Replies to post #676847 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[norisknorewards]

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Again, clean yourself up, you're disgusting

[Arby2000]

For these and many other reasons, the Neuro Scientific community have stated that the clinical trial data is utterly un interpretable now.

Care to support that with links to sources that are not conflicted, such as NVCR practices in the UK?

[dennisdave]

One of the highlighted published concerns about this trial was the selection of patients, who, due to their favourable histology, resection %, genomic profile, age, tumour siting, performance status etc, had been selected over those with less promising prognosticators.
With those patients having an extended OS with or without the ‘vaccine’.
Moreover, Those with helpful MGMT status, showed a significant reduction in OS for having the vaccine. The latest European study showed that a very large % of this group had a life expectancy of 9.9 years.

If its published professor, then you will have no problem linking to the article where it has been found that this trial was the selection of patients, who, due to their favourable histology, resection %, genomic profile, age, tumour siting, performance status etc, had been selected over those with less promising prognosticators.

Tick tok tikc to Im waiting. Crickets

[sentiment_stocks]

Thank you for your response. I hope that you enjoy your holiday.

I just wanted to quickly make a response to your answer to me.

First… let me state that while I’m sorry that you’ve gone through what you have, please consider how lucky you are that your diagnosis was either incorrect (you never had GBM or an Astrocytoma) or you did, and it’s gone. As an aside, one could wonder if the infection killed off an Astrocytoma that had begun, which, if that was the case (and this is only a hypothetical and probably unlikely) that would make you extremely lucky to have had that infection in the first place.

I do, by the way, believe you live in the UK and that this your perspective as to what happened in your case.

Second… with regards to your comment,

One of the highlighted published concerns about this trial was the selection of patients, who, due to their favourable histology, resection %, genomic profile, age, tumour siting, performance status etc, had been selected over those with less promising prognosticators.

I do believe that almost all GBM trials do select patients with a more favorable profile as most of these trials screened for rapid progression, and this would mean that there was no recurrence by the time they entered the trial, which could mean 3 or 4 months. And with the DCVax-L trial, one couldn’t enter the trial until they had completed the chemo/rad portion of treatment, and did not show evidence of a growth of the returning tumor (at least it had to be under a certain size, which was small).

Moreover, Those with helpful MGMT status, showed a significant reduction in OS for having the vaccine. The latest European study showed that a very large % of this group had a life expectancy of 9.9 years.

I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that MGMT patients fared poorly in the DCVax trial, and what European study showed such a favorable life expectancy (almost 10 years). Regarding the DCVax-L trial, the MGMT meth patients demonstrated a mOS of 30.2 months vs. 21.3 in the external control arm. See the slide from NYAS presentation below:



The MGMT unmethylated (which is what the information you shared us showed you were) didn’t do nearly as well, with the mOS for the ECA showing 14.6 months vs. the DCVax arm showing 14.9. See the slide from NYAS presentation below:



So again, if you did indeed have an unmethylated GBM or Astrocytoma, you are, IMO, very lucky, and if I were you, I'd be thrilled to be alive.

Then you asked where the IDH status was for the trial.

Further, where is the reporting of IDH status. Another important prognosticator in the reclassification of CNS tumours.

The company actually did supply this information in the JAMA paper. They held up the unblinding of the trial to track down the IDH status of all the patients (which held it up for maybe 8 months or more due to this pursuit being right in the middle of the COVID shutdown). You have to look in the supplemental section of the paper to find the breakdown for IDH, which was quite low. There were 3 IDH in the newly diagnosed group, and 3 in the recurrent GBM group. So 6 IDH-1 patients out of 296, or 2%. LINK HERE: Scroll down to eTable 2.Other Baseline Characteristics for the breakdown information.

You indicate that you think that the Neuro Scientific community thinks the DCVax-L clinical trial data utterly uninterpretable, and additionally, that they have moved on. This is, of course, your opinion as there are many indications that instead, many members of that same community are rather excited about the potential approval and hence, availability, of DCVax-L, for their patients.

We’ll have to see how the approval (or not) of DCVax-L works out. Thank you again, for your earlier response.