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: Sam Citron who wrote (13344)	10/6/2004 2:30:58 PM
From: Icebrg	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

Sam >>Why a "truly binary event" as opposed to a normal binary event? >> Because I feel that sometimes important events are labelled as binary, even if they in reality are not. But if Stellar 3 meets it primary endpoint it will IMHO have a substantial positive effect on the share price. >>What makes this event so significant as compared to other milestones like Stellar 4 data and lung cancer study data due later in 2005?>> Becasue it is the first one from which results to be known. I don't think there is much reason to believe that if Stellar 3 fails one of the other one might turn out positive. On the other hand, if Stellar 3 is positive, the results from the other two will not matter. They will only have to score once. >>What exactly does it mean that "[t]he sought endpoint is a 30 percent improvement in median survival time." Does this imply that the FDA approves IFF they reach this precise endpoint?>> Yes correct, there is a SPA spelling out what is required for approval. >> Why 30% median, instead of, say, 25% mean? >> Medium and not mean seems to be the standard measurement used in case like this. It is a way of cutting away the effect of the tails, I suppose. And it is much more practical. If the mean is used, one would have to wait much, much longer until it is possible to calculate the results. The figure 30 % is needed (if I have understood this correctly) to reach statistical significance. I might be wrong there. Maybe Biocruncher can explain. There might also (speculation on my part) exist a need to not only reach a statistical benefit, but also something that is clinically meaningful. The NSCLC PS2 population recruited into this trial seems in similar trials to have had a MST of say 3 - 5 month when dosed with the standard combo treatment of carboplatin and paclitaxel. Adding 10 or 15 % to the survival time will not bring much of an improvement when converted into days. This fact might be reflected in the 30 % requirement, which on the surface looks rather high. >>What about other jurisdictions? Will Canada, Europe, Asia (ex Japan) and Latin America likely follow the lead of the FDA?>> No, I don't think they care at all about FDA's opinions, but they may very well evaluate the results in a similar way. >>As a biotech investor, how do you regard the attractiveness of the CC writing strategy: B CTIC / S March CC?>> I am not into options at all and have no opinon on that. I just wanted to point out a possible reason for the high premium. Erik