GREY:IMVIF - Post by User
Comment by
PoorOpinionon Dec 10, 2018 6:26pm
94 Views
Post# 29094268
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Updated Clinical Data Presentation
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Updated Clinical Data PresentationI wonder whether this has something to do with time as well. If you read the document I linked to it states that SD is only meaningful when linked to a certain duration of response as specified in the study. Given that 'slow shrinkers' and 'slow growers' would both be grouped together as SD early on and only after a certain time do they full differentiate into responders or non-responders. Does that make sense? Have IMV been specifically stating DCR rates?
While your numbers suggest confusion it might be that SD six months ago has less significance than SD now. Maybe we've reached that time threshold were you can start to say the drug is truely holding the cancer back if a patient has SD whereas earlier it was just to soon to say that. I think that makes sense, we need to know that time component of SD.
Breakthorough1 wrote: I guess I am wrong. They don't say 9 SD, but 9 DCR. So the DCR in the abstract is 70%.
It's strange because of what I said before: same results as in ASCO -no sense then to differentiate a subpopulation- and no coincidental with those of November presentations. May be between the abstract submssion and the November presentations something new was discovered. We will see...