Destined to fail, page-9

I must admit to being very skeptical about interpreting these trial results as some sort of positive “sub-group” finding.

The trial included patients with limited extra-hepatic metastases in the lung (<5 at <1cm) and abdominal lymph nodes (<2cm).

These are non-target lesions – not measurable.

Non target progression is subjective – not quantitative.

A change from 2-3mm would not count as a progression. Under Resist 1.1 20% increase in SLD and 5mm absolute increase is required before you can make the subjective assessment of unequivocal progression.

It is assumed here that all non-liver progressions occurred in the 40% patients at baseline with liver predominant cancer (and not the liver only group). Most likely not.

Previous studies had shown an improvement in overall disease progression and liver progression. It was worth a punt.

You really need not a medical oncologist ... but someone pretty cluey with Recist and more data to properly understand what exactly the results are showing (or not showing).

Hence the confusion. Recist is not what anyone could describe as a “common” knowledge and without any data you are shooting in the dark.

That is why the market is simply pricing the company (with its usual gyrations) on the level the company said it would be worth if the primary outcome failed ... that is as salvage therapy.

Traders, HC pundits, fundies are betting the market has it wrong. On the basis of talking to management or one medical oncologist from somewhere. Wrong people to talk to imo.