Direct's relative value interpretation:
The real answer is somewhere in between. A lot of the guesses about how valuable it would be if successful come from just comparing the cancer incidence rates between the trial indications for direct, and incidence rates for gbm. However, this can be somewhat misleading. For example, total colorectal cancer incidence is over 10 times that of GBM, but due to more proactive screening, it is often caught in stages earlier than 4 where prognosis is [relatively] great, and even when it is stage 4 (as gbm), more options are available and survival prognosis is (somewhat) better. Also, since we're talking specifically about Direct, remember that it's often operable (another reason not to include the entire patient population in direct's market potential). Total (all stages, operable or inoperable) colorectal incidence in both sexes of all races is fourth behind prostate (thanks to males) breast (thanks largely to females), and lung (thanks largely to smokers and environmental hazards). Much further down the list we have pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer is 'only' about three times as common as GBM. However, very much unlike colorectal and lung cancer, there's practically no [meaningful] treatment option and the prognosis is a rapid death sentence (seriously - criminals on death row often get a lot more time than pancreatic cancer patients). So, their population-relative level of desperation for a hypothetically successful dcvax-direct is a little higher than the desperation for dcvax-l amongst gbm patients and a lot higher than the desperation for dcvax-direct amongst colorectal patients. Liver and intrahepatic duct cancer is even less common than pancreatic, but still quite deadly. Those two combined are SLIGHTLY more common and more deadly than the combination of brain and spinal tumors. The point is that when adjusting for prognosis and treatment options, no one of these cancers is quite fully ten times the market of GBM. HOWEVER, we aren't in a trial for one of them, we're in a trial for a bunch of them combined. There's your order of magnitude.
A more convenient way to think about it that partially implicitly adjusts for prognosis and treatment options is to look strictly at death rates. If we ONLY include specifically defined cohorts in the trial, then of the top ten cancers by death rate, dcvax-direct treats numbers 4, 5, and 9 (colorectal, pancreatic, liver). 3 of the top ten from a single product, and that's totally ignoring the trial's "other locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors" which could (but we don't know) cover other top 10. Now, the PR for the start of the trial also mentioned lung and ovarian and neck, even though they did not (at least publicly) guarantee a dedicated cohort for those in the trial protocol. If we include lung and ovarian, and we include esophageal in neck (I think this was intended because other possible neck tumors aren't, relatively, such a operability problem), then it's approximately 6 of the top 10. 1 (lung), 4, 5, 6 (ovarian), 9, and then in tenth place for males esophageal displaces uterine. Ovarian already displaced many others and the death rate from esophageal in males is more than twice that of brain+cns in females (their tenth place), hence my rather sketchy-sounding inclusion of esophageal to reach 6. 6 of the top 10, if (and only if) you include the other inoperable solid tumors 'mentioned' by the company (but not specifically cohorted), and we're still excluding that "other locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors" catch-all.
That, my friend, is your order of magnitude.
Also, the fully-diluted share count is more like 65m than 61m. Still a very tiny market cap, just wanted to get us on the same page.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
