Clarification of that first point.
I assumed that you where trying to calculate, using a number of estimation and possible new info from the board members, the research price of Cotara (and in the same document also Bavi which I ignore for a moment). Then that amount could be used in a number of other calculations or assumptions (such as the ask price if Cotara would be sold to a partner or partnership fees or what amount that must be written down per treatment in a forecast model).
The idea, to bypass the real research cost that only Peregrine know and that for strategic reasons they will want to keep to themselves) was to just take the total current financial situation, ignoring the real detail of the different programs (Bavi, Cotara, past and stopped projects, long term depths, income from military that should be book only on Bavi, eAvid production (for internal/3rd party use), etc) and divide it over the potential money makers (Cotara, Bavi, Avid), using a ratio, because in all cases they will have to bring up the money to cover depths (loans, etc) and the capital that has been spend (which is theoretically a depth against share holders which share holders can't claim from Peregrine on the way).
My suggestion of using 30% of that amount for Cotara was based on the overview of Clinical trials, Patents, etc.
That would then be:
Market Cap: 145.280.000 USD
EPS -.30 cent x 67.890.000 shares =-20.267.000 USD
Total: -145.280.000 + -20.267.000= -165.547.000 USD
Source Fundamental Data : Reuters Update 18 Mar 2011
It is this amount that in all cases must come back so that there is no more depth and the capital that has been spend over the last 10 to 20 years in research and the setup of Avid (fully owned) before there is a profit. Cotara will have to carry some of the extra weight that has been spend to it. Hence the ration of 30% which would be 50 Mil (rounded up).
I know this is not the research cost of Cotara but probably the amount management will want returned if they make deals with others and in all cases the amount needed to make the shares break even. So including some of the cost of the past into Cotara (and the others) is a must although not fair to qualify the cost/return ration for the product itself, but I guess the internal statistics are a lesser concern in this case.
The argumentation why I would, even without further medical input, use 2 treatments per patient is based on the fact that that input cannot be given by lack of trial data on double doses.
The median survival time is 81 weeks (that's between 1.5 and 2 years) for single dose and PURELY on that I made a logical assumption that has a good change to hold for a 2nd treatment.
The median is an average so most of the patients will see their lives prolonged between 12 and 24 months (the 10 year exceptional survival in Deepak's trial is not taken in consideration).
Everybody will be in favor of a second treatment and if not getting it leads to a certain death then these patients will not worry about radio active overdose (which from where I stand is next to affordability the only obstacle I can see why a second dose would in the majority of cases not be allowed to be applied). As a result this reasoning is not 100% water-tied but given the much larger amounts, and less targeted and localized, radio active exposure of other applications (e.g.: Radio therapy) and the related damage to healthy cells that has been accepted in these cases I made the assumption that a second dose would be more likely allowed then not.
Then why not a 3rd and 4th dose. Well their we don't know if a second dose maybe have an increased effect which would drastically change the median survival time or possible bring the tumor to a full stop. Given the way Cotara works the injection of it in whatever remains from the tumor after the first dose will continue to be destroyed from the inside out.
Based on that I would vote for 2 treatments per patient in forecast calculation with a latency of 18 months for the second treatment.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
