Nothing can happen for any patients until the trial is completed, so holding all data til the end of the trial is not harming anybody but it would prevent false hope being given due to incomplete data. I say err on the side of conservatism and only put out positive info when you have rock solid data confirming any type of success. I could think of nothing worse than to build up the hopes of very sick people and then pull the rug out from underneath them due to further data not validating the early, sketchy data. DF understandably also has to worry about their reputation so multiple rounds of validating data would have to be accumulated IMO for them to put out a report with their name on it.
I hope that ASCO gives us some positive data regarding early signs of p21 or something to that effect, but if it is too early than I would rather they say nothing other than more data needs to be acquired before they can come to any empirically supported results. We may have had an indication for such info by remarks made at IDEAS on the need for just such data.
The more I think about it, the more I think ASCO may be a bit early for any real hardcore news for which we are all hoping. As long as they sound confident and enthusiastic for the results to date, I will take that as an extremely positive sign.
I have confidence in Dr M to have prepared a solid product with outstanding pre clinical work, DF in the ability to run the finest trial, and that they will let us know the results as soon as possible. I thus will just grin and bear it until that time comes, which IMO is towards the end of the year. To them we may sound like children constantly asking "Are we there yet?"
Of course, I would like info soon just like everyone but it does not appear to be in the cards IMO.
