Both trials were approved by regulators. Optune is a device, so it falls under lower standards for regulation.
The ECA was analyzed statistically and provided by mathematicians and epidemiologists at the highest levels of the profession. They considered all of these factors carefully. There appears to be no actual difference, but the mere suggestion of one can certainly be suggestive. However I trust their work over the claims of anonymous internet voices or even non-epidemiological doctors with conflicts of interest.
All of the trials allowed for total and partial resection and biopsy I won’t argue with because I have not reviewed the details in depth except that I expect that the issue of biopsy was adjusted for and is not tilting the ECA out of favor. I expect it was not a substantial number if any, and/or that it can be statistically addressed. But they clearly considered all of these factors when they chose the relevant studies.
A mountain can be made out of a molehill to advance foolish notions. We see this every day. And we see outright lies presented as truth as well. So I generally know not to take assertions as truths just because someone on the bulletin boards says it over and over again. One needs to be skeptical certainly.
But total and near total resection do not in any way explain the extended survival. It cannot possibly be a factor responsible for this and numerous doctors and papers have expressed this point, that the survival rate is not explained by any other factor possible except that DCVax-L extends survival. Now people with their own motivations can make all kinds of plausible claims about slight benefit because biopsy only patients were not 100% excluded from the other trials, but that is not a reason in any way to reject the incredible survival benefits for not just newly diagnosed patients but also recurrent patients where this issue is irrelevant.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
