RE:RE:The 23 Optimized PatientsI think any time a company releases data where lots of numbers are involved, it is a risk. I will say that this time they did an overall better job. However, I also don't think that part in red below is correct, is what they wanted to state...
MineDigger wrote: Eog, thanks for that "dissection" of the data, so any chance you also "dissect" this highlighted part of this sentence for me
"The Study II optimized treatment patients, who received either an optimized primary study treatment or optimized maintenance study treatment consisted of: 23 patients at 90 days, 26 patients at 180 days and 27 patients at each of 270, 360 and 450 days."
To me it reads as if it is saying we really have 27 patients who have gone all the way to 450 days (surely not true but I don't spend as long on TLT as I used to), but even without knowing what the true 450 day figure is, what I can't fathom is in what sense there can be a higher number for 450 days (27) than there is for 90 days (23), can you or anyone explain?
And just for the benefit of having more data in one place I have taken the liberty of merging in some of your other figures in your final sentence to give me:
As the news release makes explicit there is still the potential of 82.6 CR (19) at 90 days for the 23 optimized patients (52.2% CR (12) + 17.4% PR (4) + 13% pending (3)), and meaning there is a 17% No Response (4).
Cheers
MD