RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Once the sites are open there is a screening period-28 days.
CancerSlayer wrote: "Anyone correct me if I'm wrong...but my math tells me that there were 6 non CRs of a total of 14 that were reported in the quarterly...four were reported to have been removed based on the "old/flawed" definition of treatment eligibility. And the others didn't get a first treatment that was optimized."
Non CRs = non-responders....of the 6 non-responders, four were previously removed based on the old withdrawal criteria. I assume one was removed due to either metastatic disease or local progression, & the final one was reported as a non-responder at the 180 day assessment. This non-responder is still eligible for a 2nd treatment (i.e. having unchanged CIS disease) & could still become CR after a 2nd treatment. And based on the current protocol/withdrawal definitions, the four previously removed would have also qualified for a 2nd treatment & could have achieved a CR. So, 5 of the 6 so called non-responders may have technically achieved a CR. That's a possible 11 for 12 CR rate (or 92% CR) for that first group of 12.
Furthermore, if all nine patients reported at the 180 day assessment remain or become CR (includes the two TBDs, two partial responders & the one non-responder) & the "optimized" patients #15 to 25 also achieve CR, our CR rate would still be "80%" (20/25)...& that includes the 4 patients initially removed those who were under-treated. If you exclude the 4 initially removed, the CR = 95% (19/20). And considering if all had been optimally treated from the get go....100%. Why not? Just my hypothetical opinion.