RE:RE:What's Next?
enriquesuave wrote: Eoganacht wrote: Given the stability of CRs after the 180 day assessment, and taking into account only patients who were CR at both their 90 day and 180 day assessments I think we can be confident that:
90 days from now we should be at a 450 day CR rate of 31%
(12 out of 39 should be CR)
180 days from now we should be at a 450 day CR rate of 34%
(14 out of 41 should be CR)
270 days from now we should be at a 450 day CR rate of 40% (19 out of 47 should be CR)
Stellar results. And this includes the 12 undertreated patients.
Nice Eoganacht. Without 12 undertreated patients we would may e be looking at 50-55% 450 CR rate Imo. With only 2 treatments. I can imagine that NR and IR patients will eventually be given 3-4 treatments and perhaps we get another 10-20 % increase in CR rate perhaps?
Yep Enrique...
If our ACT is approved (have little doubt in my mind), clinicians will have the option to add a treatment(s) as they see fit for the more resistant/highly pre-treated patients...this is the art of medicine, which is unfortunately fading in general medicine & other specialties. Regardless, practice guidelines are just that...guidelines. They are not hard & fast rules.
Based on data trends thus far, I'd consider an NR to generally not change if a patient remains NR 3 to 6 months after the 2nd treatment. Perhaps this subset of patients could receive 1 to 2 additional treatments ~3 months after the 2nd treatment...& perhaps additional treatments could be given more frequently (i.e. 3 months apart instead of 6)?.... JMO. Our ACT should also more easily accommodate other treatments if needed (in combo or in series), simply based on the fact that we are a 2 treatment protocol that has few significant adverse effects.