InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

meirluc

02/24/23 3:41 PM

#570839 RE: newman2021 #570813

I agree Newman that this German paper is an overall good publication with spot on review of the historical treatment of GBM as well as a very good review of the DCVax-L trial.

However I disagree that it is an endorsement of DCVax-L because the last paragraph is an expression of skepticism that the vaccine works as well as the JAMA publication maintains because in our trial, allegedly more rapid progressors were excluded between the time the patients received chemoradiation and the time DCVax-L treatment was initiated. I believe that to be an erroneous argument because of the virtual equivalent mOS values displayed by the unmethylated GBM treatment patients in the DCVax-L trial and the unmethylated GBM patients in the ECAs.

The article also does not account for the outstanding performance of both the crossover group and the impressive performance of the methylated GBM treatment patients which yielded far better results than the ECAs and cannot be accounted for by a somewhat greater exclusion of rapid progressors, especially since the DCVax-L trial compensated by excluding more pseudoprogressors than did the ECAs.

I also believe that the German article should have included a mention of the preliminary results obtained by the combo trials which together with the results in JAMA remove all doubt as to the efficacy of DCVax-L. I believe that in order to reach the correct conclusion, one should look at all the pictures available rather than render an opinion based on an examination of of each picture separately.
Bullish
Bullish