Member Info for RuckRover

I think the updates are fine too. Scancell can only report facts. I think the frustration exhibited by some is the content of the news. Unfortunately, Scancell can only report what has happened and not what some would like to have happened or speculate as to the significance of certain facts. For example, the DTH - this is NOT one of the primary outcome measures. It seems TD have taken account of this along with the "partial response" in one patient, and upped the success chance percentage accordingly (from 10% to 12.5%). Although this has only added a few pence to the SP forecast, any increase is welcome.

Thanks Chester.
I'm not sure whether a correlation will be looked for or indeed found. LD said it "could" be measured not that would be. DTH response is not listed as an outcome measure in the clinical trial submission.
As you say, a fascinating few months ahead. .
Enjoy the footy!

So when we at school we used to have a TB test - a twelve needle gun in the forearm to check for existing immunity to TB. The reaction presumably is a DTH response?
This was merely observed by the nurse to decide who would and wouldn't get a TB jab. There was no measuring involved as I recall (but it was a long time ago)

I'm guessing that any observed reaction (swelling) is a good indication of a positive response but the actual measure is not a criteria for assessing efficacy.

Crumbs,
Thanks. Any chance you could post an English translation?

TF,
"Reply : "Yes DTH is measurable. Kind Regards, Lindy""

Well that's the answer but any idea what the question was?

DeAar,
I have reported it.

GF,
Just to be clear, the latest news announcements from Scancell on the MODI trial indicate success. I don't see anything to indicate failure.

GF,
"If you don’t mind me saying you seem almost desperate to try and present a picture of potential failure of modi."
No I don't mind you saying at all, it gives me chance to respond.
I have already said that this is no criticism of MODI or Scancell - what they have already done is incredible.
I have already said that there are other positives in the RNS as highlighted by many posters.
My only motivation was to understand exactly what "stable" means. I think we have come a long way on that and many of us have learned something.
The update on a particular patient came after my original post which I thought made it quite relevant.
HOWEVER
as you say, the update didn't just say "stable" but stable, perhaps "slightly better". So NOT the doom and gloom we might have thought.
Does this mean further reduction as chilltime and WTP are convinced?
I'm not so sure but will refrain from debating an individual's case here as I don't think it is appropriate.

Ripley,
I have reported your last post
It is inappropriate to use a patients name on this forum
I do not want my name associated with these posts
Imagine how devestating it would be for the patient concerned to thing the tumour is growing

WTP,
"Slightly better can’t mean anything else than shrunk a little bit more."
Really?

BOJO,
"Is tumor status different in each cancer type or specific to each patient"
I think the consultants on the wards talking to patients would be fairly loose with their terminology - especially when to do so accurately involves a fairly complex investigation.

Matt,
"I too wish it was more clear and had been followed with a 'layman's' type explaination. We may get that shortly."

The definitions are quite simple and clear:

The classifications in order are:
Progressive disease
Stable disease
Partial response

Progressive is at least 20% increase
Partial response is greater than a 30% decrease
That leaves a massive range for "stable" - between a 29.99% decrease to a 19.99 increase.

So it's not the definition of "stable" that is the issue but the fact than when someone is described as "stable" we don't know whether the tumour has increased or decreased.

As has been stated before, there are many other positive indications in the RNS without getting too hung up on this one point.

Krafty,
I think your "deliberate strategy" theory could have some merit.
At some point, the data (not to mention surviving patients) will become irrefutable and confirmed by a lucrative deal or bid. At that point it will be "no risk", but we aren't there yet.

Chester,
"So come on guys give our hard working Modi1 a break"
No one is criticising MODI1 or Scancell for that matter. What they have done is truly fantastic and we must all be delighted for all patients who are in a better position than they were prior to treatment.
Personally, in parallel with that, I like to understand as fully as possible the terminology and it's ramifications.

BTW,
The link you posted is just a glossary of terms. It doesn't actually enumerate or give any criteria.
We are quite happy to quote percentages when the news was "partial response" (at least -30%) but less happy to acknowledge the range for "stable" (between -29 and +20)

WTP,
I don't think they authoritative and definitive voices on the matter which is why I have asked for alternative views. I posted figures earlier in the day which came from another BB (not an MD and not peer reviewed) I found the link I posted to be the source.

WTP,
I don't know, what does it say (or post a link)

WTP,
Thanks - I have seen that definition. How can you reconcile "neither increasing nor decreasing" with a change between minus 29% and plus 20%?

I made a comment earlier today. I was making the point that not too many conclusions can be drawn from the small sample of data that was reported in the RNS. For example is "stable" good or not?

At the end of my post I put:
"Stable" means anything from a 20% increase to a 29% reduction.

I had taken figures I had read somewhere from memory but before posting thought I'd better check it out. I couldn't verify so I meant to delete the line but somehow it slipped through. No one picked up on it at the time though.

On checking further, the figures in my head had come from Chilltime on ADVFN:

"The 4 cancer terms.
Complete response no trace of of the tumours can be seen.
Partial response shrinkage of 30% and more.
Stable not growing more than 20% shrinkage of up to 29%.
Progressive over 20%"

I sought to verify these figures and they appear to have come from here:

"Cancer doctors use the term stable disease to describe a tumor that is neither growing nor shrinking. Specifically, it means that there was neither an increase in size of more than 20% nor a decrease in size of more than 30% since the initial baseline measurement."

? Stable disease also means that no new tumors have developed and that cancer has not metastasized (spread) to other parts of the body."

hTTps://www.verywellhealth.com/definition-of-stable-disease-2249195

This is an article written by a doctor and peer reviewed by another doctor.
I have been unable to verify this interpretation of "stable". In the light of a patient being "stable" who was previously "partial response" I wondered if anyone had any light to shed on this. It may be that the term "stable" is loosely applied and means different things in different circumstances (or in the USA). I did read some of the RECIST guidelines but they do not express things in simple percentages.

Henry,
I'm not sure anyone is criticising the RNS. It is what it is, a report of early results of the Modi trial - scientifically and factually accurate. It can't state what hasn't happened nor can it draw conclusions as to what might happen in the future. I know this has caused some frustration among a few investors but that is not the fault of Scancell or the wording of the RNS.

If Scancell did want to hype it up, the media would be the place do this not through the medium of an RNS. Maybe Scancell don't want it whooped up in the press. What would be the reason? They don't control the SP and is largely irrelevant to the progress of the trials. These depend only on the skill of the personnel, the products and funding. It looks like Scancell are fairly relaxed on these fronts.