(Total Views: 578)
Posted On: 02/28/2022 4:27:24 PM
Post# of 148905
Re: USS JOHNSTON #119304
Well, the analysis probably is wrong, but it tries to make sense of what they have given us. On second look/thought, perhaps the "overall survival" at 12 months is a percentage alive at that time compared to some historical cohort, not a hazard ratio?
I think the data definitely are encouraging, but we don't have an apples to apples comparison with Trodelvy, and don't have a placebo control group. Small numbers, not enough data.
As to why they weren't more clear in their PRs, I would unfortunately have to assume that it's because they aren't oncologists and simply didn't know the best way to present the data. Would have to assume that versus something intentional to mislead or obfuscate.
If we had more data we would better understand what we have in mTNBC. FDA unfortunately didn't see enough for BTD.
Hopefully many of these mTNBC patients are still alive, we are still collecting some good data from them, and we can put together some survival data that is easy to understand and interpret. They should present survival for the 13 in the combo trial with carboplatin (first line in mTNBC setting) separately from the 15-17 in the compassionate use / bucket trial (possibly second or third line in mTNBC setting?). BTW, this compassionate use inclusion criterion is somewhat ambiguous: "Subjects with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who have been treated with ≥ 3 previous chemotherapy drugs (including neo/adjuvant setting) and had progressed or were intolerant to the latest chemotherapy." whether the "had progressed or were intolerant" refers to a treatment in the mTNBC setting (after cancer had spread) or before spread.
Someday we'll have clarity.
Investing with so many unknowns sure is challenging, and requires great patience and faith. I wish that management inspired more faith. Why are they so quiet about NP being let go and afterwards? They don't seem to have any actively recruiting trials besides acute Covid in Brazil. Money is tight. Investors don't know where things stand, or any plan, and that's why we are down in the dumps.
I think the data definitely are encouraging, but we don't have an apples to apples comparison with Trodelvy, and don't have a placebo control group. Small numbers, not enough data.
As to why they weren't more clear in their PRs, I would unfortunately have to assume that it's because they aren't oncologists and simply didn't know the best way to present the data. Would have to assume that versus something intentional to mislead or obfuscate.
If we had more data we would better understand what we have in mTNBC. FDA unfortunately didn't see enough for BTD.
Hopefully many of these mTNBC patients are still alive, we are still collecting some good data from them, and we can put together some survival data that is easy to understand and interpret. They should present survival for the 13 in the combo trial with carboplatin (first line in mTNBC setting) separately from the 15-17 in the compassionate use / bucket trial (possibly second or third line in mTNBC setting?). BTW, this compassionate use inclusion criterion is somewhat ambiguous: "Subjects with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who have been treated with ≥ 3 previous chemotherapy drugs (including neo/adjuvant setting) and had progressed or were intolerant to the latest chemotherapy." whether the "had progressed or were intolerant" refers to a treatment in the mTNBC setting (after cancer had spread) or before spread.
Someday we'll have clarity.
Investing with so many unknowns sure is challenging, and requires great patience and faith. I wish that management inspired more faith. Why are they so quiet about NP being let go and afterwards? They don't seem to have any actively recruiting trials besides acute Covid in Brazil. Money is tight. Investors don't know where things stand, or any plan, and that's why we are down in the dumps.
(6)
(2)Scroll down for more posts ▼
