For my part, I’ve never thought the Col’s theory had merit. It never was indicated that patients would be sorted in such a manner in any of the leaked protocols, either.
First of all I believe the patients that had dismal OS were the ones who declined rapidly and never crossed over or had second resections and did more poorly on crossover than those that did not. I believe these groups skewed mOS downward but that late pseudos that received treatment and were likely sensors pushed it back up again as did the true progression patients that crossed over as the data we have seen indicates. Dr. Linda Liau would be careful not to comment about data that could not be included in the final analysis and late pseudo crossovers are part of those not included in my opinion. I do believe early progressors could have been part of the data if late pseudos had never received DCVax-L before true progression. As it stands, both groups had to be eliminated so as not to skew the data from those that could be given a fair comparison with ECAs. I believe GermanCol made a good attempt to get the numbers figured out with what there is to work with. Best wishes.
I think those patients that Dr. Liau mentioned are part of the 17 that didn't cross over (not part of the 18 censors that crossed over and received DCVax after pseudoprogression or whose time of progression was not well established in order to be included in the 64 rGBM arm). And most of them didn't cross over because they very sick or died without crossing over.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
