RAC - Charts & Price Action, page-25876

I think part of the misunderstanding stems from what may have been an overemphasis on the similarity between RC220 and RC110 - the idea that RC220 is basically RC110, just without the crystallization issue. That kind of framing leads people to assume that since the hard part is done, what’s left is just a formality. Credit is given when its deserved - and only so! Noone gives new appreciation to a fish for swimming.

What is lost is that, even biosimilars and generics drugs designed to be as close as scientifically possible to the original, can stumble.

And here’s the irony: the very fact that RC220 no longer crystallises - the property that sets it apart - might actually allow it to do something instead. Hopefully that something is good. But it could be bad. That’s why testing is still essential. A formulation change can open doors or landmines.

It’s also well known that commercially manufactured drugs, even when produced using the same methods and specs as their inventor, can behave differently than batches made by academic centres or original developers. That variability is real and not just theoretical.

So, IMO, the milestones for RC220 should be appreciated, and not be seen as some box-ticking exercises. They are critical steps that validate whether and how the drug can be safely delivered - on its own, and more importantly, alongside doxorubicin. And everything else that will come from it.

It may look like a "free shot on goal", but its not. If all goes well and RC220 delivers, this may very well be one of the most meaningful achievements in oncology drug development.