Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Provectus Pharmaceuticals Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mimbari who wrote (12038)	6/10/2013 1:12:42 PM
From: NTTG	1 Recommendation Recommended By Pogeu Mahone Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13111

The question was about FDA allowable dosing for the PIII MM trial. The company is on record stating the PII dose design was 'too limiting", so what has the FDA agreed to on dosing...same as PII or something more? Frankly, your answer would be more appropriate for the HCC trial, since treated surface lesion(s) in the MM trial would be washed off as they die (no systemic necrotic burden as you describe) and the "bystander" effect is slow to develop, no more challenging for the body to handle than the effect of systemic therapy....unless you are suggesting that there is a concern about the amount of RB that is injected into larger tumors given the ~50% systemic absorption and no prior dose response data under controlled conditions? So again, we are left with no information on maximum dosing per treatment cycle or cumulative dosing constraints, or whether all visible lesions can be treated.