A named failure is a design brief.
A compound has an activity. A tumor has a geometry. The overlap between them decides the outcome, and a well plate cannot produce it. An averaged failure is a surprise in year three.
The problem
A potency value is a statement about a concentration. It says nothing about whether that concentration exists anywhere in a tumor. Two compounds with the same potency can behave nothing alike in tissue, and the ranking off the plate can be exactly inverted by the geometry. That is one of the ordinary ways a program spends two years learning what it could have asked at the start.
What comes back
- The share of tumor volume at a therapeutic concentration, and how long it holds
- The regions that fall short, named, not buried in an average
- How coverage moves with dose, schedule and candidate
- Which candidate covers the most of the tumor it is meant to treat, not which is most potent
A dose increase that doubles systemic exposure and does not move the covered volume is a toxicity increase and nothing else. You see it before it is expensive.
The decision it changes
A portfolio review stops being about defending a ranking. It becomes knowing which candidate covers the tumor it is meant to treat, and what it would take to cover the rest.