HyGro, the so called post hoc, data dredged recurrent GBM arm, composed of 64 crossover patients, is the major success story of this trial. Even when combined with the 35 non-treated placebos, the mOS of this group of 99 patient "intend to crossover group" is about 24 months. The OS curve of those 64 crossover patients has not as yet been revealed by the recent major presentations (NYAS, UK, Prague) because IMHO, this is being held as a major surprise to be revealed in the publication.
Hint: given that far fewer patients' recurrent tumors than patients' initial tumors can be resected and utilized as vaccines, why has the UCLA combo trial (which employs DCVax-L in both arms of the trial), conducted the trial in rGBM patients and not ndGBM patients?
Answer: 1. the recurrent vaccines are more effective in rGBM than ndGBM patients most likely because the recurrent tumor's increased mesenchymal phenotype signature increases its vulnerability to the vaccine.
2. Furthermore, the recurrent vaccine is more homologous to the recurrent tumor than a vaccine prepared from the ndGBM tumor and would therefore constitute the more effective vaccine.
In my opinion answer #1 is the reason that at least up to 24 months on trial, the group of 99 crossovers had a much better survival record than the treatment group and that surprising result is solely due to the astounding survival capacity of the 64 crossovers. It is especially astounding since the 35 never L treated patients had a very short mOS.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
