re NMIBC update...coming.
I'm sure that this is obvious but we could be due for a whole 6 new patient updates reaching 90 days. If there were 6 pending as of Aug 30 then they should be there. Does that sound about right? And we should have better 180 day data around durability for the previous 90 day CR patients.
As Enrique summarizes well, as of the Aug 30 update, there are 14 patients who have ever recieved the optimized full deal (treatment and procedure).
The margin of error on a sample of 14 patients is 26% (95% conf). In other words, for 14 patients the information that they would tell us about the PR/CR of a hypothetical long term group of 100,000 patients is plus or minus 26%.
So far we are at 1NR (perhaps truly a CR who passed away too early), 1 PR and 6 CR. This means 87.5% some response (PR and CR).
Statistically, if we add the data on the new 6 and they play out in different ways these are the true long term ranges for what a large group would do (in terms of any response to one treatment,90 days).
new 6 PR or CR new PR or CR for optimized ever Range of true large pop 90d PR or CR
6/6 13/14 66-100%
5/6 12/14 59-100%
4/6 11/14 52-100%
3/6 10/14 45-97%
2/6 9/14 38-90%
1/6 8/14 31-83%
0/6 7/14 24-76%
The lower part of the range is the worst expected large population response. So if 4,5 or 6 are PR or CR then the worst case large population response wold be over 50% off one treatment.
I'm not a stats person but this is my rudimentary take.
My plan is to take the new data, when it comes, plug into above and see what is what for the long term hold.
My hunch is that Vera's hiring process, or wooing/recruiting process would have included an NDA and some additional data known only to the company since Aug 30. She seems like a catch who wouldn't have jumped on to a microcap, penny stock company without doing something equivalent stats to above. IMO
Good luck to all.
ps: let me know if my basic stats knowledge above is erroneous.