Hi
@RaceOncology,
Long time holder and lurker, first time poster.
Firstly, thank you for everything you've done (and continue to do) for this company and your shareholders - I'm sure I'm one of many that is very appreciative of the progress that Race has made - regardless of what the stock price may be doing each day. Secondly, apologies in advance for anything below that is something I've missed in other discussions, or is price sensitive and I shouldn't be asking, or doesn't make sense due to my misunderstanding.
I'm trying to read between the lines of this analysis by Mason (thank you
@Mason14) as well as your recent comment that "There is evidence that Bisantrene works both ways, but all the evidence is suggesting that it works much better as an FTO inhibitor and only poorly as an anthracycline".
Is the logical conclusion here that in respect to both Pillars 2 and 3, while there has been historical success with treatment in previous trials, it's possible (or probable?) that by dosing Bisantrene "like an anthracene" that each of those trials has not been ideal in terms of dosing and outcome? And therefore that it's possible that by dosing Bisantrene "like an FTO inhibitor" instead in those Pillar 2 and 3 cancers we may be able to produce equivalent or better results with the additional possibility of fewer or less severe side effects (such as those seen most recently in the Nagler trial last year)?
If this is true, it seems that eventually Pillar 1 will be everything Bisantrene - Pillar 2 and 3 being just particular targets under that broad umbrella. Based on this I have some further questions that I hope you may be able to answer:
1) I remember you commenting long ago (pretty sure it was pre-FTO) that one of the advantages we have regarding Bisantrene is that we know the correct dosing from previous trials, but in light of recent developments is that still strictly true?
2) Are there plans to look at using recent developments to adjust dosing (levels, frequency, etc.) for the upcoming pillar 2 and 3 trials, or is it a case of sticking to what we know works (even though it may not be optimal)? I have read about planned dose escalation trials but they seem to only be targeted to Pillar 1 for the time being, and not sure if they can (in terms of timeframe) or will feed into Pillars 2 and 3 somehow.
3) If there is a potential benefit in altering dosing from what was used historically, does this inhibit our ability to make use of the historical data in terms of making regulatory submissions, gaining approvals, etc. or have any other negative consequences?
4) Do you believe that any other new or rediscovered FTO inhibitor (assuming similar potency) is likely to be as good or better at treating cancers (well, a subset thereof, and forgetting about all the other possible applications) as Bisantrene or does it have some other characteristics that work in concert with the FTO inhibition (perhaps related to the anthracene behaviour) which make Bisantrene ideally suited for the role?
Thanks for your time.
(20min delay)