InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 56
Posts 2691
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 02/01/2017

Re: MI Dendream post# 439313

Friday, 01/28/2022 12:43:40 AM

Friday, January 28, 2022 12:43:40 AM

Post# of 701528
Absolutely correct MI Dendream. What other trial planning a ratio of 2:1 Treatment:Control ratio, ends up instead sloppily with a 2.34:1 Treatment:Control ratio and has at least 42 of the last 108 patients (38.9%) reach 36(+) months alive whereas at most only 51 of the first 223 patients (22.9%) become post 36(+) months survivors.

We ended up with about 93 post 36 months survivors of whom 44 of the first 182 patients were documented to be post 36(+) months survivors and at most 7 of the next 41 patients reached 36 months alive. So at most 51 of the first 223 patients became post 36(+) months survivors and that leaves at least 42 post 36 months survivors originating from the last 108 patients (182+41+108=331).

Such an outcome would be very logical if 32 of the last 108 were Treatment patients and of the previous 76 of 108, 2/3 or 51 were also Treatment patients. That would come to a total of 83 of 108 Treatment patients and 25 Control patients. This is a ratio of 3.32:1.0 Treatment:Control and would partially explain the longevity superiority of the last group of 108 patients.

I don't believe that the discrepancies between the planned and actual Treatment:Control ratio and the substantial discrepancies between the survival capacities of the first 223 patients vs. the last 108 are coincidences. The assumption that many more Treatment patients than planned were in that last cohort of 108 patients, is an adequate explanation for the superior survival capacity of the last 108 patients and strongly suggests that early DCVax-L treatment works quite well and better than late DCVax-L treatment.







Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent NWBO News