Hi NZ.That's a different point entirely and not one that you...

Hi NZ.

That's a different point entirely and not one that you included in the post I was responding to.

I was addressing your oblique assertion (allow me some slack here as I'm paraphrasing) that UQ was able to recruit many more dogs in a shorter time, ergo, PAA must not be tying hard enough.

As outlined in my reply, I don't see that it is a fair - or even worthwhile - comparison, given the much larger pool of potentially eligible canine trial participants for the UQ study (vis any other cancer) compared to the MPL trial (vis early stage B-cell lmyphoma).

We know that the mean incidence of canine non-Hodgkin lymphoma is circa 25 cases per 100,000 for dogs aged between 1 year and 10 years - the incidence is far lower/higher (respectively) for dogs that are younger or older. (See, for example: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hon.2017).

From the same study, we can see that of all the lymphohematopoietic / lymphoproliferic disorders in dogs, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma makes up around 47 percent of cases. So, the incidence of the disease could be approximated to be around 11.75 cases per 100,000 dogs.

Applying this incidence rate to the 6.3 million dogs identified in your post, we arrive at 740.25 cases.

It is now important to consider the very rapid progression that is one of the hallmarks of B-cell lymphoma - a feature that works against us when we are trying to recruit dogs. Logic dictates that, in the absence of comorbidities or traumas that cause the dog to be taken to the vet and the lymphoma detected at a very early stage (as occurred with@ThePig's Bella), dogs will be taken to the vet because they are sick. Unfortunately, for many of these dogs, the diagnosis is likely to occur when the disease has progressed beyond the stage when they are eligible to participate or would make a good recruit. There's a narrow window here.

Of course, I would be very please to see greater awareness of the trial, but I also know that the trial has been widely promoted amongst practitioners and pet owners. I've previously made the observation that, just like with human trials and human GP doctors, it is not reasonable to expect that vet GPs will have a terrific awareness of all the veterinary trials underway at any given time.

A good discussion - I think it's useful for us as SH to have a reasonable understanding of the task the company is undertaking.

Cheers

Densy