Member Info for Scinv_temp

Sure, everyone knows that the best way to assess your investment is to post quarter witted jokes on BBs 🙄

"Any time"., not after confirmatory scan. And by the way, it is official records that matter. Where is Bermuda?

Yet Bermuda read that, read the guidelines I sent him as well and said that ORR is "banked" after first confirmation.

And he still refuses to reply to the simple question if his background is in biomedical sciences or finance.

This conversation should have ended when I posted the relevant part of the trial outcome measure

Objective response rate (ORR) of SCIB1 in patients receiving either nivolumab with ipilimumab or pembrolizumab relative to historical data for the nivolumab with ipilimumab combination or pembrolizumab alone in this patient population (Main Study) [ Time Frame: From enrolment through last recorded assessment of response, up to 2 years (Week 97) from the first dose of study drug ]

https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04079166?term=Scancell+OR+scib1&recrs=abdfim&phase=0125&sfpd_s=03%2F01%2F1990&draw=2&rank=1

*last recorded assessment of response, up to 2 years*

Not second, not confirmatory, the LAST one, as the guidelines suggest as well

????

Hi Chelsea. I'm not saying he is a troll, I'm saying he is not being honest. I mean, people here can claim for themselves to be anything, whether anyone else believes them or not. But when someone has reached the de facto status of a biomedical expert that people trust and believe in as part of evaluating their investments, then surely that person should answer whether they are a biomedical professional or a finance professional. Don't you think?

A straight answer Bermuda.

I have work to do now, but you I won't give up, right?

As I said before

But really, the easiest thing you can do as non experts is to look at other studies that have used the recist 1.1 criteria. Do they report ORR at 12 weeks only or at the last available data point. Isn't that simple enough?

Bazooka (🤣🤣🤣 really?)

ORR is measured from baseline (frist scan, just before initiation of treatment). It says so in the document as well but you can't even read, yet you think that you can talk about the work that took 100s of scientists about 2 decades to get to this point.

4.5. Frequency of tumour re-evaluation

Frequency of tumour re-evaluation while on treatment should be protocol specific and adapted to the type and sche- dule of treatment. However, in the context of phase II studies where the beneficial effect of therapy is not known, follow-up every 6–8 weeks (timed to coincide with the end of a cycle) is reasonable. Smaller or greater time intervals than these could be justified in specific regimens or circumstances. The proto- col should specify which organ sites are to be evaluated at baseline (usually those most likely to be involved with meta- static disease for the tumour type under study) and how often evaluations are repeated. Normally, all target and non-target sites are evaluated at each assessment. In selected circum- stances certain non-target organs may be evaluated less fre- quently. For example, bone scans may need to be repeated only when complete response is identified in target disease or when progression in bone is suspected.

Recist 1.1 guidelines

https://project.eortc.org/recist/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/03/RECISTGuidelines.pdf

But really, the easiest thing you can do as non experts is to look at other studies that have used the recist 1.1 criteria. Do they report ORR at 12 weeks only or at the last available data point. Isn't that simple enough?

Strat reading from slide 18 onwards (though you should read all of it really). For an "expert" you sure lack both basic knowledge and desire to read.

Https://recist.eortc.org/recist/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/03/Final-ENA-slides.pdf

Bermuda is feeding you balls

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

You are now 100% busted. Do you work in finance yes or no?

Bermouda is a finance person, not a biomedical scientist. Ask him where he works.

My assesment is 100% correct and it should have been obvious to anyone who has taken a serious interest in pharma investments. But, for some reason, not in Bermuda's case. Ask him yourselves why and while you are at it, ask burble as well, let's see what the other "expert" says.

What matters is the trial record, not what bermuda is feeding you. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04079166?term=Scancell+OR+scib1&recrs=abdfim&phase=0125&sfpd_s=03%2F01%2F1990&draw=2&rank=1

And the last point is always pre defined in the trial protocol.

Yes. In reality though, there are now at least 25 patients with data, so it will be overall. In the analysis I posted months ago, you can check the graphs. ORR is always calculated at the last point measured.

*or cancer vaccines.

Or have you now resorted to straight lying after posting misleading comments.

This is the exact primary outcome measure of the trial:

Objective response rate (ORR) of SCIB1 in patients receiving either nivolumab with ipilimumab or pembrolizumab relative to historical data for the nivolumab with ipilimumab combination or pembrolizumab alone in this patient population (Main Study) [ Time Frame: From enrolment through last recorded assessment of response, up to 2 years (Week 97) from the first dose of study drug ]

ORR assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) criteria.

And I'm not saying that because I read the text above, I have actually taken part in taking 3 different drugs in the clinic in my career and another that is about to go where I initiated and led the biology of the project, before switched to full time investor and working with smaller biotechs, mostly as advisor. None of them (drugs or companies) involved in melanoma btw before I hear some more BS here.

So cut the crap

*to