|
3.1 Prévention - Tabac
|
|
|
|
3.4 Chimioprévention
|
|
|
|
|
4.9 Dép., diag. & prono. - Sein
|
|
|
|
|
5.12 Immunothérapies
|
|
|
|
5.12.3 Immunothérapies-combinaisons
|
|
|
|
5.12.9 Immunothérapies - SITC
|
|
|
|
SITC18: Aduro finds some activity with STING agonist [FierceBiotech]
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
read-out raised questions about whether STING-targeted drugs used in
humans will mirror the startling results seen in animal studies, and
despite the glimmers of efficacy seen in the SITC study the jury is
still out. The drugs are designed to kick-start an innate immune
response against cancer cells in the tumor microenvironment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.2 Pharma
|
|
|
|
As Novartis' other cancer launches struggle, Lutathera gets off to flying start [FiercePharma]
|
|
|
|
|
|
While
Lutathera is just one of a few oncology approvals for Novartis as of
late, its other two rollouts haven’t started off with the same bang.
With Kisqali, a breast cancer treatment approved last March, Novartis
has struggled to gain traction against Pfizer blockbuster Ibrance and
newer rival Verzenio from Eli Lilly. And Kymriah, the company’s
pioneering CAR-T drug, has run into manufacturing challenges that have
slowed expansion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.4 Traitements - Economie
|
|
|
|
6.3 Associations/Fondations
|
|
|
|
6.6 Publications
|
|
|
Reaction of Researchers to Plan S: Too Far, Too Risky [Plan S Open Letter]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Researchers
should have the freedom to choose publication venue, and while
complying with Open Access mandates to also choose how papers are made
Open Access, in a way that contributes to minimal increased costs for
the publishing system while not impinging on academic freedom or
jeopardizing internationalization in research and higher education.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.7 DMP, Big Data & applis
|
|
|
|
6.7.1 IA/bioinformatique
|
|
|
|
6.9 Controverses
|
|
|
What’s in a p value? [Vantage]
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
fact is that a flawed understanding of statistics, common among some
investors and probably a few biotech C-suites too, likely lies at the
heart of the current malaise. The bald view that a certain p value – be
it 0.05 or 0.005 – shows that the data are “good” is in itself
fundamentally flawed. It is this ignorance that needs to be treated.
|
|
|
|
|
|