Wed, Nov 26, 2014, 6:45 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Oncolytics Biotech Inc. Message Board

  • thirstycamels thirstycamels Oct 22, 2013 7:48 AM Flag

    New info in today's PR

    Today's PR looks a lot like the PR of 9/9/2013, however, there is one very important difference. Specifically it states " 31.8% of patients with sufficient follow up had a PFS greater than six months." That's important news.

    Unfortunately, because there was no control arm, it's difficult to determine how much of the benefit came from the chemos and how much is attributable to REO. I don't like guessing, but, based upon REO's success with different control arms, I'm assuming much came from REO.

    We still need more trial reports and especially the H&N.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • based upon REO's success with different control arms, I'm assuming much came from REO.

      hey ding #$%$ please refer me to any reported REO trial results that had a "control arm"

    • Is there a reason why they don't give out the control arm info and how much of the benefit came from the chemo vs chemo/REO? Is there an expert bio investor that can help us amateurs here reason why they don't give that crucial info out?

      This is not a bash post - I just want to learn more for my investment purposes. =)

    • I am guessing that the non responder (4%) was on treatment for only 2 cycles. So, information wise of course one would want to glean from this trial if more treatment cycles of Reolysin corresponded with better patient outcomes. Certainly the Poster is encouraging.

    • How do you know whether the 31.8% is an important or meaningful number? That is what is so frustrating about this company's press releases - they use obscure stats that other cancer biotech companies do not and then provide no context about the clinical relevance. The traditional stat used is median PFS - with 32% over 6 months, it is clearly less than 6 months, but is it 5 months or 3 months. Also, what is the patient population here - is this a front-line setting or are these patients that have already failed front-line treatment? On the surface, these stats look impressive (90%+ tumor shrinkage), but with no control arm or even a historical comparison, how can you make any kind of judgement?

      • 3 Replies to tredleon
      • These are data being presented to the scientific community. It's really not for the layman, these folks already know the data you don't have. The public NR is required by law.

      • I cannot find anything this has disease control or an objective response for squamous non small cell lung. Genetech has trial bevacizumab for squamous, but it has to many SAEs (too many people bleed to death or get blood clots in their lungs). I have yet to find a paper that breaks out squamous from other NSCLSs. I think it is somewhat like the KRAS population, it gets included in larger populations but therapies simply haven't been found to be effective against it.

      • I somewhat agree with you. More granularity is certainly better than what we have been given to date.

        Of very important note is these patients were Stage IIIB and Stage IV patients. More clearly, they were knocking on death's door.

        Maybe in time we will get the data we want and need. In the meantime, I'm impressed with the crumbs they have given us and I'm not easily impressed.

0.725+0.0119(+1.67%)Nov 26 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.