|From: stockdoc77||12/7/2019 5:28:47 PM|
|The ability of sacituzumab to safely target trop 2 should not be underrated. Naked sacituzumab does little other than coat tumor cells with Mab, you have to have some sort of payload to actually kill the tumor. Currently we are doing an ADC with a topoisomerase inhibitor that seems to be in the sweet spot of effective but not too toxic.|
I do own shares in a company called FATE. They have developed the ability to grow and genetically modify NK cells from hematologic stem cells. They are thereby able to create a massive clone of NK cells that can be given to patients. They are modifying these cells in a variety of ways, but the initial patient data was presented today at ASH in their P1 trial. They have a product called FT516, which is an NK clone that has a CD16 protein genetically inserted. CD16 is high affinity binder of antibody. The idea would be you could give a Mab that targets the tumor (rituxan, herception, sacituzumab etc) then chase it with FT516, the NK cells are potent killers of tumor cells but they need targeting, which the CD16 protein confers on them.
While I have invested in FATE, my main concern was allogeneic immune reaction limiting the dosing. If the patient develops an immune response to the NK cells, which are just an off the shelf clone, not the patient's own cells as in CAR-T, then the therapy is basically useless, you could only give it once at best. But in their initial trial with unmodified clonal NK cell line called FT500, they were able to give repeated doses without triggering a T or B cell immune response as they reported today.
I find their technology extremely intriguing with very high potential but the data is extremely preliminary in humans. However, if this does pan out, I could see naked Sacituzumab with FT516 becoming a very powerful combination.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)|
|To: idahoranch1 who wrote (53387)||12/7/2019 8:33:51 PM|
Thanks for this article. I have a Motley account but never saw this. This evaluation is fairly short but covers all of the main parts of IMMU and this technology and history, and the future.
I know a lot of people in here think selling IMMU at some time soon after the 132 approval is the route to go, but, this small accounting of future opportunities IDAHO just posted, to me, looks very promising. Of course, no one can predict the future, and there's all sorts of things that could go wrong. And selling IMMU at the right time and right price will produce the icing on the cake and a substantial bump in price. From what we've seen, heard and read over the last several months, but the recent developments being a highlight, if IMMU can get 132 going and expanding into other areas of oncology, I see IMMU being a $100 stock in the next 2 to 4 years maybe more. Would it be better to keep IMMU as it's own producer and investigator and look to a level of value we all dream about getting into on the ground floor. We're no longer in the basement, maybe up to the 1st or 2nd floor. But, the penthouse at the top is looking more appealing all the time. Makes ya think.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|To: stockdoc77 who wrote (53386)||12/8/2019 8:36:23 AM|
|I believe it was either stockdoc or li who at one point made the comment that SG was not a cure but a treatment. I would like a more detailed perspective on the semantics, since with 6 CRs for a heavily treated population...I would think that is a cure? As a side note: we had an elderly neighbor who had lung cancer 20 years ago, had a lung removed, and in early 2000s had Avastin? and was clear for 15 years...I consider that a cure.|
This weeks action looked like a short squeeze to me....takes large volume and sharp price rise.
For those who want daily naked short stats, here are two links:
daily short interest
naked short report
To be quite honest, this stock from back in late 90's has NOT be worth the pain!
The failure a year ago when 37/38 others got approved was mind boggling to me with all the high paid execs we brought on board
I had anticipated being able to pay my kids college tuition and they have long since graduated.
Yes I am + here and have good expectations over the next few months, and I have still not touched my core positions. More than likely I will sell 1/3 after New years and then sell 1/3 in the money calls going into the next year to spread the tax bite. Would not surprise me if we had a takeover at a 3x+ market cap from where we are now.
slightly OT qs- What does it take for SG to be approved as a first line mono treatment? How do we get around not giving the standard of care?
Stew Corman from sunny Endicott
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|To: scorman1 who wrote (53391)||12/8/2019 11:13:39 AM|
|A CR is not a cure if the patient relapses within a few weeks or months. Because solid cancers can relapse even years after a CR in traditional chemotherapy (mainly seen with indolent breast cancers) the standard metric used is remission that lasts at least 5 years is probably a cure. We have never achieved that. I dont think we had 6 CR in the TNBC study, I thought it was 2? |
To become first line therapy we would need to do a large head to head P3 trial comparing 132 to current standard of care. That is a long path to getting approval, many years, so that will have to wait till we get AA for 3rd line therapy. Ultimately 132 will expand into other solid cancers and advance up the food chain especially in combination therapy trials. 10 year process to discover how to fully utilize this drug. Look at the history of rituxan, initially approved as a single agent for low grade NHL, now being used for a variety of NHL, dosing schedules, and autoimmune diseases.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|