RE:Non optimized vs optimized To be more thorough, to date 27 patients have been treated at a therapeutic dose ( high dose of drug). Of those 13 have had a non-optimized treatment procedure (patient #4 from PH1 and 1st 12 treated patients from PH2. The remaining 14 patients in total have received an Optimized Treatment Procedure ( patients # 5 & 6 fro PH1 and patients #13-24 from PH2).
Non-optimized Treatment Arm of 13 ( undertreated by 39-85%): at 90 days post treatment 3 are CR and 2 are PR partial response and remaining 8 NR or no response ( unchanged CIS), but no progression . 23% CR
Optimized Treatment Arm of 14 patients: 6 pending data ( recently treated not yet 90 days), thus 8 with data showing 6 CR or complete response and 1 PR and 1 NR. ( NR patient sadly died of unrelated issue and was counted as a non responder even though his urine cytology test was negative showing no presence of cancer at 30 days with a negative predictive value of about 95% IMO it is very likely that patient was CR, but cannot be counted as such). So 75% CR at a minimum so far. Hoping pending 6 patients will fare as well to confirm strong efficacy.
Also great to see that both Optimized treated patients fro PH1 were still CR at 2 years mark after 1 single treatment instillation. All IMO GLTA.
enriquesuave wrote:
1st 12 patients undertreated by 39-85% yielded a 25% CR or 3 patients at 90 days
6 optimized treated patients yielded 67% or 4 out of 6 patients and maybe would have been 5 as one patient died after negative urinate cytology.
Hence Optimized is about 2-4 Times as likely to get CR at 90 days. IMO