Read on Twitter
$ARVN no additional responses from abstract, denominator goes up to 22. 2/20 responses for 10% PSA50 response (for evaluable patients)
PR and deck don’t mention anything about AR degradation
No info on PSA baseline either https://twitter.com/pogcat1714/status/1260707067796631552
PR and deck don’t mention anything about AR degradation
No info on PSA baseline either https://twitter.com/pogcat1714/status/1260707067796631552
Ironic, but $ARVN 10% PSA50 today falls below even the ultra low bar set by sellside using the CARD trial control arm (c/o Guggenheim).
From the GS note from June 2019 when trial was in early stages, CSO commented they’d like to see 30%+ PSA/35mg is in “expected efficacy range”
From the GS note from June 2019 when trial was in early stages, CSO commented they’d like to see 30%+ PSA/35mg is in “expected efficacy range”
Next $ARVN catalyst will be the ER degrader data in 2H20, AR471 for ER+/HER2- breast cancer. And unlike prostate data, will need to show real objective ORR rather than soft biomarker like PSA50 (c/o Piper note)
$ARVN mentions AR471 snippet in PR. (Not being presented at ASCO, so why try to one up the lead 110 unless trying to detract from poor data)
Regardless, data this far characterized as “early” evidence of ER degradation. So no objective responses there either?
Regardless, data this far characterized as “early” evidence of ER degradation. So no objective responses there either?
$ARVN platform by definition relies on AR degradation. However in #ASCO20 deck their *representative* degradation slide is for wild type patient.
While the 2 PSA50 responses were both mutants.
So no correlation of degradation to tumor response?
While the 2 PSA50 responses were both mutants.
So no correlation of degradation to tumor response?
