It depends - on how you view the results. It may be underwhelming from an efficacy standpoint (mainly because no one has had a complete responses rate - I presume that's the standard of underwhelming nowadays), but I think durability could be something to look at. If you can keep a patient's tumour at stable disease for 2-3 years or have someone go through complete response for 4 months and have it reoccur or move to other areas of the brain after that, I think I would take the stable disease as a pretty good result. Only time will tell.
There is a significant jump in dosage in Cohort 3 and 4 so that could provide more efficacy. So we'll see how that goes.
As explained by many people in the past, Phase 1 trials are designed with safety in mind and not efficacy. It's also an exploratory study to see which parameters and patient population will see better efficacy rates via Pharmacodynamic and Pharmacokinetic testing. Results on those analyses will guide the phase 2 trial to have a more specific inclusion criterion making it statistically powered. If it's not producing significant efficacy at Phase 2, only then will I take efficacy readings seriously.
There are many more risks that CHM will move forward with so if the initial results from Cohort 1 and 2 are too risky for you then it might be time to sell your shares.
Each cohort will have new patients recruited.
CHM Price at posting:
15.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)