AF says the rebuttal to JAMA is peer-reviewed - that is false, correct?
Another area of this rebuttal article that bears scrutiny. "And what about that presumed ‘noteworthy tails of long-term survival curves’? In the DCVax-L group 15.7% of patients were alive 48 months after randomization, whereas in the pivotal EORTC trial on chemo-irradiation with temozolomide without the stringent favorable prognosis patient selection and patients randomized prior to the start of radiotherapy, this was 12.1%."
www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa043330
If you look a the KM curves in the Stupp NEJM you notice that there are 4 in the "number at risk" at 36 months in the treatment group (radiation + temozolomide), so I'm thinking that 12% was a KM curve estimate. Subsequent studies casts doubt as well.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7348058/#B1
In this publication of Stupp after a decade, they refer to the original result as 10%, not 12%, and show that subsequent studies have shown nowhere near that -- more like 2%.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
