Thanks
@DickyB for asking. In short I think Pfizers purchase of Seagen was a strategically strong one. Oncology is the growth field in terms of cancer treatment, and Pfizer wanted to strengthen their presence in that space accordingly. Anti Drug Conjugates or ADC's in which Seagen chose to specialise are a revolutionary technology in that they target the tumour cells in ones body when patients are being treated, and leave the healthy cells alone. Therefore chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies are more successful in targeting the cancerous cells during treatment, when utilised in combination with Seagen's drugs. Seagen has been successful in trials with patients suffering from cervical cancer, non Hodgkins lymphoma and her 2 expressing cancers including breast cancer. ADCETRIS® TUKYSA® and TIDVAK are examples of Seagens drugs, which are more advanced than Imugene vaccines, with Phase 3 results and revenue in Seagen's mix.
That said ADC's are predominantly recognised as a
linker, or mode of delivery for chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, both which are known for inducing side effects within patients. Conversely Imugene's Vaxinia to date has resulted in little if any side effects and toxicity within patients. And we now know that once in the tumour, it infects, destroys and eradicates the solid tumour within a patient, according to the oncolytic viruses founder Professor Yuman Fong. Further to which Vaxinia appears to be successful in treating multiple cancer indications, as opposed specifically to blood and her 2 related cancers i.e., lymphoma and breast cancer respectively. Recent Seagen successes have extended the company's reach into areas such as brain cancer, however the company is only beginning to develop a pipeline to treat the huge unmet need that is solid tumours within patients.
If I had to choose I'd be working with Imugene's OV's, in particular Vaxinia, over the Seagen ADC's and pipeline, despite the fact Seagens drugs are already in production and earning revenue. Although Imugene's OV's are yet to determine the best mode of delivery, and the most appropriate combination drugs, pre clinical results, and now in human patient responses would suggest Vaxinia has a much broader reach than Seagens drugs. Chemotherapy and MAB's are outdated technology in many respects due to the toxicity associated wth them. Yes Seagen has drugs that target only the cancerous cells within a patient, yet they themselves are ostensibly a method of delivery themselves. Vaxinia packs the whole punch, and from what we are being told is a stand alone weapon capable of killing solid tumours irrespective of their origin. Given the promise Vaxinia holds for solid tumour patients worldwide, it is quite amazing the IMU share price is languishing where it is. Imugenes $300 million USD (approx) is a market cap tens of billions south of where Seagen is. Once Vaxinia produces results later this year, in conjunction with the idea of a potential fast track FDA approval for the virus, that may well change.
So yes, in answer to question it does go some of the way in ascertaining a valuation for Imugene, and in particular Vaxinia. Though as fellow posters have eluded to, how do value a drug or vaccine that has never existed before. One that has the potential to destroy all cancer indications across the board? To tap into the highly lucrative solid tumour market within a matter of years. Is twenty times revenue a sufficient multiple? All I can say is that as you are an Imugene holder stay excited. Seagen is but one example of how Big Pharma is keen to pursue revolutionary new treatment arms in the field of oncology, whatever the cost. Imugene may just be in the right place at the right time to receive a significant windfall, even if Big Pharma are the only ones in the know.
Stay excitedDYOR Seek investment advice as and when required - Opinions only
(20min delay)
