Seems like a lot of money for a drug which gets you to 11 months vs 7 months. Don’t get me wrong, if you’re the one affected that could be huge, especially if it’s a better quality of life. But it doesn’t seem like a knockout.
As I understand, this are just statistics useful for objectively comparing therapies. Median of 11 vs 7 months may be some measurable number of people who end cancer-free. But you cannot count people that will live a few decades more in a trial that last only some years.
it’s not even known yet and they say so:
The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS) assessed by BICR per RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), and safety profile. (…) The OS data were immature.
it was also only for late stage metastatic patients with a very specific mutation. now, since AZ has the rights, and they have money for trials, they can try to get a trial for earlier stages, and so this new better drug might be used for larger patient population while still patented. and that would be money printer
there are drug trials that cost more money than that. also this is not +4 months comparison new drug vs nothing this is new drug vs old drug. if AZ also got their IP then it’s a fire sale
here is study: https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2026.44.17_suppl.LBA8500
