News Focus
News Focus
icon url

hoffmann6383

09/15/22 2:32 PM

#514181 RE: HyGro #514180

LOL, I couldn't make it past the repeated bullshit throughout the first paragraph. Science changed. It's easy to read some journals and find this out. OS is the gold standard. NWBO swapped to the gold standard BEFORE UNBLINDING. See red text below for confirmation this swap was pre-unblinding:

icon url

biosectinvestor

09/15/22 3:54 PM

#514198 RE: HyGro #514180

That post incorrectly summarized and described a multitude of details that need to be corrected.

Dr. Liau’s 2018 interim journal review of DCVax-L:

https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-018-1507-6

You wrote:

“Let's see, first NWBO chose PFS as their primary endpoint. Dr. Liau, the lead clinician, reconfirmed PFS as the primary endpoint again in her 2018 journal publication. Also outlined the process to deal with pseudo-progression. Then NWBO failed to meet the PFS primary endpoint and suddenly NWBO redid the whole trial.”



Your summary is an incorrect statement of what was in the interim analysis.

Dr. Liau and the many authors of that interim analysis wrote:

“Results: For the intent-to treat (ITT) population (n=331), median OS (mOS) was 23.1 months from surgery. Because of the cross-over trial design, nearly 90% of the ITT population received DCVax-L. For patients with methylated MGMT (n = 131), mOS was 34.7 months from surgery, with a 3-year survival of 46.4%. As of this analysis, 223 patients are ≥ 30 months past their surgery date; 67 of these (30.0%) have lived ≥ 30 months and have a Kaplan-Meier (KM)- derived mOS of 46.5 months. 182 patients are ≥ 36 months past surgery; 44 of these (24.2%) have lived ≥ 36 months and have a KM-derived mOS of 88.2 months. A population of extended survivors (n = 100) with mOS of 40.5 months, not explained by known prognostic factors, will be analyzed further. Only 2.1% of ITT patients (n = 7) had a grade 3 or 4 adverse event that was deemed at least possibly related to the vaccine. Overall adverse events with DCVax were comparable to standard therapy alone.

Conclusions: Addition of DCVax-L to standard therapy is feasible and safe in glioblastoma patients, and may extend survival.”



“Statistical analyses
The study’s primary endpoint is PFS, and the secondary endpoint is OS. PFS has not yet been evaluated for this publication and will be the subject of later analyses to allow for central, multi-factorial assessment by an expert panel, using criteria currently emerging as appropriate for immune therapy in this patient population where progression can be complex to determine and pseudo-progression is a known confounding phenomenon. Analysis of the blinded interim data on OS of the ITT population (using SAS version 9.4) was performed 34 months after the midpoint of patient enrollment, and 16 months after the last patient was enrolled and randomized.

General descriptive statistics include the number of observed values, mean, standard deviation, median, and range values for continuous measures. For categorical variables, the number and percentage of subjects with a specific level of the variable are reported. For survival analyses, Kaplan–Meier (KM) curves were generated, yielding estimates of median survival times, along with the two-sided confidence intervals (95% CIs) and estimates of survival at specific time points.”



You Wrote:

“Dr. Liau chose PFS as the lead efficacy endpoint for the NCI SPORE Keytruda combination trial. She seems ok with it as does NCI and Merck, the leader in oncology treatment revenue having done dozens and dozens of oncology trials.”



That is incorrect. PFS is a secondary measure among many.

First it is important to note that this is a phase I trial for the combination therapy with Keytruda and they are not going to wait another 15 years for OS data to evaluate it before getting this approved. Since the beginning of the very early and long Phase 3 trial, they learned about and gained an understanding of pseudoprogression. That was not the case at the beginning of the Phase 3 just for DCVax. They have since published papers on how to distinguish pseudoprogression and scan for it and they are following an updated protocol that was not available at the start of the DCVax-L phase 3 trial until later during the trial. They can’t undo previous recurrence determinations. They can, with a new trial, adopt new protocols to address a previously identified issue, hence unlike your suggestion that this is now the same notion being replicated so it must not be a problem, the fact is that they have an entirely new array of endpoints, not just PFS, that include many biomarkers, and as I said, they are using the updated protocol to assess for PFS as well. Note that PFS is not the primary measure, they use RANO and for a secondary measure of PFS only after a 6 month period first, using RANO criteria to assure that it’s not pseudoprogression.

Here are the details, links again that you did not provide while misinforming people:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04201873

“Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures :

1. Cell cycle-related signature [ Time Frame: Up to 6 years ]

2. Expansion of T cell receptor (TCR) clones [ Time Frame: Up to 6 years ]Two-sample T-test with Bonferroni adjustment will be used to compare the increase number of expanded TCR clones after dendritic cell (DC) vaccination with PD-1 blockade in Group A versus (vs) DC vaccination with a placebo in Group B.

3. Incidence of adverse events (AEs) [ Time Frame: Up to 30 days post treatment ]Adverse events will be graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0. All patients who receive any amount of pembrolizumab/placebo or ATL-DC vaccination will be evaluable for toxicity, serious adverse events (SAEs), and events of clinical interest (ECIs).

Secondary Outcome Measures:

1. 6 month progression-free survival (PFS6) [ Time Frame: At 6 months ]Efficacy will be measured by percent PFS6 as defined by Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves and median estimates from the KM curves will be provided as appropriate. Percent PFS6 will be estimated from the KM curves and compared to historical controls.

2. Overall survival (OS) [ Time Frame: Up to 6 years ]OS will be compared using log rank test.?

Other Outcome Measures:

1. Biomarker analysis [ Time Frame: Up to 6 years ]The association between biomarkers and clinical outcomes (PFS and OS) will be evaluated using Cox regression. Changes in markers pre- and post- treatment will be assessed using paired t-tests.

2. TIL (tumor infiltrating lymphocyte) density and TCR (T cell receptor) Clonality in the tumor quantitatively measured by next generation TCR sequencing [Time Frame: from baseline to surgery ]The differences of TIL density and TCR Clonality between the archival tumor (pre-treatment) and protocol tumor (post-neoadjuvant treatment) will be assessed using paired T-test, and the association between the changes in TIL density and TCR Clonality and clinical outcome (PFS and OS) will be evaluated using Cox regression.

3. TIL density and TCR Clonality in the peripheral blood quantitatively measured by next generation TCR sequencing [ Time Frame: from baseline to surgery and post surgery treatment period, up to 24 months ]The changes of TIL density and TCR Clonality in the peripheral blood from samples collected prior to neoadjuvant treatment and samples collected post-neoadjuvant treatment at each MRI visit will be assessed using paired T-test, and the association between the changes in TIL density and TCR Clonality and clinical outcome (PFS and OS) will be evaluated using Cox regression.

4. gene expression signature and somatic mutations in the tumor measured by RNA Seq and nano string IO360 [ Time Frame: from baseline to surgery ]The differences of gene expression signature and somatic mutations between the archival tumor (collected pre-treatment) and protocol tumor (collected post-neoadjuvant treatment) will be assessed using paired T-test, and the association between the changes in the cell cycle related gene expression signature and clinical outcome (PFS and OS) will be evaluated using Cox regression.

5. gene expression signature from peripheral blood measured by RNA seq and nano string IO360 [ Time Frame: from baseline to surgery and post surgery treatment period, up to 24 months ]The changes of gene expression signature in the peripheral blood from samples collected prior to neoadjuvant treatment and samples collected post-neoadjuvant treatment at each MRI visit will be assessed using paired T-test, and the association between the changes in gene expression signature and clinical outcome (PFS and OS) will be evaluated using Cox regression.

6. T cell subset and activation markers within peripheral blood measured by flow cytometry [ Time Frame: from baseline to surgery and post surgery treatment period, up to 24 months ]The changes of T cell subset and activation markers in the peripheral blood from samples collected prior to neoadjuvant treatment and samples collected post-neoadjuvant treatment at each MRI visit will be assessed using paired T-test, and the association between the changes in T cell subset/activation markers and clinical outcome (PFS and OS) will be evaluated using Cox regression.

7. TIL quantification including tumor quantification of PD-1, PD-L1, CD3, CD4, CD8, Iba-I, Ki-67 measured by immunohistochemistry of FFPE tissue [ Time Frame: from baseline to surgery ]The differences of PD-1, PD-L1, CD3, CD4, CD8, Iba-I, Ki-67 protein expression level between the archival tumor (collected pre-treatment) and protocol tumor (collected post-neoadjuvant treatment) will be assessed using paired T-test, and the association between the changes in the protein expression level and clinical outcome (PFS and OS) will be evaluated using Cox regression.”



You wrote:

“FDA accepts PFS as one of the 6 tumor cancer endpoints for approval consideration. If you reviewed any of the ASCO clinical data presentations many used PFS. Dismiss it all you want. but PFS is a valid endpoint -- except if you are NWBO and you fail to meet you primary endpoint."



True. PFS is a surrogate measure to predict early if there will be an improvement in survival and with accelerated trials often companies pledge to confirm with a subsequent trial that the PFS was not pseudoresponse and indeed extended survival. In this case, the company kept the trial going for a very long term and rather than using a surrogate measure to predict survival, they actually measured survival. Period. End of story.

You wrote:

“And NWBO has repeatedly reported that the naive OS data was confounded which raises questions as to the validity of the data It is certainly not "gold standard" when the data is confounded. Don't hear NWBO report that in their TLD presentation did you?? It's just buried on page 16 of their SEC 10K filing.”



No, Survival data is not “confounded” their placebo arm was problematic with the crossover feature with almost 90% of the patients choosing to get the drug to survive longer. Additionally, PFS was problematic given the pseudoprogression. No one is questioning how long people survived. That data is not in question in any way. Your post provides a false light impression. No one can fake how long people actually survive. Survival IS survival. Period. It’s a real end point according to the FDA, not a surrogate endpoint. It is the preferred endpoint for the regulators because survival is a definite thing when actually measured.
icon url

SkyLimit2022

09/15/22 5:38 PM

#514217 RE: HyGro #514180

Thank you repeating this important point once again. There is a lot of confusion about OS vs PFS and your repetitive posts present the opportunity to clear up the facts. OS is the gold standard.

Please research to verify for yourself that PFS is a surrogate for OS and only used because its data is accessible sooner than OS. When and if OS is reached, OS data either confirms or disproves the accuracy of PFS as a surrogate and as a PREDICTOR of survival. OS naturally became a “hard endpoint” for the P3 as the trial spanned so many years.

“OS is the "gold standard" for measuring the clinical benefits of a cancer drug. The global trial has also reached the secondary endpoint of OS in recurrent GBM with statistical significance.”

“The ultimate goal of all oncology drugs is to improve patient-centered endpoints. These 'hard' endpoints, which are intrinsically valuable to patients, are increased overall survival (OS), improved quality of life (QoL), or both. However, by many drugs are approved or used based solely on their ability to improve surrogate endpoints; outcomes that are not inherently meaningful, but aim to predict hard outcomes.”

“In oncology, the most commonly used surrogates are response rate; a set of criteria characterizing tumor shrinkage; and time to event endpoints, such as progression-free survival (PFS)”

Overall survival is the gold standard and remains the definitive end point in cancer clinical trials.

Quite simply:

You cannot mistake
the dead for the living.
That is why OS is the
gold standard

https://virtualtrials.org/dcvax.cfm

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/keyoumars-ashkan

https://soc-neuro-onc.org/