News Focus
News Focus
icon url

exwannabe

10/29/18 7:33 AM

#195100 RE: Leprecon7777 #195078

Well done.

If you look closely you will see that the time scale from the paper's graphs were slightly different on the combined graph than on the broken out graphs. Take a look at those 2 events just prior to 36 months. They are a few days earlier on the combined chart that on the un-meth chart.

That is the reason your combined chart looks a bit farther off.

On the meth chart, I think there might be an extra censor around month 21 causing the subsequent drift in the Y axis.

BTW, I thought your work post 36 months was very interesting, albeit speculative. The math looked right. That was a good catch that there must be an event at those specific times. A few other notes:

. Dr B's chart from ASCO had a few more events post 36 months on it (the data was the same, the time axis was clipped a tad further out).

. There could be an event past 88.2, no way to know that.

. I do not take that number 6 as known to be exact. It varies with the number of LTFU's prior to 36 months.


icon url

sentiment_stocks

10/30/18 6:51 PM

#195370 RE: Leprecon7777 #195078

Hi Leprecon! Meant to get back to you earlier on this, but you know, life and all...

Anyhow, thank you so much for putting all that together. It's good to know we've got the journal data plotted now, with meth+, meth-, and the earlier 38 data all separated out as almost perfect.

And from your plotting of the 38 earlier patients - likely from when it was still P2, one can see from your "Blended vs. Unclassified Survival" that their results are definitely not as good as the blended group's. And on that point, you state,

But what I find interesting is the how poorly those first 38 patients performed compared to the patients enrolled later in the trial. The poor performance is evidence (but not proof), in my opinion, that the DCVAX-L inclusion-exclusion criteria is not resulting in patients with superior survival characteristics being exclusively enrolled in the trial.



to which I agree. Those 38 were subject to the same inclusion-exclusion criteria as the other enrollees.

Thank you for your hard work Leprecon. It's much appreciated. :)