News Focus
News Focus
icon url

exwannabe

11/22/16 9:20 PM

#84883 RE: Rkmatters #84879

OK, here is the quote:

So in reality, I think, you know, what we’re really comparing now is actually early DC vaccinations versus later DC vaccinations



The "early vs late" clearly refers to the OS secondary.

The PI for the trial stated clearly that what they are really looking at now is the secondary endpoint.

Furthermore, she places the "not reached" statement within two paragraphs or so of discussion of OS and crossover. Kind of odd when PFS events would not be effected by this. I guess she was just sloppy, but that would be an odd character trait for a brain surgeon.

And please drop the strawman points. I never claimed she said anything about PFS results, or that OS was the only thing being looked at.




icon url

pgsd

11/23/16 4:14 AM

#84907 RE: Rkmatters #84879

Great post RK:]
icon url

doingmybest

11/23/16 7:31 AM

#84918 RE: Rkmatters #84879

Rkmatters, do you recall off the top of your head which abstract mentioned the 5 month PFS advantage? Don't go to trouble for it, thx.
icon url

antihama

11/24/16 8:56 AM

#85017 RE: Rkmatters #84879

OK, I may get slammed for this post but why can’t this trial receive conditional approval for rGBM too? Longs are hoping for AA in newly diagnosed GBM with PFS1 and full approval in ndGBM when OS comes to maturation but at crossover pts will be getting dosed again so they could possibly get statistically significant data (mesenchymal?) OS data from that. At crossover, there will be no placebo to compare to so that’s why I’m thinking AA only. They would then have to run a placebo controlled trial in rGBM to get full approval.

Happy Thanksgiving to all…and to those w upcoming birthdays, Happy Birthday. :)