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 : IDPH--Positive preliminary results for pivotal trial of ID -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1620)	11/16/1998 4:39:00 PM
From: DMB	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1762

2 comments: 1. I had heard of a patient, at Stanford I believe, who had a very bad allergic reaction to either Rituxan or Herceptin .. memory's a bit vague. The patient ended up very sick in their intensive care unit. I heard only 3rd hand so don't quote me. 2. How was everyone fooled by the progressively improved results seen with 2nd and then 3rd generation lymphoma regimens? There are a variety of explanations but the most compelling and most insidious has to do with the year by year progressive improvement that is introduced by the medical imaging industry. Our CT and MRI machines get better and better every year. A patient with stage IV lymphoma this year might have been considered only stage II 5 years ago using inferior technology. Comparing this year's results with previous results (historical controls as they are called) will show improved outcomes even if the treatments used this year are no better than older treatments, simply because the group of patients referred with advanced disease now contain patients (destined to do well) who previously would have been put in a different category. Similarly, the earlier stage patients will do better because they no longer include those patients with occult distant metastases that previously went unrecognized.