Umibe, I think most people assume that the originally randomized cohort comparison for survival is mOS. I believe this very well could be positive, but what if it is Hazards Ratio and includes the very long tail of data, or what if it is a proportional analysis?
IMO the original cohort survival analysis is positive. In which case, who gives a damn about the original PFS? It is a surrogate marker for death and it will be proven meaningless for personalized dendritic cell immune therapy for brain tumors. Know any drug that NWBO plans to market which meets that definition? Oh, there is just one?
So then, why still include it? Well, perhaps you want to prove to any and all that it is meaningless, but that the adjudicated PFS is not. That begs the question of order. If you believe that the most difficult hurdle is the one with likely much confounding issue that poorly correlates with survival which is all that really matters, then why third before such important 4th and 5th measures?
It seems to me to be a clue. One that may mean the order is completely irrelevant after the first and primary endpoint. Or, perhaps based on all that beyond study data that they possess, like watching vials from one pile disappear but the other pile slowly, then suddenly stops moving down. Maybe they already know that answer, but have an even better one. Who knows?
Linda and Linda, Max and Robert, Keymours and Timothy.
All I know is that LL was downright excited to talk to those outstanding neurosurgeons at another pinancle of medicine back in May, and she was quite confident in when she was leading them next. She was also quite confident when she told her colleagues to please start properly saving tissue, despite the out of pocket expense to vulnerable families.
