You did not miss a beat. Very nice research.
I may be off base here but it appears that from their research, LL and RP were focused upon immunogenic/non-immunogenic cancers and found that although MES was very aggressive, with a relatively short median OS, it responded quite well to the vaccine. Aggressive MES fits within the profile of M- which is characterised with an overall historical 12.7 mOS SOC as per the JTM. MES/M- may have an even shorter mOS. M+ cancers tend to be relatively less aggressive, like pro-neural, where we saw as per the JTM article that M+ overall had an SOC mOS of 21.7 months. MES/M+ may be less aggressive than its counterpart in M- due to the fact that methylation interferes with the cellular repair mechanism in addition to being immunogenic. Apparently, in the particular case of MES, DC VAX L was particularly effective regardless of methylation status. MES, in a very real sense, appears to give DC VAX L a good head start: higher level of residual T-cells to start with and a less immunosuppressive micro-tumour environment giving more infiltration time to the killer T cells, macrophages, etc.
This is particularly encouraging because MES is a relatively large sub-group and quite aggressive especially in the M-group. Even though MES mOS in the M+ group may be relatively longer, it may still be less than the overall M+ mOS SOC of 21.7 months.
So it appears that DC VAX L is a very good fit for a relatively large molecular sub-group and methylation status, alone, is not necessarily determinative of the level of efficacy. Immunogenic status appears to play an important part, as was suggested by LL and RP. This, alone, appears to bode very well for DC VAX L. And.....I am quite sure that the SAP will address this issue. It is that important and I think that they have accumulated sufficient data to make an SS finding. JMHO.
