RE:Had a thoughtFunny you mention that as I actually just finally read the entire new paper they submitted last month. As you know, it all revolves around their study on TNBC. Sort1 sure does work well against the top two strains of breast cancer. You could be right and I don't know enough about how these trials are sourced to guess. The two things I remember are that Trodelvy is listed as having failed 2 previous lines, so 3L, but maybe that means 2 or more so you could use it as last resort approach. Also, I think there's a few types of TNBC the Trop-2 didn't work well on, and with a response rate that's fairly low, that would still leave a decent number at the 3/4/5L level probably. Regardless, I think the fact they've talked up just safety and dosage, and we know how small it's been since the trial moved up the initial stages with no SAEs to deal with, it's best to assume they've had as many non-sort-overxpressed as sort-expressed. If the longer treated ones weren't the best sort1 expressers, we won't get much around efficacy, but maybe POC elements. I think we've all gotten to the point where we should only expect safety, dosage and some anecdotes and we're set to go full force into the actual efficacy trial with the right dose going forward. It will be a real bonus if we hear anything on a response rate.
qwerty22 wrote: With Trodelvy getting approval in tnbc in Apr 2021 I suspect that has significantly reduced that cancer type from getting enrolled in this trial. Presumably from Apr all tnbc patients that had failed all other approved drugs would have moved to Trodelvy before getting enrolled on any clinical trial. That would have cut off access to a known high sort1 expressing cancer. Might be why the company has emphasized enrolment in two untreatable cancers and maybe a partial explanation for the delay in picking up responders. We may need to wait until Trodelvy fails work their way through the system to get a shot a tnbc patients. Maybe they got lucky they weren't wholely reliant on this cancer type.