Replies to post #471021 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[j e d]

good possible catch. would be interested to hear what others have to say on this

[dmb2]

H2R, interesting that they are not even close.

I am still trying to understand the 3 year 28% survival for the ITT 331 population back in 2018, after virtually all had reached that time cutoff, to now 20% survival of the DCVax treated 232 population, there must be a discoverable reason.

Lykiri? Anyone? What have I missed?

GLTA, much more to come here

[j e d]

Feedback requested:

Thanks to H2R calling this to attention. It seems the charts in the presentation drastically undersell DCVax's performance because they display the ECA with much better curves than the corresponding numbers show. I pointed out some of the potential errors and remade the ECA curves based on the numbers. I haven't even gone through all the charts but they all seem extremely off compared to the numbers.

I hope I'm just being really dumb here, please someone straighten me out. If I'm correct this is ridiculous.

[chees]

This needs to be reported to NWBO before they PR TLD.
H2R, you are the one who discovered it, and would you be comfortable to do it?

[H2R]

At Risk Numbers v. Graphs

Dr. Bosch kindly answered my question (Thank you Dr. Bosch!). Here is the quote:

"All the numbers are correct. The numbers under the graph are 'patients at risk', which means the patients that are still in the picture after subtracting the patients lost to follow up and the patients who died. In the control population there were many more lost to follow up because not all trials followed patients for the same amount of time. "

Below is my take on things, not Dr. Bosch's.

The DCVax already excellent results are probably underestimating the improvement of DCVax v. the External Controls group.

These subtleties may be lost on a number of people seeing the graphs. I believe that in effect, the External Controls group shows the actual events recorded, as if the 'lost-to-follow-up' patients are considered not eventing and surviving.

In such a devastating disease, I would venture that the number of 'lost-to-follow-up' patients who survived is small. In other words, the graphs are showing the optimal curve for the External Controls group. In other words, the worst graph for the Ph III DCVax-L study.

A friend of mine, "T.F." , took this an extra mile and overlaid the number at risk on the graph as a blue set of lines, in the worse case scenario for the 'lost-to-follow-up', i.e. they all died. This is what a couple of graphs look like.





That's quite a difference. The 'reality' of survival is somewhere between the 'blue' line and the External Controls KM.

Those already excellent study results are in fact from a worst case scenario with regards to 'lost-to-follow-up'.

See slides p. 30 and 40 (like the one below) are again probably underestimating the improvement of DCVax:



Best of luck with your investments!