InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

meirluc

02/24/23 1:55 PM

#570795 RE: drcs #570759

Thanks DRCS, This article is all about the DCVAX-L trial and is an excellent description of the history leading up to the trial.

However, in the last paragraph, some doubt is expressed concerning the results because the claim is made that during the three months between radiochemotherapy and administration of DCVax-L, many patients who had seemingly progressed during that time, were excluded from the trial whereas that type of exclusion was not carried out in the ECAs. That argument in my opinion is false because of the following:

1. That extensive exclusion of rapid progressors in the DCVax-L trial was compensated for by the equally extensive exclusion of pseudoprogressors. Witness the fact that the mOS of the 131 unmethylated GBM treatment patients (40% of the trial) was almost equivalent to the mOS of the unmethylated GBM patients of the ECAs and this shows that the effects of exclusions in the DCVax-L trial ended up on par with the effects of exclusion of the ECAs.

2. The 5.4 months longer post progression survival time of the crossover over group over the post progression survival time of the ECAs ( 13.2 vs 7.8 months, a 69% survival increase), cannot be simply accounted for on the basis of a more orthodox exclusion of rapid progressors especially since the above mentioned orthodox exclusion of the pseudoprogressors also took place.

https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/229940/Glioblastom-Eine-Impfung-gegen-aggressive-Hirntumoren