Old Geron vs. New Geron

[cheng_ho]

The AML combo trial is great news. News that we should have had in 2016, at least with the azacitidine arm.

IMO both the Venetoclax and azacitidine arms will show massive increase in efficacy over imet monotherapy. Both because of synergy in promoting apoptosis and because it will be MUCH harder for cancer to evolve around two MOAs simultaneously... the Ancient Ones here will remember that I'm an author on the 2004 Bechter paper that showed cancer cells will evolve around imet monotherapy even in a dish.

I'm less impressed with Geron's lack of progress on Imet 2.0, but getting an approval is necessary for further progress, and combo trials should help.

And we've seen exactly zero coverage of this proposed trial anywhere. Geron remains invisible, as it has been since 2015.

Why is there no attempt to reach the financial press? If there were ANY coverage of the new trials, ILAP, etc. then the company would at least be diluting its investors in the 2s instead of the ones. Scarlett didn't even mention ILAP once at the Investor Conference... .even though it actually exists, and Imet 2 (which he did wave vaguely at) is just vaporware now.

Rizo et al, "New Geron" are doing a fine job. But they're having to work through the barrier of Old Geron.

[biopearl123]

Hi Bill, thanks for reminding us of your own (unique to this board) personal experience with Imetelstat in the lab. I hope you are right re combinations. Re Dr. Scarlett’s reticence re earlier combination therapies, it it clear the direction he chose was to unequivocally demonstrate single agent activity first. Re ILHAP, Dr. Scarlett has always been very tight lipped re the approval process. We have seen both the lawyers and the FDA (in this country) punish those who have not. Perhaps the Brits are more open minded but information during evaluation for approval is tightly held. I can understand his approach and it is for the good of the company and the shareholders. The press is following the Janssen dis, and basically has no clue. Again, thanks for you post. bp

[Hoosier Investor]

I think we're in a "once bitten, twice shy" situation with regard to the financial press. Unfortunately, in Geron's case, it may be more of a "twice bitten, three times shy" scenario. I think Geron's recent data, results, and projections merely represent more "blah, blah, blah" from Geron to most analysts and financial press. They'll take note when Geron "shows them" the drug works via Topline P3 Results, New Drug Application, and/or FDA approval. A significant cash infusion by way of a new partnership will help, but probably still pale in comparison to the impact of positive topline P3 results.

Interesting to see Geron's plan to finalize their ex-US marketing strategy in 2H22. It wasn't specifically stated, but that chart indicates the "partner" announcement is likely to precede our topline MDS results in 1Q23. Signing the partnership agreement in advance of topline results would ensure we have cash ($$$) to see the other programs to completion (independent of the MDS topline results), but it may result in us realizing less than full value in the event we have positive MDS results. Minimizing a worst-case financial risk (without significantly dilutive funding) is more important than leaving a little bit of money on the table. Thus, I agree with doing the partnership deal prior to topline results.

$3B/year for two indications (MDS & MF) as a sole agent is definitely music to the ears. However, there's still significant additional value to be realized via additional indications (HR-MDS, AML) and combination treatments (IMET + Rux, IMET + Venetoclax, etc).