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 : Oncothyreon -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (2271)	8/25/2013 9:05:10 PM
From: hirogen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2344

You asked for ideas, so I pointed to a ref. that I thought might help. I've pointed to the need for human data re. mechanism, and don't believe that I've over interpreted by pointing to Wurz et al. I now see that you had already pointed to the paper. Didn't know that, sorry. Thanks for replying to my question on IV and no need for apologies as we're all in conjecture, sharing info and opinions. My question was actually semi-rhetorical as I don't believe there is a clear cut answer on Stim after cCRT vs. sCRT, otherwise Merck would have designed the trial to exclude sCRT or at least specified cCRT cohort OS as primary endpoint. Recall from the ph IIb that about 1/2 the stage III LR sub-group were sCRT and approx 1/3 were cCRT pre-treated. From my post on the IV thread - there is a post median survival curve convergence in the cCRT sub-group (indicating less Stim effect), purportedly due to the clinical hold, to a degree such that in the sCRT sub-group Stim's effect actually got better. What could explain such a result? I don't know but my thought is there are three possible options - 1) the dramatic convergence in cCRT is overstated, 2) the cCRT MST advantage is overstated, or 3) both.