saying something given that biotechs are volatile as a group. This stock can swing in price - and i think it has to do with the relatively low liquidity in this name.
More of ubelite making it up as he goes. PCYC could in fact buy TGTX because a) it improves patient response for ibrutinib, b) TGTX is relatively cheap, and c) both 1101 and 1202 could be used in combination with each other and with ibrutinib, as all have low AEs, all work via different mechanisms of action, and all are for B cell malignancies.
False once again - preliminary phase II data related to the ongoing trial involving 1101 in combo with 1202 will be released next month
More idiocy - must you persist? The goal is not oral therapy - no company truly cares about whether it is oral or infusion in oncology. What they care about is a durable response for patients and treating patients who are refractory to current standard of care. EVERY major oncology player is focused on this. Oral means nothing in the oncology setting. Yes - it is meaningful in inflammation, or other less life threatening indications, but in oncology the goal is simple - keeping patients alive, irrespective of mode of delivery. You are truly clueless.
Oral drugs are not the future in oncology - the future is a mix of small molecule oral therapeutics, monoclonal antibodies (infusion) and antibody drug conjugates (infusion). Just look at the pipelines of Genentech, Amgen, Novartis and every other oncology focused innovative company - all have a mix in their pipeline of ADCs, monoconal antibody therapeutics and small molecule therapeutics. You are a genuine idiot.
you friggin moron - all monoclonal antibody therapeutics are delivered infusion, including rituxan and multiple other multi-billion dollar oncology drugs. patients and oncologists couldn't care less whether the therapeutic is delivered via infusion or orally as long as it works.
rather than repeat what is so capably detailed in the Roth report, why dont' you read it yourself - it's provided in an a separate post. Also, pls note the TGTX published data related to 1101 and 1202 montherapy
i agree with Roth's comments. Just to clarify - the combo with ibrutinib is 1101 plus ibrutinib, not 1202 with ibrutinib. Also - 1202 data look great in addition to the combo data.