Biotech / Medical | Pharmacyclics (PCYC)


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (592)7/18/2000 12:57:50 AM
From: ima_posta2   of 716
 
Varian's (VAR) novice CEO Richard 'Dick' Levy
is a disgusting individual, who now knows that his trusting employee(s) were videotaped right under his nose!
AAGH, Dick!
One direct report to Mr. Levy - Dr. Susan B. Felch of Los Altos Hills California actually hid a special videocamera in her office that captured 800 hours or so of tape with employee(s) going to the bathroom!
geocities.com 

It gets better - Varian even produced photographs of an employee inside the bathroom! AAGH, Dick!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (592)7/22/2000 12:07:27 PM
From: Arthur Radley   of 716
 
For those holding this "puppy", you will have a full grown dog on your hands when the market opens Monday. Barron's did a number on the CEO in today's edition. Appears that he hasn't been "exactly" truthful in some of his comments about the company and their brain cancer product.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (594)7/22/2000 1:41:25 PM
From: scaram(o)uche   of 716
 
TD:

Thanks for the pointer. I'll reserve judgement until I see the article (I'm not a subscriber), but this pretty much sums up the way that I feel about Miller......

Message 1433450

I don't own a single share.

Save some of us the quick trip to a bookstore, and give us a bit of the story??

Thanks.

Rick

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (595)7/22/2000 2:12:24 PM
From: Arthur Radley   of 716
 
Rick,
Some of the points from the article. By the way it is writing by Cheryl Einhorn...IMO one of the better reporters for Barron's.
1) Appears that major publication refused to print article on PCYC(brain cancer trial) but that CEO continued to boast about the article being published. Only when confronted with the rejection that the publication had told Barron's, he finally admitted that it had been rejected...but he would submit to another peer publication.
2) At least 4(I think the # was 4) outside research entities tried to duplicate PCYC's earlier results and the discovery was .....zilch as for the product doing what PCYC had stated.
3) CEO admitted that earlier results had a flaw in the trial..but no results have been issued on "new and improved" trials that the CEO continues to talk about.
4) CEO's response to outside firms researchers not getting positive results from their trials..he blames that ONE of the researchers was biased since he was working on competing product.
5) CEO's further responded that outside firms didn't know how to run trials with the same protocol that PCYC was using....OOPS! It seems that Barron's confronted him with the fact that PCYC provided the drug and that PCYC people had actually administered the drug for the outside firms. CEO responded that he didn't KNOW that his employees were involved with outside researchers. (Why did I think of the question...Is there really an Easter Bunny!)
6) CEO continued to brag about the positive enrollment that was taking place with major institutions around the country. Seems that Barron's had taken the opportunity to call a few and found out that patient enrollment was lagging...in a big way. Seems that with PCYC's approach, the whole brain was being exposed to their treatment method, thereby, compounding the potential for complications to healthy regions of the brain.
7) And finally, it appears that with PCYC's treatment there is NO WAY to get a blind study, as patients undergoing their process get skin that turns green.

Is this enough? It gets better....NOT!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (596)7/22/2000 3:40:31 PM
From: Thomas M.   of 716
 
Here is a link to the article (subscribers only):

"More Than Academic: Researchers raise questions about Pharmacyclics' cancer drug"

interactive.wsj.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (592)7/22/2000 9:34:16 PM
From: scaram(o)uche   of 716
 
Nothing, however, from Brown or Wachter et al.

Sheesh. Didn't mean to tick them off.

<vpg>

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (596)7/23/2000 12:22:38 AM
From: tnsaf   of 716
 
A partial rebuttal.
On point 6, the FDA has to approve trial designs, so I think the comparison would be with the standard mode of care for this type of disease. (Does anyone have information on this?) From the report on the lead in of the phase III trial presented at the ASCO meeting

On average, each patient had 12 brain tumors, each measuring an average of 1.7 cm in diameter.

Given the average number of tumors shaped beam radiation would be difficult. Also the whole brain radiation may be intended to include undetected tumors.


On point 7, if true, there isn't much that can be done about it; the trial is as blind as possible. (Photosentiziers are in the same situation, and QLT had no problem getting their product approved.) The determination of efficacy against the tumors would still be done in a blind manner by someone who doesn't see the patient. The quality of life measures could be biased if the patients know whether of not they are in the treatment group.

Jason

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: tnsaf who wrote (599)7/23/2000 1:20:37 AM
From: tnsaf   of 716
 
A CancerNet search for open/active trials of radiation treatment of metastatic cancer turned up the 10 below. Many compare against whole brain radiation in the case of brain metastasis. The formatting is lost in the copy and paste, so you can repeat the search and get links to the trials' descriptions at cancernet.nci.nih.gov 

Jason

Search Results

Your search retrieved 10 clinical trials for:

Type of cancer: metastatic cancer

NIH Clinical Center only: no

Type of trial: treatment

Version of results: health professional

Status of trial: open/active

Modality: radiation therapy

Protocol ID:


Drug:

City:


Phase of trial: all phases

State: all states

Sponsor of trial: all

Country: U.S.A.





Display checked documents

Title of Clinical Trial
Protocol ID
Number(s)
1 Phase I Pilot Study of Stereotaxic Radiosurgery in Patients with Intracranial
Neoplasms
NCI-99-C-0011
2 Phase I/II Study of Astatine At 211 Antitenascin Human/Mouse Chimeric
Monoclonal Antibody 81C6 Via Surgically Created Cystic Resection Cavity in
Patients With Primary or Metastatic Brain Tumors
DUMC-0013-00-1R2
NCI-G98-1462
DUMC-0036-99-1R2
DUMC-060-98-1
DUMC-98007
3 Phase I/II Study of Intracranial Administration of Iodine I 131 Labeled
Anti-Tenascin Monoclonal Antibody 81C6 for Primary or Metastatic
Malignant Anaplastic Gliomas
DUMC-000223-00-2R7
NCI-H96-0009
DUMC-0328-99-2R6
DUMC-221-96-2R3
DUMC-307-97-2R4
DUMC-307-98-2R5
4 Phase I/II Study of Intrathecal Monoclonal Antibody Fragment 131I Me1-14
F(ab')2 in Patients With Neoplasms Metastatic to the Leptomeninges
(Summary Last Modified 06/2000)
DUMC-1229-99-7R10
NCI-H96-0010
DUMC-1017-96-7R7
DUMC-1100-97-7R8
DUMC-1159-98-7R9
DUMC-657897
DUMC-997-95-7R6
NCI-V90-0052
5 Phase II Pilot Study of Stereotactic Radiosurgery Following Whole Brain
Radiotherapy in Patients With Limited Malignant Melanoma Brain
Metastases
SWOG-9903
6 Phase II Study of Stereotactic Radiosurgery for 1-3 Newly Diagnosed Brain
Metastases from Renal Cell Carcinoma, Melanoma, and Sarcoma (Summary
Last Modified 10/1998)
E-6397
7 Phase III Randomized Study of Fractionated External Beam Whole Brain
Radiotherapy With Versus Without a Stereotactic Radiosurgery Boost in
Patients With One Unresected Brain Metastasis
RTOG-9508
8 Phase III Randomized Study of Whole Brain Radiotherapy With or Without
RSR-13 in Patients With Brain Metastases
ALLOS-RSR13RT-009
9 Pilot Study of Adjuvant Fractionated Stereotactic Radiotherapy Following
Surgical Removal of Cerebral Metastases
UCLA-HSPC-970101503
NCI-G98-1416
UCLA-HSPC-970101502
10 Pilot Study of Focal Radiation With or Without Surgery in Patients with Four
or Fewer Cerebral Metastases

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Doug Meetmer who started this subject7/23/2000 1:25:30 AM
From: sim1   of 716
 
Pharmacyclics drug questioned

By Debra McGarry, CBS Marketwatch
Last Update: 10:34 PM ET Jul 22, 2000
NewsWatch
Latest headlines


SUNNYVALE, Calif. (CBS.MW) -- Pharmacyclics plans to ask for regulatory approval from the Food and Drug Administration of its cancer drug Xcytrin by late next year.

While there is huge potential for the drug, some researchers are questioning its effectiveness, according to a report in Barron's.

Xcytrin was developed to improve radiation therapy's effects and is now being studied for how the substance works in brain-cancer patients. The drug is in its final phase of human trials.

Critics contend that Pharmacyclics (PCYC: news, msgs) hasn't fully substantiated its scientific findings.

An article describing how Xcytrin works was just rejected for publication by a prestigious academic journal, according to the Barron's report.

The company is racking up losses, which have widened amid rising costs. The company, however, is expected to be profitable by 2002, according to Morgan Stanley's health care analyst Douglas Lind.

Lind estimates that Xcytrin might sell for $3,000 per patient per year. If the drug were approved for brain-cancer treatment, the company could immediately capture 4 percent
of the radiation-therapy market, giving it sales of $84 million, the article said.

But academic researchers are questioning the drug's effectiveness, Barron's said. Four academic cancer research institutions tried to duplicate the company's promising results. But each concluded independently that the drug didn't work, according to the article.

"We didn't see anything," said the University of Pennsylvania's Dr. Eric Bernhard. "It didn't work. I don't know how the company got their results."

"Under no circumstances was there any evidence that this showed any sensitization to radiation," said Dr. Martin Brown, chief of the Department of Radiological Oncology at
Stanford. "It was inactive."

The company said the outside researchers didn't know how to use the drug.

Shares of Pharmacyclics closed down 3 3/4 Friday at 68 7/8.


Debra McGarry is a reporter for CBS.MarketWatch.com.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: sim1 who wrote (601)7/23/2000 2:59:13 AM
From: Doug Meetmer   of 716
 
The only question is, on Monday, will the stock close single digits, teens, or twenties? What a disappointment.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.