News Focus
News Focus
Followers 92
Posts 20563
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 09/06/2006

Re: dennisdave post# 790747

Thursday, 10/02/2025 11:48:33 AM

Thursday, October 02, 2025 11:48:33 AM

Post# of 824190

But several of your leaps don’t follow unless we accept unproven assumptions.
1) “No benefit in near-total resection” based on what statistic?
Saying “no benefit” because medians look similar is weak. Median OS is a blunt instrument in datasets with long-tail survivors. Two fixes are standard:
* Hazard ratio (adjusted) in the near-total stratum (with balance checks on age, KPS, MGMT, steroid use, time-to-treatment).
* Restricted Mean Survival Time (RMST) to capture area under the curve (long-tail effects) rather than a single percentile.
If the adjusted HR ˜ 1 and RMST difference ˜ 0 in near-total, fine then “no benefit” holds. But you haven’t shown that; you’ve asserted it from medians.


I did not base my statement on median, The HR was disclosed at the NYAS presentation. HR=1.01

2) Collapsing “substantial remaining disease” into one bucket (2 + 3) corrupts the comparison


Agreed 100%. But that is the analyais and data as presented given lack of patient level data.

6) What your current argument does and does not prove
Valid: Raw medians can be skewed if ECA has more partial/biopsy patients.
Not proven: That all observed benefit in the “residual-disease” DCVax cohort is explained by that skew. You haven’t shown an EoR-matched, time-aligned, covariate-balanced null effect.


Agreed. I am not attempting to "prove" that -L was not effective. Just noting concerns in the data that make it difficult to assert it has been proven it was effective.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent NWBO News