Yes. So what we did here was actually we looked at both cohorts from the GCIG symptom benefit study because there are about 940 participants that were enrolled. And as I said, mentioned earlier, these patients had either platinum resistant ovarian cancer or potentially platinum sensitive. And what we knew, what we know is that, you know, ECOG isn’t the best sort of objective marker of performance...
Yes. So what we did here was actually we looked at both cohorts from the GCIG symptom benefit study because there are about 940 participants that were enrolled. And as I said, mentioned earlier, these patients had either platinum resistant ovarian cancer or potentially platinum sensitive. And what we knew, what we know is that, you know, ECOG isn’t the best sort of objective marker of performance. So it’s very, it can be very subjective. It’s very much clinician based and there can be a lot of interrelated sort of variability in judging and performance status. And also we found that in this particular study that there were quite a lot of patients with an ECOG performance status of zero, which is, as you know, excellent performance status, or ECOG performance status of one, who actually had baseline elevated inflammatory markers. So at least two baseline inflammatory markers that were elevated. And independently, the presence of the inflammatory markers that were elevated were associated with poorer overall survival. But then when we combined ECOG performance status and inflammatory markers, so what I mean by that is when we looked at, for example, patients with ECOG of 0 or 1, and we looked to see with those patients that had elevated inflammatory markers at baseline compared to those that did not, there actually was a separation in the survival. So when you looked at the Kaplan-Meier curves, there was actually a difference with a hazard ratio of 2.34 with the patients that had baseline elevated inflammatory markers doing worse than those that did not. And what that translated to was actually a difference in median over survival of 13 months. So what that indicates is that not only are, you know, inflammatory markers informative on their own, but also combined with ECOG, they can actually help improve, you know, how we stratify patients into trials, because it’s not just performance status that’s important, but then we can combine something objective, such as inflammatory markers, and actually stratify patients even further and identify those that may actually do worse than just using pure ECOG performance status alone. So I think anything we can use which is readily available, also inexpensive, such as inflammatory markers. And what I didn’t mention yet is what we use. So for example, we looked at neutrophil lymphocyte ratio. We looked at platelet lymphocyte ratio, we also looked at the CRP albumin as well, and also we looked to see whether there was an elevated LDH or lactate dehydrogenase, which were the inflammatory markers that collected in the symptom benefit study, and combined these really add an added sort of layer of prognostic value compared to performance status alone. So again, you know, these markers, as I say, readily available, inexpensive, very objective, and we would combine that with something that we’ve used for many decades like ECOG, we can really identify those patients that are potentially likely to generate earlier and, you know, potentially sort of guide those patients towards more supportive care-based approaches rather than maybe, you know, more aggressive treatments, which may be, you know, more toxic, et cetera.
