Mirati - oncology?

Quote
My belief is it will depend on what the RR is. not sure what you mean by marginalized. data is data. A better chance to respond is a better chance to respond. Statistically speaking if based on the n of 54 in a ph1/2 demonstrates a higher RR for this mutation, then the data speaks for itself. If not, then yes clovis part 2.
I agree with you, everyone is watching.
 




anonymous said:
My belief is it will depend on what the RR is. not sure what you mean by marginalized. data is data. A better chance to respond is a better chance to respond. Statistically speaking if based on the n of 54 in a ph1/2 demonstrates a higher RR for this mutation, then the data speaks for itself. If not, then yes clovis part 2.
I agree with you, everyone is watching.
Click to expand...

Inept management can f up anything.
 




anonymous said:
My belief is it will depend on what the RR is. not sure what you mean by marginalized. data is data. A better chance to respond is a better chance to respond. Statistically speaking if based on the n of 54 in a ph1/2 demonstrates a higher RR for this mutation, then the data speaks for itself. If not, then yes clovis part 2.
I agree with you, everyone is watching.
Click to expand...


If only it were that simple...if you've been in oncology for any amount of time you would/should know all too well that the "best data" is never really the best data, nor the most prescribed, when there are similar MOA's offering similar outcomes. AE's, DC rate, duration of response, subset outcome differences, inclusion criteria differences between trials, durability of response, just to name a few of the components that will get bandied around for and against any product unless you are the only drug in the space...like launching Rituxan in CD 20 positive DLBCL. In this day and age of many MOA similars launching within months of each other there rarely is a clearcut zero sum winner. Look no further than the PD1 battles. There is the Nivo camp and the Pempro camp, where they will use the one they like better in liu of data or even having an indication. This data is being viewed as marginally different but not enough to change behaviors. Unfortunately the commercial team will not be a differentiator in this launch.
 




anonymous said:
If only it were that simple...if you've been in oncology for any amount of time you would/should know all too well that the "best data" is never really the best data, nor the most prescribed, when there are similar MOA's offering similar outcomes. AE's, DC rate, duration of response, subset outcome differences, inclusion criteria differences between trials, durability of response, just to name a few of the components that will get bandied around for and against any product unless you are the only drug in the space...like launching Rituxan in CD 20 positive DLBCL. In this day and age of many MOA similars launching within months of each other there rarely is a clearcut zero sum winner. Look no further than the PD1 battles. There is the Nivo camp and the Pempro camp, where they will use the one they like better in liu of data or even having an indication. This data is being viewed as marginally different but not enough to change behaviors. Unfortunately the commercial team will not be a differentiator in this launch.
Click to expand...

Meek is a significant liability.
 








anonymous said:
Medical leadership is really poor. They celebrate, promote and award their friends and sycophants regularly yet the vast majority of talent they have is not happy. The gaps are getting bigger and their ability to respond is poor to close the gap with Amgen. You raise concerns to help shape improvements at Mirati and you quickly find yourself marginalised.
Click to expand...

I have heard the same from multiple sources that works or worked or know there at Mirati... the Head of Medical Affairs there is really really really horrible. She is not strategic, and her lack of experiences have made her super insecure and a big time micromanager, she does not like to take advice or suggestions and just driving everyone crazy, and on top of that, she ONLY favors the BMS crew that she brought over (so if you are not BMS, tough luck on your bonuses and any advancements with the company....). I wouldn't be surprised if there will be many people leaving soon due to her poor management skills. So I would think twice before applying any roles at Mirati... its a sinking ship.
 




anonymous said:
If only it were that simple...if you've been in oncology for any amount of time you would/should know all too well that the "best data" is never really the best data, nor the most prescribed, when there are similar MOA's offering similar outcomes. AE's, DC rate, duration of response, subset outcome differences, inclusion criteria differences between trials, durability of response, just to name a few of the components that will get bandied around for and against any product unless you are the only drug in the space...like launching Rituxan in CD 20 positive DLBCL. In this day and age of many MOA similars launching within months of each other there rarely is a clearcut zero sum winner. Look no further than the PD1 battles. There is the Nivo camp and the Pempro camp, where they will use the one they like better in liu of data or even having an indication. This data is being viewed as marginally different but not enough to change behaviors. Unfortunately the commercial team will not be a differentiator in this launch.
Click to expand...
 




Diagree there.. We are in a quantitaive world and no once cares about anything else but the data. Let alone how much colitis you or a patient has. Look at what repotrectnib wants to do to alectinib. So far there data has not matured and valuation has diminshed. This is a David and Goliath situation here with Amgen sumo squatting on the mat. If the data proves itself with the smaller sample size...well then Mirati is sold to a oncology giant i.e. BI, Gilead or anyone trying to get this the Lung space. This is very dicey but where risk takers can win big or you can see a dip like hell. ie BBIO, PBYI, and everyone ones fan favorite CLOVER LEAF CLOVIS :)

TRAE's and AE's are manageable. Its freaking cancer. How will the respond??!.....
 








anonymous said:
Diagree there.. We are in a quantitaive world and no once cares about anything else but the data. Let alone how much colitis you or a patient has. Look at what repotrectnib wants to do to alectinib. So far there data has not matured and valuation has diminshed. This is a David and Goliath situation here with Amgen sumo squatting on the mat. If the data proves itself with the smaller sample size...well then Mirati is sold to a oncology giant i.e. BI, Gilead or anyone trying to get this the Lung space. This is very dicey but where risk takers can win big or you can see a dip like hell. ie BBIO, PBYI, and everyone ones fan favorite CLOVER LEAF CLOVIS :)

TRAE's and AE's are manageable. Its freaking cancer. How will the respond??!.....
Click to expand...


Nah…the world has changed. It’s not purely efficacy outcome based like it once was. The cancer patient and oncologist is looking for balance now more than ever in their treatments in the non curative metastatic setting. QOL has been added to many clinical trials and will continue to be.


I do a ton of adboards and this is a common statement across tumor types…

“Hey you may get one more week on average of OS or PFS or your RR of death is slightly better with with drug A vs. drug B by a few percentage points but you are going to feel awful on drug A and the cost for that slight ‘improvement’ is a decline in your QOL, and there really isn’t a head to head to really prove it one way or another”.

Unless you have head to head data which almost no newer agents do, the data will be sliced and diced, subsetted out. So unless you have some insane clinically meaningful and differentiated from an efficacy standpoint you will be in a dog fight much like the PARP market was/is. Lastly, it looks like the $10B+ Big Pharma single drug buyouts have slowed greatly and the Bigs haven’t been overspending to break into a tumor type or oncology like they once did. The trend is to buy cheap pre approval or buy based on real revenue post approval…like GSK taking out Tesaro. They waited, saw the revenue was no where near what it was being touted and got it at a deep discount from its highest share price. Not too many of the crazy crazy, make everyone a multi millionaire buyouts happening.

I’ll agree that this place offers us a shot and it’s better than being at a big Pharma oncology division…time will tell. This just has more of a Tesaro feel than anything else.
 




Let me try to unpack this a bit more as you are evidently biased...and rightfully so, you took a risk.

Please...This is not Tesaro, this is not a PARP. This is Lung cancer. This is targeted therapy and closely being watching. "THE" tumor type which is a dismal disease for patients.

This isnt ZAI Labs so your QOL hocus pocus doesnt matter. Oh btw, here is a survey, tell me how you feel. GTFOH.

We are driven by quant data. Results that you can systematically and unequivocally measure. This is America...

The RR, the G12D for CRC. then and only then will this demonstate its 7-8 billion dollar valuation.

Sincerely Yours,

Sonic the Hedgefund
 




anonymous said:
Let me try to unpack this a bit more as you are evidently biased...and rightfully so, you took a risk.

Please...This is not Tesaro, this is not a PARP. This is Lung cancer. This is targeted therapy and closely being watching. "THE" tumor type which is a dismal disease for patients.

This isnt ZAI Labs so your QOL hocus pocus doesnt matter. Oh btw, here is a survey, tell me how you feel. GTFOH.

We are driven by quant data. Results that you can systematically and unequivocally measure. This is America...

The RR, the G12D for CRC. then and only then will this demonstate its 7-8 billion dollar valuation.

Sincerely Yours,

Sonic the Hedgefund
Click to expand...


Good luck…your assessment is bunk. Plenty of drugs have had superior RR/Efficacy data that don’t win the day. You must not be paying close attention to ongoing clinical trials as more and more studies are adding QOL as a secondary endpoint, while payers and systems are looking at QOL/DC rate/hospitalizations/ total cost of treatment data especially with ACO’s. Efficacy is no longer the zero sum game winner in oncology in the non-curative space, especially when trying to do cross trial comparisons. Having a slight, non head to head, statistical advantage isn’t what it used to be. Again look no forget than the PD1 market.

I actually don’t have a bias. Don’t really care one way or the other. Just writing what I’ve heard in countless adboards, market research, in launching 6 different oncology brands…two in lung, two in CRC, along with countless KOL interviews. This will be an undifferentiated brand and will the company will not fetch a big selling price when revenue is not what they are hoping for.
 




anonymous said:
Let me try to unpack this a bit more as you are evidently biased...and rightfully so, you took a risk.

Please...This is not Tesaro, this is not a PARP. This is Lung cancer. This is targeted therapy and closely being watching. "THE" tumor type which is a dismal disease for patients.

This isnt ZAI Labs so your QOL hocus pocus doesnt matter. Oh btw, here is a survey, tell me how you feel. GTFOH.

We are driven by quant data. Results that you can systematically and unequivocally measure. This is America...

The RR, the G12D for CRC. then and only then will this demonstate its 7-8 billion dollar valuation.

Sincerely Yours,

Sonic the Hedgefund
Click to expand...

Unless it’s a head to head trial there is absolutely nothing ‘systematically’ or ‘unequivocally’ about any measurement.

Clearly you are not on the science side of the business.
 




Investing is science. So you had a marketing stent in pharma, bravo! You understand total cost of care, way to go! Lumakras is first. The data has to be significantly better. If you think an FSKCC or whatever magical concotion waterfall plot qol survey scale named is going to move this b.i.d horse pill in your world then thats your prerogative.
Lets see what the data reads. Cheers to 2022!
 




anonymous said:
Let me try to unpack this a bit more as you are evidently biased...and rightfully so, you took a risk.

Please...This is not Tesaro, this is not a PARP. This is Lung cancer. This is targeted therapy and closely being watching. "THE" tumor type which is a dismal disease for patients.

This isnt ZAI Labs so your QOL hocus pocus doesnt matter. Oh btw, here is a survey, tell me how you feel. GTFOH.

We are driven by quant data. Results that you can systematically and unequivocally measure. This is America...

The RR, the G12D for CRC. then and only then will this demonstate its 7-8 billion dollar valuation.

Sincerely Yours,

Sonic the Hedgefund
Click to expand...


Hey douchebag, last I checked advanced ovarian cancer is incurable and it’s a shitty disease. It is very similar to lung c. in that it is typically diagnosed in stage 3 or 4. Earlier diagnosis are typically ancillary to some other medical problem.

The biggest distinction is that only women get ovarian C, whereas both sexes ( there are only 2) can and do get lung c.

In advanced disease a few percentage points difference in ORR is irrelevant and can easily be explained away by trial design or differences in patient populations due to enrollment criteria.

AMGN will have the dominant drug is this space. Period. Side effects matter.
 




Your a baboon. So you read something and can regurgitate. This is about EBITDA . Ovarian is a peanut compared to Lung, you wasted space. Do a market analysis... Dumbass posting about ovarian, thinking his/her gyn/onc's are the lions share, what do you have next lumpy? Go hump your tractor. Read and shut-up.
 




anonymous said:
Your a baboon. So you read something and can regurgitate. This is about EBITDA . Ovarian is a peanut compared to Lung, you wasted space. Do a market analysis... Dumbass posting about ovarian, thinking his/her gyn/onc's are the lions share, what do you have next lumpy? Go hump your tractor. Read and shut-up.
Click to expand...

EBITDA. Very impressive. Somebody’s been reading their copy of the 80 Minute MBA.
 




anonymous said:
Your a baboon. So you read something and can regurgitate. This is about EBITDA . Ovarian is a peanut compared to Lung, you wasted space. Do a market analysis... Dumbass posting about ovarian, thinking his/her gyn/onc's are the lions share, what do you have next lumpy? Go hump your tractor. Read and shut-up.
Click to expand...

When you begin your post with a grammatical error, you don’t impress anyone.

Said another way, you’re an imbecile. No more time to waste on you.
 












Top Bottom
Back
Quote