InvestorsHub Logo

flipper44

03/30/24 4:08 PM

#682293 RE: flipper44 #682286

Excuse me: Same point, but DCVax-l with significant residual disease (10.6% at risk) uncharacteristically (but logically) essentially tied DC-Vax-l with minimal residual disease (10.9% at risk) regarding five year survival.

That disproves Ex’s point.

Note:

Remember, the easy tumors to remove are not the ones DCVax-l works best on. Instead, mesenchymal tumors are more infiltrative and tend to jut out in various places. This is probably why you still see many partial resections in the DCVax-l trial. — flipper

skitahoe

03/30/24 4:54 PM

#682298 RE: flipper44 #682286

Flipper, I wish we could simply ignore the data from the Phase 3 trial and realize what will be achieved once Drs. understand what can be achieved by adding Poly-ICLC and/or Keytruda. The improvement to 50% or more living 5 years of longer is undeniable, and I can't believe the regulators aren't completely aware of it as well.

I really don't believe that insurance companies will fight to not add these treatments as off label when evidence of the benefits are clear. That shouldn't require much more than what UCLA has already done, and perhaps some anecdotal data from the UK and Germany. I really don't know if Dr. Ashkan will ever put together a summary of all patients treated under compassionate use, all the different kinds of cancer, and what other therapeutics were added, but if he does, I believe it would be quite a presentation. I've seen posters thinking perhaps 1000 patients have been treated this way, but have no idea how true that is. I do believe that many cancers, beyond brain cancers, have been added to the collection of cancers that have been treated, the tumor agnostic label shouldn't be that hard to achieve if the data's as good as we think.

Gary
Bullish
Bullish