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 : Array Biopharma, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mcbio who wrote (209)	11/19/2012 12:48:17 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 321

I just don't understand where the passion comes from, for a scientist, to design chemo (an anti-mitotic) for patients who have failed chemo. We have studies that follow in the shadow of ipilumimab, aiming at "cancer specificity". We have agents that are targeted to enzymatic disruptions that are malignancy-specific. We have activated T cells that are aimed at cancer-ass'd antigens with a restricted tissue distribution. And then we have 520, an anti-mitotic. Can you imagine how exciting it is for a scientist, 21st century, to work with yet another anti-mitotic? Not very. I agree with you, combo therapy opens a new window for success with agents that shouldn't stand on their own. Brave new world, and one that we were begging for 10 years ago. But can't carfilzomib be combined with something both cheap AND toxic? Why do we have to go for expensive and toxic, unless it's something truly novel and exciting? I do agree with you that the combo data will be of interest, and that several combo studies could give Celgene a leg up with respect to competition, a marginal survival bump. And I've missed stuff in the past, crap that sold well but didn't have much biological punch. And, pocketbook-wise, I hope that Squarer's enthusiasm is justified. Given the market cap, he certainly hasn't interested anyone other than you in 520. :-) >> in a prospective fashion that the biomarker is legit << The explanation was (paraphrased) "positively charged drug, therefore it sticks to acidic proteins". So they arbitrarily pick a protein and then, based on subset data, set a serum level as cut-off for said protein. Sounds marginal to me. Add my personal experience with two friends who had great success with velcade. When they failed it, both were ready for another world, not another toxic drug combo. Best! Rick