RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Feature article about Theralase on biotuesdays.com website
CancerSlayer wrote:
A recent metanalysis in the journal of European Urology Focus (3/2022) emphasized the need for more clear treatment guidelines for this risk group & concluded that incorporating maintenance therapy was a superior protocol in terms of longer-term cancer recurrence. Imo, comparative studies are sorely lacking for this indication & I believe our ACT will be in a good position one day to meet that need.
'Meta-analysis"...I tend to combine/chop my stat words. The above analysis identified a need for maintenance treatments, which I believe opens the door to an important unmet need for a more efficient treatment option. If TLT proves it can effectively treat high-risk NMIBC in 1 or 2 treatments, that should break down the welcome door to Big Pharma imo. One could more confidently hypothesize that if it worked for high-risk disease, it would do the same for lower-risk stages.
Per the meta-analysis, intermediate-risk patients fall vulnerable to inadequate therapy due to the less clear diagnostic criteria & the lack of a universally agreed upon & evidence-based treatment decision tree. All treatment decisions are based on a cost-benefit analysis, & for this risk group the right/best decision is often hazy. A protocol using chemo as maintenance may provide longer term disease-free recurrence for some, but in those patients, will the cost &/or adverse effect profile of such a treatment be warranted? This is where TLT's ACT may have a significant advantage that is worth further investment/investigation....bring it on Big Pharma! : ).