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: former_pgs who wrote (14241)	11/19/2004 10:14:18 PM
From: Miljenko Zuanic	Respond to of 52153

Fpgs, We are talking about certain level of the EGFR expression. Threshold when one can argue that cancer growth is in one way driven by EGF. However, who can tell that EGFr level expression below 1% is irrelevant or not sufficient to facilitate or direct cancer growth and spread. Second, are we talking about EGFr expression at primary site or metastatic one? IMCL have problem with this. Over-expression at primary site is not guaranty that receptor level is higher at metastatic. And, drug action is mostly for metastases, not primary cancer. Anyway, EGFr level is less important for survival than for RR. I still think that Irresa and Tarceva have additional activity than simple Anti-egfr. Have no idea what they are! Miljenko

To: former_pgs who wrote (14241)	11/20/2004 2:33:52 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 52153

We've got crack analysts like Wei crawling all over the issue, so all will soon be clear...... yahoo.reuters.com :-) Joe Kernan on CNBC yesterday.... taking the simple route to a bit of clarity, he simply emailed Mike King (biotech analyst at B of A).

To: former_pgs who wrote (14241)	11/20/2004 3:10:56 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

yahoo.reuters.com quotes, and what the analysts really (IMO) meant to say..... >> Jim Reddoch, an analyst at Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. said, "Peak sales of the drug for lung cancer are probably going to be in the $400 million to $500 million range instead of the $1 billion range investors expected." << What he really meant to say..... "instead of the $1 billion range some investors were guided to by some analysts." >> Piper Jaffray analyst Thomas Wei said the inclusion of the EGFR data in the package insert "suggests that the FDA found the analysis important for physicians to consider." "If physicians choose to limit their usage to EGFR-positive patients, our estimates for sales for lung cancer ... may prove (too) aggressive." << What he really meant to say..... "While I've given my opinion, it's obvious that I'm not up to speed on the issue. I'll get back to you."