Mmmm, I think there are inconsistencies either
Post# of 153767
(Total Views: 423)
Posted On: 02/01/2020 7:32:24 AM
Mmmm,
I think there are inconsistencies either in the official communication or NP's answer.
Here is why: Copies and pastes from the official communication below :
So, there are 3 patients in trial according to the communication, all of them with mTNBC. There is only reference to ONE patient through IND.
Where am I getting it wrong ???. Now, there is he possibility of a typo in the communication and instead of mTNBC should be mBC, or BC , but there was reference to trial as well.
We are not doing trial on BC, are we ? Apparently we are according to NP's answer and that would explain it (plus a mistake in the communication). However, the initial findings have been reported (zero CTC's).
Right ???
I think there are inconsistencies either in the official communication or NP's answer.
Here is why: Copies and pastes from the official communication below :
Quote:
New data from the first patient enrolled in the Company’s mTNBC Phase 1b/2 trial showed
Quote:
New data from the second patient enrolled in the Company’s mTNBC Phase 1b/2 trial showed
Quote:
Initial data from the third patient in the mTNBC trial indicated
Quote:
New findings from the patient enrolled through an emergency investigational new drug (IND)
So, there are 3 patients in trial according to the communication, all of them with mTNBC. There is only reference to ONE patient through IND.
Where am I getting it wrong ???. Now, there is he possibility of a typo in the communication and instead of mTNBC should be mBC, or BC , but there was reference to trial as well.
We are not doing trial on BC, are we ? Apparently we are according to NP's answer and that would explain it (plus a mistake in the communication). However, the initial findings have been reported (zero CTC's).
Right ???
(3)
(0)