IBJNews

Lilly lung cancer drug raises patient survival in trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co.’s experimental lung cancer medicine increased survival among patients compared with those on chemotherapy alone.

Shares in the Indianapolis-based drugmaker rose as much as 5.5 percent Tuesday morning after the announcement.

The drug, called necitumumab, met the primary endpoint of increasing overall survival in a trial involving 1,093 patients with non-small cell lung cancer whose disease had spread, the company said in a statement. Necitumumab was tested in patients with a type of tumor known as squamous cell carcinoma.

If approved, the drug would be a potent boost to Lilly’s product portfolio. It would also mean a critical new therapy for a cancer that’s proven difficult to treat with drugs such as Avastin that directly target tumors, as opposed to more broadly active chemotherapy drugs.

“This is a clear upside surprise,” Mark Schoenebaum, an analyst with ISI Group LLC, said in a note to clients.

Next year, Lilly plans to release full results from the study at a scientific meeting and anticipates submitting it to regulatory authorities. Non-small cell lung cancer accounts for about 85 percent of lung cancer, and patients with squamous cell carcinoma make up about 30 percent of those patients. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the U.S.

“If apprved, necitumumab could be the first biologic therapy indicated to treat patients with squamous lung cancer,” Richard Gaynor, vice president, product development and medical affairs for Lilly Oncology, said in a prepared statement.

Lilly shares were up 4.4 percent, to $55.93 each at 10:46 a.m. The shares have gained 26 percent in the last 12 months as of Monday’s close.

Analysts had “basically zero” expectations for necitumumab, Schoenebaum said in his note. The drug failed in a prior non-squamous lung cancer trial, he said.

“We really need to see the full data to understand risk/benefit,” Schoenebaum said.

The most common adverse events seen in the study included rash. Less frequent, yet serious, side effects included blood clotting, Lilly said.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. In reality, Lilly is maintaining profit by cutting costs such as Indiana/US citizen IT workers by a significant amount with their Tata Indian consulting connection, increasing Indian H1B's at Lillys Indiana locations significantly and offshoring to India high paying Indiana jobs to cut costs and increase profit at the expense of U.S. workers.

  2. I think perhaps there is legal precedence here in that the laws were intended for family farms, not pig processing plants on a huge scale. There has to be a way to squash this judges judgment and overrule her dumb judgement. Perhaps she should be required to live in one of those neighbors houses for a month next to the farm to see how she likes it. She is there to protect the people, not the corporations.

  3. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/03-111.htm Corporate farms are not farms, they are indeed factories on a huge scale. The amount of waste and unhealthy smells are environmentally unsafe. If they want to do this, they should be forced to buy a boundary around their farm at a premium price to the homeowners and landowners that have to eat, sleep, and live in a cesspool of pig smells. Imagine living in a house that smells like a restroom all the time. Does the state really believe they should take the side of these corporate farms and not protect Indiana citizens. Perhaps justifiable they should force all the management of the farms to live on the farm itself and not live probably far away from there. Would be interesting to investigate the housing locations of those working at and managing the corporate farms.

  4. downtown in the same area as O'malia's. 350 E New York. Not sure that another one could survive. I agree a Target is needed d'town. Downtown Philly even had a 3 story Kmart for its downtown residents.

  5. Indy-area residents... most of you have no idea how AMAZING Aurelio's is. South of Chicago was a cool pizza place... but it pales in comparison to the heavenly thin crust Aurelio's pizza. Their deep dish is pretty good too. My waistline is expanding just thinking about this!

ADVERTISEMENT