News Focus
News Focus
icon url

ATLnsider

07/14/21 10:57 PM

#389420 RE: sentiment_stocks #389406

These are some good points sentiment_stocks.
icon url

flipper44

07/14/21 11:24 PM

#389423 RE: sentiment_stocks #389406

Sounds like you’ve been chatting with management again. Your point does make sense, but ultimately the goal is to get the right treatment to the right subtypes. That requires transparency with data. I hope they don’t drag their feet on that. BMJ’s increased word count allowance could provide a head start.
icon url

vator

07/15/21 2:44 AM

#389431 RE: sentiment_stocks #389406

“I do want to suggest, though, that I doubt the top line data, or probably even the journal presentation, will go into any sort of depth (or even address) the topic of GBM subtypes like mesenchymal, classical or pro neural. Those subtypes were not called out in the protocol, and are not indicated to be measured in the indicated SAP endpoints.”

How would you know? Who here has read the SAP?

Just curious.
icon url

anders2211

07/15/21 4:35 AM

#389438 RE: sentiment_stocks #389406

Even IDH mutant or IDH wild type status were not part of the protocol. It's possible that it may receive some sort of mention in the journal, but a deeper analysis will likely be addressed in some sort of future white paper.



Mmm, if the IDH mutant is not counted as GBM on the orders of the WHO, then this will have an impact on those that survived the true definition of GBM and thus does play a huge role in the primary endpoint, or am I wrong?.

But the many pages in-depth long paper will be a white one not in the journal true.
icon url

PHYInvestor

07/15/21 6:09 AM

#389444 RE: sentiment_stocks #389406

Senti,

Most journals have a supplementary information document published along with the paper.
So even if a paper is 1500 words, it can have 20 pages supplement.
icon url

sharpie510

07/15/21 12:26 PM

#389598 RE: sentiment_stocks #389406

You may be right about what will or can be said with top line announcement and journal. But that surely won't be the case when they do follow up presentations at conferences. I am happy about the IDH wild-type and mesenchymal revelations because it mainly provides more clarity on how and why DCVax-L works. Dr. Ashkan said those DCVax-L patients who are in better prognostic groups are going to benefit more, but there is a benefit to all patients. I take that to mean IDH mutant (secondary glioblastoma), proneural, neural, and classical will also benefit; MGMT+ may benefit more than MGMT- in added months of survival but Marzan pointed out MGMT- actually benefits by almost the same percentage as MGMT+. That strengthens the argument that DCVax-L provides a benefit to all.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=164010368