Post
of 161,622
Thinking about the likely abstract for the AACR meeting
Couple thought. I'm thinking the data must be almost all 350s, or perhaps all 350s. Hoffman in Sept. said "we expect to enroll our fifth patient in the study this month," so only five would have had a full cycle by the end of October. And it was just 14 days after that when Jay said they were submitting an abstract to the AACR meeting. Also the DSMB had to to have a look and say 700 is okay, and that could take some time. So I think the data could pertain to ONLY 350 patients -- if it's a regular abstract. And it would be only six or seven at that.
However, if it is Clinical Trials abstract, they can add to the data as they go along. Which would make it much more useful.
One more thing. Jay said they were submitting the abstract to the AACR meeting which had a cold-to-hot tumor session. So I'm convinced the data is exactly about tumors being turned hot -- about PD-L1 expression as upregulated even by 350 mg doses.
Couple thought. I'm thinking the data must be almost all 350s, or perhaps all 350s. Hoffman in Sept. said "we expect to enroll our fifth patient in the study this month," so only five would have had a full cycle by the end of October. And it was just 14 days after that when Jay said they were submitting an abstract to the AACR meeting. Also the DSMB had to to have a look and say 700 is okay, and that could take some time. So I think the data could pertain to ONLY 350 patients -- if it's a regular abstract. And it would be only six or seven at that.
However, if it is Clinical Trials abstract, they can add to the data as they go along. Which would make it much more useful.
One more thing. Jay said they were submitting the abstract to the AACR meeting which had a cold-to-hot tumor session. So I'm convinced the data is exactly about tumors being turned hot -- about PD-L1 expression as upregulated even by 350 mg doses.
16