Replies to post #169563 on Biotech Values

[jq1234]

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;