This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

SRX - Sirtex Medical

Jump to new
qldfrog said:
I hope that was not your case with SRX
Click to expand...
No but the gap down risk, although being low, is ever present. Maybe higher risk on single outcomes. Of course if it goes the other way one can be a bloody genius.
 
Ves said:
So far this company is a massive error of [c]ommission for me. .
Click to expand...

Hey Ves I'll see your error and raise you. -$21.47 x XXXXX

Time to sit down and have a laugh at myself.

Actually I'm pretty relaxed with the trade management and the development but the funny thing is how I had raised my expectation of a statistically positive primary end point - to such a level that I brought a bottle of great grandfather yesterday for the release. I think I'll drink it anyway - at least if it gives me liver cancer there will be one more dose sale

Thankfully I was disciplined enough (although I almost faulted) to adhere to my portfolio concentration rules as the price rose strongly pre release even though I was almost sure I was throwing profit away. Replaced the holdings today set aside a the requisite donation to the government(because they do such a good job) and think I might take a holiday until the data is released with some of the rest.

False expectations were my biggest hurdle to overcome today - because I thought the result would be positive and the price would jump - I envisaged selling heaps post announcement due to portfolio concentration at really good prices - obviously that didn't happen. Overall I'm happy to be back to original number at current prices with given information.

ps it goes without saying - don't listen to me - I lost a small fortune of market value today and I could change my mind on SRX tomorrow. But my read is that whilst this trial data won't provide the certainty needed to raise SirSpheres to first line it will add to the weight of positive evidence and lay important groundwork for the trials to come; Foxfire and Sarah. Hopefully next time we won't have the speculative run into trial preliminary releases.


Bottoms up
 

Ok i've just read the press release.

The following is my interpretation. It's hard to comment accurately without reading the actual study, but this is what i think is going on.

Basically, every now and then various cancer treating drugs will come on the market that have evidence to stop the progression of disease. This is typically measured by if the cancer that is seen on imaging has gotten bigger (or spread) or not. More often than not though, these drugs dont actually help the cancer patient live longer. And that's really what the goal is. The idea isn't to make the scans look better, but it's to help someone live longer. Most people think that by making the cancer not continue to grow that that will def lead to longer survival, and that's commonly the case, but not always. Oncologists will always mainly look at if a particular drug has proven benefit for making someone live longer.

From what I can gather, the problem with this Sirtex study is that it did not show that patient who used their treatment lived longer. It looks like the study did show that by using their treatment those with colorectal cancer who have had spread to their liver had their liver lesions stop growing. This is not insignificant, but remember, the idea isn't just to stop liver lesions from progressing, the goal is to help someone with metastatic colorectal cancer to live longer and unfortunately the study did not show this.

The news is not all bad though. It seems there will still be a use for the SIR-spheres treatment. Let's say someone has colorectal cancer and their cancer has spread ONLY to the liver, then the sir-spheres treatment should prove to be beneficial, since the study did show that the treatment reduced the progression of these metastatic liver lesions. So in that circumstance there will still be a role for the SIR-spheres treatment. But, what Sirtex wanted was to be able to give the SIR-spheres treatment to EVERYONE who had metastatic colorectal cancer, i.e. patients who had colorectal cancer and had disease spread to sites other than the liver as well, by failing to show there was any benefit in the context of these patients it means that the overall take up of the SIR-spheres treatment will be much less than what was initially hoped. Going by this study, there may only be benefit in those who have colorectal cancer and have metastatic lesions ONLY in the liver.

I am not familiar with how Oncologists are currently using the SIR-spheres treatment, if they are currently using it for widespread metastases (i.e. mets in multiple sites), then we might see that the use of the treatment is scaled back to only treat those with liver mets exclusively.

i hope that makes sense.
 
I'm not sure what SRX promised the world that it's SIR-Spheres could do?

It seems to me that they said they would treat liver mets, and today's announcement confirmed that they could do that?

I reckon they got a bit greedy looking at all the metastatic colorectal patients, i.e. patients who had mets elsewhere in the body too. If they had only studied the effect of the treatment on liver mets exclusively then i think the market would have responded very positively today.

this stock may have been massively oversold today.
 

My thoughts exactly.

Never really understood why they also recruited liver 'predominant' metastases, maybe because it was the current chemo treatment group for the control arm - maybe they overreached for market size, maybe the expectations at the start of this first major trial were broader, maybe they were prepared to fail the primary to recruit quicker and get the secondary end point data out there.

I know Oncologists need a lot of convincing and rightly so, but I think they will be a bit more objective about the data once they have it then the market has been on very little information.
 

I also think the company deserves some criticism for the wording of today's press release.
 
johnpendles said:
I also think the company deserves some criticism for the wording of today's press release.
Click to expand...

Yep, but they are also constrained by the likes of ASCO as to how much can be divulged and still be allowed to present as only unrealised findings are accepted.

The competing regimes for information release are a tight rope.
 
craft said:
Hey Ves I'll see your error and raise you. -$21.47 x XXXXX
Click to expand...
I picked the perfect time to make that post and make myself look like an idiot, didn't I?

If it wasn't for the sadness of the result on a medical progress basis, I'd probably be happier for my mistake to reduce in value over time.

craft said:
Time to sit down and have a laugh at myself.
Click to expand...
Often a good bottle of wine and a good laugh is the best medicine. You might need something else tomorrow though for your head!

The dollars you invested in the last few years are no doubt worth more today, so not the end of the world. These guys don't strike me as being a one-trick pony either, it's entirely possible if they can maintain strong cash flow that they will bounce back.

Thanks everyone for all of the posts today, some good reading.
 
Hi Everyone.
I posted my regret of not buying Sirtex last year.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21438&page=3

Well I jumped in today with 112 shares at $17.75. I didn't think I would get that when it was hovering around $18 this afternoon. In hindsight, maybe I should have set my buy price at $17.60. It might drop even further tomorrow???? Maybe I should have waited? Maybe there may be no bounce tomorrow? I just want this stock. Now I must learn not to love it.

It was oversold. It managed 42 consecutive quarters of growth. Other positive aspects of Sirtex are already stated in this thread as well as the counter comments.

It is my 10th share. My 3rd biotech. The third time I managed to get a bargain in my view. (Others include NVT and MMS in a dip.)

Sorry that I can't contribute anymore. I can only say I waited 11 months for this opportunity.

You can all say that I'm wrong or I'm right. I know that I am in "Stage 2" of a very long learning process. I hope I have thick skin. Thank you to all those who have helped my learning. Constructive comments (either negative or positive) are welcome.
 
Faramir said:
Well I jumped in today with 112 shares at $17.75.
Click to expand...

Good luck Faramir, I was sorely tempted at around $17 yesterday, my gut instincts told me it was being oversold on bad news and that there was value at that price. Oddly enough I am happy I didnt buy, the fact was that SRX were not on my watch list, I have never done any in depth analysis of the company and buying in yesterdaywould have been contrary to my investment strategy and really just an emotional response.

I guess another sign of 'Stage 2" is recognising FOMO and then avoiding it!

I realise you were much more across this company and hopefully your diligence is rewarded.
 
and my buy yesterday around th $18 mark was not something I am proud of;
As per other threads, was pure gut feel..
Even if I make money out of this, and it is not a given, I will not be proud of it,I still have not reached "stage 2" after all these years...
 
Cracked 20 bucks today. Not a bad bounce from yesterdays open of $15.
 

But the criteria for eligible patients in the study was: unresectable liver-only or liver-predominant colorectal cancer metastases, with no prior chemotherapy or advanced disease...
 
TPI said:
But the criteria for eligible patients in the study was: unresectable liver-only or liver-predominant colorectal cancer metastases, with no prior chemotherapy or advanced disease...
Click to expand...

You are right with the no prior chemo but not the advanced disease - only stipulation was at least 3 months life expectancy without active treatment.

It's the 'predominant' liver definition that allowed candidates with non liver Mets to be recruited.
Limited extra-hepatic metastases in the lung and/or lymph nodes are permitted (Lung: 5 lesions total, < 1 cm, or 1 single lesion of up to 1.7 cm; Lymph nodules in one single anatomic area (pelvis, abdomen or chest): any number, < 2 cm).
Click to expand...

SIRsperes were never directed at these other Mets so no reason why there would be a difference in OPFS between the two arms in those patients. Unless the thought was that liver Mets were the only critical path to mortality.

Why they chose the primary endpoint they did and the cohort they did is beyond my grasp yet - but the more I probe the less concerned I become about failure of the primary and more confident I become that positive evidence will be added when the data is released. Its actually quite possible that overall survival has improved whilst OPFS has failed on this trial. The Sirflox results in this respect of OS are compatible with the Firefox trial which make a combined 1000 sample and give the statistical power to validate OS. Its OS and/or tumour reduction to resectable size that is the real goal.
 
Nice easy head and shoulders reversal for shorters on this day trade today!
 

It seems so obvious now... but how come no one pointed that out before yesterday?!
 
notting said:
There were a few people saying that the report release was really badly worded.
Click to expand...

No... BEFORE yesterday. It has nothing to do with how the release was worded. The question is around study design... in particular the selection of the primary end point. It seems that many people are saying that the primary end point was difficult to achieve in the first instance... but I have yet to see anyone who

skc said:
It seems so obvious now... but how come no one pointed that out before yesterday?!
Click to expand...
 

They must have set the definitions for a reason.

The vast majority of deaths from metastatic colorectal cancer (up to 90% according to another blog) are from liver failure.
 
skc said:
It seems so obvious now... but how come no one pointed that out before yesterday?!
Click to expand...

Is it obvious? As I said its beyond my grasp yet to understand. Its not black and white that its just bad trial design that has caused the failure of the primary end point- the cohort selected, clinical outcomes expected and the sample size all interplay to hopefully avoid false results.

There is huge academic debate over clinical trial design and appropriate primary end points argued by much smarter people than me. Until there was a contradiction in primary and secondary outcomes I never delved into it - wish I had.

The trial design is a convenient explanation for the seeming contradiction of the two outcomes in the announcement. Another possibility is that OPFS has achieved clinical improvements but failed to do so with enough statistical confidence Until we have the data we don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Howdy!
Replies
3
Views
468
trender
T
January 2025 DDD
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
8K
ducati916
18.6 Year Property/Sharemarket Cycle …
Replies
2
Views
1K
Rosscoe62
IL1 - Ilala Metals
Replies
2
Views
1K
System
R
My strategy/plan going forward
Replies
13
Views
902
RbNEO
R
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...