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 (14052)	11/12/2004 8:26:13 AM
From: kenhott	Respond to of 52153

<So the way both my friend and I read it, you could have recurrent disease that was previously treated and be eligible even though you are not Stage IIB or IV. > Locally advanced could be IIIa but now I see that is not your point. Recurrent disease is not that unusual for this grouping of sick patients. The schiller trial had recurrent and another trial, the Lilenbaum trial, also had recurrent. I know CTIC referred to the Schiller trial and they may also have referred to the Lilenbaum trial since that would have been appropriate (CTIC referred to 3 trials but I had problem with that part of the call). Partly I have an issue with the tightness of the existing PS2 data. The Schiller trial, for instance, had 64 evaluable patients for the appropriate double treatment. So yes, median survival was something like 4 months but.... It certainly wasn't funny to hear him pin n=thousands to the referenced result. I am a terrible note taker and some of this is from my terrible memory. So take it as it is. Did ANYONE actually see the curve that was presented at CIBC? I would like to see that. And if anyone can help with some of my Qs from before about event data by month and % stage VI (see earlier messages), thanks. Boy, what I can do with the muscles and contacts and inside info of a nice sized investment bank!!!!!!! I could like, lose my money really fast!

To: Biomaven who wrote (14052)	11/18/2004 10:12:54 PM
From: Archie Meeties	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

Peter, I've been going through your list (a helpful orientation) from smallest market cap to largest, and I'm stuck on CTIC. Oncology is a weak spot for me. In any case, I was reviewing your CTIC posts and I came across this regarding the p3 trial of ct-2103 "you could have recurrent disease that was previously treated and be eligible even though you are not Stage IIB or IV." So the question to the thread is this. In Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer does stage II III recurrent disease carry a worse prognosis than IIIb/IV first onset? I think the answer is yes, much worse, even if lower stage, but I'm unsure. The question comes primarily from my experience with neuroblastoma, where staging, a historically important endeavour for prognosis, has been superseded by genetics. For example a high n-myc amplification confers a worse prognosis than a stage IV low n-myc amplification. So a recurrent stage I non small cell lung cancer might carry with it a worse prognosis than a more advanced stage if certain genetic factors caused it to be more capable of recurrence. Any help is welcome.