RE:RE:The Data We must also not dismiss the fact that I believe 5 patients were wrongly dismissed from trial before there 2nd treatment early on as they were NR, but showed no progression. They had to change protocol to allow no progressions patients to stay in trial for 2nd treatment. So not only were they severely undertreated,but did not get a 2nd treatment. Still we are seeing 25% CR overall on evaluable patients at 360 and 450 days. In spite of the fact that they are counting all of these anomalies in the NR group which could have potentially added another 6-8 patients out of 20 evaluable patients 30-40% more in the CR group ( up to potential of 55-65% total maximum if all of these had been properly treated and were CR and including patient who died). All IMO please do your DD
enriquesuave wrote:
Simply not enough data at 360 days and 450 days. At both of these time intervals, we only have data on 9 patients out of 27. 4 of these 9 were from the 1st set of undertreated 12 ( but received an Optimized maintenance treatment) and the 1 patient who died from the optimized group. The next read out should show us data on 3 extra patients at 90 days, 7 at 180 days, 5 at 270 days, 2 at both 360 and 450 days
Sunvalley wrote:
With regards to the 3.7% CR at 360 days and 450 days respectively , a shareholder friend mentioned that those were not very good results for a CR after a year and thusly he is deterred from increasing his stock position. I could not argue with him and I was at a loss for a explanation as to how the Pending figure should factor into the equation. It seems that I am comfortable with the numbers in my head but I could not seem to explain it in laymans terms if you know what I mean. Does anyone have a simple way to explain this as I seem to have a mind block.?