Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: seminole who wrote (1874)	10/24/2000 1:33:07 AM
From: Miljenko Zuanic	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

<<However, the retirement of their Medical Director and resignation of their Chief Scientific Officer reported on Aug 17 has many thinking there is more than just a short delay here.>> First, Shrotriya has very limited experience in Oncology. Second, he first left MGI before become CSF at SUPG. Third he left SUPG (my guess is that he is kicked out) to become CMO at NEOT as neurologist (again bad choice for him and for NEOT). Bottom line, hi is joke. Regards the Prudential, I never count them seriously as Oncology house. More important, 9-NC PIII trials are most serious one for pancreatic cancer, as I have read about. For the record, I am giving more chance to 9-NC than Irofulven. Miljenko

To: seminole who wrote (1874)	10/24/2000 9:12:02 AM
From: Biomaven	Respond to of 52153

richard, I'm not arguing that the 1x per week isn't going to be better than the 5x per week - it seems very likely that it will be. It just seems to me that they haven't got enough data to properly choose the dosage regimen yet. How are they going to choose among their three new intermittent dosage regimens? The conventional approach here would be to run another Phase II in pancreatic ca to try out some different doses/schedules before proceeding to a Phase III. The risk they are running is that they end up not using the optimal regimen in their Phase III. Obviously there is a substantial cost in time and money in re-doing a Phase II before proceeding to a Phase III, and I'm in no position to second-guess their decision. If they are confident of good enough results for approval without further tweaking of the dose schedule, then this decision makes sense. From an investment perspective, it does raise the risk level, though. Peter