Overnight Market report, page-2435

When I saw this, first came to mind was the potential extension on the soft tissue sarcoma zone. The ph2 trial currently is only applicable on 18yo and above. Though, this type of diease is more of a problomatic in child population. From my memory, soft tissue sarcoma patients cases in kids are close to half of the total number of that cancer type. Plus, with kids, chemo impact the growth and body development. When they talk about side effects in this population, the standard is completely different from adults. I did witness case where a child recived chemo treatments for a few years because of sarcoma and then one side of the face is almost only half size compared to the other side. I was seriously depressed only just looking, can not imaging what impact this brought to the family.

Anyway, just any improvement can be made on kids, I think that is where FDA would like to put more review on.

Then the other area I can think of would be osteosarcoma (bone related tissue). That one is even worse. Very hard to have treatment penetrate into hard tissue. With osteosarcoma patients (even higher chance happending on kids), amputation is usually where things end up. When doctor dicusses these cases, they can not think of a way to save the bone, the discussion usually argues on whether to save the ankle or save the knee (a lower limb amp or higher limb amp). I just wish eftilagimod, as a agent does not directly hitting the cancer tissue, but modulating the immune commander, antigen presenting cells, to hit cancer tissue, that way might open a more effective path for treating difficult type of cancer.

Have to admit that when things come to kids, I am a bit emotional.