Replies to post #132932 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[Extremist223]

I wonder with (1) and (14) do they still cover the claims of 38-46? And when does a t-cell stop being a t-cell?

edit: remember that claims 35-47 had to be removed and a species of checkpoint inhibitor selected.

1. A method of treating cancer or initiating, enhancing, or prolonging an antitumor response in a subject in need thereof comprising administering to the subject a therapeutic agent in combination with an agent that is a checkpoint inhibitor.

14 . The method of claim 1, wherein treatment is determined by a clinical outcome; an increase, enhancement or prolongation of anti-tumor activity by T cells; an increase in the number of anti-tumor T cells or activated T cells as compared with the number prior to treatment or a combination thereof.


As you will see the following claims are related to adoptive t-cell therapy, what Iovance is working on.


38. A combination therapy for the treatment of cancer wherein the combination therapy comprises adoptive T cell therapy and a checkpoint inhibitor.
39. The combination therapy of claim 38, wherein the adoptive T cell therapy comprises autologous T-cells.
40. The combination therapy of claim 39, wherein the autologous T-cells are targeted against tumor antigens.
41. The combination therapy of claim 38, wherein the adoptive T cell therapy comprises allogenic T-cells.
42. The combination therapy of claim 41, wherein the autologous T-cells are targeted against tumor antigens.
43. The combination therapy of claim 38, wherein the checkpoint inhibitor is a PD-1 or a PDL-1 checkpoint inhibitor.
44. A method of enhancing an anti-tumor or anti-cancer immune response, the method comprising administering to a subject adoptive T cell therapy and a checkpoint inhibitor.
45. The method of claim 44, wherein the adoptive T cell therapy is administered before the checkpoint inhibitor.
46. The method of claim 45, wherein the adoptive T cell therapy is administered 1-30 days before the checkpoint inhibitor.

[marzan]

flipper et al., I want to ask the naysayers whether is there anyone here who can prove the PFS failed already while at least 98 patients are still alive no matter whether the 248 PFS occurred in 2017 or way before 2016 like they claim. If the PFS failed way before 2016, how is that possible there are 98 or 100 still alive. This 98 alive could have some PFS patients or progression free patients included but if there are some progressed patients in those alive, the literature says rGBM progressed patients live 6 or 8 more months SOC. I want these naysayers to include all these scenarios and still prove PFS failed. If they prove, I will sell all my shares Tuesday that is a very significant quantity. I'm challenging exwannable et al here.