RE:RE:RE:Uddin's Comments on Buy rating99942Apophis wrote: CancerSlayer wrote
Kingpin68 wrote:
For the 27 subjects in TLTs pivotal trial to achieve the same CR rate at 360 days as Keytruda, an additional three subjects out of the 11 which had not received both doses of TLD-1433 would need to achieve CR representing a 27 per cent threshold (3/11) we believe this is a feasible threshold for Theralase given the data presented to date, Uddin said... As the Phase 2 pivotal trial continues to progress, we believe the results should elucidate the efficacy potential of TLT-1433. We are maintaining our SPECULATIVE BUY rating and a target price of $0.70, Uddin wrote.
The number of patients who had not received two doses at the 270 & 360 day marks would be 9 of the 27 total reported (not 11). The 270 & 360 day marks represent the % of patients who still have their data pending....the interim marks have nothing to do with the number of patients who have yet to receive their 2nd treatment. Patients 13, 14 & 15 all received their 1st treatment before 2/24/2021. So we have 3 patients from Ph 1b & the 15 patients from Ph 2 (a total of 18 of 27 patients) who would have received two treatments by now (at 0 & 180 days). The 27% threshold doesn't change, but we only need 3 of the remaining 9 to be CR at 360 days...all of whom will have received "two" optimized treatments. That would put us well above that 27% threshold.
I also maintain a STRONG SPECULATIVE BUY, but I won't dare try to put a target price on this one ; )
JMO. GLTA.
Thanks CancerSlayer
To add here is patients are checked at multiple points prior to the established end points of 90 & 360 days so lead investigators know who are most likely to continue being CR as far as Theralase knowing that might be relayed to them but that I think (guessing) is a choice each Investigator makes but only is obligated to do at established end points. We have 16,17 & 18 due in March & April for 360 but at least the wait for 90 days on recent treated will come well before end of this year which adds to our future window.
Can't say you're welcome because my math needs a lot of help at times...used to be good until the big "D" hit, but thanks for your input & that of so many other fine posters.
Regarding my prior %s posted, I erroneously used total number of patients "yet" to receive a 2nd treatment (9) as the denominator in calculating %CR needed...instead of the 11 who still had pending data.
To partially redeem myself, or further humiliate...& probably the latter ; ), I will be happy to report my twisted 360 day CR scenario for the 9 who "still need" a 2nd optimized treatment...
Worst-case:
3 of 9 (33%) need to achieve CR (assuming the first 2 of the 11 pending didn't achieve CR)
Best case:
1 of 9 (11%) need to achieve CR (assuming the first 2 of the 11 pending achieved CR)
Those ratios (not unlike the 3/11) seem very feasible...see you all on the flip side. I hope. Best..