Replies to post #142670 on Biotech Values

[mcbio]

Look at the N for high GPNMB (>=25%) IC group, only 8 subjects, 3 subjects in triple negative and high GPNMB IC group, so most likely N would be much less than 4 for ultra high GPNMB (>=50%) IC group, probably 0 for triple negative and ultra high GPNMB, the sample is just too small to release as another separate group. People already complain high GPNMB sample size was too small.

Thanks. That makes a lot of sense.

[iwfal]

CLDX -

Look at the N for high GPNMB (>=25%) IC group, only 8 subjects, 3 subjects in triple negative and high GPNMB IC group, so most likely N would be much less than 4 for ultra high GPNMB (>=50%) IC group, probably 0 for triple negative and ultra high GPNMB, the sample is just too small to release as another separate group.

Agree it is undoubtedly a small group - but ultra high G was one of the predefined subgroups and probably about as large as the non-predefined subgroup that they did release (HG/TN). My guess is that, unlike HG/TN, ultra high G does NOT show meaningfully increased efficacy over high G (which was almost entirely driven by TN/HG subgroup anyway).