Logically speaking there should be no difference in the way any malignancy should respond to DCVax, either -L or -D. They all have the same pathological basis - that of a mutated and mutating genome which has allowed unfettered growth. The malignant mutations within the genome are expressed topically (ie on the cell surface) by proteins known as epitopes, each epitope being specific to an abnormal gene which has resulted from the malignant mutation. They are, therefore, not expressed on normal cells.
DCVax-L has been developed to act against any and all abnormal epitopes that it comes across in the manufacturing process. Not being expressed by the patient's healthy cells DCVax does not do anything to them, whereas malignant epitopes are recognised as "non-self" by the DCVax and attacked. Consequently, there is no logical reason to suppose that, for example, a rhabdomyosarcoma, a tumour of muscle cells, would not respond to DCVax just because it is a sarcoma, a tumour of a different embryological tissue (the mesoderm) to a carcinoma (the ectoderm). Irrespective of that origin they both express abnormal epitopes and so should be expected to be targeted by DCVax.
I can tell you that if I had a child with a rhabdo (and it is far commoner in childhood), I would plump for a course of DCVax before any cytotoxic or radiological therapy was allowed anywhere near him/her.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
