I agree with you regarding enrolment numbers. Really bad and...

I agree with you regarding enrolment numbers. Really bad and I've said it elsewhere but they can't keep blaming COVID. Really cumbersome trial design for the poor patients that have just been dealt some terrible news. It's not like we're offering them a shiny new drug to treat their cancer. They get absolutely zilch out of participating in the trial and I feel this wasn't considered.

However regarding giving some efficacy detail - what they've repeatedly said is that at this stage of the trial they are unable to draw conclusions and providing information to this effect could actually turn out to be misleading given the number is so small. All they can say is that the nanoparticle is reaching the lymph node.

For example let's say they have 5 patients. Of those 5 only a portion (who knows how many) are going to have disease in their lymph nodes - say it's 2. Now if the technology is working and its lighting up 2/2 times on MRI/MRX that's great but it would be dangerous to release that to the public, as the sample size is so tiny that it may have been luck. Imagine they did release that information and then they've got their 15 patients it only worked in 2 out of 6 lymph node positive patients, how angry would everyone be? I'd say people would consider legal action for providing misleading information. It's too early to release the info. If it get's to full enrolment of 15 or whatever and 6 out of 6 or 9 out of 9 lymph node positive patients light up on MRI/MRX then that's certainly more convincing than 2 out of 2 (it may even be that none of the patients thus far have had lymph node disease!). All they have said is that the nanoparticles have reached the lymph nodes are thus have enough confidence to proceed with enrolment. As frustrating as that is for us, at least they haven't stopped the trial early because the results have been duds.