RE:RE:So many questions about the patient protocolI agree that there is a lack of clarity in all that escalation thing and they are moving much slower than expected. They are way behind the schedule I established back in June based on what they said back then. That being said, back in August they said that results could go as far as the begining of 2022. This is not a news. Obviously, I prefer this situation to a press release telling us the MTD is 1.5 times the MTD of docetaxel alone. As for efficacy, I wrote it here recently, it will be hard to see efficacy with only one or two cycles of treatment in the higher doses. That being said, I still think they nned to keep everything sealed until they do a press release with the results. If you start releasing little bits of infos, it will be hard to control the understanding by the market. Again, I think a full release of the data all at once is the way to do it, even though it is a bit stressful to try to decode what is really going on.
SPCEO1 wrote: I added another question - see below:
SPCEO1 wrote: Please see the two depictions of the patient protocol below which have raised a number of quesions for me. Admittedly, I may be a little slow when it comes to things like this but maybe some of you can help me out:
1.) Both protocols below indicate the phase 1a will take 28 weeks. Was that just an unrealistic hope or do they count weeks differently since they did not update the second chart to include more weeks which clearly have been chewed up at this point?
2.) Notice we now have a whole new level on the second slide - 745 mg. If this level was found to be safe, would yet another new level be added? How many can they add before they say it is time to stop even if no SAE's ever occur.
3.) While it appears they had no SAE's at the 420 level and that this is likely the fallback level for the MTD if SAE's are seen at the 540 level, if they had seen some at 420, could they just declare the 300 level as the MTD or would they need to go back and test some more patients. They surely could not declare it the MTD just based on one patient, right? Prehaps this is a moot point, however, as I suspect they do have multiple patients at the 420 level.
4.) Do they have to have at least 15 patients in the trial before it ends? If so, what does that mean for how long the trial might yet last? Can they knock out the extra patients very quickly?
5.) Why did the original slide have 3 patients at the 200 and 300 level but then they only apparently tested one patient each at those levels?
6.) If one cycle equals three weeks and we would like to see at elast three cycles to see if some tumor regression can be identified, does that mean we the earliest we could likely see that from those at the 420 level would be the end of January? Does each patient get at least three cycles of treatment? Patients conitnue on the drug even after the trial ends, so is it possible the trial officially ends and then some time after that tumor regression is noticed?