Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[nuke661]

jq1234,
The example of good DD is in the process where one presents their case and provides references to back up the statements. In response to your posting, getting back to the give and take of the DD process lets start with the clinicaltrials.gov website fort the Abraxane trial. The following are specifically listed as EXCLUSION criteria:

1) Patient has borderline resectable disease and 2) Patient has metastatic disease on radiological staging.

I'll believe the clinicaltrials.gov website along with the NCI website that I referenced and the correct tables that go along with these two exclusion criteria would place the patients in the stage 1 and 2 only categoriesonly as I explained previously.

Also, the NCI website recognizes for Stage 1 and 2 pancreatic cancer has having tumors beyond the pancreas, specifically in the lymph nodes ("Regional lymph node metastasis." ) The NCI website also specifically states that stage IV is non-operable so there is no way you can classify it as stage IV also remember the exclusion criteria also includes "boderline resectable".

The only inconsistency that I can see between the descriptions in the drug insert and the clinical trials website and the NCI classification descriptions is the liver tumors that existed in some of the patients. The exclusion criteria would appear to not allow liver metastasis in the trial. Now that you pointed me to look deeper at the brochure this I find this as an inconsistency that I can't explain. Can you? It would be appreciated.

And please remember that the good DD process involves the give and take of facts not the incorporation of snarky or rude remarks. I'm trying to be upfront and cordial here and I would appreciate everyone else take the same approach. Thanks.