ImetelChat

We all know the MF protocol at the 9.7 mg/kg can be effective a la Dr. T's pilot study. We also know it is common for protocols to allow for dose reduction in the face of toxicity. Here's the mystery: why then the 4.7 mg/kg dose? I speculated on this on YMB re FDA pressure, but have some further thoughts. As we can see from the recent paper on NSC lung cancer, there is speculation that continuous infusion might be necessary to target the tumor since multiple cell divisions my be required for apoptosis. Imetelstat's effect on the stem cell of course is well known. Scarlett said we would be apprised of any changes in the protocol and so we wait. I had always assumed one dose or the other would be chosen and perhaps patients would cross over into the other arm. But what if the 4.7 mg/kg dose is setting the stage for a major change in protocol, namely that of continuous low dose infusion? (like via an insulin like pump). I just can't "get' the 4-7 dose unless there is some subtext and a low dose infusion might specifically target the stem cell itself and open the door to broader application. Maybe low dose continuous infusion will be the way to target other stem cells like in MM and solid tumors, and this is a prelude. Pure speculation on my part. Please let me know if there is any supporting thoughts (or not). Also if anyone can get the Lane article and can print it for us (beyond the abstract) that would be appreciated. Regards, bp

Hi Bio, interesting speculation. Could be maintenance dosis indeed. Could also be that they would like to see what the minimum dosage is to be effective in case patients have very low blood counts, like anemia and thrombocytopenia.