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: Biomaven who wrote (9295)	10/13/2003 3:52:33 PM
From: Gary Mohilner	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Biomaven, I think part of the problem may be what constitutes efficacy. I agree that IMGN's results to date have not been spectacular, but if IMGN were able to limit those patients entering the trial to those likely to show the best response to the drug, and if efficacy was defined as reduced CEA levels, perhaps they could claim 90% as well. I'm not saying IMGN C242-DM1 drug is that good, I'm just saying that Efficacy is a term that isn't well defined. I've seen some companies rave over achieving stable disease, while others, including IMGN, are depressed because they're not quite seeing partial response in refractory patients. 90% efficacy is spectacular if they define efficacy as partial response or better, but I doubt very much that it's being defined that way. Gary