Member Info for Grace83

Did he luckybob? I haven’t read most of the messages as they were annoying me. What’s his lse name?

Ok, while I’m still trying to make sense of all that’s happened today, I wanted to post so that people don’t think I have cut and run. I haven’t. Looking at the results, they are good. I can’t pretend that I wasn’t a little disappointed this morning, as I was hoping for very good or excellent, with some partial reductions thrown in. I agree with mathsprof about the trial design, in that it couldn’t show off the full potential of this drug. It doesn’t mean the drug is bad though. 54% success rate is a good rate in oncology trials. I don’t understand why the maximum tolerated dose wasn’t reached in the trial, as I assumed the adverse event would have been at 16mg/kg...which should have been why we knew they only went to 8. This will only become apparent in the full results, I guess. I would hope for some guidance from Suzy as to which direction we go in from here, as there’s more going on here than this RNS suggests. Also there’s more to 201 than this suggests too. Why would we need to redo the phase 1? I’ve been trying to interpret the wording of the RNS as the 8mg/kg dose worked. I genuinely thought this morning that the sp would go up, but not the two and threefold increases some were predicting...I didn’t expect it to go down and to the extent it did.
But anyway, I’m still mulling this over and feeling a little bit delicate about what’s happened today, but am definitely still in, as this has legs, in my opinion. Oh, and the people that are not in this share, or that never post but have come here to gloat today...it’s easy to pick holes in things when you are in possession of the results...anybody can do that. It’s not constructive and you can respectfully go and do one.

These are good results and good news for prostate cancer sufferers, as this definitely qualifies as being more than sufficient to take to the next stage. We almost reached the maximum success rate that we could have, considering the trial design incorporating the lower doses and for Castration-Sensitive that we already knew didn’t respond from theResults so far. I’d say we would have only been able to achieve a ten percent higher success rate at maximum.
Stable disease is good. No idea how the market will respond to this, so let’s see.

Yes. I’m digesting this at the moment

Ahahaha bankfool...I was thinking the same thing lol!

Malpenn, 4-5 years to market, to complete stage 2b, 3 then get approval, as my best estimate. Maybe they do a stage 2/3 next...who knows. If so, then maybe less

Shai, there was a patient at 5mg/kg that was included with the first interim set of data and was spoken about in investor presentations. Then they mysteriously disappeared without a trace, with seemingly no explanation. The lth know more about this than me, but I’ve seen George include data from it (I’m sure I didn’t dream it...did I?!), then leave it out of the final data that we can see from the first trial.

A welsh gold sovereign ;)

That is all

Patriotic bunch we are...

Exactly...they didn’t change and tighten up all those criteria for no reason at all...
what do you make of the blood work criteria added in? To me it just seems that they were checking the patients were generally healthy enough to be able to withstand treatment for a prolonged period?!

Just to point out, I know my second point doesn’t relate exactly to the wording of the criteria, as they have to include non castrate participants too...as the first part of the trial is still included. I was referencing that they have now been more specific in focussing on that aspect as a minimum, so will hopefully just now focus on the castrate resistant for the extended version

Yep! A few things I like about the updated criteria for the extended trial:

1) Average timeframe extended. Shows to me that it’s well tolerated at the increased doses, otherwise patients would have to be removed from the trial before the end of this period. Also extending the timeframe for collecting data may be viewed as a positive, in terms of the data being positive...so you generally carry on collecting if the drug is working and predicting positive results, due to the patient wanting to stay on the trial to continue the positive effects. Not explained very well, but it’s sunday morning...many other people explain things here more eloquently than me. Whatever happened to that 5mg/kg patient?!

2) criteria for rising PSA levels after castration resistance has now been established. Hopefully this means they have now focused on the castration resistant participants only for the extended results, as these are the ones our drug showed to be working the best for in the initial study. This is the group we want our drug to work in the best, as castration sensitive people still have other options as their cancer isn’t as far developed and hasn’t stopped responding to lowering androgens (mainly testosterone) yet. Castration resistant people, unfortunately, do not have other options as their cancer has developed into the final stage of now growing independently of being ‘fed’ by androgens.

3) General focus and tightening up of criteria to build upon the results of data already obtained in the first trial and further investigate areas of strength.

Hope everyone is having a good weekend.

Hi Shai, I’m very good thanks. Hope you’re relaxing with something nice, ready for the weekend? In answer to your question, I don’t know, if I’m being honest. 201 is quite specific in stopping the interaction between androgens and SRC, but this article is trying to say that a different protein is responsible, from the androgen interaction, so whether 201 stopped that particular pathway would be anyone’s guess. It may do, it may not. The only way would be trial and error to see.
I haven’t sold anything yet...I think that answers your question :) I am more of a risk taker in these types of scenarios though and fully appreciate that the sensible thing would have been to top slice, as many have done. Apparently OB is too! Bankfool, I also appreciate your balanced posts. I bought in initially for the 201 results(more has developed since for me) and no changes in sp between now and then in either direction will sway me. S*** or bust, you might say.

Good choice ST. Laverbread too...? The way this is going, better to start getting used to welsh things :)

This made me chuckle...

Hell of a find. I’ve just tagged this to read later, after finishing work

Meteoric for me is what I mentioned earlier for the four additional participants Results. Fair or just about satisfactory for me is what we have now, with not a lot more positive data added..,possibly another couple of stabilising PSA in there, with a slight reduction. That leaves a couple of different scenarios for good and excellent in between for me. I need to have a think...

CB
Didn’t you previously mention that you would leave after 40p? If memory serves correctly. I’m glad you stayed!
OB is clearly the master regarding buying metals and I’m enjoying learning :)

Pup is mental. Anybody want a springer pup? Lol!

OB, you are cracking me up tonight :) I don’t remember them being this polite when we were over there, even when you were being extremely polite and congratulatory :)

Gilders, I completely agree. I swore after going through chemotherapy the first time, that if I ever had to go through it again, I would decline. Thankfully I haven’t had to, but I still stand by that decision made ten years ago. Nasty business and genuinely worst time of my life. I too hope that 401 will come good, likewise for all of our compounds. It’s just that 401 biochemically isn’t related to the other compounds we have, that’s all I meant. As someone pointed out earlier (was it Mr Nation?!)...the outcomes here have much bigger implications than just money.

That’s true. When Dasatinib was partnered with and compared to chemo in the stage three, it didn’t cut the mustard. But then again, from their stage two, it should never have feasibly reached a stage three anyway. We are much more targeted and should produce far superior results.
The question is, what counts as phenomenal? Clearly four partial reductions of the tumours from the imaging using RECIST and four minimum of 70% PSA level drops is the ultimate holy grail (We will all be waving a massive farewell to the current sp and anywhere near it)...but what will the bar for excellence be? A lot lower than that, but exactly where...?!

Actually...anybody want to predict how the other four participants Will respond? Just for fun. Everyone has a really good grasp of the data so far. Noise?

Rhubarb, you seem to have a scientific background. Results predictions? :)