RE:RE:Partial response My numbers may be off a bit as the section i quoted was referring to Reccurence of UTUC in CIS, not prevalence. Still chances of UTUC in these patients is high
NMIBC patients with CIS were previously reported to have a higher incidence of UTUC recurrence than those without it (21.2% vs 2.3%, P < 0.001)24
enriquesuave wrote:
A Partial Response means that upon a cystoscope exam, no visible cancer was detected in the bladder ( it appears cancer free visibly) but examination of Urine Cytology shows presence of cancer cells. This means one of 2 things. Either the bladder is actually cancer free and that the cancer cells appearing in the urine are from the ureter and not the bladder. This would result in a CR as only the bladder is treated and the FDA does not expect the ureter to be Cancer free. Or it could mean that there is cancer still present in the bladder, but which is too small or difficult to detect upon Cystoscope exam and hence why the Urine cytology appears positive. Note that at trial entry, all of these patients were showing visible CIS and positive urine cytology. That would lead to and NR. About 21% of CIS patients also have cancer in the Ureter, so we could expect about 20% of CR patients to appear as PR initially until the cancer is proven to come from Ureter and so patient is reclassified as CR. We see that about 20% of patients so far in Optimized treated group who are PR, so I'm hopeful that they end up reclassified as PR at end of trial, or a majority of them. All IMO.
This bodes very well for us as there is a high chance that our PR patients will end up CR. IMHO
"NMIBC patients with CIS were previously reported to have a higher incidence of UTUC recurrence than those without it (21.2% vs 2.3%, P < 0.001)24. Schwartz et al. showed that the UTUC recurrence rate was 13% in NMIBC patients with CIS, which was significantly higher than that in those without CIS (3.1%)25. A recent study demonstrated that the smoke load (over 20 pack-year) increased the risk of recurrence and progression (HR = 1.019 and 1.034, P = 0.00004 and 0.00002, respectively) in NMIBC patients treated with BCG, suggesting that the smoke load reduces the efficacy of BCG therapy26. These findings appear to support our results showing that concomitant CIS, but not a history of BCG, is an independent predictor of UTUC recurrence in NMIBC patients with a positive smoking history."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-00184-y
Oilminerdeluxe wrote: Here's one. We all want as many CR patients as possible of course. However, me and my buddy wondered how to value a Partial Response? I mean, that must have some value too. If a tumor shrinks that must be a good thing.