InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

flipper44

01/27/17 4:06 PM

#98616 RE: sentiment_stocks #98614

I found those patterns of treatment response quite enlightening in a familiar way. 1. Conventional treatment response, 2. increase followed by tumor shrinkage, 3. stabilization for long periods of time or 4. no response.

When you include immunology reports and the like, you're not kidding that there is a lot of "moving parts" that constantly "evolve."

I always say, we must be smarter than the disease, and to me, kicking the can down the road is not working. Research in this field must think more on its feet. Many of the researchers in those videos seem to think the same thing.

Another thing that caught my ear: "We are specifically treating the immune system, not the tumor"
icon url

Rkmatters

01/27/17 4:10 PM

#98617 RE: sentiment_stocks #98614

Did you notice the imaging features that will be used in the Phase II?
icon url

marzan

01/27/17 4:26 PM

#98620 RE: sentiment_stocks #98614

Agree with you that analysis of the progression image could be the reason for the delay. On the other hand if the OS counts are pretty bad, this repeat of image analysis might not be even necessary with the conclusion the trial failed. But while everyone is living longer, it becomes necessary to re-examine the progression images. Had they already reached much beyond 248 and now what they are doing is trying to recheck that number, then the Company should have already notified us because it is a material event to PR. My gut feeling is that we might not have hit the 248 count yet, imo.
icon url

Doktornolittle

01/27/17 6:35 PM

#98649 RE: sentiment_stocks #98614

One would hope that they use the latest technology to scrutinize the accumulated data as long as it is the first look at the data. If it is not the first look... then it gets complicated. AVII would not let them do that.