OBR Daily Commentary

forumImage

J&J, Partner's Blood Cancer Therapy a 'Breakthrough'

(NJ.com/Bloomberg) Feb 13, 2013 - Pharmacyclics, a drugmaker developing an experimental therapy for blood cancers, won “breakthrough” status from U.S. regulators for the medicine that may lead to quicker marketing approval.

Read Article arrow

Michael G. King Jr. (Posted: February 26, 2013)

quotesThe Delta Force, or, How to Create a Lot of Market Capitalization in a Relatively Short Period of Time In this column we briefly discuss the matter of the small number of companies that occupy a large market capitalization space, namely, Pharmacyclics, the developer of ibrutinib, an inhibitor of the B-cell signaling enzyme, BTK, and Infinity Pharmaceuticals, a developer of IPI-145, an inhibitor of the delta and gamma isoforms of PI3 kinase. We will not discuss here at length Gilead Sciences, though by rights the company triggered the hoopla surrounding this category of compound by acquiring Calistoga Pharmaceuticals in 2011 for $375 million, along with a potential additional $225 million based on milestones. Arguably, Gilead’s valuation is still very much tied to its efforts in the antiviral (especially HCV) space, though it is aggressively building an oncology effort beneath the surface. Celgene also gets some credit here with its March 2012 acquisition of Avila Pharmaceuticals, a developer of the irreversible inhibitor of BTK, AV-292 (now CC-292) for more than $350 million and earn-outs. These expenditures seem almost paltry compared to the market capitalizations of Pharmacyclics and Infinity, however. Returning to the subject companies that are the subject of our discussion, Pharmacyclics trades with a market cap of $6.3 billion, while Infinity trades at $1.64 billion. These two companies took the prize amongst the cancer companies we track for share appreciation in 2012, with Infinity narrowly edging Pharmacyclics with a 285% share price rise vs. 280% for that of Pharmacyclics. What is perhaps even more remarkable than the breathtaking increase in share valuation was the humble beginnings from whence they came. When we first started following Pharmacyclics in 2009, the company had recently come off a second failed Phase III trial of its experimental therapy Xcytrin, intended for use in brain metastases arising from breast cancer. The value of the company at that time was less than $200 million, and most investors were too fed up with their clinical failures and quirky CEO to notice the compound the company had in-licensed from Celera (which in turn had acquired it from ailing Axys Pharmaceuticals). However, the outstanding results the molecule has produced in CLL were sufficient to propel the share price from under $5 in December of 2010 to a recent high of more than $90, for a compounded annual rate of return of 160%. Even if we begin counting from early 2011, Pharmacyclics shares are up more than 1600%. Clearly, when Susan O’Brien of MD Anderson Cancer Center first presented the ibrutinib data in the relapsed/refractory CLL setting showing response rates greater than 70% with robust durability, investors knew they were onto something special. The dataset was about to get even more impressive, but before investors could sink their teeth into the updated data at ASH 2011, Johnson & Johnson stepped in with a near-$1 billion worldwide partnership to co-develop and co-commercialize ibrutinib worldwide. The recent designation of ibrutinib as a breakthrough therapy (a new category conceived of by the FDA of which no one, including ourselves, is quite clear on the meaning) have sent the shares to new all-time highs. No less breathtaking is the story of Infinity Pharmaceuticals, the shares of which have soared more than 600% since early 2011. Infinity is a story of high expectations at birth, a cold dose of reality in the middle, and a thrilling conclusion (though the story is hardly over). At the outset, Infinity started its life as a mash-up of superstars of business and science: Steve Holtzman, the architect of many a blockbuster partnering deal during his days at Millennium Pharmaceuticals (recently ex-Chairman of Infinity and now Executive Vice President of Corporate Development at Biogen), Stuart Schrieber, superstar Harvard chemist, and Eric Lander of MIT and The Broad Institute and one of the key protagonists of the Human Genome Project. Soon after its formation, the company added to its ranks drug-hunter extraordinaire, Julian Adams, of nevaripine and Velcade fame. With this combination of talent, the company couldn’t possibly lose, could it? Well, not exactly. From the mixed (mostly negative) signals the company generated with its geldanamycin-based HSP90 inhibitor, retaspimycin (IPI-504) to its recent termination of development of the hedgehog inhibitor, saradegib, not much went right for the company since its public debut. We recently attended an industry conference where Infinity CEO, Adelene Perkins, spoke about the litany of the companies woes over the years (oh, we almost forgot-they got a divorce from long-time partner, Purdue Pharma), as well as the company’s incredible recent good fortune. We recall years ago when we used to struggle to get investor meetings for the company and when the shares would barely trade 5,000 shares per day. Contrast that to the company’s investor meeting at ASH 2012 when there were at least 100 people in attendance and all seats in the conference room were filled. It just goes to show what one good drug can do for a company. And the drug we’re speaking about here is IPI-145, which, like Pharmacyclics before them, was in-licensed from a third party (in this case it was a company called Intelkine, now owned by Millennium/Takeda). IPI-145 is an inhibitor of both the delta and gamma isoforms of PI3 kinase, and has shown superior in vitro binding affinity to the PI3 kinase delta enzyme compared to the Calistoga compound (widely referred to as GS-1101 or CAL-101, since its generic name, idelalasib, trips poorly off the tongue). Almost incredibly, this comparative binding curve comparison was the only thing investors had to work with for most of 2012, as the stock leapt from a low of just under $7 to a high of $26. The company presented ASH 2012 showing suggestive data that IPI-145 has a therapeutic profile that is similar to both ibrutinib and idelalasib, with activity shown in CLL/SLL, mantle cell lymphoma, indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and, unlike the other two agents, PTCL (a potential differentiating factor for the compound). The shares have recently gone parabolic, much in the same way as those of Pharmacyclics. The obvious question is, is it too late to participate? While we don’t follow Infinity, we can say we remains believers in Pharmacyclics, and are of the view that ibrutinib is the most compelling product opportunity to come along since the days of Celgene’s Revlimid. Being that expectations for Revlimid were able to propel Celgene shares to a valuation of $25-30 billion (vs. $42 billion today), we believe there is a still ways to go for Pharmacyclics. (1) JMP Securities currently makes a market in PCYC (2) JMP Securities currently makes a market in CELG quotes

Add Comment 1 Comment
forumImage

Research from the 2013 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium Highlights New Insights on High-Risk Prostate Cancer Prevalence and Treatment, Compares Benefit of Surveillance and Surgery for Management of Small Kidney Tumors

(ASCO) Feb 12, 2013 - Research on promising new therapies and data on the relative benefits of established treatments for genitourinary cancers were released today, in advance of the fourth annual Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, being held February 14-16, 2013, at the Rosen Shingle Creek in Orlando, FL.

Read Article arrow

Michael G. King Jr. (Posted: February 25, 2013)

quotesWe recently attended the 2013 ASCO GU conference in Orlando, FL. The event was well-attended by investors, which likely had more to do with the busy competitive landscape in prostate and renal cancers and less to do with a slew of new data (which there really wasn’t). In the prostate cancer arena, the focus was on the battle between Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) Zytiga and Medivation/Astellas’ Xtandi, especially for the early-stage, pre-chemotherapy patients where the real money is. A presentation by Memorial Sloan Kettering’s Howard Scher regarding the potential for increased mortality when Xtandi is used in combination with corticosteroids. This was a shot from Medivation and Astellas directly across JNJ’s bow, as Zytiga must be administered with 5mg of prednisone. Dr. Scher’s presentation did not convince the session’s discussant, Mt. Sinai’s William Oh, who attributed the increased mortality to underlying patient demographics. This internecine war-of-words only stoked the glee of the investor onlookers, who also by our informal poll weren’t buying the Medivation shpiel. Nonetheless, it was our sense that the consensus amongst the practitioners, and hence that of the investor participants, was also in favor of Xtandi. Investors would be wise to not miss the forest for the trees, as Aragon and its ARN-509 is a fast-follower with potentially superior characteristics to the established competitors. Below, we have reproduced our take-away comments from the prostate cancer portion of the conference. - Long-term safety, efficacy, and quality of life analyses from the Phase III AFFIRM study with Xtandi (enzalutamide; MDVN, Not Covered (NC)) (Abstracts #6, #16, #17, and #20). In our view, the Xtandi data continue to look impressive and clearly positions the drug as the preferred agent for first-line use. This androgen receptor blocker is highly effective and well-tolerated, with elevations in fatigue that appear to be clinically trivial. As well, gynecomastia is another annoyance. However, most other side effects trend in favor of Xtandi, and they look particularly favorable in the elderly population (age >75 years).We view ASCO GU 2013 as a clear win for Astellas and Medivation, despite what many viewed as a disingenuous presentation of a sub-study from the AFFIRM trial that attempted to link the use of corticosteroids to an increase in mortality in the trial. This thinly-veiled marketing swipe at Johnson & Johnson (JNJ, NC) was refuted by the session’s commentator who attributed the increased use of steroids to patient-related factors that put them at high risk. Recall that Zytiga (abiraterone) is given with 10mg of daily prednisone, an amount considered minimal based on our discussions with attending physicians. The only lingering concern over Xtandi use, in our opinion, is that there continues to be a small but persistent incidence of seizure at roughly 0.5%. - Follow-up overall survival data from the COU-AA-302 study (Abstract #5). While the OS statistics were impressive, with Zytiga extending survival in this pre-chemotherapy population from 30.1 months to 35.3 months, the final results were not statistically significant. The statistical analysis plan called for a required p-value of 0.0035, based on the fact that the OS statistics were examined after 56% of events had been reported. While the associated p-value to the data read-out was “only” 0.0151, the physicians with whom we spoke believe the survival benefit is real and will use Zytiga not only to improve OS but PFS as well. The drug continued to be well-tolerated with no new safety issues emerging. Radiographic progression free survival (rPFS) was doubled with Zytiga vs. placebo (16.5 vs. 8.3 months, p<0.0001), and other secondary endpoints were also substantially improved. All subgroups favored Zytiga as well. - ARN-509: A potent new player in the androgen receptor blocker space (Abstract #7). ARN-509 is a follow-on androgen receptor blocker to Xtandi, and was in fact invented by the same scientist (Dr. Charles Sawyers from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center). The compound is owned by privately-held Aragon Pharmaceuticals. ARN-509 appears to possess greater potency against the androgen receptor compare to Xtandi, and has proven to be more potent than the androgen agonist, bicalutamide. While preliminary results were shown at ASCO 2012, results from a Phase II trial in high-risk prostate cancer patients were shown at ASCO GU. While patients receiving prior use of Xtandi or Zytiga were excluded, all patients had previously received LHRH agonists (like bicalutamide) and 83% had received other antiandrogens. Reductions in PSA (prostate specific antigen) were impressive at both 12 and 24 weeks, with 91% of patients experiencing a >50% reduction in PSA and 88.7% of patients holding free from disease progression at 12 months. The drug appears to have been extremely well tolerated, and no seizures were observed. As encouraging as these results are, we point out that the study was small (n=47) and history of seizure was included among the exclusion criteria. In all, the ARN-509 data was amongst the most interesting of the conference. - Long-term updates from the PROCEED trial of sipuleucel-T (Provenge; DNDN, NC) in mCRPC plus updates from a combination study with Zytiga (Abstracts #30, #74, #114, #131). While Dendreon (DNDN, NC) continues to pedal hard in an attempt to drive additional use of Provenge, its use appears to be relegated to single-digit percentages of the population (see the follow-on therapies from the COU-AA-302 trial). - OS and longer-term safety data from the Phase III READY trial of dasatinib (Sprycel; BMY, NC) in mCRPC (Abstracts #LBA8). A bust. Despite encouraging Phase II data in which dasatinib was able to produce whopping decreases in PSA, overall survival was no different compared to placebo. - Cabozantinib for relapsed/refractory metastatic prostate cancer (Abstract #58)? In a talk at the translational science session on Thursday, a number of discussions were held that addressed the issue of metastatic prostate cancer that has become resistant to conventional androgen blockade, either through inhibition of the production of testosterone (Zytiga, leuprolide,) and/or inhibition of the androgen receptor (Xtandi, bicalutamide). One talk given by Dr. Nima Sharif of UT Southwestern Medical Center talked about the use of cabozantinib (Exelixis, EXEL, NC) in this setting given its differentiated mechanism of action (VEGFR2, Met, and RET), proven activity in this setting, as well as its demonstrated benefit on bone - a key source of nutrients for tumor cells. A separate talk from Karen Knudsen, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania, examined the role of the DNA repair protein, PARP-1 and its ability to interrupt the androgen receptor’s ability to initiate DNA repair. She proposed a protocol that would incorporate the combination of a PARP-1 inhibitor (in this case ABT-888) and Zytiga. In the renal cancer space, it was clearly a story about David (AVEO Pharmaceuticals) vs. several Goliaths (mainly Pfizer and GSK) in the VEGF TKI space. For those that don’t follow this on a daily basis, AVEO is developing tivozanib, a pan-VEGF inhibitor, principally in renal cancer (AVEO’s partner is Astellas). AVEO’s trial, TIVO-1, has proven to be a mixed blessing for this $300 million market cap company. On the one hand, the company chose to pick on the 98-pound weakling of the TKI group, sorafenib (Nexavar), and beat it soundly on PFS (11.9 vs. 9.1 months, HR=0.797, p=0.042). However, two main issues have emerged. First, the overall survival (OS) curve flipped in favor of the sorafenib arm, such that the control (sorafenib) arm produced an OS of 29.3 months, while the tivozanib-treated arm posted 28.8 months. The hazard ratio here was 1.25 and the p value was a marginally-outside-the-bounds-of-statistically-significant 0.105. The second issue is the PFS read-out for sorafenib, which was significantly longer than that seen in the multiple clinical trials run with sorafenib, including the recently-completed front-line comparator study of axitinib (Inlyta) vs. sorafenib (10.1 vs. 6.5 months, HR=0.64, p=0.022, not significant). The inverted survival curve maybe understandable, as nearly three-quarters of the sorafenib patients crossed over to tivozanib treatment; the bizarrely robust PFS number for sorafenib is more difficult to understand from a scientific point of view and for the company to explain. There is sure to be an ODAC meeting sometime between now and the drug’s PDUFA date of July 28, with many betting that it will take place during 2Q13. One thing is for sure: this will be a battle between the statisticians and the clinicians. AVEO will have to bring its “A” game to get through what is sure to be a panel proceeding that will be distracted by a number of shiny statistical objects. Below, we reproduce our thoughts from the renal cancer oral and poster sessions. - Updated quality of life data from the COMPARZ study with Votrient (pazopanib; GSK, NC) vs. Sutent (sunitinib, Pfizer, NC) (Abstracts #346 and #366). Recall that these two anti-angiogenic agents were compared head-to-head in this trial in patients who had received no prior therapy. The assumption was made that Votrient would be non-inferior to Sutent in terms of efficacy but show better tolerability. The efficacy data were first shown at ESMO 2012; for reference, Votrient showed a PFS of 8.4 months, while Sutent showed a PFS of 9.5 months. Though Sutent was numerically superior, the hazard ratio was 1.047, indicating the two results were statistically similar to one another. Likewise, median OS was statistically similar (HR=0.908). However, while Votrient was inferior to Sutent on laboratory measures like ALT and total bilirubin, Sutent was meaningfully worse than Votrient on all hematology measures (neutropenia, anemia, etc.) as well as on creatinine and phosphorous. Votrient was also superior on the FACIT-F fatigue rating system. The discussant, Sandy Srinivas, MD, of Stanford University summed up the session by moderately favoring increased uptake of Votrient on the basis of the study outcome, although the results did not reach what was referred to as a “minimally important difference” (MID). - AVEO NC) has a lot of ‘splaining’ to do regarding its confounding OS data from the Phase III TIVO-1 study with tivozanib vs. sorafenib (Nexavar, ONXX, MO) (Abstracts #350, #354 and #355). While the data from the TIVO-1 study clearly demonstrate superior PFS for tivozanib vs. Nexavar, as many investors already know, the overall survival statistics modestly favor the Nexavar arm. While much of this can demonstrably be attributed to the massive imbalance in second-line therapy employed favoring the Nexavar arm (with 70% of Nexavar patients crossing over to tivozanib, while only 10% of tivozanib patients crossed over to second-line therapy), one has to wonder how an FDA ODAC advisory committee will deal with the issue. In our opinion, it will be a battle of the ages between the statisticians who will want to point out the inverted OS curve, the early separation of the curves, and the imbalance in deaths that are greater in the tivozanib arm. The clinicians will likely emphasize the PFS difference as the standard metric by which drugs for RCC are judged, their confidence the contrary OS curve is not a signal of harm on the part of tivozanib, and their desire to have yet more drugs for RCC patients. We will be delving into the curious dilemma in which AVEO finds itself in future reports. - First-line study results with Inlyta (axitinib; PFE, NC) (Abstract #LBA348). Once again, a Pfizer drug finds itself going head-to-head with Nexavar and coming away with something less than an unequivocal victory. While Inlyta clearly outperformed Nexavar in terms of PFS (10.1 vs. 6.5 months, HR=0.77, p=0.038), the study was nonetheless considered not statistically significant as it was powered with the assumption of a more stringent HR of 0.56. When asked why the company’s assumptions were so aggressive, the principal investigator’s (Tom Hutson, MD, of Baylor Sammons Cancer Center) response was that PFS of >12 months was seen in the Phase II trials, while historically PFS for Nexavar has been in the 5.5-6.0 month range. Unfortunately, the trial participants failed to take into account the inevitable regression to the mean that typically takes place when a drug transitions from Phase II to Phase III. From a practical standpoint, however, it would appear to us that Inlyta has a good shot of making a strong move towards the front-line setting, as its PFS statistics are second only to those of tivozanib. Parting thoughts. A study from US Oncology, Novartis and Cardinal Health, amongst others, provides interesting insights into the use of targeted agents in 2012. This “real world” study examined the use of TKIs and mTOR inhibitors (for a total of seven current agents) via a physician survey conducted during May-June, 2012. A total of 433 RCC patients were included in this survey-based study that examined the treatment patterns for their disease. Patient demographics were reflective of those seen in many of the clinical trials conducted on these compounds. Some of the key findings included: • 100% of patients received second-line therapy who had initiated first-line therapy • 53% of patients were still on second-line therapy after initiation, while 44% discontinued the second-line therapy • Of those that discontinued second-line therapy, 50% of those went onto third-line therapy • Not surprisingly, 77% of patients chose TKIs as their initial therapy, while 23% chose mTOR inhibitors • The typical pattern was TKI-mTOR-TKI, or mTOR-TKI-TKI, respectively • The top four TKIs in the front-line setting were Sutent (67.4%), Nexavar (15.3%), Votrient (9.0%), Avastin (8.4%) and Inlyta (<1%) • Torisel (temsirolimus, Pfizer) was the clear market leader of the two mTORs, with 94% receiving the drug as first-line mTOR therapy and only 6% receiving Afinitor (everolimus, Novartis; NVS, NC) • Second-line TKI rankings were as follows: Votrient (34.5%), Sutent (22.1%), Nexavar (21.2%), Avastin (15.0%) and Inlyta (7.1%) • Finally, the order in the third-line setting was Inlyta (40.0%), Votrient (30.0%), Nexavar (10.0%), Sutent (10.0%), and Avastin (10.0%). We point out the patient numbers are very small here, with only 10 in the sample size. We will watch with interest how these market shares shift in reaction to the COMPARZ, TIVO-1 and the axitinib vs. sorafenib studies. quotes

Add Comment 1 Comment
forumImage

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Approves POMALYST® (pomalidomide) for the Treatment of Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma

(Celgene) Feb 8, 2013 - Celgene Corporation today announced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved POMALYST® brand therapy (pomalidomide) for patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least two prior therapies including lenalidomide and bortezomib and have demonstrated disease progression on or within 60 days of completion of the last therapy.

Read Article arrow

Michael G. King Jr. (Posted: February 11, 2013)

quotesI am excited to be joining the editorial board on OBR; I have been a fan of the publication since its inception, and I am proud to be standing next to such an illustrious panel of oncology thought leaders. I have been following the biotechnology sector as an analyst since 1994, but it was in the last seven or eight that I turned the majority of my attention to the topic of oncology. In more recent years, I have devoted my time almost exclusively to following companies in the oncology space. I have been fascinated by the progress in the science that has permitted the revelations of such drugs as Velcade, Revlimid, Zytiga, Xtandi, Adcertris, Zelboraf and Kyprolis, to name a few. The near future looks equally bright, with the rapid development of inhibitors of such targets as BTK, substituents of the PI3 kinase pathway, and HSP90, among others. I have also experienced the tragedy of pain and loss suffered by friends and family who have been afflicted by cancer, some fatally; while we are supposed to remain dispassionate as analysts to our subject matter, I cannot help but feel gratitude when these amazing drugs make their way to patients. I am also thankful for the tireless dedication of the researchers and companies who make defeating cancer their daily priority. So it perhaps fitting that my first contribution to OBR is to provide our perspective on the FDA approval of Pomalyst (pomalidomide) on Friday, February 8. Pomalyst represents the third installment in the three-act play known as Celgene’s IMiD franchise. It is amazing to think that both Revlimid and Pomalyst trace their roots to Thalomid (thalidomide), the notorious teratogen-turned-miracle-drug for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. We view Pomalyst as a billion dollar franchise in the making for Celgene, and further solidifies the company’s dominance in the multiple myeloma space. Specifically, the FDA has granted accelerated approval (AA) for Pomalyst for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) in patients whose disease is relapsed and refractory to two prior therapies, including Revlimid (lenalidomide) and Velcade (bortezomib). Pomalyst’s approval was expected given that the agency had granted accelerated approval to Kyprolis (carfilzomib), a next-generation proteasome inhibitor, in June 2012 with roughly comparable data. From our seat at JMP Securities, we forecast sales of ~$93MM in 2013 for Pomalyst and believe the drug can top $1bn in sales beginning in 2019. Our review of the Pomalyst package insert turned up no red flags. While some investors feared another “Friday surprise”, referencing the unexpected black box warning for Ariad Pharmaceuticals’ Iclusig, the Pomalyst label contained no such surprises. The black box warnings detailed were as expected given the previous labels for Revlimid and Thalomid. The safety profile detailed in the insert was essentially in-line with the toxicity data from the MM-002 study presented at the 2012 ASH meeting. CELG also disclosed pricing ($10,500/month) for Pomalyst. The actual pricing for the drug was marginally above our estimates of $10,000/month. Celgene also disclosed that Pomalyst would begin shipping in two weeks. Pomalidomide Total Sales WW 2013E: 92.2 2014E: 163.9 2015E: 355.9 2016E: 619.7 2017E: 828.2 Source: JMP Securities LLC based on company reports The other twist in the Pomalyst tale is the Wall Street-manufactured “battle” between Pomalyst and Kyprolis, which gained accelerated approval from the FDA in July of 2012 for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. While it is true that both drugs are labeled for use in highly similar patient populations, we see the two drugs headed in distinctly different directions before they begin (if they ever actually do) begin cannibalizing one another. In the paragraph below we have reproduced the editorial commentary we included in one of our recent notes on Celgene that was distributed to our investors. In order to gain insight into the potential uptake curve for both Pomalyst and Kyprolis, we sought the opinion of a number of thought leaders with both real-world experience treating patients as well as with clinical trials of novel agents. Further, we wanted to test the “Kyprolis vs. Pomalyst” hypothesis that some on the Street have engaged in (NB: we are not subscribers to this hypothesis). Two distinct themes emerged from our discussions. First, patients with renal impairment (increase in serum creatinine) are more likely to receive Kyprolis than Pomalyst. While numbers are difficult to come by, it is generally accepted that later-stage patients with multiple myeloma have a higher incidence of renal impairment than those in the earlier stages of the disease. Second, there will likely be some implementation of alternating drugs depending on their mechanism of action; in other words, patients who have relapsed following therapy with an IMiD will most likely be treated next with a proteasome inhibitor, and vice versa. (While there is little in the way of scientific support for this approach, it is reminiscent of the treatment of HIV in which regimens are switched over the course of time in an attempt to select out resistance to an initial regimen with the expectation that the or will again become sensitive to that agent or agents in the future.) We therefore expect plenty of patients will ultimately reach the stage where they will become eligible for either Pomalyst or Kyprolis. We also would like to make the following points. First, every time a novel agent has entered the myeloma space, the market has expanded as patients progress more slowly and live longer. Second, prior to the recent approvals of Kyprolis and Pomalyst, the last novel agent to gain FDA approval was Revlimid, which took place in 2006. We believe the market is ripe for new drug entrants. Finally, we believe Kyprolis will quickly move into the second-line setting before it ultimately gains use in the first-line setting, most likely in combination with Revlimid and dexamethasone (CRd). Thus, the “battle” between Kyprolis and Pomalyst is a construct of Wall Street, in our opinion, and not a reflection of the reality of the marketplace. I hope you enjoyed my commentary, and I welcome your feedback. Note: JMP Securities currently makes a market in this security quotes

Add Comment 1 Comment

Meet the Editorial Board

Community Oncology
member photo
Dean Gesme, MD

FACP FACPE FASCO President, Minnesota Oncology...

Breast Cancer
member photo
Debu Tripathy, MD

Professor and Chair, Department of Breast Medical Oncol...

Lung Cancer
member photo
H. Jack West, MD

Medical Director, Thoracic Oncology Program, Swedish Ca...

Gastrointestinal Cancers
member photo
Howard S. Hochster, MD

Associate Cancer Center Director, Yale Cancer Center P...

Radiation Oncology
member photo
Howard Sandler, MD, MS, FASTRO

Ronald H. Bloom Chair in Cancer Therapeutics
Pr...

Community Oncology
member photo
Jeff Patton, M.D.

CEO Tennessee Oncology...

Precision Medicine Section Editor
member photo
Jennifer Levin Carter, MD, MPH

Chief Medical Officer and Founder, N-of-One...

Financial Sector
member photo
Michael G. King Jr.

Managing Director and Senior Biotechnology Analyst...

Gastrointestinal Cancers
member photo
Richard Goldberg, MD

Director WVU Cancer Institute Director of Cancer Signa...

Editor-In-Chief
member photo
Robert A. Figlin, MD., FACP

Professor and Director, Division of Hematology Oncology...

Health Policy
member photo
Ted Okon

Executive Director Community Oncology Alliance...

Community Oncology
member photo
Thomas Marsland, MD

Vice President Integrated Community Oncology Network ...

Community Oncology
member photo
William Harwin MD

Florida Cancer Specialists President and Managing Part...

Health Policy
member photo
William McGivney, PhD

National Health Policy Expert...

Payer
member photo
Winston Wong, PharmD

President, W-Squared Group...