News Focus
News Focus
Post# of 257458
Next 10
Followers 69
Posts 4516
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 12/13/2009

Re: bladerunner1717 post# 169563

Thursday, 11/07/2013 4:40:54 PM

Thursday, November 07, 2013 4:40:54 PM

Post# of 257458
I am not missing any point. I don't know what you are getting into. There is clinical improvement (CI) category listed in the criteria table, where those 3 patients mentioned in the abstract fell into, but pending validation of response duration and resolution of drug-induced grade-1 thrombocytopenia:

Clinical improvement (CI) The achievement of anemia, spleen or symptoms response without progressive disease or increase in severity of anemia, thrombocytopenia, or neutropenia§



But none of the 5 and 3 patients were up to two of CR definitions:

Platelet count =100 × 109/L and <UNL; <2% immature myeloid cells‡ and

Clinical: Resolution of disease symptoms; spleen and liver not palpable; no evidence of EMH




Thus it doesn't change the fact CR/PR listed in the abstract said clearly only two of those CR/PR criteria were met. I don't know why this is up to debate because no one said the response reported in abstract was not real. Again, believe whatever you want to.

Bone marrow:* Age-adjusted normocellularity; <5% blasts; =grade 1 MF† and

Peripheral blood: Hemoglobin =100 g/L and <UNL; neutrophil count = 1 × 109/L and <UNL;


Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today