If you look at the phase II VB-111 cohort, the limited exposure cohort of 22 patients had mono therapy with VB-111 and had an overall survival of between 8-9 months. The continuous exposure cohort received VB-111 mono therapy, then Avastin on exposure with VB-111 so that kind of refutes your thinking. Especially the overall survival in the limited exposure cohort of 8-9 months.
Still, I kind of agree with your SOC arm argument. Why force patients on Avastin? It is used with success to control edema, improve progression free survival, and limit steroid use.... all of which are important uses in rGBM.
But your post doesn't jive with the results of the limited and continuous cohorts in the phase II rGBM trial.
As to the failure of Avastin makes rGBM more lethal. Tumors build resistance to Avastin's mechanism of action with time, leading to failure to Avastin. Considering rGBM, It's pretty lethal to begin with with horrific median survivorship. Optune, vaccines, steroids, Avastin and VB-111.... EVERYTHING fails in time. The goal with VB-111 is to test the thesis that controlling tumor volume for longer periods of time, attenuating tumor growth will increase overall survival. If you can increase overall survival from 8-9 months to over a year, it doesn't sound like much, but it is a very big deal.
