Ann: Three Complete Responses in Azer-Cel Phase 1b Trial, page-299

When you look at data it is always how you cut it. The recent results you can cut a few ways, depending on the story you want to tell. In total 9 patients with 3 CRs. Another on HC wants to say this represents 33% CR therefore is not that impressive. However, there were two subsets of results that they prefer to not acknowledge with two very different results.

Brake the data into (as IMU has in its announcement):

Cohort A - azer-cel + chemo
Cohort B azer-cel + chemo + Interleukin

And you get a very different result. This is quite valid to do as they are two distinct treatments. IMU have stated that they see a very clear distinction and therefore are proceeding with additional trials only with Cohort B solution. This is because:

Cohort A - ORR 33%, CR17%
Cohort B - ORR 67%, CR67%

Now I realise that Cohort B is a small number, and there can be serious errors with a small sample size, however putting this number into their table for comparison suddenly makes IMU azer-cel + chemo + interleukin sit quite high on the table. Certainly, worthy of further study. What happens if the next result comes in (the outstanding forth candidate) and it becomes 75%. What if the one that is currently not responding is going through pseudoprogression as hypothesized by IMU. It goes to 100%...

Now wouldn't that be exciting!

I also think that people only pointing to the overall result of the trial, and not making a distinction between the two sub-sets of results, might be just wanting to push their own narrative, or perhaps just making mischief. I will leave that for you to form your own opinion on that.

DYOR Just my opinion