Key points of Dr. Prins interview.
-- A tremendous, respectful, and mutually supportive working arrangement with NWBO. Linda knows how to work with researchers. (My words). Good to know.
-- UCLA has done little work to date with Direct. Looking forward to it and preparing a Protocol for a new NWBO sponsored trial (possibly with the cosponsorship of the adjuvant maker) with adjuvants. So are you saying that UCLA has done some (but little) work to date with Direct? Since phase II of the Direct I/II trial is anticipated to commence soon, I wonder whether NWBO would look for additional locations (beyond the current 2 locations) to partake in a 24-patient phase II? Or whether Dr Prins is referring to a completely separate new NWBO sponsored trial with adjuvants (would/could this include checkpoint inhibitors?). Would NWBO wait until 24-patient phase II has completed? Or perhaps NWBO is gearing up to do multiple 24-patient phase II testing, perhaps for several cancer indications?
-- Made it clear that NWBO owns the commercialization of DCVax. Good to know.
-- Results for Phase 1/2 DCVax-L trial are due shortly. No hint of him knowing the results. He is a pro researcher. Everything is in the data. Which I/II DCVax-L trial are you referring to here? Are you referring to the earlier phases of the current phase III trial, or is there another I/II trial (ie with adjuvants) that you are referring to? See post 23802, where Sentiment also appears to be confused about the meaning of this comment.
-- The 5000 stored tumors and most stored tumors are frozen for research purposes. These are not lysate capable. Patient must ordinarily request the saving of tissue. Good to know.
--BMY researchers were aware and complementary toward NWBO's trial standards. Called it, "certainty one of the best." Referring to its structural integrity. As per 1 of your subsequent posts, it appears you also spoke with Bristol Meyer researchers who spoke positively about NWBO trial design or standards. Appears to be confirming Dr Prins feelings about this same topic.
-- Several attendees had doubts about the Novo "helmet" trial getting stopped for 3 months of efficacy. They all questioned the data. So what does this imply? That it is a good thing that NWBO did a trial enhancement enlarging the enrollment & number of events etc?
--Immunotherapy was at the forefront of discussion at SNOW. NWBIO has the research communities attention. Everyone waiting for results, end of 2015. Researchers here are only interested in complete data. When I mentioned 149 events and the first interim review. Several researchers, including Prins, just looked at me. They don't think that way. He did not realize that a review was being done at 149 events and did not see the importance that we place on the event. (Only the companies do.) Personally, the only way that I see that the current phase III L trial could complete by end-2015 is if the trial is halted at 1st or perhaps 2nd interim for efficacy. I do not see how NWBO could get to full trial completion of 348 enrolled and 248 events by end-2015. Am I missing something here? I am relatively new to biotech investing, but it appears to me that 1st interim reviews are common in clinical trials, so I am surprised that researchers woujld just look at you (dumbfounded) as if it is silly to give an interim review any consideration?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
