This is good work, mate. The issue with your conclusion is that...

First 252 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Mason14

835 Posts.

9268

14/04/24

20:25

Post #: 73339428
Share

Originally posted by Jase99: ↑
Saw this after I submitted my second post tonight... (and I see @James5656 has also posted a reply)
Thank you for taking the time to reply.

I've had a look at both journal articles you referred to, and note the first article you referenced used the second article as its reference for the comment you copy/pasted:
Talimogene Laherparepvec Improves Durable Response Rate in Patients With Advanced Melanoma | Journal of Clinical Oncology (ascopubs.org)Here's the full paragraph for full context:

It is worth noting that article was from 2015, whereas this article is from 2017 and specifically in relation to psuedoprogression:
Imaging Manifestations of Pseudoprogression in Metastatic Melanoma Nodes Injected with Talimogene Laherparepvec: Initial Experience - PMC (nih.gov)
It is more recent but from a smaller sample and in combination with Yervoy (Ipilimumab).

I guess the main take away is that pseudoprogression is not an unlikely possibility (more than half experienced >= 25% increase before achieving a response) for patients treated with oncolytic virus therapies and we really need to wait for further updates before it can be conclusively determined if those PDs, iUPDs and SDs involve pseudoprogression or not.
Expand
Yes, you are right, my friend - we certainly do need to wait for more updates, but we have data now, so let's keep focused on that.

The reason I like using the ICI data is that it involves multiple cancer types, like what has been included in the basket P1 data and surely what cohort 4 consist of.

I'm interested to know what your thoughts are about why the iCR is stated for the cholangiocarcinoma patient, but no other outcomes are stated?

Originally posted by James5656: ↑
Among responding patients in the T-VEC arm, median time to response was 4.1 months, and more than half experienced ≥ 25% increase in the size of lesions or appearance of new lesions before achieving a response. This pattern of pseudoprogression is consistent with that seen with other immunotherapies19–23
The full quote is above.
It reads as half the responders are having psuedoprogression is how I see that.
And then haven’t looked at your other article of 15%, but sounds like much higher than other immunotherapies.

And this is what CF33 is meant to outperform, and they’ve compared to preclinically, so don’t think it would be a stretch for CF33 rates to be higher still.
Expand
This is good work, mate. The issue with your conclusion is that it is unknown how many patients that had iUPD (an increase in tumor size which required further evaluation), which was later confirmed as PD or SD. The study you are referring to had an ORR of 26%. Half of those people (13%) had pseudoprogression. Pseudoprogression being an initial increase in tumor size, which then eventually leads to a response (CR/PR). This is the highest % of a population that has been recorded in the literature and it focuses on a single cancer type. It's up to you whether you want to use this to determine risk.

@Jase99 and @James5656 have you found pseudoprogression response rates for unapproved OV therapies in advanced solid tumors? Also, I'm interested in what your % chance of success might be for the cohort 4 patients.

Last edited by Mason14: 14/04/24

IMU Price at posting: 9.2¢ Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Not Held
3 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply