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.
You can't transfer shares from outside of Schwab. You can buy them, but they won't accept them. I had to open a Fidelity account to transfer what I'd had sitting in ComputerShare, and I'll have more transferring soon. Schwab told me they'd take them last year... and kept me dangling with some departments indicating I could transfer them, and others saying I couldn't. Finally, the law was laid down, and Schwab refused to accept them.
You CAN BUY NWBO in Charles Schwab... most definitely.
I like your idea of creating a graphic timeline, in line with the surgeries, MRIs, and treatments, etc.
Thanks for looking this subject over so thoroughly. I'm glad we agree that the PR/CR timeline was not what the authors cited... but the data, as presented, is so muddled, that they must have hoped readers would just walk away accepting that longer CR time.
Thanks for responding... I honestly did want to get your take.
Regarding A) Tumors 4,5,6 and 7.
In the article, the authors state,
Yes, that is one difference (adding the virus)… but the bigger thing that differentiates them is the lack of the patient’s own tumor in the vaccine.
Certainly paints a different picture when you do that… although may I say that your white out painting skills need a little work. :)
And yet, his own ID is missing the “n” in “inquiring”.
Very helpful post. Wish I could sticky two posts, but I can only do the one. :)
I believe they do a leukepheresis to create the patient’s own DCs, and then inject those back into the patient with the new castle virus or some such virus. The clinic does seem to present to the patients that the vaccine is the same or similar to DCVax-L, but it is not. Many times the issue is that these patients find that their removed tumors were not saved in a manner that is useable to create DCVax-L and so they opt for this German clinic, thinking that it’s a dendritic cell vaccine that’s the same, only cheaper.
Thanks for the clear answers and summary… you’re right, the chart says it all. And I agree, patient 109 looks to be the patient from the 2016 NEJM article.
:)
Thank you for the explanation, antihama. I doubt the send back is based on what I found as that was published in 2016… plenty of time for someone to find it, but didn’t.
That’s why I’m interested to see if others agree that what I’m noting is legitimate, or I missed something.
Yes... I've read them now and responded. :)
Looks like arm 3 used the Intraventricular (ICV) infusion method, and the rationale for this was based on this 2016 case study (where the patient ended up with a tumor in his spine, perhaps as a result of the Intracavitary infusion method.
Curious... how did the arms 1 and 2 do in this latest article (save me having to read through it if you know)? Presumably they would have received the same intracavitary infusion that the earlier 2016 patient received in the first infusions.
Every post of your's adds a mess to this board; whereas the same cannot be said about flipper or my posts.
I'm not sure if the tumors were ever biopsied, after beginning Car T. The supplement link below on page 12 indicates that the T10 tumor (one of the tumors that developed after beginning treatment) had an "B, Immunohistochemistry of the resected posterior right frontal tumor (T10) demonstrated very low IL13Ra2 staining."
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa1610497/suppl_file/nejmoa1610497_appendix.pdf
That would indicate some sort of tissue sample was taken, although I'm not sure when (while the patient was still alive?).
Page 15 in that same section indicates that the Spinal Column tumor measuring 270 mm2 (about half an inch / page 8 of the same indicates 18mm, so .7 inches) did not have any imaging done for it until after the patient began treatment. I'm assuming that's because there were no symptoms showing (numbness in leg, which is what prompted the MRI scan). It certainly grew sometime within in the first 6 cycles (with 6 - 8 remaining).
As for whether all the later tumors that showed up after CAR T were really tumors, I wouldn't know. It seems the clinicians certainly thought so... and perhaps some sort of biopsy was done - if that immunohistochemistry was the result of it. Page 8 of the supplement, though, indicates there was no surgical resection of T4 - T8.
Beautiful bird!!! :)
Sorry to hear that the cat got to him. :((
Take your time - and anyone else that cares to weigh in. I am curious to see if others agree, or can find something I missed.
Please note, I'm writing this as if to the NEJM. Obviously I'm not writing it to them, at this time.
If you are interested in looking through this, you will need to read the article, look at the supplements, etc.
You will not hurt my feelings if you're able to point out where I'm wrong... I'll appreciate it, as this was my reaction to the article, and I could certainly be in error. This is certainly not what I do for a living, so I'm ready to see what others might think.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1610497
Journal article
Have at it.
:)
I’m writing to point out various problems with your article entitled “Regression of Glioblastoma after Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy” dated December 29, 2016. I believe there are two prominent problems with this article, and they concern the timing of the diagnosis of “multifocal leptomeningeal disease” with the patient, as well as the 7.5 month dramatic clinical response time claimed.
Initially, and in the “Case Report”, the 50 year old patient presents with glioblastoma in the right temporal lobe. There is no mention of this patient having multifocal leptomeningeal disease when he originally presented in the “Case Report”. The patient is then enrolled into the IL13Ra2-targeted CAR T study, but does not begin treatment as the CAR T cells are being manufactured. During this time, the patient participates in a different study (clinical trial NCT01975701) for BGJ398, an FGFR inhibitor.
clinical trial: BGJ39
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01975701?cond=NCT01975701&rank=1
While still in the “Case Report” section of your article, it is implied that after enrolling in the BGJ398 trial, the patient’s disease progressed rapidly with the development of multifocal leptomeningeal glioblastoma in both cerebral hemispheres, because as you can read in the excerpt below, the sentence beginning with “However, the disease progressed rapidly during treatment, with the development of multifocal leptomeningeal glioblastoma involving both cerebral hemispheres” immediately follows the sentence about how the patient began treatment in the BGJ398 trial. This is extremely misleading as it becomes evident when looking at the data in this article that the multifocal leptomeningeal GBM began after the treatment in the clinical study for CAR T (clinical trial NCT02208362) began.
Thank you… I’ll upload later tonight.
:)))))))))
I'd also heard that to be the case... in the UK anyway.
Hmmm… hard to explain the large drop in share count without having ever sold.
Ropadope? lol
Loving your posts lately. :)
I believe that Aristides is Chris Brown’s crappy little hedge fund.
I don’t believe you are correct about adding the tumor to the DC cells. I had looked at the site awhile back that people like Laura and others had accessed, and it looked like they were performing a leukepheresis and then creating the patient’s own dendritic cells from that. Then they were adding in some type of virus (Newcastle?) to stimulate the immune system. But perhaps you’ve seen some clinic that I’ve not? If so, could you please provide the link that shows somewhere in Germany where they are using the patient’s own tumor with their own DCs?
It’s relatively easy to average down. I bought lots of time at $4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9… but then when you buy lots of shares at $0.20, $0.30, and $0.40, the average price of what you hold, drops ALOT.
I agree, Mike. To know who the posters here are, I’d think the plaintiff (Northwest) have to have had the right to subpoena I-hub for that information. And since what posters write on iHub is not part of this lawsuit, I doubt they’ll ask, or have the right to ask, for that type of information.
I don’t know, Smitty… when it was on the NAS, it looked like it was still being monkeyed with… only instead of the share price dropping in pennies, it would (at times) drop in dollars.
This new UCLA trial is definitely giving poly ICLC with the DC tumor peptide vaccine.
The vaccine is a dendritic cell tumor peptide vaccine … and treatment is given prior to surgery. So the tumor peptide is not comprised of the patient’s own tumor. So the vaccine is definitely not DCVax-L
I don’t anticipate the cost of DCVax-L, after approval, to be £250k… more like £150k. And once Flaskworks is implemented, the price lessen by even more.
Additionally, I believe the company intends to sell the first four or so vaccines for use over a month or two, instead of all at once when the doses have been manufactured. The remaining doses would then be sold to the patient according to the dosage schedule. That is how I believe the company intends to sell the vaccine… although I could be wrong.
Such a distribution and pricing arrangement would help to make DCVax-L more affordable to the U.K. govt., IMO.
Smokey, I’m so sorry to hear that you’re having to undergo all of this. It sounds like you’re about half way through… so hopefully, you can see the light at the end of this dark tunnel, and the other side brings you healing.
My thoughts are with you. :)
Haha.. yes… don’t tell my husband (or my high school French teachers!) I wrote it like that (he’s very fluent in French, having had a Moroccan mother and first cousins that live in Paris!).
For my part, I’ve never thought the Col’s theory had merit. It never was indicated that patients would be sorted in such a manner in any of the leaked protocols, either.
Doc, the only part I differ with from your post is the section called out below. IMO, I don’t think any “treatment” induced psPD in the SOC patients caused them to cross over to receive DCVax-L. Instead, I think the SOC patients truly evented (remember, they’d been screened for chemo/rad induced psPD), crossed over and received DCVax-L, and “lived longer” (LL’s words). And instead, the treatment arm pseudoprogressed very quickly on DCVax-L, and, using the crappy old criteria, were determined to have truly progressed (which they hadn’t, but this ruined any chance of PFS being used in any request for accelerated approval).
I often lament that the criteria wasn’t upgraded in 2012 when they changed the trial from a P2 to a P3. Cie la vie.
Hope no one has their GBM spread to their spine as a result… like what happened before using CAR-T at Hope to treat GBM for a doctor (who died).
Should the MTD not be granted, it’s possible there may be a few of the MMs who would rather pay a largish sum of money than move forward to discovery. Large sums of money from any settlements could help to fund ramp ups, other trials, marketing, without continued dilutions, IMO.
I wish we were at discovery now, but the magistrate did telegraph what he wanted added into the complaint back at that meeting in mid-November… so we should be seeing that added in by mid-March by Ms. Posner. Then the usual back and forth, and then a new ruling… hopefully in Northwest’s favor. :)
I agree with your explanation.
After seeing what’s happened in the DCVax-L GBM trial, I honestly don’t see how one can do a truly randomized trial of DCVax and include a crossover. To me, it’s obvious DCVax works… you typically don’t get recurrent GBM patients living as long as they did/do in the DCVax -L trial, and as the control patients in what had been a randomized trial, these were the patients that received the drug upon real progression, IMO.