Seeking Alpha

Dendreon (DNDN) posted a narrower Q1 loss, but shares -11.9% premarket as sales of its Provenge...

Dendreon (DNDN) posted a narrower Q1 loss, but shares -11.9% premarket as sales of its Provenge prostate cancer vaccine rose 6.5% Y/Y, with low single-digit growth predicted for Q2. Analysts are concerned over the level of sales growth and that profit margins for DNDN’s only approved product aren’t high enough. A Citi analyst says the "only upside" in the stock comes from potential acquisition.
Comments (7)
  • beachtrader
    , contributor
    Comments (118) | Send Message
    The cost to manufacture Provenge and to treat patients with Provenge is high; and so too are the benefits: survival and a greater quality of life. I am hoping that doctors will consider the patient's best option and opt for Provenge treatment.


    Sadly, all the issues confronting Dendreon (FDA approval, insurance reimbursement, treatment cost, treatment accessibility, acceptance of treatment, etc.) were ignored by the analysts. The analysts predictions drove the stock price...and many investors bought in. The treatment is excellent...I am long dndn.
    8 May 2012, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • What_the_facts_say
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
    People interested in the truth about the Provenge trials and the potential safety issues with this therapy can find a wealth of information (read or to watch the video) here:
    8 May 2012, 10:05 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3228) | Send Message
    sounds like another short trying to drive the price down further...
    8 May 2012, 10:09 AM Reply Like
  • John2468
    , contributor
    Comments (39) | Send Message
    chopchop0- why are you so eager to attribute nefarious motivations? - it sounds like someone providing facts and logic for people to see for themselves how troubling the Provenge trial design and results are. They're not asking anyone blindly follow their opinion...
    8 May 2012, 10:31 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3228) | Send Message
    Because of the author behind this analysis. Look it up for yourself. Marie Huber presents theory, without the facts or data to back it up.


    8 May 2012, 12:04 PM Reply Like
  • John2468
    , contributor
    Comments (39) | Send Message
    The JNCI paper contains facts and data. The website has even more.


    I have also heard that more will be published very soon.
    8 May 2012, 02:28 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3228) | Send Message


    Great video here from a DOCTOR, not a former hedge-fund analyst like Marie Huber



    Hello, I am Dr. Gerald Chodak for Medscape. Recently an article appeared in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, by Huber and associates,[1] raising questions about whether sipuleucel-T is actually helping men with progressive hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Some of the questions include whether the placebo group actually was made worse by the "placebo intervention" and whether there was an age bias, in that men younger than 65 years were not benefitting; only older men were benefitting.[2]


    I am not going to go into all the details about the issues that were raised other than to say that this has been looked at quite extensively by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and by other people who have analyzed the data. It is not valid to do subset analyses after a study has been done and then come up with valid conclusions. For now it would appear that the best we can say to patients is that no scientific studies question the actual results of the trial. They are only raising questions about analyzing the data itself.


    It challenges us with what we are going to tell our patients going forward. Do we tell them that the drug didn't work or do we tell them that these questions and this controversy raise serious concerns about whether the study is, in fact, showing a benefit? I think the answer is that we should say to the patients that there have been 3 prospective randomized trials. They have been analyzed by the FDA.


    The results show a significant benefit that is not affected by the age of men (less than 71 years or over 71 years), and unless we have another study that actually shows a lack of benefit, then we have to go forward with the information currently available. Patients who are progressing with metastatic disease who have been on hormone therapy should at least be offered this treatment. Yes, there are concerns about cost, and that is a different issue. But from a patient’s perspective, at this time, he should be informed that the treatment seemed to offer a 4.1-month improvement in median survival.


    The other concern is, why don't we see an objective response? Why doesn't the prostate-specific antigen go down? Why don't we see a reduction in the evidence of metastatic disease? At this time, there aren't clear answers for those questions This is the first immunotherapy approved for any cancer, and it may not be functioning in the traditional way of other cancer therapies. All we can say is that in the men who were treated with the therapy, there was this improvement in survival, and we certainly should continue to offer it for the time being.
    9 May 2012, 12:08 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio: