I am detecting an increase in quality posts lately ... a nice change.
@Watmighthavben and
@Taureanbull have hit the nail on the head several times this week and many here appreciate their quality efforts.
There are several other posters here who are also 'keeping it real', so to speak. This is very useful to everyone.
In relation to
onCARlytics, Ben's re-stating of a "new dawn" with "significant tumour killing" is indeed relevant and I too believe "all eyes will be on onCARlytics when it enters the clinic". It is an extremely clever merge of technologies that actually makes very good sense.
Ben also points to antigen-positive relapse and antigen-negative relapse in patients that fail CAR T therapy. This is one of the many, many issues that IMU scientists are trying to understand and ameliorate. As Ben quotes ... "
An antigen-negative relapse is caused by antigen escape, which may be caused by a gene mutation. For instance, the CD19-negative relapses represent up to 20% of the relapsed CAR-T cell-treated patients. With a CD19-negative relapse, CD19 is not detected on the surface of the cells". For
onCARlytics, this is just one critical aspect, in the big picture, that needs to be sorted. This is why the MAST study is so important, and also so much slower than many anticipated or hoped. It is with the MAST study that IMU hopes to crack these, and many other challenges. It is what they learn in that study (MAST) that will ultimately determine whether
onCARTlytics is successful. As they say, hasten slowly.
IMU is operating at the cutting edge of cancer science. If ever '
audentes Fortuna iuvat' (trans: fortune favours the brave) was apt in medicine, it is what IMU is doing with its OVs. We keep our fingers and toes crossed, because if they find success ... then the world as whole, will be the winner.
Stay patient, stay positive ... until the science says 'no'. Up until then, I look forward to the next update ...
All opinion, as always.
(20min delay)