RE:RE:RE:Misdiagnose??? Forgot to place a conclusion on my post...
The conclusion...If the inclusion criteria didn't mention to screen out the patients that had a history of UUTUC...Then it is UHN choice to decide to include these patients or not.
wildbird1 wrote: Langosta..in the NOV 8, 2017 Press Release..
TLT said (QUOTE) Patients one and two have a previous history of Hupper Urinary Tract Urothelia Carcinomia (UUTUC)
Diagnosed prior to their PDT treatment while patients 3 and 4 are at high risk of UUTUC (END OF QUOTE).
Knowing that these UUTUC patients could relapse at any time during the timeline of the trial... the inclusion criteria would have mentioned to screen out these patients, but they didn't. Meaning it was not a priority to screen out UUTUC patients.
Having said that we can be assured that for the last 5 patients..The patients that have a previous history of UUTUC will be screen out.
langosta wrote: Re- UHN permitted to screen out uutuc patients.
I don't believe UHN would be permitted to screen out uutuc patients. They were, as part of the Inclusion Criteria,
REQUIRED to check for uutuc and if the tests had been carried out longer than 3 mos. back then required to do these checks again. This was a condition of Inclusion, not PMH's decision. No matter how smart those folks are, mistakes can be made, especially if there is an eagerness to get on with it. Just my thought on it. Could I be wrong? Yep.
- Have no evidence of upper urothelial carcinoma (involving the upper urinary tract or the urethra) (confirmed by staging to exclude extravesical disease, which may include radiological imaging and/or biopsy) within 3 months of treatment initiation. If previous work up occurred more than 3 months prior to treatment initiation, staging for extravesical disease must be repeated prior to enrolment in order to determine eligibility.