I was thinking of one of their multitude of partnered programs which they no longer have skin in the game. They have a few P1 and P2.
It could grow. They just have to build it, assuming mRCC is a success. Right now, there is reasonable expectation it could grow in mRCC from minimum assumptions. HCC could seriously help as well.
What's wrong with you? I meant that as a compliment for putting it together in an organized manner for consumption.
Past $20? That's a tall order. They have a boat load of shares which is preventing that. They'd need a few of blockbuster drugs to do that or else buy back shares. If they get there, it's going to take time to build the value with multiple treatments.
$5 might be reasonable. If you want $20, you're going to be waiting for them to sell the company or to rebuild it when they have developed income to support research again to revive old programs or to buy new ones.
I suppose if they succeed in a few trials, they could build enough confidence in the company to drive it to $20 but I'd be surprised if it lasted.
If you compare it to Onyx for example, they had 3 notable drugs (at least one was purchased from a small company that modified and existing drug which I once interview at but didn't like the long term prospects) and sold for $125 with only about 35M shares. Let's say EXEL had the equivalent, it would be 35/185 time $125 which is only about $23.
$8 may be a reasonable expectation.
Just my opinion. I won't purchase a share for more than $2.82.
Thanks for posting this.
Just read the abstract and about the read the rest but off hand, I've been hoping cabozantinib would have a better toxicity profile over tivantinib since tivantinib actually binds to met which could exacerbate side effects though likely more potent.
DNDN had an underlying problem that their drug was expensive to produce. While it did work and was an amazing thing to be first in class, if there are other competitive treatments, you have to either be way way way better or simply cheaper to continue to profit.
Many new therapies go through this, it's not until several publications later that something sticks. They broke the barrier and that's to be commended but it might be better to stop expenditures now and just license it out. Perhaps some grad students can focus in and find ways to make it better and start new companies to that fix the issues.
Of course it's toxic. It's intended to be. It's designed to allow apoptosis of cells resistant to apoptosis. Unfortunately, this is how many oncology drugs are where they display no selectivity beyond the concept that cancer cells proliferate more quickly than normal cells. That’s why they go through phase 1 dose selection. The toxicity is already known, documented, and available from the FDA given it’s an approved therapy.
The question might be: does the disease increase the probability of an adverse event. Consider that they’re dosing 140 mg per day for MTC. There was a drug that had a trial for RCC and failed from toxicity at similar doses it used in another indication (name escapes me at the moment) which was likely a factor for going to a safer dose with Cabo at 60mg.
I'm aware of the similarities but it does not hit MET. Subtle changes is all it takes. Lenvatinib may have well been a tool compound for them. However, it's inhibition of met phosphorylation is not high. Destroying activity against a target is as easy as adding a methyl group. In this case, the difference is much more than a methyl group.
The fact remains that upregulation of MET produces resistance to Levantinib.
Cabozantinib was born out of the idea that these drugs were failing from upregulation of MET. Levatinib inhibits RET but not MET.
Hopefully, there will be a few royalty payments from Roche as Cobimetinib moves phase to phase in the 8 or so trials going for Cobi.
One: How is Roche involved with Cabozantinib?
Two: Discussing a company does not reflect your knowledge of the science.
Third: How is Roche involved in Cabozantinib trials?
And designing a trial with a higher probability of success is better than risking it all up front. Get it approved for use first and then work on additional use.
Conservatively, mRCC is worth $350-$500 are the numbers I came up with. If it does "better than planned", it could easily exceed those numbers. So, I agree with the estimate and analysts come to the same range.