| Followers | 200 |
| Posts | 25597 |
| Boards Moderated | 0 |
| Alias Born | 04/03/2010 |
Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:16:35 PM
The high crossover rate is not unblinded data. Of course they know how many patients are IN the trial and will be control arm or not. They are not required to be so blind that they have no idea what they are doing in any possible way. That would be absurd.
There is no “new science of pspd” pseudoprogression, it was simply a fact discovered during the course of such drugs being used in people. This was one of the first immunotherapies in GBM in terms of the start of the trial and took a long time also because of the financial crisis and lack of funds. So it was discovered only after the trial started and NO, it is not subject to question or criticism. It is well known and widely believed. That is why there are new standards for PFS, because of PSPD, one that is already considered flawed and another that is not thought to be perfect either. This is not some made up theory and no, it will not be met with skepticism. It’s a fact.
Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse are so well known that PFS is not a real endpoint and only a surrogate endpoint for most clinical trials, the key issue being does it correlate to increased OS. When you then prove increased OS, despite an uncertainty about recurrence decisions, which were subjective, then the correlation was never there for recurrence determinations under that older standard of measure, because of pseudo-recurrence, which is exactly what happened here.
This is why they evolved the PFS + 6 months standard, giving more time. That is one of very many secondary measures on the combination therapy trial. But it is not primary and many of the measures are biomarker measures as the company appears to be looking for a variety of ways to correlate some more rapid to determine measure with increased OS, so that they do not need to spend 10 years accruing data before they can prove efficacy.
There is no “new science of pspd” pseudoprogression, it was simply a fact discovered during the course of such drugs being used in people. This was one of the first immunotherapies in GBM in terms of the start of the trial and took a long time also because of the financial crisis and lack of funds. So it was discovered only after the trial started and NO, it is not subject to question or criticism. It is well known and widely believed. That is why there are new standards for PFS, because of PSPD, one that is already considered flawed and another that is not thought to be perfect either. This is not some made up theory and no, it will not be met with skepticism. It’s a fact.
Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse are so well known that PFS is not a real endpoint and only a surrogate endpoint for most clinical trials, the key issue being does it correlate to increased OS. When you then prove increased OS, despite an uncertainty about recurrence decisions, which were subjective, then the correlation was never there for recurrence determinations under that older standard of measure, because of pseudo-recurrence, which is exactly what happened here.
This is why they evolved the PFS + 6 months standard, giving more time. That is one of very many secondary measures on the combination therapy trial. But it is not primary and many of the measures are biomarker measures as the company appears to be looking for a variety of ways to correlate some more rapid to determine measure with increased OS, so that they do not need to spend 10 years accruing data before they can prove efficacy.
I own NWBO. My posts on iHub are always posted expressly as just my humble opinion (IMHO) and none are advice, just my opinion. I am NOT a financial advisor, and it is assumed that everyone is responsible for their own due diligence.
Recent NWBO News
- 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
