Hi there TaureanI have been away from HC almost entirely - doing...

Hi there Taurean

I have been away from HC almost entirely - doing other things - because of the lack of news. As a result, my very brief red heart status has apparently vapourised ! lololol.

Anyway - Today's news is good.

I would - with enormous respect and best intent - suggest a slight logic problem in your statement. The patients on the trial have indeed failed 4 - 5 other lines of treatment, but that doesn't mean that all patients fail on 4 - 5 other treatments. Yes - if it was known in advance that a patient would fail the Standard of Care plus multiple other lines of treatment, then Azer-Cel would be the better choice up front. However, that cannot be known, I think, with current technology.

So maybe a better comparison is with the Standard of Care for relapsed/refractory DLBCL. Well - I think this article from just a year ago is interesting. It states that the most common treatment for relapsed refractory DLBCL gives an overall response rate of 52% and a Complete Response Rate of just 23%.
Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10879405/

So as a comparison - Azer-Cel does indeed look far superior, with a 57% CR so far, and better than that in Cohort B. Of course - very low patient numbers to date (7), but the original trial by Precision Biosciences had 18 patients with RR DLBCL and it achieved 83% OR and 63% CR, which lends additional confidence to the figures announced today in this current trial.

ie. So you are correct in your conclusion, despite the possible logic issue.

Regarding Tenacity and Patience's comment re comparison with First Line treatment for DLBCL - we can't know that, because Azer_cel is not been trialled as a first line treatment.

Best wishes to you - and to all the patient IMU gang. I remain confident - I've just been absent.

Cheers

Dave