People are missing this while KITE - JUNO - BLUE - BLCM are ahead "chronologically" as RJ Kirk and Cooper say - ZIOP-MD Anderson is leaping over them in off the shelf NK cells, critical neoantigen targeting of solid tumors, TCR with switch technology and off - the shelf advantages - safer, faster at 1/10th the cost. Soon wall street will wake up - expect a big deal soon
So far you have accused me and hopewillhelpyou as being Rob. Silly we both post on other boards where only one alias is allowed. I have followed Rob since 1998 when he recommended CELG at under $1 split adjusted and since $1.83 on ZIOP and $1.80 on ACAD. Thanks
ASCO abstract ALREADY submitted...all patients alive 7 months on therapy and tumors not growing back vs what Cooper said should have been death 3 months. His combo with checkpoint inhibitor preclicincal data "unprecendented" lik Ketruda from Merck and Opdivo BMY. Deal soon
1/10 th the cost and safer. No brainer. When NCI's Rosenberg backs Sleeping Beauty like he has and the JCO and Nature MEdicine articles also do - we know ZIOP is really undervalued. Agree with Scotti. Deal soon
You have to read this post below including ZIOP CEO Dr Cooper from MD Anderson who is clearly becoming THE expert in NK cells and TCR – CAR T will be old news soon and ZIOP will dominate. Important highlighting of the abstract key points is easier to see on the investorvillage ZIOP message board see “scottis” post Msg 45197 on that board which already has over 100 recommendations which is VERY rare.
Abstract for Cooper’s Key Note Speech
Firstly, my thanks to STLDeac for posting the abstract. An excellent find and deserving of a board discussion. Let me start,
At the beginning of the month I posted the following expectation (part of post #43970) :
‘ I find it interesting that at the 4th Annual Sachs Cancer Biopartnering and Investment Forum in February, Merck KGaA have their Head of Oncology Licensing, and Novartis have two very senior employees, the Global Head of Oncology Strategy, and the Global Head, Business Development and New Products Marketing, Cell & Gene Therapy Unit, in attendance. Nearly all the other big players are absent. Now when Dr Cooper delivers his keynote speech at the Forum he is expected to fire up the audience with his vision of I/O combination strategies and it is likely that he will make reference to the multiple modalities available from Ziopharm and their inherent advantages’.
In his keynote speech, Dr Cooper will be delivering on this expectation in spades. In the abstract, copied below, I’ve highlighted in yellow the journey to multiple modality in immunotherapy that Dr Cooper is advocating to successfully address a patient’s cancer, and I’ve highlighted in green some of the areas in which Ziopharm is actively, and in some cases exclusively, working.
The immune system can be successfully manipulated ex vivo for in vivo applications. Proof-of-principle has been established for T cells genetically modified to redirect specificity through constitutive expression of chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) and T-cell receptors (TCRs). The associated laboratory processes encompass, activation, propagation, and genetic manipulation of the T-cell product all in compliance with current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) for Phase I/II trials. These “first generation” bio-engineering technologies have demonstrated success targeting some hematologic malignancies and solid tumors. For example, CARs targeting cell surface CD19 (a B-lineage antigen) and GD2 (a disialoganglioside expressed on tumors of neuroectodermal origin) demonstrate responses in recipients with B-cell malignancies and neuroblastoma, respectively. For example, TCR targeting intracellular NY-ESO-1 (a cancer‐testis antigen) in the context of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) show responses in recipients with multiple myeloma and synovial sarcoma. Follow-on studies within the first-generation technologies include (i) identification of safe CAR and TCR targets (especially to target solid tumors) and the use of suicide genes for conditional in vivo ablation, (ii) experimenting with alternative cellular templates other than abTCR+ T cells to express CAR and TCR (e.g., gdTCR+ T cells, NKT cells, NK cells), (iii) reducing burden on manufacturing to produce T cells in real time (such as delivering off-the-shelf T cells with potential for “on demand” disease control), and (iv) improvements in bio-processing to bias the infusion product towards “young” T cells that maintain their replicative potential (preserve telomere length) and have capacity for self-renewal or memory (e.g., infusing T cells with central memory phenotype). This suite of first-generation technologies in aggregate will provide therapeutic benefits for patients with cancer. However, additional “generations” of technologies will be needed for T-cell therapy to achieve its full potential and thus to address one of the hall marks of cancer, namely its genetic instability. This leads to heterogeneity of expression of many “targeted” antigens within a given patient’s tumor and heterogeneity of expression between potential patients. The former gives rise to antigen-escape variants (e.g., CD19neg malignant B cells) and relapse after monotherapy upon infusion of T cells and the latter results in the need to customize the T-cell products for different recipients. Thus, “second-generation” technologies will be based on combinations. These will likely encompass (i) co-infusing T cells with multiple specificities (e.g., more than one CAR species), (ii) combining the introduced immunoreceptor with cytokine (e.g., CAR and interleukin (IL)-15) to improve potency, (iii) combining genetic elements for the conditional and induced (controlled) expression of introduced transgenes, (iv) combining genetic insertion (e.g., to express CAR and TCR) with genetic editing (e.g., to eliminate checkpoints) and (v) combining T-cell therapy with other immunotherapies (e.g., checkpoint inhibitors) to recycle effector functions within the tumor microenvironment. This second-wave of T-cell therapies will help to bridge the gap between the therapeutic responses seen between B-cell leukemias/lymphomas and other types of malignancies. A third generation of technologies will likely be needed before T cells can reliably and efficiently execute all manner of tumor cells. This will be based on the targeting of neo-antigens which arise from driver mutations expressed exclusively by the patient’s malignant cells. T-cell therapy targeting neo-antigens will require embracing technologies which build on the prior two generations, but also harness the ability to identify individualized targets and to re-program the effector cells with TCRs specific for neo-antigens. This approach will need to account for the dual pressures of (i) the time to generate the T-cell products and (ii) the cost. The former will be addressed through efficient processing and the latter through the use of non-viral approaches to gene transfer, such as using the DNA plasmids from the Sleeping Beauty system. Programs that undertake first, second, and third generation approaches to immunotherapy are destined to develop powerful therapeutics genetically programmed to carefully address the recipient with cancer.
Now, this is where it gets really interesting. Merck KGaA have their Head of Oncology Licensing, and Novartis have two very senior employees, the Global Head of Oncology Strategy, and the Global Head, Business Development and New Products Marketing, Cell & Gene Therapy Unit, in attendance. These folks are not attending for a jolly day out and a nice steak dinner. My post #43694 explored the possibility that Novartis would make a deal with Ziopharm. When the two Global Heads of Novartis have listened to and digested the keynote speech then I believe that they will start to take action because that is what Global Heads do. However, there is little doubt that GSK is also seriously looking at Ziopharm and probably in discussions that are well advanced. Please see my posts #44596, #44870 and #44903. So, after Wednesday, I believe that we will enter the end game of a two horse race. In competition, we have a very hungry Novartis still eager for more oncology deals and a repositioned GSK with a nascent immuno oncology strategy that needs building beyond their partnership with Adaptimmune and that is on the record saying ‘where we see things that fit really, really well, we are going to do it’.
I don’t think that either one of these two companies would be content to lose this race. When it’s gone, it has gone. So who is going to make the first decisive move and conclude the deal? Furthermore, factor in the complete communication shutdown on any ongoing discussions or the prospect of any deal and it is clear that the waiting is almost over.
Clearly deal coming in the next few weeks these options bought on the ASK - very positive bullish bet
Got this from investorvillage board posted by colonyrecordman
Reminder ZIOP CEO Dr Cooper will present tomorrow at BIO CEO conference at 1 PM eastern you can hear him at this webcast (see ziopharm website for link or investorvillage ziop board)
Feb 9, 2016 - 1:00 PM ET - 18th Annual Bio Ceo and Investor Conference
ZIOPHARM Oncology, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZIOP)
Speaker(s) / Laurence Cooper
Date/Time : February 9, 2016 at 1:00 PM (ET)
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Rob told me to buy CELG at .35 cents split adjusted in 1998 and AGIO in the 34 area and told me sell half at 130. HUH?