Sentiment Stocks @sentimentstock
1h
Replying to @AlMusella @EANOassociation and 2 others
One of their arguments against the contemporaneous (not historical) ECA used is that the DCVax trial excluded "Patients with progression".
No... $NWBO's trial excluded pts showing BOTH real progression or "SUSPECTED" progression (e.g psPD caused by chemo/rad who live longer).
Reply
Retweet
4Like
More options
AlMusella's avatar
Al Musella @AlMusella
2h
Replying to @AlMusella @EANOassociation and 2 others
Bottom Line: This study has flaws, as do ALL phase 3 trials. They are not bad enough to disregard the conclusion that DCVAX helps patients. We need to get this approved ASAP, then we will be able to experiment with combinations that will improve these already impressive results
Reply
Retweet
9Like
More options
AlMusella's avatar
Al Musella @AlMusella
2h
Replying to @AlMusella @EANOassociation and 2 others
The authors want the study repeated with no crossover. I wonder if they would allow their kids or parents to participate in such a trial, with the risk of a placebo. If they wouldn't allow their family to do it, why should we.
1Reply
Retweet
8Like
More options
AlMusella's avatar
Al Musella @AlMusella
2h
Replying to @AlMusella @EANOassociation and 2 others
The other major fault they think they found is in the control group. Unfortunately not in the paper, but in talks, Dr Liau showed a KM curve for the control groups, and they all overlapped, and the KM curve for DCVAX was better.
1Reply
Retweet
11Like
More options
AlMusella's avatar
Al Musella @AlMusella
2h
Replying to @AlMusella @EANOassociation and 2 others
"This is the first SAP that has been submitted for the Trial, and it is being submitted prior to Data Lock
and unblinding of the study results." The definition of "Post-Hoc" is "After the event" - which implies they saw the data before creating the SAP, and they didn't.
1Reply
Retweet
9Like
More options
AlMusella's avatar
Al Musella @AlMusella
2h
Replying to @EANOassociation @NeuroOnc @OncoAlert
I completely disagree with the paper. Luckily it was just submitted and not peer reviewed. It would never pass peer review. The easiest fact to show they are wrong is they emphasis "post-hoc" a few times. Had they read the paper, they would have see
Bullish
