I was not referring to overall sample size, but a subgroup.
// Escalating concentrations of pIL-12 were administered in cohorts of three patients//
The use of MAY is perhaps necessitated by the small sample size. Data might be good, but sample is too small to assign a high degree of confidence. That is my take.
Kim's dilemmas of the plenty! Thanks for posting the reminder.
If indeed they had 3 other prostate trials going on, then the push back on timing and the need for some retooling of 5150 might have been just delay tactics until they got data from other trials. I suspect KIM may seen through that and pressed Roche to stop diddling and go forward or get out.
Could this be the reason? Safety yes, effacy ?. Perhaps it is not the 5150 that is lacking.
Roche's drug binds to only one of the receptors in the PD-1 pathway, PD-L1, which scientists believe will give it an advantageous safety profile.
So you would prefer to believe that Bagarazzi, Kies and Sardesai all had the same dream and decided at the same time to review and change their employment contracts as it relates to change of control, essentially lowering the terms for their parachutes to open. IMO, thinking that the motivation for such actions has no meaning, is grasping at straws. But we will know soon enough.
The amended employment contracts and CFO out of pocket for earnings release, led us to think that some party was about to make a significant investment in Inovio. What if that party is a competitor in the prostate cancer space? Would Roche continue with the 5150 agreement?/???? Could have absolutely nothing to do with INO 5150. Since Roche is continuing with Hepititus B, this could be a reasonable explanation.
In announcing both deals, (inovio & immatics) Roche made no secret of its desire to combine the products it has accessed with other immuno-modulatory molecules in its pipeline.
With the above in mind, one must keep in mind that if it were Inovio looking to marry its product with another for the best combination therapy, we may well have passed on Roche's offering in favor of something else. Apparently Roche saw a marriage with Immatics technology as a more favorable fit for the molecules already existing in their pipeline. IMO, this does not detract from 5150 at all.
The most logical party to make a significant investment is Roche, because they know the most about INO's science and platform. And I was wondering why it was necessary to include 30 percent of COBINED voting stock. Interesting that our partners and collaborators include F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.. Might Roche already be accumulating via separate entities?
The inclusion of 30 percent or more of outstanding shares or combined voting power seems to be indicating some entity wants to make a significant investment in INO, but less than total ownership.. Why else include that oddball percentage as triggering a change in control amendment? Am I misreading/understanding that clause? Certainly one possibility for CFO to be out of pocket on a quarterly release.
Opti (Ed) Less
The inclusion of 30 percent or more of outstanding shares or combined voting power seems to be indicating someone wants to invest in partial ownership of INO. Why else include that oddball percentage as triggering a change in control amendment?
Or am I misunderstanding that clause?
There are very few reasons for the CFO not to be available for the Quarterly release. If he could not be available because of personal reasons, it would probably have been described that way. If the CFO is traveling for business reasons, that opens up some interesting and exciting possibilities immedicately ahead. Wish I had some dry powder.
You can find the presentation by going to the Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer site, click on Articles, then Supplements, then click on Abstracts of the 29th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and then scroll down to the bottom of the oral presentation list.
we strive to publish high quality papers after an efficient peer review process that adheres to the principles of fairness and scientific excellence.
Perhaps the important aspect is the efficient peer review even if no new P2 info.
Accepted abstracts will be available to all Annual Meeting attendees in printed program materials and published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer (JITC)
Guidelines for Authors
The author submitting a late-breaking abstract to the SITC 29th Annual Meeting must agree to the following:
•Serve as the contact for all correspondence about the abstract and inform co-authors about its status
•Confirm all authors are aware of and agree to the content and data presented in the abstract
•Verify the abstract is accurate and that permission has been obtained from all relevant parties
•Verify the data presented in the abstract has not been published prior to November 6, 2014, or if previously published contains significant new data
•Agree that the abstract submitted to the SITC 29th Annual Meeting is embargoed until 8:00 am EST on November 4, 2014
•Agree that, if accepted, the noted presenting author or a co-author will present the abstract at the 29thAnnual Meeting
Two sessions are scheduled for presenting late breaking abstracts. One on Friday and one on Saturday. They are only 30 minutes long and we have 15 minutes, so it looks like only 4 abstracts will be presented in total. That small number ought to signify some significance to the presentation. Nice find twiz0019 .
Shoot! I should have gone back and reread the interview before responding. Kim does make that statement about adding value before partnering but it was in the context of selecting the best sales/marketing/distribution for the particular product. Quote but sales and distribution capabilities are very important in selecting the suitable partner, and we want to create the maximum value in this program before we partner. End Quote.
Good point. Dr Kim did state in the interview that he wants to add value prior to partnering. But what exactly does that translate to???? A P3 for each indication before partnering on that indication? If that is what is meant, then all this talk about partnering is way way way too early to even be mentioned. Ok if it does not meant that, what does Dr Kim mean by saying it? I honestly have no idea. If I had to guess it would be just confirmation that the science works. That adds value to the entire pipeline. If the the release of top line P2 did not do that, what could he be referring to? Bottom line P2 data? Peer review? Something else?