Member Info for RuckRover

Chester,
Also, DOS was IBM's third choice OS

Bermuda,
"but please explain how it is relevant to now assume that this patient has an 80% reduction in the size of her tumour based on nothing more than speculation?"

That was not meant to be the assumption, if I gave that impression I apologise. The calculation was purely a mathematical one - what is the difference in area between a perfect sphere of 4 and one of 1.8? Answer: 80%

This figure cannot be assumed for an individual patient for several reasons
It is unlikely the tumour is a perfect sphere
We don't know what the 4 and 1.8 refer to
We don't know for sure what measurements are used to calculate "shrinkage". As you said earlier, the difference between 4 and 1.8 is 55% - a number that has been mentioned in this context before.

I think it has been a useful debate. However the shrinkage is calculated, "partial response" can mean a reduction in tumour size of anything between 30 and 99.9%

AB,
"RR so basically you're saying that the 90% quoted is an irrelevance?"
No I'm saying it's wrong. 90% is the reduction in VOLUME but shrinkage is assessed on AREA. The reduction in area is 80%.
Whether or not you think that is relevant is up to you.

What's the point of investing in a speculative share if you're not prepared to speculate?

AB,
Go back to bed and have another couple of hours kip!

AB,
"So what we're saying here is that the Tumour has shrunk by 90%?"
No. You have missed the point entirely. The medical assessment of tumour changes are:
Progressive
Stable
Partial response
Complete response.
Percentages are applied to these using the area of the tumour before and after.
Hypothetically, a perfectly spherical tumour that has reduced from 4 to 1.8 has reduced 80% by area. This makes sense to me - see my previous post.
This reduction (80%) is described medically as "partial response" since the next level (complete response) only applies when the tumour has disappeared.
Whether anyone would get excited about an 80% reduction is a matter for the individual. If it was me with the tumour I would!

Botski,

"there's obviously a reason that tumour size is measured in cm and not cm2 or cm3."
It is measured in centimetres as this is the easiest to measure from a scan. However, the assessment of change is calculated in area using two dimensions (centimetres squared).

This makes sense as I would think the tumour expands on the surface where it will have access to blood vessels for the oxygen and nutrients it needs for growth.

I did the calculation using the surface area of a sphere and the reduction (4 to 1.8 diameter) is 80%

If only tumours grew as perfect spheres we wouldn't have an issue!

WTP,
"... mentioned on the other forum RE reduction percentages. Talk of approximately 90% reduction."
You need look no further than this forum - the 90% reduction was posted by moonparty yesterday (17:05). This is the reduction in volume. The reduction in area is 80%. Area is used to report tumour shrinkage and determine category - partial response, stable, progressive. A 90% reduction in volume is classed as a "partial response". Rather understated imo.

Burble,
Perhaps if Scancell gave us more information we'd have something to focus on.

Moonparty,

"I hope those with better knowledge than I can educate as as to what is the correct measurement when trials talk about percentage reductions."
"WHO criteria
Tumour size is determined by measurement of the ‘tumour area’ by multiplication of the largest diameter of the tumour by the greatest perpendicular diameter"

So the way I interpret that would be if the tumour is a perfect sphere with a 4cm diameter, the "tumour area" is 4x4=16. The reduced tumour is 1.8x1.8 = 3.24 which is 20% of 16. Reduction in area is therefore 80%(which falls in the "partial response" category)

So although trials talk about reduction in area rather than volume, it is still phenomenal.

Ratty,
". Nice to see you talking up positives. "
I stick to facts, some are positive, some less so.
BTW, I haven't "written you off".

Ratty,
"Says a lot"
Perhaps it does in your paranoid mind? Actually, I was going to reply. To your 16:55 but moonparty had made the same observation. But as you are manic that all parts of the spectrum are represented, here's what I was going to say:

Ratty,
I don't think you will find many tumours in the shape of a straight line. So comparing a 4cm one with one that is 1.8cm (55% difference) is not a realistic comparison. We should be comparing a disc, a sphere or possibly a cylinder. If we compare the volume of a sphere with a 4cm diameter with one of 1.8cm, the difference is 90%. Even using a 2d disc, the difference is 80%.

Essential maths when working out the best pizza deal!

Bermuda,
Sorry, they were both SCIB1. I found the 2014 one in an RNS and didn't check the 2015 one. Of course it would have been SCIB as well. As you say, the detail is not important - my question was about the significance of 2015 and you answered with it was the last time Scancell have presented at AACR/ASCO.

Bermuda,
Two it is then:
May 2014 SCIB1
April 2015 Moditope

Bermuda,
What's the significance of 2015? The last ASCO presentation was SCIB1, May 2014.

So how long term is the £8 prediction - 2045?
I think there is a big difference doing "thorough research" on the science and concluding "hey, this could work" and doing a thorough analysis of the potential financial rewards.

Ratty,
"WTP - Makes you wonder why he doesn't give crackin as much stick for his predictions as he does inanaco for his."

Because crackin is only 10p (66%) out whereas Inan is £7.84p (4962%) out.

"Remember when you predicted 5p and got that so catastrophically wrong. You must be feeling like such a complete idiot still?"

Not as much an idiot as predicting £8 lol.

"It's a pity the wider market were not told that these trial results are 'Very Encouraging"
Maybe the "wider market" invest on the basis of proven financial return not just encouraging results?

Cleaner,
Yes, very interesting and pertinent to Scancell.
Reminds me of the capability maturity model. I'd thought that Scancell were pretty immature but that was based on their journey towards providing a financial return. However, the nature of the business dictates that strict processes and controls are in place.

Interesting comment from J-M
"We had a tendency to develop products because we could do it and not because they were wanted in the market,”
So possibly concentrate on The Moditope platform and sell the rest off?
Then look for better commercial opportunities elsewhere?

Wigwammer,
"Can we agree the positive DTH data has a positive impact on the chance of success?"
I don't see why not. A positive DTH response surely improves the chance of success. It is important to remember that a DTH response in itself ISNT a success as it isn't one of the primary outcome measures.