RE:RE:RE:converting dataYes. Blunder on the 15 when the math only works as 12.
I was just going to write about the optimized study chart. I actually think that that only makes sense as a continuation of the new way of separating out optimized therapy patients.
12 would make sense
- 3 reported last newsletter (2 CR and 1 NR but note that the 1 NR is sometimes label partial R)
- 3 pending last newsletter (4 in the SEDAR report)everyone has been talking about these 3 -4 as the next installment)
- 6 pending (sedar July documents went from 4 pending to 6 pending.
I suspect that they have decided to label the 1 NR as PR (likely the patient that passed away).
So using the format they used in the last newsetter
Assessment day 90
4 CR
2 PR
6 Pending
Total 12
I think the only way that the NR number on the full 27 can drop from 9 to 8 is if they re-allocate the NR patient to the PR category as had negative cytology before passing. How else can the 90 day total drop by one patient.
So in answer to what everyone was waiting.
I think the 4 patients that were pending on the July SEDAR documents have become
2 NR
1 PR
1 pending
and I think that the incorrectly labelled NR was relabelled PR
So stepping back, of the patients who hav ever recieved optimized therapy, there ar now 12 + 3 from phase 1b.
6 of those are pending.
9 are known
for the set of 9 the results at 90 days are
6 CR (66%)
2 PR (1 new and the correctly assigned passed away patient with neg cytology)
1 NR
6+2 = 8/9
So of all the patient to ever GET OPTIMIZED TREATMENT (excluding pending 6)
88.9% responded.
looking good. assuming the company can manage all their other issues.....