how can an NR become not an NR? I'm happy with the most recent data but I have a dumb question. How does a NR patient get revised to a PR or NR. If you look at the 270 day data (copied from Eoganatch post), 14 NR's became 12 NR's. I thought that an NR implied malignancy in the urine cytology AND visible disease on cystoscopy. I can see that a PR could be revised if the cells found in the urine cytology are found to come from a location in urethra or ureter (outside the field of treatment of TLT + light). I just don't get how you revise a NR when it implies that they visualized some tumour in the bladder.
Thoughts?
- maybe a site investigator give a patient an NR designation because they saw something with the scope and then revised it later based on second opinion from a top investigator?
Any other explanations?
| May 30, 2022 - Number of Patients | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | 90 Days | 180 Days | 270 Days | 360 Days | 450 Days |
| CR | 17 | 16 | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| PR | 8 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| NR | 12 | 9 | 14 | 14 | 15 |
| | | | | | |
| Total Evaluable | 37 | 32 | 26 | 23 | 22 |
| | | | | | |
| August 29, 2022 - Number of Patients | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | 90 Days | 180 Days | 270 Days | 360 Days | 450 Days |
| CR | 19 | 16 | 13 | 9 | 5 |
| PR | 6 | 9 | 7 | 3 | 3 |
| NR | 13 | 9 | 12 | 14 | 16 |
| | | | | | |
| Total Evaluable | 38 | 34 | 32 | 26 | 24 |