Interesting, though I'm not sure a change to one necessarily implies a change is needed to the other. With Direct they may have initially followed the DCVax-L schedule, and now may realize they need a more aggressive one. Direct has a harder job to do outside the gate, it's dealing with massive tumors that haven't been removed. Shrinking those means a more robust and continuous army. Whereas DCVax-L, for the most part, is going after tumor remnants or cancer cells only. They won't need to space that schedule as close to do that task. I would think you would need to keep a further apart schedule in DCVax-L if there's no definitive evidence of immune memory. If Direct can prove immune memory, in future phases, then I do see them testing scheduling in DCVax-L to improve on efficacy results. But so far, and even as boosters point out, they might not be seeing immune memory; instead the use of booster may suggest that the vaccine needs to remain in the system to fight any recurring cells, particularly those left behind. But that's just my take.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
