Replies to post #118031 on Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[TOB]

Cellceutix did PR about the spleen lesion disappearing. True, and I appreciate and agree with your post.

Specifically, that was an Ovarian Cancer patient whose cancer had metastasized and a tumour had formed on her spleen. This was ovarian cancer that was not responding to any standard of care, and ovarian cancer mets are notoriously resistant to treatment. All the patients in the Kevetrin P1 clinical trial have no other treatment options for their cancer, with the exception of palliative symptoms, pain being one example.

Cellceutix Reports Spleen Lesion 'Disappears' in Patient with Metastatic Stage 4 Ovarian Cancer in Clinical Trial of Anti-Cancer Drug Kevetrin

In that case, the single patient case study was PR'd because it was used in a presentation at the Biotech Showcase 2013: Listen to the audio here. View the slides here.

In that presentation, the presenting Cellceutix doctor was clear that this was an early case study and the typical disclaimer was made. But as I recall there was still some flak from Dana Farber for releasing the data point, despite the disclaimer and the Kevetrin P1 clinical trial being open label (Not blinded)

Just how academia works, as you well know. I recall well the case from the other company where the trial was at MD Anderson. Also the top tier of academia. It too was an un-blinded open label trial, but the negative reaction from MD Anderson to releasing early data points by the company demonstrated the typical attitude of academia. As I wrote, and we agree, there is good reason for this attitude as people don't necessarily read the disclaimers, and early results don't always hold up in the larger group or in later trial. But then, what biotech company could fund its trials if it couldn't inform share holders along the way? Really a tricky issue.

To me the thymoma case is especially intriguing. But for reasons other than the potential market for thymoma. To me it was remarkable not only because of the long stabilization of a rare, treatment resistant cancer, but primarily because it really demonstrates the non-toxic nature of Kevetrin. 11 months of dosing is remarkable. Not possible with typical chemotherapeutic agents.

This case is further proof of the safety of Kevetrin, while also giving an indication of efficacy. In future trials, a similar dose of Kevetrin could be given in a much shorter time frame with dose and frequency of dosing optimization. It is reasonable to expect the dose optimization may have a stronger, and quicker effect.