RE:RE:RE:Early digns of efficacy!!!!What's also an amazing stat, from a commercialization angle, is that these patients had an average of 8 previous therapies. So the resistance angle and the fact nothing else worked, yet this did is an extremely strong and unique therapeutic characteristic. Really pretty amazing if you were a patient that tried everything, nothing worked --but you took this as one last shot and saw your tumor shrink in half.
qwerty22 wrote: Just my view but Ali think you need those partial responses. Those are the clearest signs that the drug has anti-tumour activity. Once you have those then the other signs like PSA reduction and prolonged SD add to that. If they have a much larger data set and show very many SD then that is a good stand alone result as well. I think it's about being certain what you have IS anti-tumour activity and tumour shrinkage across multiple tumours in a patient is the clearest indication of that.
stockman75 wrote: Intersted to hear the medical experts on our boards input on this pr. I am confused a bit on what constitutes efficacy. I have been hearing 30% reduction in tumor size but isn't stabilizing a advanced\progressive disease a great result? Not to mention with less side effects? So in other words if a drug stops tumor growth with less side effects than current standard is that not a great result?