News Focus
News Focus
Post# of 257302
Next 10
Followers 77
Posts 4790
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 09/06/2003

Re: dewophile post# 76947

Friday, 05/01/2009 9:42:42 AM

Friday, May 01, 2009 9:42:42 AM

Post# of 257302

(i'm not that familiar with rcc or onc area in general so please correct me, but my understanding is they likely need good PFS data to make it attractive to a partner as RR alone doesn't mean much - and I'm not sure just how much RR correlates to PFS in this indication)



The general rule I use is that the closer in time the two measurements the more correlation between them:

a) A disease with an average time to progression of 3 or 4 months - then response rate probably has a high correlation. See, for example: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/351/4/337

b) A disease with an average time to progression of 18 months - I'd suspect a weaker correlation to RR.

Note that IMO survival suffers from 2 weakenings of the correlation to RR - 1) death is further separated in time from Response than is progression, 2) death is a different kind of endpoint.

Given that rcc median pfs times are on the order of 3 to 6 months I'd expect a fairly strong correlation between rr and pfs. FWIW.


Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today