NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[Umibe5690]

Agreed. I have consistently mentioned that robustness of the tail also depends upon its composition. As I said, BP is on the sidelines for now as unveiling is relatively around the corner---or so one would conclude.

Having said this, I do not know the sub-categories where L is especially successful. The JTM shows notable success in M+. Not so much in M-. However, where does MES fit in? Drs. LL and RP found that L worked notably well for MES as it was more immunogenic. It also seems to work well in M+ due to Temodar and subsequently L continuing/strengthening the interference with cell repair. In the JTM, out of ITT population, almost 40% was composed of M+. If you remove 38 uncharacterised patients, then M+ is about 44% of the population. MES composition of GBM ranges anywhere from about 25%~48%. If you look at a February 26, 2018 study(in the intro to iHub message board), MES appears to be in M- and pro-neural is predominantly in M+. Rather confusing but if MES is somewhat additive, it may be that L could work well possibly up to 50% or more of GBM and to some lesser, but still significant, extent on other classifications, i.e., classical. If that is so, I think that due to the individualised nature of GBM, the FDA would more likely grant blanket approval and relegate decisions as to whether to employ L in specific cases up to the physician and patient rather than by regulatory fiat. JMHO.