I think a few things are clear now
Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2026 11:03 pm
1. The prolongation of mOS in the post 2019 Moffett data is not related to anything directly related to Imetelstat.
2. Imetelstat (or BAT Impact data) is not included in the mOS numbers, except as they relate to the updated 2016 data. The mOS numbers post 2019 are in no way contaminated by Imet effects.
3. The registry clearly starts with 27 patient who have failed Rux and are followed until death or censoring.
4. Censoring is required to remove patients who are entered into pathways that are not on the approved next therapies list.
5. Once a patient is censored that patient is removed from the denominator and no longer counted as a "patient at risk". This shrinks the denominator of the post 2019 pool to very small numbers that lead to a very wide confidence intervals. I speculate that many censored patients have left the registry for other studies (e.g.IMpact).
6. Trying to related the data from the 2019 curves to possible BAT curves in Impact is probably pointless.
7. It is not correct however to think of the IMbark or the matched data from Moffett BAT arms (about 15-16 mOS) presented early in Dr. K's abstract as relevant to what the BAT arm in Impact will be. The BAT arm in Impact will very likely be considerably longer for all the reasons we discussed but will not likely approach the mOS of 39 months in the post 2019 registry.
Speaking for myself, unwinding the data in the abstract has been very helpful as we wait for the interim announcement (stop for futility, stop for efficacy, continue to completion.). Special thanks to MG for helping me and (I hope the board also) understand what the message in this abstract actually represented.
2. Imetelstat (or BAT Impact data) is not included in the mOS numbers, except as they relate to the updated 2016 data. The mOS numbers post 2019 are in no way contaminated by Imet effects.
3. The registry clearly starts with 27 patient who have failed Rux and are followed until death or censoring.
4. Censoring is required to remove patients who are entered into pathways that are not on the approved next therapies list.
5. Once a patient is censored that patient is removed from the denominator and no longer counted as a "patient at risk". This shrinks the denominator of the post 2019 pool to very small numbers that lead to a very wide confidence intervals. I speculate that many censored patients have left the registry for other studies (e.g.IMpact).
6. Trying to related the data from the 2019 curves to possible BAT curves in Impact is probably pointless.
7. It is not correct however to think of the IMbark or the matched data from Moffett BAT arms (about 15-16 mOS) presented early in Dr. K's abstract as relevant to what the BAT arm in Impact will be. The BAT arm in Impact will very likely be considerably longer for all the reasons we discussed but will not likely approach the mOS of 39 months in the post 2019 registry.
Speaking for myself, unwinding the data in the abstract has been very helpful as we wait for the interim announcement (stop for futility, stop for efficacy, continue to completion.). Special thanks to MG for helping me and (I hope the board also) understand what the message in this abstract actually represented.