Theralase Technologies Inc. V.TLT

88% demonstrate that CR at 180 days, 69% at 270 days

[ScienceFirst]

3 more patients treated since April 29.

Efficacy is still improving.  Sounds like a Breakthrough designation winner and a future Standard of Care (SOC).


For all Evaluable Patients, who achieved a CR at 90 days, 88% demonstrate that CR at 180 days, 69% at 270 days, 50% at 360 days and 56% at 450 days, demonstrating a strong duration of complete response.

[enriquesuave]

Very good and steady data so far.  Next read out will have more data at different time intervals.  270 days data should be telling IMHO   

[ScienceFirst]

The FDA will give us Breakthrough designation easily because it's a new option for our clientele that is facing cystectomy.  It delays such event and can even completely eradicate their cancer! 

[ScienceFirst]

Giant leap in oncology.  Amazing alternative for patients.

[ScienceFirst]

The maintenance study treatment has been provided to 15 patients, with 11 maintenance study treatments pending Maintenance = 2nd dose (the one 180-days)

[FGPstock]

I think you guys may be reading this statement wrong. 46% were CR after 90 days. then 88% of the 46% were still CR after 180. Not sure how the PR factors in For all Evaluable Patients, who achieved a CR at 90 days, 88% demonstrate that CR at 180 days, 69% at 270 days, 50% at 360 days and 56% at 450 days, demonstrating a strong duration of complete response.

[jicoop]

Heye gang, still hanging in here, did some travel in Europe recently for a spring break .  Yes, agree with results being promising, but the point below needed to be clarified. thanks FGP . Good news is that the Total of CR and PR at 360 is 39% , which is a healthy number . The possibilty exists for some of the PR group to become CR . See here : 3 Partial Response (“PR”) is defined as

[enriquesuave]

Actually numbers were better for evaluable patients at 180 days (50% CR)vs (46% CR)at 90 days. That is 109% (not 88%).  They are being conservative.  That is why I'm waiting to see numbers at 270 days which could foretell 360 and 450 days on Optimized patients.  270 days is steady at 39% CR meaning no new data in last month.  Next update will show what a second treatment

[Rumpl3StiltSkin]

Enrique, I am very encouraged. What would really get me going is if we start to see some PR after first dose convert to CR after second dose. THAT would be huge! IMO... It would show the market that trying 1433 again is a great idea if it doesn't work the first time.

[enriquesuave]

Can someone post the chart with the 1st 20 patients?  Since 1st 12 were severely undertreated and 5 were wrongly dropped early on ( never got a Maintenance treatment at 180 days)and one patient died of Heart failure from that group, IMO we are looking very good.

[Oilminerdeluxe]

Not that I am smart to know, but it feels to me that these numbers should be enough to give us a BTD if they are maintained. And change to the upside of the data feels quite possible too. Good. 

[Legit62]

Would have to agree, better data numbers as we move on, once all data is actualy finalized with proper dosing and certain patients removed due to unforseen events not related to trials, we get our BTD,AA and off we go. Still feel we have something in works now before all this breaks out,IMO, We are too good for this not to be happening, as i said before , stay patient longs cause we are real close

[99942Apophis]

Sorry enriquesuave had trouble trying to copy & paste from April/21 newsletter. Patient 20 was reported in news dated June 11 however the August newsletter reported 27 patients which included 3 from ph1. 7 33.3% 6 28.6% 2 9.5% 2 9.5% 3 14.3% 5 23.8% 9 42.9% 8 38.1% 9 42.8% 8 38.1% 21 100.0% 21 100.0% Assessment Day 90 % 180 % Total (Complete Response)* Total (Partial

[CancerSlayer]

Great news!  What stood out to me the most & the most meaningful info. imo for the first 20 treated (of which 12 were significantly undertreated) is the following: There was a 25% CR rate at both the 360 & 450 day assessments.   The 25% CR rate represents a "minimum" CR rate considering there are PR patients yet TBD (3 patients at 360 days & 2 patients at

[Eoganacht]

Good post CancerSlayer. Here's a question I'm not sure anyone has an answer to. Were any of the 12 undertreated patients CR at 450 days? If not, shouldn't the 5 out 20 CR at 450 patients (25%) really be considered 5 out of 8 CR patients (62.5%) as only 8 of the 20 really had a fair shake at becoming CR?

[99942Apophis]

Eoganacht in the following they state the 5 were removed. In Newsletter Q32020 To date two of four clinical study sites in Canada have enrolled and treated 12 patients. Out of the 7 patients that are eligible to receive the second treatment, 6 have received the second treatment and 1 is pending in 4Q2020. 90 Day Assessment  3 out of 12 patients (25%) have demonstrated a Complete

[Eoganacht]

Thanks 99942Apophis. I think that 13.2% CR at 450 days represents 2 patients from phase 1, and 3 from phase 2. Are those 3 CR patients from phase 2 from the 12 undertreated patients?

[ScienceFirst]

99942Apophis ... Interesting.  But it sounds like it's not adding up, in regards to timelines.  Correct me if I'm missing something. In Newsletter Q32020 = Sept. 24, 2020 = @90-days Study II has enrolled and treated 12 patients to date. Out of the 7 patients that are eligible to receive the second treatment, 5 have been treated and 2 are pending. 2 out of the last 5

[Pandora]

"Study II has enrolled and treated 12 patients to date" The first 12 patients to be treated in Study II -- were they not all "undertreated"? i.e. the ones that have put a glitch in all the tracking to-date? So if they were all treated the first dose before the end of September 2020 (and some number of them a second dose in the 4th quarter of 2020) it has now been 516 days from

[enriquesuave]

Patient # 20 has reached 450 days so patient #1 is like 2+ years.  They are just giving us data up until 450 days, not beyond, for now.  

[99942Apophis]

enriquesuave patient 20 was announced June 11 2021 in my chart. Yes I found it difficult to tie in cr to specific patients as data released sometimes were in my opinion vague but again I'm sure its not their obligation to report every patient but to only report number of patients since last update. Someone suggested in the post I presented on the first group that possibly 2 of the 3 that

[CancerSlayer]

That is the million dollar question.  If TLT was able to achieve a 25% CR in a significantly undertreated group (though in a small sample = 12), odds are that at least 1 or 2 additional CR patients would have come from the fully optimized group of 8 imo, which would equate to 450 day CRs of 37.5% (2 + 1 = 3 of 8) & 50% (2 + 2 = 4 of 8), respectively...still great numbers.   It'