RE: DDDD26 Aug 2020 10:49
Yes, very encouraging. There are some different aspects to their trial than ours. I’ve only seen data for eight people, the other four must have been added in the extended trial. I initially thought it would have ended up being more than 12, but that’s what we have. So that’s the same as them. Not everyone completed our trial and we ran the initial one for six months, so some of our data will be for a shorter period. Also I don’t know if we carried on Collecting data from people after officially our trial ended at six months, as they did. We should have, as it’s meant to be ongoing for the people that produced a positive response, to keep monitoring them. I also don’t know the timeframe for the extended trial. The major advantage that we have is that imaging showed stable disease in seven of our eight (at lower doses as it’s only from the initial trial...woohooooo!) although As I mentioned earlier, at least some were for a shorter timeframe than their trial. So for a patient response to the drug, they are at 42% and we are already at 88%. Three of their patients from the Five that make up their 42% had partial tumour shrinkage and that is an unknown to us at present, as the results that I saw weren’t complete, so not sure if we were actually measuring tumours to see if there was a reduction at that point, or if that would have been done later. Our scans showed that they certainly weren’t getting any bigger and just showed a summary table stating stable disease, with no further Information. I can post the summary page of the results, if anyone is interested to compare with DDDD? To spare you all from me waffling on. Not sure if they’re in the public domain or not, as cant remember where I found them. I know it took a fair bit of searching. That’s pretty must the gist of it though.