Can someone please send this to the pretender? More data on the...

Can someone please send this to the pretender?

More data on the GI-cancer patients from prior cohorts.

IMU: "The objective response rate was 14% while the disease control rate was 86% (Figure 3)."

Proof that “best response” is a terrible measure of clinical efficacy. Within 100-days of treatment initiation, 86% of patients' target lesions had already increased or began increasing in size - ie. they started progressing. Patients would have received 3 doses by day 35 and 6 doses of CF33 by day 100 (Q3W with 2 doses C1D1 and C1D8). This highlights lack of clinical efficacy and adaptive resistance to treatment in this patient population.

IMU: “A second patient with cholangiocarcinoma who previously progressed on checkpoint blockade therapy achieved stable disease for >5 months upon receiving IV-administered CF33-hNIS (3.0x10^7 PFU).”

They are referencing patient US03-008 who experienced the greatest increase in tumor size relative to other patients (circled in red in Figure B). The average tumor size began increasing after the first review. This highlights lack of clinical efficacy and adaptive resistance to treatment in this patient.

Below is a table summarising each patient's tumor type, best response, dose, administration route, and final change in lesion size as a percent. Clearly, the CR is not the mean. IV monotherapy appears to be completely useless in this patient population and dosing regimens.

Still waiting for meaningful clinical data. Small chance of success for rare cancer indication expansion within a very small oncolytic viral therapy market, which multiple sources state it is significantly below current MC. I suspect a realistic price target for a meaningful gain is 1.5c to 2c.