No, DCVax-Direct used much more profound inflammatory adjuvants in the Phase I trial that would leave larger MRI signals then DCVax-L, IMHO.
Again, for what it's worth, I now assume (as suggested by mapman) the main thing they are likely having challenges with is tumor progression (correctly diagnosed) in placebo responding/stabilizing after crossover and then having to determine if it was a pseudo-progression calming versus a DCVax-L treatment response.
If it was a pseudoprogression stabilization/regression, then they originally misdiagnosed (which does not mean they can't change the diagnosis) a progression as a pseudo progression, and not the other way around.
If it was indeed progression stabilized by DCVax-l, then they'd want to know that too -- even if they had to use other endpoints like immune response (which RK showed is in the protocol and can help support the primary endpoint) to help determine this.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
