""Also, why are the met patients not progressing as fast as the local disease patients? Doesn't that invert decades of oncology findings?""
An explanation that ONCY would like is that the METs are highly biased towards having activated RAS, so are prime targets for Reolysin replication and destruction.
I have no idea. Maybe oncolytic viruses like metastasis more :-) I am pretty sure we agree on this point: unless there is strong scientific evidence backing up, sliced and diced data doesn't end up well, at least 95% of the time.
Reasoning from a layman fwiw: Mets tend to have very high RAS activation even if the primary tumor is not RAS active. I would think they may also have less non-tumor connecting tissue just because they would be of recent origin versus the primary tumor which may have been growing for years. This may then make it easier for the virus to penetrate / spread through the tumor.
The ONCY presentations have contained scans from many different studies showing metastatic lesions with large responses without necessarily seeing much of a response in the primary.
I think the mets are much more important to overall survival than the primary tumor so I think overall survival may be good in both groups even if PFS is much better in the mets only group.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
