RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:QuestionsYeah, you must be correct on that. I will check the transcript when it becoes available to s ee what Paul actually said, but your take has to be the correct one.
jeffm34 wrote: That published evaluation will be for phase 1a only. Phase 1b will still be ongoing well into 2023. Final readout for that portion would be 2024 at the earliest
SPCEO1 wrote: Paul mentioned that there will not be a published evaluation of the trial until early 2023, if I heard him correctly, and that presumably would include phase 1b as well as phase 1a.
They defintely cherry-picked the info they shared with us but the important point remains the same - the drug worked as expected on some patients. That is the first time the company has stated that/. We do not have to worry so much now about it being a complete flop in phase 1. To me that was very encouraing info to hear directly from the company. I was already encouraged by Juniper88's report but this confirmed the drug was working by getting into some cancerous tumors and either reducing their size or stunting their growth over a long time period.
I am not sure what you think is unclear. At 420mg there were toxicities and Christian couldn't have been clearer about the absence of them at the 300mg level. That is not even new info as we have known that for a while.
qwerty22 wrote: One problem is they are essentially still cherry-picking what they want us to know. The 1a data would need to go to a conference poster to get the full picture.
Christain was talking about patients choosing to drop out to get back to normal life. Interesting Juniper thought the burden of clinic visits was high with this trial. Must be disease progression and general frailty as an issue too. He did say some of the 420 toxicities led to withdrawal but also that outside that toxicity wasn't an issue for dropouts. Seems quite mixed and unclear.
palinc2000 wrote:
Only 2 of the 18 patients in Phase 1a remain in the trial...Do we assume that most of the 16 did not survive long enough?
qwerty22 wrote:
Seems to me they were quite defensive over oncology. I'm wondering if they are concerned that with 18 enrolled and only one clear PR that this data will be seen negatively.
For me this update is pretty good. The only real downside is it came 6 months late. It is blown away data but they hit everything they needed to hit.
I guess they are looking forward to a sizeable data set coming out of 1b and as we have said it's likely too early for that to have materialized yet.
I thought some of the colour Christain gave on the "responders" was useful. There's certainly a suggestion that there's some resistance around those patients given that in prior treatments they quickly failed on taxols. You could surmise with the PR response patient that they "beat" docetaxel.
Overall though I get the sense they are still being very cautious and conservative. Could be a while before we hear about 1b patients. Feels like a big derisk but no fanfare about that.
StableGenius97 wrote: We out here showing cancer efficacy in cancer and we out here talking about egrifta. Not the game. Egrifta. We talking about egrifta