RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Long, very longYou have more results than only patient #2 now published and it did nothing positive for the SP. The problem was not the release of results, it was that it took them twice the time they told us it would take to generate these results.
Now, in the last CC, they said that the three patients showing signs of efficacy will help them to recruit new patients for the phase Ia, that and the fact that phase Ia is done at the right dose from the begining. Because we need to remember that patient #2 started at 60 mg/m2, so toxicity was not an issue for the three first cycles. Also, results from phase Ia were not correlated with sortilin expression. It did not help to make the case that they had the proof of concept.
The bottom line is that they need to generate more convincing results correlated with sortilin overexpression. Without that they will not be able to claim a proof of concept. To move the SP a bit, they need to show proof of concept. I said at the time of the press releae that for me they had proof of concept, but I cooled down from that view since then. The thrre patients are encouraging, but I want the correlation with sortilin overexpression.
SPCEO1 wrote: To have clinical credibility, you need finances to fund the work. To have finances. you need to have investor credibility. So, it is a multivariate equation that is not always easy to solve. I suppose by adding that slide in the presentation last Spring regarding the patients that included a hint about patient #2, they were trying to solve that mutivariate equation by giving us a tidbit of info while not undermining their clinical credibility. I think they could have gone further with that info and not undermined their clinical credibility.