ImetelChat

“ And finally, another regimen that we’re studying is imetelstat in combination with ruxolitinib (NCT05371964). Unfortunately, so far, we haven’t seen the positive responses with that combination that we saw in our patients with myelodysplastic syndromes who received imetelstat in the phase III IMerge trial.7”

This is from a major center involved in IMprove. Be interesting to see if effects on VAF etc described by Dr. M bear out in this front line combination study. Specifically whether it can be determined whether the CSC is targeted and malignant clones reduced. Her comments must be taken a face value. Long term late imet effects possible (OS) that might yet not be apparent early on or else it is just what she says it is. Very likely updates to be had at ASCO/EHA/AHA

not what you want to hear - Imbark phase 2 results were strong and Geron said if replicated in phase 3 they would be approved - Scarlet felt results would be stronger because they knew who the ideal responders would be - we will soon know how mono therapy did for myelofibrosis

RC, I have to agree, this little trickle of information is not too encouraging. Impact MF PIII in advanced patients was built on the foundation of OS in PII study, rather than an outstanding showing in symptoms or spleen etc, although there were effects noted. In fact as I recall the company had to petition the FDA to allow for extension of the study as a longevity signal emerged rather than the initial effects on spleen and symptoms as hoped. As the data was crunched it became apparent the strength with Imetelstat was in influencing disease progression and prolonging life. Let’s hope this foundational finding is confirmed in the PIII study of IMpact. Whether IMprove pans out remains to be seen. The sub rosa effects of Imetelstat in a study like this may not present with overt clinical effects like the JAK2 inhibitors did but rather as an effect on OS which is what drives the sought after primary end point of IMpact PIII. No one really knows much yet about use in MF as front line/combination but we are due for an update the year.

I find this very interesting and questionable at the same time. Not saying, it is not the real deal but as shown in the "Dirty Pool" comment section of this board, statements are made to affect share price in either direction. Most are made with intent to move and take advantage of the herd.

In my mind is an unanswered question, why is there an abnormal number of shares being traded, an example is today's trading. As of 12:50 PM ET we have hit over 12 million shares in trading and we are very close to 13 million already. We saw a similar pattern last week. Why? Does someone know something? Well, someone always knows something, so not sure that is an indicator. Share volume has been interesting lately and so far in a good and a positive way.

Just my opinion.

FC

Great find. Thanks for posting, await access to the article.

That is very nice research finding!

17,916,628 million shares today and on a Friday. excellent. Trading has been phenomenal last few weeks, would be nice to see it maintained.

Article title appears to say it all and it could be the catalyst, time will tell.

i have been thinking they had an offer or they were aware that one was on its way. Good stuff and excellent research.

FC

rccola335 wrote: Fri Feb 06, 2026 7:45 pm https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41634457/

Well that publication Title certainly seems at odds with the anecdotal remark from the good Doctor at Moffet, but is certainly more expected and of course, welcome

Ryan, the comment was from a Moffit oncology NP. I would not discount that comment by any means. In many ways a good NP is closer to the patient than the docs. I have bought the article for the benefit of the board and will have a few comments soon.

I have always felt we have not seen a partner yet because they want to get the MF interim analysis - and if strong - will sell unencumbered - if they bring a partner in now for MDS in Europe, it just muddy the waters

biopearl123 wrote: Sat Feb 07, 2026 11:35 pm Ryan, the comment was from a Moffit oncology NP. I would not discount that comment by any means. In many ways a good NP is closer to the patient than the docs. I have bought the article for the benefit of the board and will have a few comments soon.

I certainly was not discounting the comment. More so would point out that both can be true at the same time. The publication title speaks for itself. Meanwhile the comment from the good Doctor was a comparison between the results of patients for the MDS and MF trials - recall that, for the patient cohort that responded positively, the response was extremely positive.

Ryan most of my point was that the comment was not from a physician but a nurse practitioner specializing in oncology. Each carries its own strengths and I found this particular NPs comments of value as did you. Of course comparing the response in MDS vs MF has to take into account that they are different diseases.