RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:The listI thought I heard that too. I also thought I heard something about going from 10 to 25 patients and that would match with what Juniper88 said about expanding the size of the trial as well as up the odds of finding the two patients you are looking for. But I might be dreaming on that one.
qwerty22 wrote: If you have a cancer type with +80% of patients expressing SORT you shouldn't need to pre-screen. If the drug is going to be useful the responders should flow. The claim is SORT is ubiquitous in some cancers. If it wasn't like this, if SORT was rare, then they should screen.
The most important difference in my view between 1a and 1b is that efficacy is front and centre. They have multiple cancers and they are looking for those that are viable for the drug. 1b is basically about finding a go/no go signal for each cancer. Can't remember if they said this or I just made this up but my idea is 2 out of 10 patients in one cancer would allow that cancer to potentially move forward to the next phase.
LouisW wrote:
I think they did IHC or other tools to select patient. Otherwise, what the difference between 1a and 1b?