RE:Big Pharma & Optimized Patients CR%...
wildbird1 wrote: A Big Pharma that will try to strike a deal with TLT will first ask TLT, what will be the more exact CR% of patients that will be treated with TLT ACT(anti-cancer treatment)?
The answer will be the Optimized Patients CR%.
Let's have a look at the 18 Optimized patients 90 days CR% results.
3Q2021 Newsletter (Nov 29, 2021).
Complete Response(CR)........8 Patients....44%.
Partial Response(PR)..............2 " ....11%.
Pending ...................................7 " ....39%.
No Response(NR)....................1 " ..... 6%.
The 44% CR% is for 18 Patients, in order to have a more accurate CR% you have to substract the 7 Pending patients.
18 patients - 7 Pending patients = 11 patients that have received their 90 days results.
The more appropriate CR% is, 8 CR patients out of 11 patients = 73% CR.
- TLT said " Once a patient has obtained CR(Complete Response) the duration of the response remain fairly the same".
A Big Pharma will have to agree that considering that TLT ACT(Anti-cancer treatment) is treating only patients that have failed all other treatments, anything over 60%CR is huge.
As TLT will polish its treatment protocol, two things will happen.
1) The CR%(73%) will get better & better.
2) In the future , only one treatment could be necessary to achieve a CR(Complete Response), making TLT treatment more affordable.
As a bonus TLT seem to have a good shot at a Universal Covid-19 Vaccine.
Excellent post wildbird...
Would be interesting to know what number of patients (if any) crossed over from other trials for this Ph 2 study. Any cross-over patients could represent a particularly difficult-to-treat subset...imo, this is an entirely different category of patients that possibly represents a more resistant cancer. I also think we are dealing with other unique headwinds, including the relative lack of clinical attention/knowledge re: our ACT. It wouldn't surprise me if our trial gets too often overlooked by your typical community specialist who is non-PDT trained & less/unfamiliar with our type of ACT. This could explain any perceived slow enrollment...not to mention an eligible enrollee must also retain the study drug/TLD-1433 for a minimum of 1 hr...a procedure Keytruda trial patients obviously avoided.
Ultimately, the duration of response numbers will be key, & will provide further insight re: the future number of treatments needed. It certainly makes sense that a stable/unchanged CIS patient, a PR patient or a CR patient who converted to NR could all benefit from an additional treatment/boost on an as needed/minimum interval basis. And unlike the competition, which utilizes a single clinically immutable drug (or combination of two drugs), our ACT is more adjustable for enhancing the treatment response. This is due to the fact that we are not simply relying on a single drug(s) independent effects. We obviously have a drug that has maximal benefit when activated by an external source...a source that can potentially be modified & further refined. This adaptability will likely become more apparent as it relates to the treatment of other solid tumor types, including NSCLC & GBM. All JMHO.