General Comments / Chat, page-11589

Note this refers to a 10% royalty paid to RAC for the out-licensing of bisantrene, which is not necessarily the same royalty paid to RAC holders.

I actually think 10% is a very conservative estimate, and as far as I can tell they make no mention of upfronts and milestones that will surely be incorporated into any transaction.

There are probably 5 super conservative estimates in that screen shot alone:

• no upfronts or milestones
• 10% royalty
• 32% success rate (based on industry-accepted ranges that do not account for the clinical history of bisantrene)
• target market that excludes the highest anthracycline market in the world (and every other jurisdiction outside the US and Europe)
• 10% peak market penetration

I find the 10% market penetration most peculiar. If you assume for a second that CPACs is demonstrated unequivocally in the clinical trials, you're telling me that 90% of the market are going to ignore a therapy that is proven to not only improve the rate of cancer-killing, but protects the patients from cardiotoxic harm. That is a ridiculous assumption, and is antithetical to the core principles of medicine in the first place. I personally think if you assume that bisantrene makes it to the market, your uptake rates have to be far higher, AT LEAST 50% but possibly far higher. I just cannot see a physician in the world that refuses to give bisantrene to patients assuming it does actually protect from cardiotoxicity.

Of course I understand why such conservative estimates have to be used, because as mentioned many times on this forum, the numbers genuinely look unbelievable.

This is truly a mind bogglingly large opportunity if executed to plan.