What we were always told was that now named RC110 needed to be...

What we were always told was that now named RC110 needed to be administered by central line to overcome the crystallisation issue. This limited the market opportunity. The old strategy of AML seems somewhat stuck on with some members of the board (and some shareholders).

What is new is the movement in AML therapies that DrT has mentioned meaning that strategy may have been a dead end and the knowledge on CPACS and FTO. This has lead to a now clearer strategy and far larger opportunity.

That crystalisation was not mentioned as a reason for the drug being dropped is not highly relevant as it may have been able to have moved forward back in the day, just a limited opportunity. The choice by Lederle appears to have been to shelve Bisantrene in favour of a drug which may have had a larger market in their thinking at the time was the beginning of the the story of the drug being "lost", who knows without the mergers it may have been revisited by Lederle.

DYOR.