RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:New Corp Presentation is up I submitted a question, it might be too specific and get ignored. I've read lots of 1a cancer PRs from dodgier biotechs than THTX, I can't think of any that reported such a high number. It could be they got a lot of prostate cancer patients and this is how their treatment goes. From what I know the aim with prostate cancer is managing the situation rather than 'cure'. It might just be this number reflects that process.
If I'm being generous and we assume they got a bunch of pretty sick individuals you could easily see how they might only be able to generate the necessary 1a data from those guys and not much more.
Wino115 wrote: I have thought the same thing with the 8 lines. I suppose it is the fate of most unknown Phase 1 oncology trials from small biotechs. You just are not going to get any patients except those who have essentially exhausted everything plus 3-4 more solution attempts.
I also think it's worth questioning and seeing if now that there's some familiarity with the trial doctors that they use it earlier around the 3-4th solution. The fact it was offered to SPCEOs relative after supposedly only 2-3 other therapies may be an early answer at least in the PA clinic. You have to think that as a drug moves up the trial phase level and shows some tantalizing signs, that the investigators will want to have patients that have a higher probability of going past the 3 month minimum and could see a response over time.
Just the anecdotal, totally non-statistically significant data is tracking a 33% response rate, but 100% on progression free survival. ;-) Do not take that to the bank!
qwerty22 wrote: I'm happy to see more anecdotal details and indirect evidence that they are answering some of the hypotheses they postulated about this drug at the start of the program (like it's ability to bypass resistance). But I guess they are most focused on what 1a set out to do and whether it delivered on that. They've shown the drug is relatively stable in blood. They've given us a point where toxicity seems to markedly get worse based on a handful of patients. We have a dose for future patients. And some signs of efficacy. That's the core of what 1a needed to deliver and it seems like it did and they presented the evidence for that and put it in their presentation. I guess all the anecdotal stuff comes up during conversations. I guess we have to accept now that the more solid data on some of the other questions comes as they get deeper into 1b and beyond.
If I'm honest the opportunity in 1a was for them to over-deliver with efficacy. That didn't happen. It seems 1b (especially an extended 1b) should offer a more meaningful shot at that.
It's a bit niche but I'm still fixated on the 8 previous lines of treatment being AVERAGE for their enrolled patients. It still sounds to me very high and the greater opportunity for the drug to be thoroughly tested by maybe a healthier bunch of patients offers some possibilities. I wouldn't mind a question looking at this aspect.
SPCEO1 wrote: They gave us a little new info too. I am not sure why they are not highlighting the fact that the one patient had failed on straight docetaxel but had 53% tumor shrinkage after just three treatments on TH-1902. It is really too bad that patient caught covid and had to discontinue.
qwerty22 wrote: Much clearer.
SPCEO1 wrote:
And it has a little new info on cancer - nothing on phase 1b but some more info on phase 1a regarding side-effects and number of patients treated at different dosage levels.