|
|
|
|
||
ThoughtsThe company should consider shutting down the CX-2009 program after IMGN's p3 failure. DM4 while active has too many off-target side effects and just doesn't help survival. It is a waste of time trying to pursue it. Might as well do it now while the stock has very little value anyway. They have proven probodies work in humans. CX-072 is likely much safer in monotherapy and combination therapy. Combining CX-072 with BMY's Anti-CTLA-4 probody could be very good. 2 irAE's in 50 patients (part D) should be enough data to give people some confidence that probodies are indeed safer. MMAE on the other hand doubles survival rates and CX-2029 should yield much better results next year while targeting a receptor that cancer cells can't hide and is the #1 internalizer. The only hope this year to regain some value is BMY's presentation of CTLA-4 probody data. CTLA-4 has much worse safety in monotherapy-- so the probody should shine here. That data should give some confidence back to CytomX which has a near $0 value for technology at the moment. Selecting a bi-specific candidate with Abbott would help also. They have spent a long time in lead optimization-- they need to advance a bi-specific into the clinic. It's really too bad they choose IMGN's payload in their lead candidate for an ADC. In summary-- CX-072 should shine as a combination partner of choice. It will be much clearer when BMY presents data this year on CTLA-4 probody. CX-2029 should do much better than CX-2009 because of better lead optimization (credit Abbvie) and better payload (credit Abbvie). Still very positive long term-- but have to wait another year for real validation. |
return to message board, top of board |
Msg # | Subject | Author | Recs | Date Posted |
343 | Re: Thoughts | erniewerner | 3 | 3/2/2019 7:59:57 AM |
359 | Re: Thoughts | TaiTienMuyBien | 0 | 5/7/2020 9:58:54 PM |