RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Examples of efficacy from dose escalation studiesI would also point out that some of what may come from a dose escalation and even the extension trial that is perceived as "negative" is something that would not derail the SORT1 program completely. For instance, it they see it really only works best in late stage, or in mTNBC or where SORT1 was expressed at a super high level, then that's knowledge to ascertain the conditions the drug suceeds best in. It could shrink your market, but still produce a very valuable treatment option and revenue stream.
Also, you could see the toxin was "meh" --it got in the tumors but didn't do much more than the normal docetaxol approach. So then you try other toxins --you don't stop the program. They've said they will be trying others. Setback, yes -- but not a program killer. They've already mentioned immunotherapy drugs, S38 and maybe they'll get to radionuclear payloads like JFM envisions. It can definitely have roadblocks, but there are ways around most of them. The biggest roadblock would revolve around sortilin as a receptor and target. The entire program revolves around the studies that have shown it's overexpressed in relation to how advanced your cancer is. I have to believe all those scientific studies since they were done in studies. But I'd also like to see our boys replicate that in humans too.
qwerty22 wrote: I'm not sure it's a question of him being truthful or not. Everything Paul is doing is normal. He has to believe in the tech and when he's talking about the potential inevitably he's going to focus on the positives. When he's projecting forward he has to talk about the many places the program might go. I think it's also totally normal not to talk about what's happening in the present with the patients. Also he has never over-sold what this first small trial can achieve. I think some of us (including me) may have got our expectations up too much. I definitely think Wino is expressing the right balanced approach atm.
If the data disappoints it's not going to be because Paul lied, it'll be because one of a dozen things that happened in the lab or in mice couldn't be reproduced in humans. I'm not expecting that, I'm expecting PoC, I'm hoping the data can deliver PoC and a bit more. We will see.
SPCEO1 wrote: Below is a more comprehensive quote from my post which I believe better characterizes what I was saying than just the portion you quoted. Do you think that the way Paul has characterized the cancer phase 1a so far can't be described as optimistic? Granted he has given us no actual data on the phase 1a but he has clearly built expectations of a positive result with pretty effusive comments. Here is what I posted earlier: Let's hope they do better this time around, regain their credibility and move onto many bigger and better things. If they have nothing in cancer to "tout" as Paul said yesterday, then Paul's credibility is going to fall another few notches lower since he has been consistently very positive in the way he has generally characterized the cancer phase 1a trial. Hopefully, the specific data coming from the trial, whenever they get around to telling us more, will back up those favorable comments. On the issue of what data they may already have, if there was a response when they were doling out lower doses to the patients, as the pre-clinical work suggested there would be, they would already know that. One issue, however, is did those earlier patients who were treated with lower doses survive long enough to have enough treatments to show an effect. My sense at the cancer KOL was that they had already begun to see some efficacy signals and the talk about wanting to rpove such things up in the right way also indicates they have seen something. Or they are just speking in an optimisitc manner that intentionally is creating a perception of success in the trial when no success has yet been seen? While they have shown a willingness to distort the truth in the past, I am hoping they learned from those mistakes.
palinc2000 wrote: Spceo wrote
" Or they are just speking in an optimisitc manner that intentionally is creating a perception of success in the trial when no success has yet been seen? While they have shown a willingness to distort the truth in the past, I am hoping they learned from those mistakes. "
I must have missed the optimism about clinical results in Oncology.All I heard is optimism on the potential of the Platform in treating cancer IF clinical results are similar to pre clinical results....