Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Why go through the effort of proving something to you? It never changes your perspective.
No… but his take on the science is always a perspective I’m interested in reading.
Fingers crossed that they don’t try that “again”, as they did on May 10 at NYAS to us.
I’m not sure… I had pulled it from the article AngeloFoca had posted, so I’m not sure what the source was.
Not I… I very much enjoy his posts. :)
I believe that’s what Jim Cramer did to Dendreon.
http://www.marketrap.com/article/view_article/91110/Dendreon-Deceit-Jim-Cramer-Pequot-Capital
Interesting stuff regarding glucose and it’s relationship to cancer (and PET scans) in there. Thanks.
Interesting article.
Pulled this quote from it as it indicates DCVax-L is pretty much at an average cost when compared to other cancer treatments.
Remarkable, really. :)
The ECA was comprised of placebo patients that only received SOC so they weren’t exposed to any possible destructive (experimental) treatments (unless one thinks that TMZ and radiation therapies could be destructive, which I wouldn’t argue against); and we should note, the DCVax-L treatment arm received those same treatments.
And most consider that those patients who are enrolled in clinical trials are often somewhat healthier than those who don’t.
So the answer as to where those missing 68+ patients (5% of 1366) who might have lived 5+ years (one should note that you suggest that percentage is more like 10% in the real world) that you are so keen on promoting are missing because even that the 5% figure that is touted is somewhat padded and not really accurate. I wonder if it’s possible that 5% included the IDH mutated GBM patients who typically live longer, who are now no longer considered a GBM diagnosis.
That film looks like an endurancefest of complete angst.
Besides, I hate seeing horses (or any animal) treated badly… so that film is a pass for me.
From LL’s talk with Al Musella…
And hope… that 5 year survivor was in the placebo DCVax-L only arm. But he was also methylated, and we know from the P3trial that methylated GBM patients usually live significantly longer with DCVax.
That’s a logical pathway your reasoning took. :)
Hahaha… good one! :)
Remember… none of these five patients were IDH mutant. And only one was methylated.
Great points, ATL!
Thank you for sharing. :)
Actually, the placebo GBM patient S02-22-1 with no IDH and with methylation lived a little over 5 years at 61.2 months.
It’s obvious that DCVax improves the outcome for GBM methylated. And with recurrence, and they can make a new vaccine with the returning tumor and perhaps we can ultimately turn GBM into a survivable disease.
And in the meantime, the mOS for the DCVax-L with poly ICLC was 28.6 months… which is an improvement over the 19 months shown in the P3 trial. And out of all five in that arm, there was only one methylated patient (living over 52 months), meaning, then, that the remaining four patients who all lived over 24.5 months and higher (the median being 28.6) were unmethylated.
Think on that for a moment. They’ve (UCLA) have created a treatment pathway for unmethylated GBM patients where ALL of them lived at least 24.5 months.
There is no way there is currently a 10% real world survival rate for GBM wild type, which represents over 95% of all glioblastomas, especially since they’ve removed IDH mutant grade 4 astrocytomas from that group.
Well... perhaps he is also just a victim of his own confirmation bias, as are we, at times. He just goes the other way.
Many thanks! That BPCIA really strengthens our position in the marketplace, should DCVax-L be approved. :)
The problem with obtaining patient level data from the trials used in the ECAs for DCVax is that that data is owned, I believe, by the companies that funded the trials (such as Novocure and Celldex); fat chance of them giving up that data to a competitor. And frankly, I don’t see Northwest (or LP) ever giving up our patient level data to a competitor either.
An MHRA marketing approval would help push forward an FDA approval, IMO.
We’ll that’s certainly a “keeper” post!
A snapshot in time - from 2016:
Certainly most clinicians are already in agreement that the current SOC really does nothing to help (and likely hurts) the unmethylated GBM patients. One has to wonder if those patients would have fared better with DCVax-L alone… without the toxicity caused by TMZ and radiation to the immune system.
I think the intent all along has been that Northwest be the only company to commercialize DCVax.
*have interesting… :)
Thank you… yes… you always interesting insights. Many turn out to be valid… a few not… IMO. I’ve always paid attention to them… dating back to 2013.
Thank you... very helpful to know. :)
IMO, there is cushion in there. But there's ALWAYS the possibility (especially with Northwest) that the cushion gets used.
And just to double down on the fact that the UCLA vaccine in use is indeed DCVax-L, and from your cited link:
Lol.. score. :)
He said he'd admit DCVax-L was efficacious, then, and only if the money (NICE) is approved as well.
Yes... IMO, all that is possible. I just wanted to be clear that the company had not indicated that they were in a rolling review (thus far), and had indicated they were going for the 150 day fast track pathway. Until they say differently, we shouldn't, IMO, feel that the company has mislead them into thinking the pathway is something else, or that the company made them think they were further along in the process. That's my opinion. :)
I don't think he can delete a post without asking the I-hub mods. But I agree... the narrative unfortunately always shifts negatively forward.