The difference between a poster presentation and an oral presentation in two prestigious meetings is 'transparent' enough for me because it is very unlikely that reporting of mediocre results would be selected as oral presentations. Expect good results.
The abstract selected for oral presentation at the CTOS meeting is listed below:
Sunday, November 20, 2005 at 3:30 p.m. "Updated interim results of a phase II study of the mTOR inhibitor AP23573 in patients with advanced sarcomas of soft tissue or bone" - Oral Presentation Presenter: Sant P. Chawla, M.D., Century City Doctors Hospital and John Wayne Cancer Institute, Los Angeles, CA
'The abstract selected for oral presentation at the ANE conference is listed below:
Thursday, November 17, 2005 at 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. "A phase II trial of AP23573, a novel mTOR inhibitor, in patients with advanced soft tissue or bone sarcoma" - Oral Presentation Presenter: Sant P. Chawla, M.D., Century City Doctors Hospital and John Wayne Cancer Institute, Los Angeles, CA'
i am very interested in the upcoming meetings..the results of the oral formulation dosing will be closely watched...my opinion is Ariad 573 is headed for p3 with a new wealth of knowledge regarding mTOR. As Ariad is working on another mTOR "841" this is a very exciting time for Sawyer-Clackson et al ..excuse my ignorance but could you explain what the basic difference in a poster vs oral presentation is and why that is so revealing to you in this case?...i would truely appreciate it...thanks Mito-
Mitosis03, as the following link explains, abstracts for research work will not be accepted for presentation automatically even though researchers all think that they have exciting new results to offer. Once submitted abstracts are accepted, they are simultaneously presented as posters which can be viewed at any time in a given session, or they are presented individually at particular times to audiences. While hundreds of posters are presented at any given time, only one verbal presentation can be run at a time in a given session (they must have general appeal, and many sessions are going at the same time). So, there are much fewer verbal presentations than posters. The selection committee decides which papers deserve verbal presentation.
Also observe that this meeting is a special meeting for molecule-targeting drugs. Many oncologists are sold to the idea that the future of cancer cure depends on the targeted drugs such as Avastin, Tarceva, or AP23573. This new class of drugs targets signaling molecules such as mTOR, or EGFR, or VEGF rather than tumor cell DNA which traditional chemo drugs do. Above molecular targets are abundantly expressed in some tumor cells because tumor cell proliferation depends on the signals coming through these molecules to say: 'OK to divide'. As a result these drugs can be effective in killing tumor cells with less side effects than chemo or radiation which would harm all dividing cells. But some targeted drugs can inhibit more than one critical targets, one of which may be expressed well in normal tissue cells. These drugs have severe side effects as seen in Onxx-Bayer drug. However, combining targeted drugs may not have the same problem. Severity of side effects will determine efficacy of a drug. We'll have to watch for them with 573 PII reports and for glioma study to be presented as a poster. My assumption is that 573 PII result may not involve intolerable side effects, or have low response rate, if it did, the result would not be interesing enough to be presented in a meeting; there are other media.