Nigel, why do you just target IMGN.
To my way of thinking anything positive should be good news to all in that from all indications, cancer is not going to be cured with one technology acting alone. I may be over simplifying it, but some MAB's that have an affinity for a certain indication don't seem to have much of a therapeutic effect on that indication, even with Glycart's technology they may not be effective, yet as a TAP they may be. More importantly, I still believe several different drugs will be required to conquer the toughest cancers.
If Glycart had the answer to all cancers themself, I would think that many companies would be quite concerned, including IMGN.
The question I would have is, even if Glycart's technology makes the MAB more potent, couldn't IMGN's, SGEN's or someone elses technology make it even more potent. I understand their current sales point is not needing such technologies, but do they have clinical trials to prove it.
More importantly, if clinical trials on a certain cancer show their drugs are say 50% effective, and IMGN's drug was say 30% effective, what drugs would the Doctors use if together they were 70% effective.
IMGN has indicated that they would hope to have broad Phase II Trials of C242-DM1 when they get a partner. That would mean many trials would be combined with other drugs, some of them may have been tried with mice before, some may not. The point is, mouse trials don't really answer the questions, only human trials can. I don't know how Glycart's drugs, or anyone elses will do when combined with IMGN's drugs, the only way to know is to try it.
Gary |
