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 : OSI Pharmaceuticals (OSIP) - formerly Oncogene -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Miljenko Zuanic who wrote (266)	10/6/2005 12:45:19 AM
From: tuck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 447

The fact that Tarceva is an oral drug may -- perversely -- work against it. I talked to an oncologist acquaintance a few weeks ago who said that since doctors make more off the IV procedure involved with competing drugs, Tarceva was going to be a hard sell. There would need to be a clear cost or efficacy advantage to offset this. Since the efficacy difference is not clear, we need to look at the cost versus competing treatments in this class. I would have thought Tarceva was cheaper due to advantages of manufacturing small molecules. Cheers, Tuck

To: Miljenko Zuanic who wrote (266)	10/6/2005 12:20:20 PM
From: former_pgs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 447

>How much Tarceva penetrated second line treatment, is real thing for future projection (as for this indication one will expect longer treatment duration).< Tarceva's relative scripts in 2nd line isn't bad percentage wise. Of course, this is still pretty small compared to the total $$$ spent on the care of 2nd line NSCLC. From the UBS presentation: 1st line NSCLC, 7%; 2nd line 25%, 3rd line 30% 1st line Pancreatic, 19%