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.
After further consideration, I did just post on thestreet.com a reference to Abstract (Ref # 24335699) on PubMed gov website (under screen name Robert .... now you know my real name too).
Actually, assuming that the tabloid writer reads Larry Smith's post, then he is already on notice.
LS post included: "In glioblastoma, PFS and OS are strongly correlated, indicating that PFS may be an appropriate surrogate for OS. Compared with OS, PFS offers earlier assessment and higher statistical power at the time of analysis." Here is the link to the article is as follows: "
At first I did not notice that the word "link" actually was a hyperlink to this website:
neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/24/neuonc.not236
which provided the identical info as the link I referenced
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24335699
I also came across this video regarding PFS & OS:
http://ecancer.org/video/2318/analysis-of-progression-free-survival-versus-overall-survival-in-melanoma.php
Analysis of progression free survival versus overall survival in melanoma
Published: 03.10.13 Views: 3201
Dr Keith Flaherty - Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, USA
Dr Keith Flaherty talks with ecancer at the 2013 European Cancer Congress in Amsterdam about a study that compared the progression free survival and overall survival in melanoma clinical trials with trametinib, ipilimumab and vemurafenib.
The relationship between PFS and OS was established by looking at the hazard ratio reported in each of the studies and a series of sensitivity analysis.
After reading Larry Smith post in reply to AF post, I especially liked the reference that brought me to this webpage: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24335699
Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in glioblastoma: a literature-based meta-analysis from 91 trials.
Han K1, Ren M, Wick W, Abrey L, Das A, Jin J, Reardon DA.
Author information
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The aim of this study was to determine correlations between progression-free survival (PFS) and the objective response rate (ORR) with overall survival (OS) in glioblastoma and to evaluate their potential use as surrogates for OS.
METHOD:
Published glioblastoma trials reporting OS and ORR and/or PFS with sufficient detail were included in correlative analyses using weighted linear regression.
RESULTS:
Of 274 published unique glioblastoma trials, 91 were included. PFS and OS hazard ratios were strongly correlated; R2 = 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.99). Linear regression determined that a 10% PFS risk reduction would yield an 8.1% ± 0.8% OS risk reduction. R2 between median PFS and median OS was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.59-0.79), with a higher value in trials using Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO; R2 = 0.96, n = 8) versus Macdonald criteria (R2 = 0.70; n = 83). No significant differences were demonstrated between temozolomide- and bevacizumab-containing regimens (P = .10) or between trials using RANO and Macdonald criteria (P = .49). The regression line slope between median PFS and OS was significantly higher in newly diagnosed versus recurrent disease (0.58 vs 0.35, P = .04). R2 for 6-month PFS with 1-year OS and median OS were 0.60 (95% CI, 0.37-0.77) and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.42-0.77), respectively. Objective response rate and OS were poorly correlated (R2 = 0.22).
CONCLUSION:
In glioblastoma, PFS and OS are strongly correlated, indicating that PFS may be an appropriate surrogate for OS. Compared with OS, PFS offers earlier assessment and higher statistical power at the time of analysis.
Re post 7992 & 7989:
From March 10 announcement about Two German Approvals:
Quote: "As in the Company's clinical trial, DCVax-L will be administered under the Hospital Exemption as an adjuvant treatment after surgical removal of the tumor and radiation/chemotherapy where applicable."
Does this mean that that in Germany the treatments may or may not include chemotherapy? Could they therefor get some insight regarding the effectiveness of DCVax-L without the toxic side-effects of chemo?
When to expect revenue to hit the NWBO financial statements?
Let's see: the PR with Hospital Exception + reimbursement eligibility was on March 10th.
Might take a couple months to negotiate reimbursement amount.
If it were to be "2 months", then this would be May 10th ... just a bit over a month away.
As soon as reimbursement amount is negotiated, then patients might already be lined up for immediate treatment, so revenue could start happening shortly thereafter.
Or could there be some arrangement that they could start treating patients immediately, with some kind of reimbursement for these patients to be negotiated retro-actively based on what the final reimbursement amount turns out to be?
PLUS: self-pay patients could have started producing some revenue immediately after March 10th, right?
I do not think Germany in effect approved for 10 years, but just for the initial 5 years. At the end of the initial 5 years, NWBO has the option to request approval for the next 5 years, but the germans would not be obligated to grant that approval at that time.
Note: I am still thrilled that they got approval for the initial 5 years!
Quarterly Results? Since NWBO is a public company, I would suspect they are required to publish quarterly results. What would be the most current quarter they need to report on, and when might that be expected.
I am actually more interested in the following 2 or 3 quarterly reports than the most current one, since I would be anxious to start seeing some revenues show up from treatments in Germany.
"Would be nice" if NWBO also were to make an announcement when the first patients in Germany start receiving treatment, and eventually an update on the reimbursement negotiations (and certainly when they have established and agreed upon treatment reimbursement amount). Getting a bit ahead of myself, but just a thought.
IF NWBO were to decided to enlarge the trial size, and issue a PR to that effect, then I think it has become clear from the various posts on this board that it could be interpreted differently by different investors.
Therefor I think any such a PR would need to be very clear in regards to the factors that NWBO considered in coming to their decision, beyond a quick statement about powering or de-risking the trial.
In addition it should provide insight on the company's take regarding the potential impact on trial duration (and include when they believe the 2nd Interim might be reached), trial cost, getting new centers lined up to participate which would then be in a more immediate position to start offering DCVax-L treatment once accepted, current patient interest to be added to the trial etc.
It would also be "nice" if they could include an update on current enrollment in US and in Europe, and the impact of the Hospital Exception on the trail enrollment in Germany (and in Europe in general).
IMHO, if NWBO were to provide a nice, positive overview with all above factors, then I think this could have a nice positive impact on SP. If they were to post a bare minimum PR that leaves investors "guessing" about the company's motivation of a trial expansion, impact on duration/cost etc, then the resulting uncertainties would potentially cause some to get nervous and go to the sidelines.
In my post I excluded Germany from having likely willing patients to partake in a trial expansion, if NWBO were to decide to expand it.
My point was that plenty of Europeans outside of Germany would likely still want to enroll in an expanded trial.
A previous post indicated that with the Hospital Exception now being in place in Europe, that any GBM patient would now do everything possible to just hop on a plane to Germany to self-pay for treatment there.
My point was that even if they would all prefer to do so, not everyone will be successful in gathering enough funds for self-pay.
Say that a trial expansion would involve a center of excellence in Spain or France or Belgium etc ... I believe there would be plenty of GBM patients that would still apply to join in the trial there, since they cannot afford to hop on the plane to Germany to get treated under self-pay option. Rather than settling for their other option of just SOC, they would likely apply to be part of the expanded trial there.
Note: I did take a quick look at The Belmont Report issue you brought up, but do not understand (yet) how this would negate the concept I described above: I do not believe the above would imply any discrimination based on ability to pay, and thus not affect the trial.
I believe enlarging the trial, including in Europe, is still a viable option regardless of the german Hospital Exception.
I do not know the actual numbers (but I believe these are in the ballpark), but say that in Germany there might be 3,000 new GBM cases annually and say that in Western Europe there might be 13,000 new cases annually. Some of these cases might have just recently been discovered and are in immediate need to make a treatment decision asap. Assuming that all germans with GBM would elect for the treatment under Hospital Exception + reimbursement, leaving the remaining 10,000 cases.
It is obvious that those folks with lots of money would not elect to enroll in a trial with a 1/3rd chance that they would initially be receiving just a placebo.
Then there will be a group that cannot afford it on their own, but are able to get financial assistance from friends/family/other in order to go the self-pay route.
However, there will still be a significant percentage for which self-pay for DCVax-L treatment in Germany is not an option .... say 50%? That would then be 50% of the 10,000 in annual patients = 5,000 patients, whom would need to decide to go with the same old treatment (SOC), or make best efforts to be included in the Phase III trial (if expanded).
If a decision were made to enlarge the trial, I doubt it would involve a doubling of the current 312 patient size but rather something (much) less.
Bottom line, it would surprise me if there were not still plenty of new patients ready to enroll asap if this becomes an option for them, especially once they & their doctors review the past results of DCVax-L to date (inasmuch as such info is currently available).
Your thoughts? Am I off-base in my thinking?
TOB & Reefrad
Regarding:
Reefrad Quote:
Expanding the trial will most certainly NOT expedite the trial! Think about it, if they expand the trial to. These centers of excellence the new patients will be enrolled in the coming months. When will these new patients 'event'?
The new patients in the control group will event on average 8 months after treatment (may +8 months = ?). The treated patients will event hopefully much later so not untill late 2015/2016.
I dont see how this will expedite a trial that was supposed to finish in late 2014...
END QUOTE.
I still am under the belief that enlarging the trial size could expedite the trial. Here's why: if the trial size is expanded by adding new patients, this would not mean (from my understanding) that one would need to await ANY events from this new group of patients .... just that IF events were to occur in this new additional group of patients, that they could then be taken into account.
So say that 60 new patients were added, of which 20 in placebo group who just receive SOC without DCVax-L. This placebo group would likely see the same average & mean PFS and OS as brain cancer patients have in recent years, which is dismal. Thus, some of these additional patients in the placebo group could include those that see just 1 or 2 months until their tumor re-occurs, or they might (very sadly) die within a relatively short time after enrollment. These would be events that then could be included in the 88 event count for 2nd interim and/or towards the final 110 events.
Thus increasing the trial size has the potential to speed up (instead of delay) arriving at the 2nd interim or at final completion of the trial.
There could be some extra cost in getting additional patients to enroll, likely to include additional centers that require training etc, but the advantage is that these new centers would then be 1 step closer to becoming a treatment center once DCVax-L obtains approval. It also would make enrollment in DCVax-L clinical trial available to more patients that currently would not have that option and would be limited to current SOC.
If it is correct that trial enlargement could result in a positive trial outcome sooner, then this could be viewed as a positive for all brain cancer patients in that this could speed up getting DCVax-L approved by the FDA sooner and getting it on the market for the overall population sooner.
Perhaps enlarging the trial could be a smart option for NWBO to have under consideration.
Phase 3 trial = 110 events.
1st interim = 60% = 66 events.
2nd interim = 80% = 88 events.
Current trial is sized for 312 patients.
1st interim of 66 events has already occurred.
Therefor, from the time of 1st interim: 22 additional events to get to 2nd interim & 44 additional events to get to the trial completion.
How long will it take before these additional events occur? Well, wouldn’t this take a longer amount of time with a smaller trial size than with a larger trial size?
If the trial size were only half of the current size, then it would take longer for events to occur (tumor returns or death occurs).
If the trial size is enlarged, then with more patients part of the trial there would be events occurring more rapidly.
Since DCVax-L appears to be very effective, one would hope/assume that the events are not happening as rapidly in the group of patients who are treated compared to the placebo group.
So, if the above is correct, then would it be fair to assume the Phase 3 trial could be concluded faster if the trial size is expanded? On the one hand there could be some additional costs to expand the trial, but could this be well worth it this were to result in 2nd interim and trial completion to occur sooner than later? With the added benefit that it would improve the powering, thus making the data more significant and improving the odds of FDA approval.
Regarding post 7644: if a larger trial size would mean that we get to 2nd interim faster, and if at that point the DMC in their review of the blinded data establishes that PFS is 5 months of extension, then BINGO … this would then be sufficient to recommend a halt for efficiency. GREAT! That is why the trial extension option appears to me to be icing on the cake. This could be why NWBO might be considering the option of expanding the trial, without having ANY knowledge or data from this double blinded trial. Thus one should not conclude that NWBO might have any doubts about 6 months PFS expansion, just that whether it is 5 or 6 or 12 etc, this could already accomplish the goals of the Phase 3 trial and thus a fantastic outcome.
Note: I have no medical background and no experience with clinical trials, and this is my 1st biotech stock, so I look forward to seeing constructive criticism.
Note: I love the positive developments, as highlighted in the presentation. The german Hospital Exemption and eligibility for reimbursement, the label extension, the country extension(s), the ASCO abstract acceptance (= yet another validation) etc. Add to this the positive tone about how LP feels that both trials are progressing.
Question regarding Label Extensions:
Pyrrhonian, you're (great) write-up regarding the LP presentation included:
"We are in the middle of expanding the trial (sites) in Europe” at “centers of excellence.” “We are in the final stages of training and preparation, with dates scheduled in May and June” to start enrolling (keep in mind these are centers being trained not just to participate in this late stage ph. III trial, but to administer the vaccine once approved—and approved via label extension to treat ALL CANCERS) "
If I remember correctly, I believe LP made reference to label extension solely in the context of DCVax-Direct, and that once it is approved for say colon cancer, that a it could then also be "label extended" for use for other non-operable tumors, such as lung cancer.
I wonder if the same could apply to DCVax-L, in that they might be able to do a label extension for other operable tumors.
Do you have the impression that once DCVax-L gets FDA approval, that label extension would apply to ANY other cancer? That does not seem to make sense to me, since then there would be no need for a Phase III trial on DCVax-Direct.
Re: NWBO option to expand the trial.
I am trying to figure out how to put things in perspective.
Per NWBO press release:
"A third false claim by Feuerstein in his article is that if the Company makes a choice to increase the number of patients in the Phase III trial, the Company "will do so out of concern that the original enrollment figure (312 patients) is too small to produce a positive result," and that for the Company to exercise this choice (or even to have the possibility for this choice built into the Company's trial design) is something negative. Once again, Feuerstein is factually wrong. If the Company exercises its choice, the Company will be doing so on an entirely blinded basis. The Company will have no access to any accumulated trial data, and will not be acting out of such alleged "concern."
As Ms. Powers conveyed in her March 27 presentation (and prior presentations), the key to successful trials and regulatory approvals is strongly powered trial results. The Company has shaped it Phase III trial design in order to provide strong powering, reduce risks, and provide cushions. An increase in patient numbers is simply another way to enhance the cushion relating to the p value – and thereby further reduce risks and make it easier for the trial to succeed."
I get the fact that if NWBO were to decide to enlarge the trial, that this would enhance the powering of the trial.
However, if NWBO would be doing so on an entirely blinded basis, with no access to any accumulated trial data, then what factors will NWBO consider in making a decision whether to expand the trial?
The trial is designed as a 312 patient trial ... how many patients are currently enrolled? If NWBO were to elect to expand, then how much bigger would they elect to make it?
NWBO would obviously need to take into account the additional cost and the additional time involved in expanding the trial.
The opening of additional centers of excellence in Europe: will this make these centers eligible locations for a trial expansion? Benefit of adding these centers now, is that once DCVax-L obtains acceptance, that they could become immediate profit centers for NWBO.
Since Germany has already announced Hospital Exemption there, could other countries be likely to follow soon? With the EuroZone countries looking at increased cooperation and sharing of clinical data, could something already be in the works (beyond UK perhaps considering a similar exemption)?
More questions here than answers & meant to stimulate discussion. Any insights/thoughts?
NW BIO REFUTES FURTHER FALSE AND MISLEADING CLAIMS BY FEUERSTEIN
Company Reports Phase III Trial Progress, Positive Regulatory and ASCO Decisions;
Feuerstein Falsely Claims Opposite of Positive Trial Information Announced by NW Bio
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nw-bio-refutes-further-false-170300961.html
Excellent summary with lots of insight, Pyrrhonian.
Some highlights of NWBO webcast of March 27, 2014 presented by Linda Powers:
Sections:
1. Science
2. Positioning
3. DCVax-L
4. DCVax-Direct
Re 1.
Involves a needle stick injection into tumors with ultrasound guidance, which can go anywhere in the body.
Can create 3 to 5 years of vaccine in just 8 days now (10 years ago this took 5 months)
Re 2.
* LP explained how tough it is for any company to get Hospital Exemption in Germany.
* LP indicated that also obtaining reimbursement eligibility is a “double validation”, especially since * NWBO could not apply for such reimbursement, but only the hospitals can apply (and 6 hospitals have)
LP outlined differences between Hospital Exemptions and Compassionate Use:
a. Compassionate Use involves just 1 named patient at a time and each patient application requires a regualtory process. Hospital Exemption allows NWBO to treat as many patients as they want for 5 years, with no additional paperwork or approval requirements. Additionally NWBO was granted option to re-apply for an additional 5 years after the initial 5 year period.
b. Compassionate Use: company cannot charge the patient or the doctor or whomever. Hospital Exemption: NWBO can charge full price.
c. Compassionate Use: Company cannot get reimbursement (ie from insurance). Hospital Exemption: NWBO is eligible for reimbursement.
Re 3: DCVax-L
* In Phase III trial. Designed for 312 patients. Primary endpoint = PFS.
* Very robust trial design (size & power).
* Started with very conservative assumptions.
* In some prior trials PFS of 18 months was seen.
* In current trial all that is needed is a 1/3rd extension of time to recurrance to meet the endpoint.
* Powered robustly. Statistical significance.
* Power: want to achieve a low p-value. Regulators typically require 0.5 or less. This trial is powered to 0.2. This is much more stringent, and provides additional cushion.
* NWBO also has the luxury (wonderful feature) to enlarge the trial if they want to do even further de-risking of the trial. A larger trial would result in stronger powering. Thus a smaller difference would be needed for extension. It is a strategy option that NWBO has available.
Addressing some rumours that the Phase III trial is not going well:
a. Independent Data Monitoring Committee has reviewed the Safety and has directed the trial to continue, which indicates that there are no serious problems with the trial.
b. NWBO is in fact continuing with the trial and it is going “just fine”. No negatives. In accordance with plan. Expecting positive progress throughout the year.
c. NWBO is undertaking efforts of expansion in Europe. NWBO is in final stages of training and preparations. Additional Centers of Excellence to join the trial. This is another indication that the trial is going just fine, since these centers would not consider joining if the trial was going poorly.
NWBO is putting 1 foot in front of the other and progressing very nicely, “thank you very much”.
Re 4: DCVax-Direct
* Currently in combined Phase I/II trial. Inoperable cancers.
* FDA is very supportive.
* Example given: pancreatic cancer, which is typically inoperable.
* Often the cancer has spread, or there are too many of them.
* Not able to remove the tumor, but can put needle stick in a number of them.
* Trial approved for (up to?) 60 patients. This is unusually large: typically just 12 to 24 patients.
* Approved for all types of solid tumor cancers, saving years of development time over needing to separate trial per cancer.
* Combined I/II trial - genuine efficiacy trial.
* ASCO: NWBO & MD Anderson submitted an abstract to ASCO which includes info on the trial and data. LP noted that it is unusually early in a program to submit such an abstract. The abstract was accepted by ASCO. NWBO cannot discuss the data between now & ASCO, but can mention that NWBO is “quite encouraged by what we are seeing so far”.
NWBO will have large exhibit space at ASCO. “We expect to have a lot to talk about”.
Patients are grouped according to various priority cancers:
* Colon cancer
* Breast cancer with brain mestacities
* Lung cancer
* Pancreatic cancer
* Melanoma
* Miscellaneous other cancers
NWBO will get data on at least 6 patients per group, which is enough to provide a reasonable glimpse of efficacy.
Looking for Tumor Response, most especially necrosis. Tumor killing. Cell death in the tumor where it was injected. Today there is nothing that can achieve this tumor killing.
Once this stage is completed, NWBO can go seamlessly to Phase 2. No need to go back to the agency.
2 Dozen patients per cancer.
LP spoke briefly about NWBO financial situation (incl. $39 Million burn rate), and said “the Balance Sheet is looking beautiful these days”.
(Oops - this was meant as a new message instead of a reply to prior post).
It would be nice if LP would also be able to provide some insight on Germany reimbursement amounts that NWBO might have in mind & update on the reimbursement negotiation timeframe & progress. And perhaps whether anyone has elected for self-pay DCVax-L treatment in Germany yet. If she does not have any "big news", then she might at least be able to provide some current updates on how things are progressing with various issues that have already been made public in prior Press Releases. And: if ASCO paper was not accepted, then she could "soften the blow" by providing some info on DCVax unblinded trial.
Which 6 german hospitals?
"Six major hospital centers across Germany applied for such reimbursement eligibility for DCVax-L ...."
I thought it might be interesting to figure out which 6 german hospitals might have applied for reimbursement eligibility, with the idea to keep an eye out on their websites to see if they make mention of performing any procedures that include DCVax-L.
I came across this article that relates to a brain cancer treatment at University Hospital of Rostock, Germany (might be 1 of the 6 hospitals?):
www.isoray.com/custom_type/glioblastoma-and-metastatic-brain-cancer-treatments-were-performed-on-multiple-patients-at-the-university-hospital-of-rostock-in-germany/
Made me wonder whether the GliaSite Radiation Therapy System could become a good complimentary (standard of care) system together with DCVax-L, or whether it would compete.
Also found this:
Brain Tumor Centers in Germany:
Dresden Dresden University of Technology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Department of Radiation Oncology; and DKTK partner site Dresden
Dusseldorf Universitatsklinikum Dusseldorf, Neurochirurgische Klinik
Erlangen University Hospital Erlangen
Frankfurt Department of Neurosurgery, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University
Frankfurt Klinikum Frankfurt Höchst
Frankfurt am Main Klinik für Neurochirurgie Johann Wolfgang Goethe University
Halle University Children´s Hospital
Heidelberg University Hospital Heidelberg, Department of Neurooncology
München Neurology Department, Ludwig-Maximilians University
München Department of Neurology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München
Munich University of Munich, Dep. of Radiation Oncology
Oldenburg Klinikum Oldenburg
Regensburg Klinik und Poliklinik fur Neurologie der Universitat Regensburg
and:
University Hospital Aachen
Universitatsklinikum Bonn
Strahlenklinik Universitatsklinikum Erlangen
West German Cancer Center University of Essen
Frankfurt: Dr. Senchkenbergisches Institut fur Neuroonkologie und Hertie=Stiftungsprofessur fur Neuroonkologie Zentrum der Neurologie und Neurochirurgie Klinikum der Johann Wolfgang Goethe
University Hospital Hamburg Kopf und Neurozentrum
Universitaetsklinikum Heidelberg, Neurologische Klinik
Kiel: University Medical Centre
Universitaetsklinikum Muenster
LMU Munich
Center of Neurology, University Hospitals of Tuebingen
Klinik und Poliklinik fur Neurologie der Universitat Regensburg
Universitatsklinikum Dusseldorf, Neurochirurgische Klinik
I think a tremendous advantage of the Hospital Exemption includes that if a patient needs to be treated asap, the Exemption gives them the opportunity to have DCVax-L included in their treatment. Many patients simply would not be in a position to "wait around" for a decision on whether they are eligible for DCVax-L compassionate use, since this appears to involve a lengthy (and expensive) process. For those patients who can afford the self-pay option, it sounds like DCVax-L treatment is available to them immediately (so they do not need to wait & see whether they are eligible for compassionate use).
Like everyone here, I am hopeful that NWBO comes out with some additional good news soon. I agree that NWBO must be careful as to what & when they say, so as not to jeopardize the P III trial. However, if we have not heard anything more from NWBO by the time of the ASCO conference, I think it might be difficult for them to "remain silent" at that time, since many folks will likely visit their booth(s) with plenty of questions. So in worse case I would believe we might hear more by then (regardless of whether the abstract is accepted, which I imagine we will hear soon).
It appears NWBO may have more than 7 employees. Here is what I found (although somewhere I believe I saw that they might have 10 employees?):
Linda F. Powers = Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
Anthony E. Maida = Chief Operating Officer
Alton L. Boynton = Chief Scientific Officer & Director
Marnix L. Bosch = Chief Technology Officer
Navid Malik = Independent Director
Jerry J. Jasinowski = Independent Director
Robert A. Farmer = Independent Director
Leslie J. Goldman = SVP-Business Development & Head-Media Relations
Beverly Jedynak = Media Contact
Still confused. I believe the "stopping points" will have been established prior to onset of the P3 trial. I would imagine that the stopping points would involve both the primary & secondary endpoints (PFS and OS), i.e. that a certain number of the initial 66 events would have had to meet or exceed predetermined PFS & OS targets. Correct? Are you saying that if DMC finds that they did "not quite" meet those targets/stopping points at 66 events, and thus have not suggested a halt for efficacy yet, that DMC could just be waiting for a few more of those stopping points to be met before suggesting a halt?
Any opinions regarding when Phase III -2nd interim of 88 events might be reached?
NWBO's private tumor bank: "HealthBank".
I am new to this board, but have been following for a while.
Curious if any of you saw this recent article, which includes:
*** Quote
There is at least one other private tumor bank. HealthBank is run by Northwest Biotherapeutics, a publicly traded cancer immunotherapy company based in Bethesda, Md. It charges $2,000 for processing and a year of storage, plus $195 for each subsequent year (about $16 a month).
Chief executive Linda Powers said demand has been steadily rising, though the company has not marketed the service.
*** Quote
Found at:
http://tbo.com/health/tumor-banking-in-hopes-of-future-cure-20140322/
Not sure how much revenue this could amount to. Hopefully the german reimbursement amounts will be agreed to in short order, to see some "significant revenue stream" develop.