[quoteThey understand how real trials are designed and run without changing everything post hoc. You should take note.][/quote]
I have taken note that Chen et al. made no distinction between mOS times
measured from surgery and the mOS times measured from randomization.
Their review stated that the mOS of the entire trial was almost 4 months
longer than the mOS of the treatment group when in fact the difference
was only 0.8 months (mOS from randomization of 20.1 months for the
entire trial vs. 19.3 months for the Treatment group). I am hereby taking
note of the sloppiness of their review.
Furthermore, Chen et al. failed to point out that while the 233 treatment patients
had an mOS that was 2.5 months longer than the mOS of their matched ECAs,
the 92 trial patients that were not treated with DCVax-L right after chemoradiation
had an mOS that was 0.8 months longer than the treatment group apparently because
64 of those 92 patients received DCVax-L after progression. This is especially remarkable
because we know from Dr. Liau's statement that the 29 of those 92 patients who never
received DCVax-L, had an abnormally short mOS and therefore the mOS of the 64 late
(after progression) DCVax-L receivers must have been especially long.
So much for the Chen et al. review = a missed an messed up review opportunity
Bullish