Theralase Technologies Inc. V.TLT

converting data

[DJDawg]

For those that think in terms of patients and the way displayed previously.

Now 27 patients (including the three from 1b) for 90d

9 CR
4 PR
6 pending
8 NR

This compares previously (annual filing documents) 22 patients at 90 days
7 CR
2 PR
4 Pending
9NR

So the 90 group has
- gained 2 new CR
- gained 2 new PR
- gained 2 new pending
- lost one NR

Agree. Did I do the math right?

[Kingpin68]

DJ, your numbers look accurate, and things look to be going in the right direction. Hope we will be able to view the quarterly in full soon for a more complete breakdown. Thanks for your number crunching.

[2b7f6fab]

For the Optimized Study Chart the 90 day column appears to consider only 12 patients since there are 8.3% used in this column which would translate to 1/.083333 =12 patients.  There is no telling how many are used in the 180 day column, could be 12 or 15. Jump over to 270 day column which has 6.7% is indicating 15 patients.   1/.0666667 = 15 patients.  The 360 day and the 450

[Rayzzer]

Thanks 2b7f6fab. I had posted this on another board. So you saw the same thing I did?

[Rayzzer]

I posted this as well: We know there should be at least 2 NR at 90 days “optimized”. The one from phase I and the patient that died in phase II. The math is not adding up. So not sure we can really look at this any further until the company issues a correction. Anyone see it differently?

[DJDawg]

Yes. Blunder on the 15 when the math only works as 12. I was just going to write about the optimized study chart. I actually think that that only makes sense as a continuation of the new way of separating out optimized therapy patients. 12 would make sense - 3 reported last newsletter (2 CR and 1 NR but note that the 1 NR is sometimes label partial R) - 3 pending last newsletter (4 in the SEDAR

[DJDawg]

IGNORE above. One error (likely more) Actually I think I am a bit sleep deprived from a night shift. There is an error in my math that I can't make sense of. I still think that the new patients are 2 CR 1 new PR 1 old NR converted to PR 1 still pending and then 5 new recruited. I really should just wait for Enrique to sort it out but got excited on too much coffe.

[2b7f6fab]

Update to my previous comments below.  180 day column and beyond using 20% which only computes with 15 patients. (20%*12=2.4 patients doesn't work)  So the 90 day column appears to only count 12 patients and all columns beyond that 15 patients.  Therefore adding 2 complete responses and 1 nr to the 90 day column = 6 complete response 1 partial 2 nr 6 pending Looking at the

[Yajne]

Do you think occurred to anybody to report results consistently across the full time frame, such as the 3 patients from Ph1b...including them in all short, long and very long term results? Duh!

[CancerSlayer]

  As explained by the asterisks (****) for the graph of the 15 patients who received at least one optimized treatment: **** Preliminary clinical data on 15 patients who received a primary or maintenance treatment on or after August 1, 2020 Not sure how those percentages are actually applied, but they distinctly refer to 15 patients receiving an optimized treatment (primary OR

[Oilminerdeluxe]

So quite a few pending. The next quarterly should be very revealing then. Well, back to waiting. But with a slighly more positive mind. Thanks. Not much about the virus research?

[CancerSlayer]

  Just saw Enriques simpler explanation, but basically saying the same thing ; )

[Pandora]

You're right -- it's about as clear as mud. One would think for 27 people there is a much easier/clearer way of presenting the numbers but we're talking about medical/science people. Make it as difficult as possible for the layman.

[fredgoodwinson]

Yes Pandora the data should have beeen presented clearly leaving the reader - not the Company - to be the judge of whether it could then be meaningfully analysed. The design of this Trial made sure that it would never showcase the full potential of TLD-1433 and have held since for Rutherrin. Is this as it should be at last in GLP? Again, not a clue. Another triumph of a Quarterly and really

[socksnblonds642]

I don't think that the company can present the numbers as they have been presented on this board. The work on this board is accurate and valid IMO but I think that the company would have to show complete results only. We are free to disseminate the information and come to a logical conclusion in the company reports accurate numbers. My take away from this report is that the results are very

[fredgoodwinson]

Hopefully the next Quarterly -  i.e. to the end of September and therefore to be reported out within the next couple of months - will show a clearer and improving picture on the NMIBC Trial and tell us something about progress towards human trials in the lung and brain. Having been told nothing at the AGM it was a real disappointment that there was again nothing on this last topic.

[StevenBirch]

I agree Fred, with the management changes maybe we will get more timely info. Just the way this was worded seemed more positive so maybe when the pending number starts to be actual results we will hear about lung and brain. I do like Dr. Mandel back in a leading role also.

[socksnblonds642]

The change in wording re GBM and lung cancer clinical study is not insignificant as it appears to have "commenced". The last quarterly reported that they were taking the proper steps to be able to do this study. This report says that they've done what they said they would and have possibly even started or starting the study.

[fredgoodwinson]

Thanks for making me re-read that snb altough having done so would conclude the opposite. The completion of non-GLP was previously scheduled for Q2 2021 but still remains a 'strategic objective' i.e. it hasn`t happened yet and GLP won`t start until it has. Will they really be going to the Clinic with Rutherrin in 2022 at this rate?

[socksnblonds642]

Yes to the non GLP however that delay was explained as a result of COVID. I was referring to GBM and lung cancers.  Any of us that are doing any sort of business are dealing with delays due to Covid. Some fake and some probably not.... Unfortunately we are probably all getting a lot of mixed information on this front. Having said that I think it's safe to say that clinical studies have

[fredgoodwinson]

The GBM and Lung trials are dependent on the prior completion of toxicology studies (GLP) for Rutherrin which in turn cannot be begun until non-GLP is completed. There is a huge prize in prospect - the effective non-invasive treatment of currently-fatal deep seated cancers via low-dose x-ray and in the light of the pioneering nature of this fascinating work it would be unfair to hold them to a

[CancerSlayer]

Imo, any delay moving forward should be diminishing (at least in the US) based on recent Covid data suggesting that we may be at a peak or perhaps a bit beyond & that this recent increase in daily cases has not led to a similar increase in morbidity/mortality rates as in past peaks.  In other words, this variant may be more contagious, but due to an increase in natural/vaccine-induced

[Rumpl3StiltSkin]

Likely not without a partner, Yet it seems now they could get their NMIBC %s up, so a partner is more likely now. Money is the barrier to GLP Phase 1s either way. IMO they will get the non GMO completed early 2022, Covid did slow this process ~ 9 months :-(

[Rumpl3StiltSkin]

Yep S + B, I agree. Though isn't it just a matter of when TLT can book these numbers?? In the end once everyone has their 12(15) month data in?

[socksnblonds642]

Very true. We should be calling these forecasts. 

[StevenBirch]

That looks good Dawg. I like the more positive tone, that with one more patient enrolled and treated it will mark the first significant milestone for Phase II and that Dr. Mandel has assumed the lead for Phase II. I think any Covid news would be a stand-alone release. We are getting there.