Duck, it's been a "long and winding road", to borrow some Beatles lyrics, but hopefully we can see the proverbial "light at the end of the tunnel" :).
A planned interim analysis showed that overall survival was longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus (hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89; P=0.005) but did not cross the significance boundary for the interim analysis. Adverse events were managed with dose reductions; doses were reduced in 60% of the patients who received cabozantinib and in 25% of those who received everolimus. Discontinuation of study treatment owing to adverse events occurred in 9% of the patients who received cabozantinib and in 10% of those who received everolimus."
This brings on the question of whether it is better to start with a higher dose and reduce due to AEs, or start with a lower dose and increase to the onset of AEs.
Fair enough Ernie, but this excerpt is from the NEJOM article by Choueiri et al.
"Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months with cabozantinib and 3.8 months with everolimus. The rate of progression or death was 42% lower with cabozantinib than with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.75; P
Enabler can defend himself, but here is a cut and paste from one of Ernie's posts.
"erniewerner • Feb 2, 2016 12:15 PM
"Why would you waste time analyzing EXEL for a message board?"
Good question and one I ask myself frequently. Yes, I do have a lot of time on my hands. The kids are grown and my job is not demanding. I am mildly O/C. I do enjoy posting and one positive aspect is that it does lead me down different fact gathering pathways that I would not otherwise pursue.
"Or do you actually think you can influence the share price."
A few pennies here and there and definitely in the thinly traded premarket. My own trading in the pre and aftermarket sessions has set both tops and bottoms. But that's not why I post and I don't make overt recommendations." "
You can decide how much is by trading or by posting ;).
Well, I don't have later results for Meteor, but here is an excerpt from an article on the Meteor interim.
"In addition to efficacy data, the company noted that serious adverse events (AEs) were balanced between the cabozantinib and everolimus arms in the phase III study. In both arms treatment discontinuation due to an AE was approximately 10%."
It doesn't seem that there was a notable difference in SAEs at that point.
You said " Nivo had about half the SAE rate, that's more than a bit less toxic". Now please remind us about the difference in AE reporting between the two studies.
As I remember, and I could be wrong, the Cabo study included ALL the adverse events, not just Doctor reported ones, including some that probably were not Cabo related. The Nivo study limited what was reported as AE's to Doctor reported, which tends to reduce the number reported.