ST,
It's clear you must have seen the actual poster presentation as the information isn't in the PR which as you point out is very weak, if DNA didn't dictate what could be said, someone should lose their job IMHO. I'm not certain if we'd not be better of with no PR than such a weakly worded one.
If as I suspect the first three of seven patients that didn't have OR's in the Abstract had the lowest doses, then a grand total of 9 of 12 evaluable patients on the higher doses had OR's, or to put it another way, 75% of patients dosed at higher levels got OR's.
In that the highest dose got rougly twice as much drug into the patients than in the every three week trial, the question needs to be asked if those not getting the OR were in any one dosing cohort, or were they spread out among the different dosage levels.
In that we know DNA's running a Phase II Trial in the once a week format from what's shown on the Clinical Trials database, I've got to believe DNA's seen something better in this protocol.
OR's are an awfully general description, it may very well be that in the weekly trial they're seeing substantially more tumor reduction, yet both are correctly called OR's as long as any tumor can be seen. To me, if a CR cannot be achieved but an OR reduces the tumors to a size where they can be surgically removed it's the next best thing. Then of course there's duration, at this point it may be too early to judge the duration in either protocol as I believe some patients from the initial effective dosing levels may still be in the trials.
In short, there's a lot more to learn, and I hope you'll share anything more you know from seeing the poster. Someone else copied your post to IV where the board's far more active, I hope you don't mind but I'd have done the same, with credit to you, if I'd seen it first. You might want to give Investor's Village a try.
Gary
