News Focus
News Focus
icon url

vator

01/29/22 6:25 AM

#439599 RE: dennisdave #439598

An event can be progression. Not death alone. So pseudo progression would be considered an event. The vaccine ends up doing what it is intended but considered a failure with the old PFS way of thinking.
icon url

vator

01/29/22 6:40 AM

#439601 RE: dennisdave #439598

Based on Sentiment’s statement the logic of it makes little sense. My sense they saw eventing in the control arm but patients were getting better.
icon url

IkeEsq

01/29/22 8:16 AM

#439606 RE: dennisdave #439598

I assume 'eventing' referred not to dying but to progressing as a result of psuedoprogression, which appears to be a relapse but is actually a sign that the treatment killed the cancer cells.
icon url

sentiment_stocks

01/29/22 12:14 PM

#439636 RE: dennisdave #439598

Progressed… not died.

A pseudoprogression response would be defined as progression by the “dated” criteria used in this trial. The criteria was set back in 2007… and was not designed to look for a pseudoprogression response. Simply if the tumor had returned and grown by a certain small number of centimetres as determined. Y an MRI, the patient was determined to have progressed. However, I suspect, then (as evidenced by many of LL’s statements in her presentations), that many of the same patients that had been diagnosed as having progressed went on to one) have their supposed returned tumor go away; and two) live much longer than one would normally see from a supposed recurrent GBM patient. But if those patients falsely eventing early were the treatment patients, that would “wreak havoc” (to use Dr. Bosch’s own publicly stated words when describing what pseudoprogression can do to a trial) on a trial using PFS as its primary end point.

Of course, the trial’s former secondary endpoint of OS would have been showing much better results, but if the primary end point was failing, any alpha ascribed to the primary would not roll downhill to the secondary, thus compromising a successful outcome for the trial.

A similar situation had happened with the first Dendreon trial for Provenge. I think it was in 2007, and the trial failed its primary endpoint for PFS, and lost all its alpha (there was none left in reserve - while with the DCVax-L trial, I suspect there was a 2/3 split with the old endpoints). So while the Provenge OS would have been stat sig, there was no alpha remaining to measure the OS. So back then, the FDA denied Dendreon’s BLA and told them to run another trial. Which they did… and which on the second round, the FDA approved.