Member Info for WeTookPelham

God I hope not, just sell it all/partner it off already IMO.

That's a very good point @givemesunshine, I think myself and others may spoken about it's vagueness previously, and if it was deliberate.

Apologies, being dense again, RE comment:

"Of these patients, one has had a confirmed partial response and seven patients have stable disease, despite having progressive disease prior to enrolment in the study"

So we know we had partial response for one ovarian patient? That's on top of the user from the McMillan thread? I thought they were head/nose/throat cancer?

If so that's 2x partial response?

...?

A quote:
"27/2/2023
10:05 markingtime: Remember that Merck was going to buy Seagen last year but couldn't agree a price.....and has since stated clearly that they now intend to make "small, science-based, acquisitions"..........such as companies with superior science that could damage Keytruda's market???"

If Pfizer snatch Seagen from under Merck's noses then you'd think Merck will be even keener for these smaller acquisitions.

Do Scancell already have a direct connection to Seagen?
I.e. Aren't they using/testing SEA-CD40 in context to Avidimab?

Hence worth reading chilltime's and markingtime's post, IMO this merry go round could have implications on Scancell.

...whilst it's quiet over here to see todays posts over on the other forum, some intriguing (IMO) posts by chilltime and markingtime RE Seagen and Merck.

"May I suggest that it may be a deliberate strategy to delay a major mainstream news release for a few months when we have further concrete results."

This goes back to my question, did they have to release this 8 week results? We know how slow Scancell normally are in releasing news, this seems unusual for them IMO. So was it purely to allow potential suitors to view the data officially whilst being arguably vague in the RNS?

Exactly GF123. No doubt it will be argued as 'balance' though.

Interesting news there:
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/REDX/recommended-business-combination-p5we12rmtsuuiya.html

Pretty much.

Copy and paste from chilltime, stating something quite obvious IMO.

"23/2/2023
08:27 chilltime: Stable yes up to 29% shrinkage or no more than 20% growth.

Trish said stable or slightly better, I believe they use simple measurement tools for scans.

So if you had a 50mm tumour/lesions, -55% would mean 22.5mm, 22mm would be slightly better a 1% change.

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

Emphasis on that last line.

Fair point, we can't have it both ways, but that wide range for stable mentioned in your article, seems very wide IMO. Perhaps there needs to be more levels?

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/find-a-clinical-trial/clinical-trial-results/what-do-clinical-trial-results-mean-0

"Stable disease - The cancer has stayed the same size, it hasn’t got better or worse".

I'd rather take cancer research's interpretation personally, rather than two random doctors. But you do you.

RR - the same link I posted previously:
https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/stable-disease

My point is why do you think Lynne Eldridge, MD and Doru Paul, MD are the authoritative and definitive voices in this field?

...and ask which definition of "Stable" they have used to describe the 8 week results?

Otherwise we're just guessing IMO.

Ruckrover are you saying the article you posted, which I quote is:
"By Lynne Eldridge, MD Updated on February 06, 2020
Medically reviewed by Doru Paul, MD"

... supersedes what is said on the National Cancer Institute website?? (An official website of the United States government).

Even in your article it states the following:
"
Today, there are several different criteria used by oncologists, including those established by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others known as the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), the Immune-related Response Criteria (IRC), and the Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST).10

Regardless of the criteria used, diagnoses are based on the changes in the size of target and non-target tumors."

hTTps://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/stable-disease