Rick,
I'm adding to the chorus of "thank yous"...
The thank-yous are going to turn into hisses soon if I don't sit down and get more of my observations posted! Unfortunately haven't had time yet, got back home yesterday evening and now leaving for a 3-day business trip this afternoon. But I'm going to try and dribble out some more over the next few days, and I'm looking forward to getting feedback from yourself and the other knowledgeable folks here to help sort out some of these observations. Especially on what you tipped me off to, right now I'm blown away with it so far, and trying to finish getting up to speed so I don't sound stupid talking about what I heard...
why were 24 patients non-evaluable?
Good question. Here's perhaps part of the answer for that - from my printed copy of the poster, the last sentence reads:
All patients treated and evaluated exhibited a response during the study. Additional patients have been treated in the study and will be assessed.
It will certainly be important to see the results from the other 24 patients. Hopefully there aren't a lot of them that were treated during the same time frame as the 14 treated above, but not evaluable due to dropping out, death on study, etc. Ideally the other 24 were treated too recently to have completed assessment and reporting, and are all among the "additional patients who have been treated and will be assessed", but hard to say for sure from the info at hand. Another question I wish I'd asked! But I did pose my question at the CLTR booth about whether PCR was done to detect molecular remissions (as requested by V1), and they are supposed to be having someone get back to me, hopefully Dr. Leonard. I'll ask a little more about this at that point, or perhaps just try and email him directly.
Cheers,
Gordon |
