I completely agree with the way you've accessed it. I would hope that a fair percentage of the top 100 actually did receive the vaccine after progressing on the SOC as it would demonstrate the ability of the vaccine to deal with further advanced patients. The key is very few, if any in the top 100 didn't get the vaccine. Who could deny the benefit if that's the case. I suppose a look at the bottom 100 could be worthwhile as well, if most of the 33 who never received the vaccine, as well as some who crossed over were found in the bottom 100, that should deliver a message as well.
Does anyone have an opinion on whether the amount of vaccine created initially could be increased sufficiently, and preserved, to be able to boost the patient's immune system either routinely, or upon determining that the cancer was coming out of remission. I would assume it can be cryogenically preserved, if that's what they choose to do, and even if there is a slight loss of potency, if it's impossible to make more, it would seem to me that it would be worth trying to use what you had.
Everyone knows that GBM is very deadly, I believe the historical evidence should be sufficient for comparison. I think it's wrong that the FDA can't structure trials where all who volunteer get the experimental treatment, in addition to all others required in the protocol. Of course I support the right to try for those who cannot enroll in trials, and especially those who are willing to pay for the drug or vaccine so as to permit their physicians to experiment.
I once met a man who was 5+ years post diagnosis with inoperable pancreatic cancer. His key to longevity was finding Oncologists who'd try something new each time his current Oncologist gave up, it not only kept him alive, but he seemed to be living life well. Quality of life should definitely be a part of the consideration.
Gary
