Reading between the lines I believe one of two sce

Reading between the lines I believe one of two scenarios occurred.

Scenario 1: As ClosetInvestor suggests it could be just a miscommunication and a subsequent correction (no fault of NP)

Scenario 2: As misiu suggests oncologist honestly did think getting the patient off of carboplatin was best for the patient and perhaps said this is what we are going to do. However, the FDA came in and said, not so fast...you have to finish off a typical treatment (4-6 cycles) and unfortunately this required the patient to undergo one more cycle of chemo.

In either case, I don't think it is NPs fault. I think he is trying to placate the FDA but at the same time inform investors. If he were to say patient #1 is now resuming chemo we would be horrified as we would think leronlimab was failing. He certainly can't say FDA told us we have to force this patient back on chemo despite our stunning results as that makes his judge/jury look bad. I think the odd way this is worded, "missed one treatment" is a tip off to the investor that this is to meet some requirement imposed by the FDA. I *highly* doubt the oncologist missed anything. I wouldn't be surprised if "missed one treatment" if said in a one-on-one discussion would be accompanied by an eye-roll.

Leronlimab is changing the oncology landscape. The oncologists are excited, Nader is excited, we are excited... We see patients taking this chemo poison and we see a new path that has none of the horrible side effects. Of course we want to say, "let's just give them the good drug...it makes no sense to continue with chemo" It's just a matter of time. These patients are the true warriors...having to take the chemo just so that they can prove to the regulators that this is THE cancer drug of the future.

We just need to stay the course...keep the regulators happy so we can get through those hurdles...and keep giving patients the chance at a future that may not have seemed possible just 6 months ago.

All IMO of course...