Theralase Technologies Inc. V.TLT

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:88% demonstrate that CR at 180 days, 69% at 270 days

[Pandora]

ScienceFirst wrote: 99942Apophis ... Interesting.  But it sounds like it's not adding up, in regards to timelines.  Correct me if I'm missing something.


In Newsletter Q32020 = Sept. 24, 2020 = @90-days

Study II has enrolled and treated 12 patients to date. Out of the 7 patients that are eligible to receive the second treatment, 5 have been treated and 2 are pending. 2 out of the last 5 patients treated for the second time have been treated with the optimized Study II treatment, which will also be the case for the 2 patients that are pending their second treatment.

Efficacy to date at the 90 day assessment includes:

1. 3 out of 12 patients (25%) have demonstrated a Complete Response (“CR”) (Negative cystoscopy and negative (including atypical) urine cytology
2. 3 out of 12 patients (25%) have demonstrated a Partial Response (“PR”) (2 patients with negative cystoscopy and positive urine cytology and 1 patient with positive cystoscopy and negative urine cytology), with 2 of these patients having received second treatment.

The Company is in advanced discussions with the US based Trial Management Organization to potentially launch 5 clinical study sites in the United States in 4Q2020, subject to the US economy successfully recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. If launched in 4Q2020, the Company would expect Study II patient enrollment and treatment in 1Q2021. 


So April 5, 2022 = 19 months (570-days) later from Sept. 2020.

90+570 = @660-days

It doesn't match the 360 or 450 days.

"Study II has enrolled and treated 12 patients to date"

The first 12 patients to be treated in Study II -- were they not all "undertreated"? i.e. the ones that have put a glitch in all the tracking to-date? So if they were all treated the first dose before the end of September 2020 (and some number of them a second dose in the 4th quarter of 2020) it has now been 516 days from the beginning of 2021 those 12 are all well beyond the 450 day time frame that is the last measureable time standard.

There have been so many numbers and charts and thoughts put forward that I am completely confused as to what anything means anymore. If those 12 "undertreated" patients have cleared out of the system so to speak are we now just looking at "optimum treated" patients in the 90 - 450 time charts or do "all" patient outcomes remain as residual data? If that question even makes sense.

I guess what I'm trying to say is can we not get a clean slate of data that is not influenced by patients that happened to be undertreated -- or does that data remain as a permanent blemish.

On what date did Patient #13 Study II get treated and how many days have passed since then - are they at day 450 yet? And how many patients beyond Patient 13 have now been treated?

It might be nice to see a chart on a patient by patient basis that shows the individual start dates and the 90 - 450 day status (progress) of each -- and a summary at the bottom line. For such a highly technical operation I do not understand why a simple Excel spreadsheet is not available showing the individual data points. Maybe that is too much to ask for.