Bristol-Myers Squibb (NYSE:BMY) Showcases Breakthrough Oncology Data at ASCO 2025 Meeting
Bristol-Myers Squibb is advancing in oncology, as evidenced by its upcoming presentations at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, which highlight its strong focus on cancer treatments. This coincided with a 2.66% rise in its share price last week. The company's progress included new data from several studies on its oncology portfolio, which could attract investor interest despite broader market declines driven by global trade tensions and tech sector losses. While the market overall fell by 1.4%, BMY's modest gain suggests that its recent product developments may have provided a counterbalance to the prevailing market trends.
Every company has risks, and we've spotted 3 weaknesses for Bristol-Myers Squibb you should know about.
This technology could replace computers: discover the 22 stocks are working to make quantum computing a reality.
The recent developments from Bristol-Myers Squibb in oncology could significantly affect both the company's narrative and its future revenue and earnings forecasts. With ongoing presentations at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, the focus on cancer treatment advancements suggests a solid foundation for potential growth. As R&D efforts intensify, revenue streams might benefit, especially with promising new indications like those for Cobenfy in Alzheimer's disease. However, operational efficiency efforts are imperative, given the mixed analyst expectations on revenue, which forecast a 4.2% annual decrease over the next three years.
Over the past year, Bristol-Myers Squibb's total shareholder return was 18.78%, indicating a positive performance trajectory within that timeframe. However, when viewed against the broader US Pharmaceuticals industry decline of 12.1% and the overall market's return of 10.5%, BMY's performance stands out. This underlines the market's recognition of its potential in overcoming broader economic challenges, particularly as the market experienced a 1.4% decline during the recent week.
Despite these gains, the current share price of US$47.57 lags behind the analyst consensus price target of US$57.2, representing a potential upside of 16.8%. Such a discrepancy could suggest an opportunity if the anticipated advancements materialize in revenue and earnings growth. Analysts project earnings to reach US$9.8 billion by 2028, necessitating a leverage of strategic growth initiatives to align with this forecast. Thus, current share movements should be viewed as part of longer-term strategic planning, with an eye on how ongoing R&D achievements can drive future valuations.
Upon reviewing our latest valuation report, Bristol-Myers Squibb's share price might be too pessimistic.
This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Companies discussed in this article include NYSE:BMY.
This article was originally published by Simply Wall St.
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
26 minutes ago
- Medscape
Surgery Before or After Chemo for Advanced Ovarian Cancer?
The optimal timing of surgery in patients with resectable advanced ovarian cancer remains controversial. Should these patients receive the standard radical surgery followed by chemotherapy, or could patients do better with chemotherapy before surgery? The long-awaited TRUST trial aimed to settle this question, but the results paint a somewhat mixed picture. Among patients with resectable stage IIIB-IVB ovarian cancer, primary cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy led to a statistically significant 2.4-month median progression-free survival (PFS) benefit over neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. While the median overall survival was 6 months longer in the upfront surgery group, the difference was not statistically significant. Patients in both groups reported similar quality of life over a 3-year period on a global health survey. 'TRUST is the first randomized controlled trial to show a significant benefit in median PFS without compromising short- or long-term quality of life,' said lead investigator Sven Mahner, MD, with Ludwig Maximilian University Hospital, Munich, Germany, who presented the results at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting. Mahner called the PFS and overall survival findings in the upfront surgery group 'excellent' but acknowledged that the primary endpoint of significant overall survival was not met. ASCO discussant Emma Barber, MD, gynecologic oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, was less enthusiastic about the benefits of upfront surgery, given the lack of significant overall survival benefit. Additionally, the upfront surgery group had a higher rate of any complication and more than a twofold higher rate of stoma formation. 'There is upfront toxicity with primary debulking surgery compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy — even in the highest quality surgical centers,' she said. TRUST Rationale The aim of surgery in advanced ovarian cancer is to prolong patients' remission and improve overall survival while sustaining quality of life, said Mahner. Primary cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy has been considered standard for decades in this patient population. However, there's an alternative strategy — neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. Several trials have compared upfront surgery with upfront chemotherapy, but limitations in these studies have not helped answer which approach is better. TRUST was designed to evaluate the optimal timing of cytoreductive surgery in patients with resectable advanced ovarian cancer who are fit enough to tolerate radical surgery. Patients received care in cancer centers that used defined surgical quality assurance metrics. Quality criteria were based on the European Training Centre in Gynaecological Oncology certification and included evaluations of cytoreductive surgery in the operating room as well as assessments of surgical proficiency and infrastructure. In addition, participating centers had to have high complete resection rates (at least 50% in upfront surgery for patients with FIGO IIIB-IVB) and high surgical volumes (at least 36 cytoreductive surgeries per year). Patients were randomly assigned and stratified by center and age-Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) combination (ECOG 0 and age ≤ 65 years vs ECOG > 0 and age older than 65 years) to either primary cytoreductive surgery followed by six cycles of intravenous chemotherapy (n = 345) or three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery plus three more cycles of chemotherapy (n = 343). Most patients had FIGO stage IIIc disease, and over 90% had high-grade serous histology. Surgical effort was very high in both treatment groups; the median duration of surgery was 5.5 hours in the primary cytoreductive surgery group and 4.5 hours in the interval cytoreductive surgery group, Mahner noted. High surgical effort led to high complete resection rates — 70% in the primary group and 85% in the interval group — which meant the recommended systemic treatment of carboplatin and paclitaxel could be given in more than 90% of the patients, with a considerable number of patients also receiving bevacizumab or a PARP inhibitor during the course of their disease, Mahner said. Survival Outcomes Overall, 219 (64%) PFS events occurred in the primary cytoreductive surgery group and 253 (74%) in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group. Median PFS after primary surgery was 22.1 months compared to 19.7 months after interval surgery — a 2.4-month benefit (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; P = .018). The researchers also conducted a restricted mean survival analysis and found PFS was 31.7 months with primary surgery compared to 26.6 months with neoadjuvant chemotherapy — a 5.1-month benefit ( P = .07). On the overall survival front, the primary surgery group had a 6-month benefit, but the difference was not significant — median overall survival was 54.3 months with primary surgery compared to 48.3 months with interval surgery (HR, 0.89; P = .24). Careful Patient Selection Necessary In subgroup analyses, patients with complete cytoreduction after primary surgery had the best outcomes, with a median PFS of 27.9 months vs 21.8 months with interval surgery (HR, 0.69; P = .0009) and median overall survival of 67.0 months vs 55.0 months (HR, 0.80; P = .0521). In addition, the benefit of primary cytoreductive surgery was most prominent in stage III patients with a median PFS of 26.3 months vs 21.4 months (HR, 0.73; P = .005) and a median overall survival of 63.7 months vs 53.2 months, respectively (HR, 0.84; P = .14). However, patients with stage IV disease did not benefit more from upfront surgery in PFS (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.74-1.38) or overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.71-1.33). Mahner also noted that 5 years after randomization, 23% of the patients who had primary surgery had no disease progression compared to 11% of the patients who had interval surgery. The complication rate was higher in the primary surgery group at 18% vs 12% after interval surgery. The 30-day post-operative mortality rate was less than 1% in both treatment groups. Patients in both groups reported similar quality of life outcomes. Barber noted that the data suggest that some populations may benefit more from upfront surgery and others may not. 'For example, patients with stage IV disease clearly do not seem to benefit, whereas those with stage III disease seem to show a trend towards improved survival,' she explained. Given the higher upfront toxicity associated with primary debulking surgery, 'selection for primary debulking surgery instead of neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be considered carefully and performed for selected populations,' Barber said.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
American Vanguard: Q1 Earnings Snapshot
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — American Vanguard Corp. (AVD) on Friday reported a first-quarter loss of $8.5 million, after reporting a profit in the same period a year earlier. On a per-share basis, the Newport Beach, California-based company said it had a loss of 30 cents. Losses, adjusted for non-recurring costs, came to 24 cents per share.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's fight with Musk reveals MAGA's biggest delusion
He'd never admit it publicly, but I'm betting Donald Trump is regretting that he relaxed the White House rules about drug testing. As I predicted last week, Elon Musk's vow to leave politics behind did not last long. But I confess I had no idea that he would come back to the fold by taking swings at his beloved daddy replacement, Trump. It seems, however, that someone told Musk in recent days how much his businesses, which rely heavily on government subsidies, will be screwed by the president's already imperiled budget bill. So now the tech billionaire has become fixated on killing the bill. Musk kicked off his crusade Tuesday by tweeting that Trump's bill is a "disgusting abomination," and has been on a tear since, rallying his supporters to oppose the bill and making room for more Republicans on Capitol Hill to start pulling back support. As he and Trump snipe at each other publicly, the efforts to pretend this is a friendly disagreement are falling apart. Even if Musk fails in his efforts to kill Trump's bill, this battle is exposing a deeper truth that Miller can't hide with his lies about Trump winning in a "landslide": The MAGA coalition is fragile and some of the differences are starting to tear at the seams less than half a year into the second Trump term. Trump's slim win in 2024 was no doubt due in large part to Musk, and not just the eye-popping quarter-billion-plus Musk spent to push the old man's orange carcass over the finish line. It's because Musk and other influential figures, especially those associated with Silicon Valley or who pretend to be former liberals, were able to convince a chunk of more secular, largely male voters to throw their lot in with the Christian nationalist base that is the backbone of the MAGA movement. But while these two groups joined together based on a shared animosity towards racial minorities and women, it was always a far more uneasy alliance than Musk or Trump wanted to admit. And now it's getting shakier as two narcissistic billionaires are at of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., lies all day about everything, but he was probably telling the truth when he sneered that "the EV mandate is very important to" Musk. Tesla sales have been crashing since Musk joined the MAGA movement, meaning he needs government subsidies for electric vehicles more than ever. But while I have no doubt Musk is way more concerned about his bottom line than about government spending — his ostensible reason for hating the bill — his anger would be impotent if it didn't tap into existing tensions between the newfangled technofascist wing of the GOP and more traditional Republicans. "The Silicon Valley tech world does not like this bill," Tim Miller of The Bulwark explained on his podcast Wednesday. It's not just Musk, but many wealthy leaders who are deeply invested in the energy and tech areas that President Joe Biden's administration invested so heavily in. They stabbed Democrats in the back as a thank-you for that money, and now are shocked they are being similarly betrayed by the Republicans they joined up with. I don't think Musk and Trump were actually fighting when Musk ostensibly "left" last week — even as Trump was assuring reporters his billionaire buddy was going nowhere — but there's no doubt this conflict is disrupting their months of narcissistic codependency. On Thursday, Trump got angry and accused Musk of having "Trump derangement syndrome" on camera. It was during the same event that he lamented that the Allies prevailed on D-Day, suggesting the 78-year-old was in one of his increasingly common moments of uninhibited honesty. This conflict was brewing for reasons that run deeper than Musk and Trump's competing egos or Silicon Valley's dependency on government funding, which their leaders disparage. The atheistic world of pseudo-intellectualism that Musk and his minions come from was always going to have friction with the Christian nationalists who actually run the MAGA-ified Republican Party. The most recent sign I've seen that there's trouble in fascist paradise came late last month, from a YouTube video that, at first blush, seems like it's not related: Jordan Peterson's ill-fated effort to "debate" 20 atheists at once. Peterson is a former psychology professor remade into a MAGA culture warrior, and was a huge player in radicalizing a lot of young, secular men to the right for years before Musk got into the game. But he, like Musk, has been feeling pressure lately to fully MAGA-ify by openly embracing Christianity. Last July, Musk and Peterson even did an interview together where they talked up being a "cultural Christian," creating the space for people who don't believe in God or Jesus to support Christian nationalists in their theocratic goals. But Peterson's stint on the zoo-like faux-debate show "Jubilee" exposed how untenable the Christians-who-don't-believe stance may be. Initially, it was billed as "1 Christian versus 20 atheists," but then one of the atheists outed Peterson, by simply asking Peterson a simple question: "Am I not talking to a Christian?" Peterson started yelling diversions and using other tactics to avoid answering the question. He did it again with another atheist by trying to nitpick what the word "believe" means when asked if one "believes" in God. It's all very funny, because it's obvious Peterson doesn't believe in God or Jesus, but also wants the cultural cachet of being a Christian on the right. This matters because Peterson is up there with Musk for representing the more secular, nerdy wing of MAGA, which also happens to be comprised of some of the most fairweather Trump supporters. These are those young men who voted for Biden in 2020 and switched to Trump in 2024, helping Trump barely win the election. With the help of Musk and Peterson, they convinced themselves they can buddy up with people who believe in demon possession and think porn should be banned, all without risk to themselves. On Thursday, Musk complained that Trump was showing "ingratitude," claiming Trump would have lost the election without his support. (Which is probably true!) This budget fight exposes how delusional that attitude always was. It's not about religion, per se, but the culture clash between the Musk fanboys and the Christian nationalist debate is driving much of this. Musk and his acolytes envision a technofascism that sucks all the money out of social services and puts it into the tech industry, even as it pursues goals typically disliked by the Christian right, such as clean energy production. Meanwhile, the Christian right wing of the party, while happy to pass huge cuts to Medicaid and Obamacare, is largely leaving untouched Social Security or Medicare, which their working-class and aging base depends on. The techbro fascists may hate the liberals they live next door to, but at the end of the day, they're still part of the urban, atheistic, educated class that the MAGA movement demonizes. That difference was not going to be papered over forever.
