skitahoe

6 Comments

    • Would Genentech Be Better Off Left Alone by Roche? [view article]
      I certainly agree with all you're saying, however it must also be recognized that Roche is putting money in its own pocket by working to move up the price of DNA. It's a win-win proposition for them.

      If they should try a higher bid that also gets rejected, their equity value goes up even more, at this point I doubt they'd want the offer accepted. I haven't done the math, but I suspect they've made several hundreds of millions on their books from the initial offer because of the number of shares they currently hold in DNA and the way the offer moved its price up.

      BMY did the same thing with IMCL.

      Gary       Aug 19 09:08 AM
    • General Discussion on GNVC
      GNVC is in about a four month period of anticipation of the next peek at the PACT Trial where I believe the price will move up because with each day, week, and month that passes the data should improve. I say four month because by December, if they've not yet taken a peek, I believe anyone knowledgeable will be almost certain the data will at minimum sustain the nearly 80% improvement TNFerade has made over the SOC alone.

      No one can say for certain what the FDA will do, but if 17 months or more of life is demonstrated by the drug at 92 events, vs 11 months for the SOC, I believe GNVC should attempt to gain approval. Trials to date have shown 19 months on average, so 17's the sort of number that might be seen if the peek were taken now or in September. I choose 17 because it's better than a 50% improvement, certainly worthy of a review, but perhaps not approval at 92 events. A 20 to 25% improvement is probably all that's required for approval in time, but that might require several hundred, or perhaps even over 1000 events.

      I believe without a peek, the stock should see new annual highs by November, they will continue to advance until a peek is announced then a big upward move can be expected if the data sustains prior data, or betters it.

      Gary       Aug 02 04:28 PM
    • General Discussion on IMGN
      IMGN is poised for tremendous growth in the next few months. At any time we should hear that BioTest has begun their Phase I Trial, more importantly DNA may announce the start of their two new Phase II Trials on T-DM1 scheduled for July. What's most important about DNA's trials is either or both could possibly be registrational.

      The end of this month marks the termination of the current developmental partnership with SNY, it's the point where SNY must declare any new target's it's acquiring from IMGN through the partnership. Guidance has been that they'll select 3 to 5 new targets and each target will probably get IMGN $1 to $2 million up front, plus $30 some million in milestones through the trial period should IMGN not select to Opt In to the resulting drugs as specified periods.

      The end of the month also marks when SNY can choose to maintain a developmental relationship with SNY where IMGN conjugates MAB's that they supply. While this partnership was agreed to previously, SNY must make a payment, which could be substantial to keep it in place.

      I really don't know that much will be said about how drug trials are going before the major conferences this fall and winter, but actions often speak louder than words and the fact that so many drugs are in trials, and trials are expanding should tell everyone something. DNA's certainly leading the pack right now, but SNY, IMGN or both could also have drugs advancing to Pivotal Trial by next year if results later this year prove promising.

      As alway, this is JMHO, I'm not a medical or technical expert, just someone who's been involved with IMGN almost from its beginning.

      Gary       Aug 02 04:09 PM
    • Why is Wall Street Ignoring ImmunoGen? [view article]
      I don't believe they'll be ignoring IMGN much longer. The Abstact for once a week dosing of T-DM1 shows spectacular results, this should only get better as we see more patients and confirmed Partial Responses in the ASCO presentation which should include nearly six months of additional data.

      Add to this the fact that the Clinical Trials database now shows two new Phase II Trials intended to start in July that will greatly expand the potential use of T-DM1 and you can see that DNA with the concurrence of the FDA is looking to rapidly develop this drug.

      I've heard it said that a blind man could see this drug is headed for approval, I believe it's not only true, but the FDA themselves might shorten the process as the data's so overwhelming.

      I believe all the new trials, as well as perhaps the current trials, could be using Pivotal Material which DNA now has the capability of making, instead of drug supplied by IMGN. The importance of this is DNA cannot gain approval unless the FDA approves its manufacturing capability, this may already have been done.

      It's only a matter of time, and I believe this drug will fly through Pivotal Trials once they're started.

      Gary       May 16 09:52 PM
    • Immunogen's Bright Future (Part II) [view article]
      Ohad,

      I agree with much you say, and you certainly have much greater technical expertice than me, but my understanding of a few things is different from yours. Please check if I'm wrong.

      As I understand it DM4 does bind more securely than DM1, but I think each will work with IMGN's various different linkers. Likewise IMGN's different linkers will work with Taxanes they've developed, and also DC's which haven't been mentioned in some time.

      Back when C242-DM1 was in trials there were two patients, I believe with colon cancer, who nearly had partial responses. The benefits they got from the drug may have been sustained for over a year. To me this is saying that with the right patient mix and the right protocol C242-DM4 should work in a manner that's superior to the DM1 based product. I believe the key is the right patients, and perhaps a protocol that includes other forms of chemo. If this drug were in the hands of someone with far more funds, I believe several trials would be run to determine how to best utilize the drug.

      From their comments it appears that SNY has done this with My9-6-DM4 and now they're saying they have POC. They haven't said what exactly that means, but we should find out at ASH when it's anticipated they'll be discussing the drug. If POC means to SNY what it normally means, the drug should advance in trials shortly.

      Gary       Oct 18 11:05 PM
    • The "Naked" Truth About Antibodies For Cancer Therapy [view article]
      I believe IMGN's latest guidance is for 2 to 4 drugs by June 2008, the end of their fiscal year. Eight targets currently are licensed to IMGN's partners, and the CEO has guided that SNY will claim at least ten targets to license from IMGN's pipeline by the end of August, 2008. By the end of 2009 the potential of going substantially higher than 4 to 6 new drugs is great.

      Something we have almost no knowledge of is just how much work has been done preclinically since the SNY partnership took place. We know SNY has a choice of up to 20 targets from IMGN's pipeline, and that the choice was from 40 or more targets in the pipeline. If over the five years of the partnership many of these 20 to 40 targets they've been looking at have advanced substantially preclinically, by the end of 2009 either IMGN or SNY may put one or more of these in the clinic. Today we know of at least one that SNY intends to bring to the clinic as it appears on SNY's website, even though the drug's not yet licensed with IMGN.

      I hope everyone knows when I'm referring to a target it actually represents potentially many different drugs. PSMA was the target IMGN licensed with MLNM, who also had the rights to J591 an MAB developed by BZL which targets it. There are other MAB's that also target PSMA, IMGN won't license them as long as MLNM holds the target rights. While MLN2704 didn't go to Phase II, it was a conjugate of J591 with DM1 with one of IMGN's oldest linkers. Today IMGN could conjugate that MAB with different linkers as well as different effector molecules. It could also conjugate other MAB's targeted at PSMA, but only for MLNM, or if MLNM agreed to sell or abandon its license with IMGN. No one outside the partnered companies seem to know how long licenses are for, so it's also possible that in time they expire if drugs are not being actively pursued from the license.

      I believe that Tras-DM1 could be the first approved TAP drug, though there are other possibilities. As I see it, ten or twenty years from now DNA could come back to IMGN and improve on the drug with a better linker, effector molecule, or both, as I don't believe the license would expire just because a drug was approved from it.

      These are just my opinions, but I've been invested in the company almost from the beginning.

      Gary       Jul 05 04:31 PM
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»

Trading Center