RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Time for actionAnother thing about Juniper88's wife (bless her soul) ... she, like all others, received the "standard dose" ... even though her body is overwhelmed with cancerous tissue. So ... how does this standard dose distribute across *numerous* tumors? Does the majority go to the first one(s) it encounters or is it evenly distributed across the many. This might explain why some tumors showed some response and others didn't ... there wasn't enough dosage to impact all the tumors. This is another variable that must be considered with late stage patients ... the tumors may be overwhelming the dosage.
It's complicated!!
-LT
SPCEO1 wrote: Juniper88, whose background is admittedly in finance and not medicine did report a quick decline in the CA-125 test after just one cycle of treatment and observed with the naked eye as well as through her final scan after 2 cycles of treatment and 4-5 weeks in the study, some tumors shrink meaningfully. I find that pretty encouraging as the drug clearly works at some level for ovarian cancer. Those were pretty short time frames to see notable progress.
Wino115 wrote: Any thing based off scans it does appear it would be the latter time frame. When I look at the various charts they posted with pre clinical dose and timelines measuring tumor burden, other than melanoma, the other 3 charts show minimal declines with first two,doses and then it starts in earnest. Melanoma starts a bit earlier. The caveat is they are not log charts, they are linear, so small percentage movements are hard to pick out but large ones are. Also, scans are subject to,readers interpretation. So if you need to be safe to be sure, which we should want from mgmt, the Sep timeframe is when news could start flowing. Maybe we hear earlier from the melanoma cohort. Definitely not the pancreatic cohort, that takes a few more doses and time.
qwerty22 wrote:
It's really not great timing though. If we take what juniper said about 3 SD patients. Even though they are fine, they aren't reportable. SD after 2 cycles is not something you can chalk up to the drugs effect. They might get their next scan in the coming weeeks which at best would deliver an unconfirmed response and then it's 2 more cycles(6 weeks) to the next scan before there is the potential for a confirmed response. All that is assuming the best from those patients. None of that can be avoided. So assuming Juniper is correct then that's the best we can expect from the 1b patients from Karmanos. The other centre are likely similar. In my view it's really difficult to say much without confirmed responses.
So probably the only hope for something on Thursday would be if one of the last 6 patients from 1a showed something. Getting meaningful positive info, the stuff we really want to hear, probably hangs on that thread.
I think SPCEO is right Aug/Sept are more reasonable. It's a long wait until then.
realitycheck4u wrote: LOL. It's easy to be frustrated, and most of us here are not patient enough, from the belief that we want to hear news and more information sooner rather than later. It's hard for most of us to be anything but upset. However, you either think they can deliver and TH1902 can be successful, and that they can explain the current status and the current situation, or you don't. We can draw some conclusions from what happens on Thursday.
I beleive they need to do all they can to start to move the needle. To do that, they need to disclose what they can (or should) and explain it without any holes in it. They know that. They anguish about it likely as much as we do. So, let's see what happens.
qwerty22 wrote: We've found our leader!
Trogarzon wrote: Since this management has'nt provided a normal liquidity and decent valuation for the company shares, I am asking Soleus and others to pull together to draw some serious action from the BOD... total mess for shareholders... no way out. How do you sell 1m shares without hitting the bid at 20 cents..