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: Miljenko Zuanic who wrote (15178)	1/9/2005 7:12:36 PM
From: zeta1961	Respond to of 52153

Thanks Miljenko for posting those papers..but I still need some help..too technical for me!..sorry, in advance Zeta

To: Miljenko Zuanic who wrote (15178)	1/11/2005 2:43:24 AM
From: tuck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Given the human clinical experience with Xyotax since then, and the preclinical data Peter pointed to Message 20930353 I'd say that despite the excretion, the drug must be accumulating in human tumor tissue somehow. Unless the animal models are really not close to human in a couple of respects. The distribution of drug in tissue would have to be different. Then, too, the preclinical data seems to directly contradict your assertion that it mostly excreted in original form in urine. Without seeing the data you can no longer find, it seems to me the simpler explanation is that at least some of the drug finds its way into tumor tissue and penetrates and kills it. The only two explanations for the survival benefit we are apparently going to see are 1) the drug works, as per above, or 2) the placebo effect is huge. The longer the trial goes, the less plausible 2) seems. OK, folks, fire at will. I have a fair interest in CTIC, so I'd be interested in a nice thorough SI debate to help me decide how to proceed. We can take it to the CTIC thread if it's starting to clutter this one. Cheers, Tuck