Thursday, January 12, 2023 12:23:59 AM
Thank you HyGro for the article which I will reread again more thoroughly.
However, I do have some initial comments..
1. The authors comment that no other study has abandoned the primary endpoint is meaningless because no other study had used after radiochemotherapy (that can also cause pseudoprogression), an agent like DCVax-L which unexpectedly also frequently caused pseudoprogression. Therefore, none of the other trials had to scrap their PFS as the primary endpoint because their treatments did not cause a second unexpected PsPD.
2. I never read that tbe DCVax-L trial was limited to patients with tumors in only one hemisphere.
3. The orthodox exclusion of rapid progressors in the DCVax-L trial while perhaps more extensive than the exclusion of rapid progressors in the comparator trials, was matched by a more extensive exclusion of radiochemotherapy induced pseudo progressors in the L trial than was the case in the ECA trials. The overall result of those exclusions was a wash and that is shown by the almost equal mOS results of the unmethylated GBM patients in the DCVax-L and ECA trials.
4. Despite the fact that the DCVax-L trial did not differ from the ECAs with respect to the mOS of unmethylated GBM patients, demonstrating an absence of cherry picking in the DCVax-L trial, the methylated GBM patients in the DCVax-L trial had a far superior survival record than the methylated GBM patients in the ECAs. This can only be due to the ability of DCVax-L to increase longevity of methylated GBM patients.
5. How can one explain that in the DCVax-l trial, the 92 patients that included 64 crossover patients but also the remaining 29 patients who never received DCVax-L, had a combined mOS of about 24 months. With no real difference effected by the trial exclusion of the DCVax-L and the ECAs trials (witness the unmethylated GBM results), the only reason for the survival capacity of those 92 patients is DCVax-L.
6. Despite the similar mOS of the unmethylated GBM patients in the DCVax-L and ECA trials, an unexpected 8 of 131 unmethylated GBM patients in the DCVax-L trial (6.1%) survived 5(+) years whereas very few if any unmethylated GBM patients in the ECAs, were in that category.
However, I do have some initial comments..
1. The authors comment that no other study has abandoned the primary endpoint is meaningless because no other study had used after radiochemotherapy (that can also cause pseudoprogression), an agent like DCVax-L which unexpectedly also frequently caused pseudoprogression. Therefore, none of the other trials had to scrap their PFS as the primary endpoint because their treatments did not cause a second unexpected PsPD.
2. I never read that tbe DCVax-L trial was limited to patients with tumors in only one hemisphere.
3. The orthodox exclusion of rapid progressors in the DCVax-L trial while perhaps more extensive than the exclusion of rapid progressors in the comparator trials, was matched by a more extensive exclusion of radiochemotherapy induced pseudo progressors in the L trial than was the case in the ECA trials. The overall result of those exclusions was a wash and that is shown by the almost equal mOS results of the unmethylated GBM patients in the DCVax-L and ECA trials.
4. Despite the fact that the DCVax-L trial did not differ from the ECAs with respect to the mOS of unmethylated GBM patients, demonstrating an absence of cherry picking in the DCVax-L trial, the methylated GBM patients in the DCVax-L trial had a far superior survival record than the methylated GBM patients in the ECAs. This can only be due to the ability of DCVax-L to increase longevity of methylated GBM patients.
5. How can one explain that in the DCVax-l trial, the 92 patients that included 64 crossover patients but also the remaining 29 patients who never received DCVax-L, had a combined mOS of about 24 months. With no real difference effected by the trial exclusion of the DCVax-L and the ECAs trials (witness the unmethylated GBM results), the only reason for the survival capacity of those 92 patients is DCVax-L.
6. Despite the similar mOS of the unmethylated GBM patients in the DCVax-L and ECA trials, an unexpected 8 of 131 unmethylated GBM patients in the DCVax-L trial (6.1%) survived 5(+) years whereas very few if any unmethylated GBM patients in the ECAs, were in that category.
Recent NWBO News
- How Advanced Drug Delivery Could Improve Existing Cancer Treatments • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 06/01/2026 12:30:00 PM
- CNS Drug Delivery Breakthroughs Unlock Significant Biotech Market Opportunities • InvestorsHub NewsWire • 05/11/2026 01:00:00 PM
- CNS Drug Delivery Breakthroughs Unlock Significant Biotech Market Opportunities • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 05/11/2026 12:30:00 PM
- Northwest Biotherapeutics Appoints Dr. Annalisa Jenkins As Strategic Adviser To Advance Dendritic Cell Cancer Vaccine Platform • PR Newswire (US) • 04/30/2026 04:38:00 PM
- Northwest Biotherapeutics Appoints Dr. Annalisa Jenkins As Strategic Adviser To Advance Dendritic Cell Cancer Vaccine Platform • PR Newswire (US) • 04/30/2026 04:30:00 PM
- Northwest Biotherapeutics Announces Establishment Of the Company's Own Dedicated Leukapheresis Clinic • PR Newswire (US) • 04/21/2026 01:30:00 PM
- Northwest Biotherapeutics Announces Establishment Of the Company's Own Dedicated Leukapheresis Clinic • PR Newswire (US) • 04/21/2026 01:30:00 PM
- Form EFFECT - Notice of Effectiveness • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/21/2026 04:15:08 AM
- Form POS AM - Post-Effective amendments for registration statement • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/16/2026 09:25:30 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/07/2026 04:30:50 PM
- Form NT 10-K - Notification of inability to timely file Form 10-K 405, 10-K, 10-KSB 405, 10-KSB, 10-KT, or 10-KT405 • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/31/2026 09:04:37 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 01/15/2026 10:06:20 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 01/02/2026 10:14:59 PM
- Form DEF 14A - Other definitive proxy statements • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/28/2025 09:43:27 PM
- Form 424B5 - Prospectus [Rule 424(b)(5)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/25/2025 10:23:07 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/20/2025 09:26:03 PM
- Form PRE 14A - Other preliminary proxy statements • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/19/2025 09:15:48 PM
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/14/2025 09:44:21 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/31/2025 04:29:10 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/30/2025 08:40:05 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/24/2025 04:28:38 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/14/2025 06:22:26 PM
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 08/14/2025 09:00:38 PM
- Form 424B5 - Prospectus [Rule 424(b)(5)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 07/01/2025 09:04:38 PM
