It is interesting because PTCL and CTCL are the main subsets of...

It is interesting because PTCL and CTCL are the main subsets of TCL and both have shown durabilitiy beyond the SOC and even beyond that deemed to be a target for a registrational trial approval.

What was highlighted and given some context is the fact that "The nature of PTX-100’s efficacy observations seem unique. Other TCL drugs only achieve durability when they achieve CR, which is a rare event. By contrast, PTX-100 patients experienced durability even with PR and SD" Steven wasn't prepared to speculate on this, nor was he prepared to speculate on why the FDA granted PTX-100 the broader Orphan Drug Designation for all TCLs when PTX approached them for ODD for CTCL at the time.

The fact that TCL consists of a bunch of rare indications and AITL happens to be a type of peripheral T-cell lymphoma. It has nearly a 70% frequency rate of the Rho-A mutation, which is significant. Of the two subsets of TCL, Peripheral TCL is more aggressive than Cutaneous TCL. That to me suggests that PTX-100 warrants a separate trial for PTCL akin to a mixed label or basket study of different TCLs and that perhaps the sweet spot for the optimal dosage has yet to be identifiied for PTCL patients. I don't know, but perhaps the Ph1 ORR and CBR rates are compelling enough for the likes of Prof Miles Prince or Peter Mac to run a separate Ph2 trial in parallel to the one PTX commits to as a registrational trial.

The safety profile opens up all sorts of doors for PTX-100 including combo trials. I always get the impression that SYC is under the pump (from Top SH) to pursue the avenue which presents as the best value for money - that which will get us to the finishing line on the least possible outlay. So, we could well need the financial support to further investigate the potential of PTX-100 across the broader T-cell Lymphoma cancer group. A good problem to have but not an easy one to resolve.