RE: Unaudited Financial Results in the RNS...8 Sep 2020 15:49
Several anecdotal factors & imaging scans were noted when referring to results.
PSA is obviously referred to because it's standard and easy to monitor, has some misleading results though. Was there some anecdotal feedback at one point, that several bed-bound patients were able to get out of bed?
Apparently the "stable disease" was backed up by medical imaging, but the statement was a bit "woolly" for my liking. UCL has some rather nifty ultrasound devices for imaging the prostate (actually, I really liked their "rectal" HIFU laser clinical trials, which may also become a standard of care option in the future, check it out if you have a vague non-drug interest in modern techniques, UCL Professor Hashim Ahmed).
George occasionally whittled on that they were looking for potential evidence of an effect on metastatic growths/additional tumours, related to his external mouse tests that appeared to show a moderate effect (was it 50% fewer growths? ish). We have never had any feedback on this.
I really hope Suzy is actually putting together a moderate table of results with actual PSA measurements and patient feedback. The last official data we saw from the 4mg groups, gave a 40-50% average drop in PSA, with hints that 4+m/g groups might be in the 50+% region. It would be annoying if we were given a table saying "stable disease".