RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:New Corporate Presentation upIa m not sure how it works in these trials and you likely do know. But, if there was a DLT with 6 and 7, don't you think that would be noted on the slide? Can patients just cry "uncle" even if the side-effects are not bad enough to be classified as a DLT or AE? Could it be that 6 and 7 just had other health issues due to their cancer - that was the impression I had.
qwerty22 wrote: It looks like a complicated picture at 420. First two patients dropout at 420 (let's assume the worst - for toxicity). Then they appear to 'dabble' with an intermediate dose for patient 8. Then the 3 420 patients with 1 DLT so they move to enrol 3 more at 420, but then they stop at one patient and move back to 300. Seems like an intense decision making process at that dose. Looks on the surface risk averse and a fairly rapid retreat from toxic 420. As long as there is some hope at the 300 dose then that seems fine. There has been a lot of criticism of late that in the pursuit of efficacy companies have been pursuing too toxic doses.
There would be a lot more comfort if we knew that they are moving forward with 300 not just because 420 is too toxic but because they see something positive happening at 300. The huge missing piece atm.
qwerty22 wrote:
I'd say you're right.
SPCEO1 wrote: It seems like it refers to the 2nd footnote which says this is the currently available dose. But I am not 100% sure of that. Probably 95% sure but wonder if there are other theories out there.
SPCEO1 wrote: Anyone want to take a guess as to what the blue "2" means under the first patient at the 300mg level?
SPCEO1 wrote: https://www.theratech.com/static-files/ddb819a0-33ef-485d-aae8-d587b8cb36bf
I don't think it tells us anything we did not already know or presume but have only had time to glance at it.