Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. Message Board

  • discoduck33 discoduck33 Nov 7, 2012 3:18 PM Flag

    We still don't have 32 dead GBM patients

    Maybe ICT-107 is working.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • So, I did some calculations on an Excel Spreadsheet to figure out the number of control deaths per month, and the total number of deaths if ICT-107 worked no differently than the control group. I used interpolation of the numbers provided on the company website. They are:

      Number of patients enrolled (added each month):
      Jan 2011 - 3 (3)
      Feb 2011 - 6 (3)
      Mar 2011 - 9 (3)
      Apr 2011 -12 (3)
      May 2011 - 15 (3)
      June 2011- 20 (5)
      July 2011 - 25 (5)
      Aug 2011 - 35 (10)
      Sep 2011 - 52 (17)
      Oct 2011 - 65 (13)
      Nov 2011 - 84 (19)
      Dec 2011 - 100 (16)
      Jan 2012 - 124 (24)
      Feb 2012 - 148 (24)
      Mar 2012 - 166 (18)
      Apr 2012 - 185 (19)
      May 2012 - 215 (30)
      Jun 2012 - 240 (25)
      Jul 2012 - 262 (22)
      Aug 2012 - 278 (16)

      Mortality rates per month for SOC (interpolated):
      4 months 7.00%
      5 months 10.00%
      6 months 13.00%
      7 months 16.00%
      8 months 19.00%
      9 months 22.00%
      10 months 25.00%
      11 months 31.00%
      12 months 37.00%
      13 months 43.00%
      14 months 48.00%
      15 months 53.00%
      16 months 58.00%
      17 months 61.00%
      18 months 64.00%
      19 months 66.00%
      20 months 68.00%
      21 months 70.00%
      22 months 72.00%
      23 months 74.00%
      24 months 76.00%
      25 months 78.00%
      26 months 80.00%
      27 months 81.00%
      28 months 82.00%
      29 months 83.00%
      30 months 84.00%

      Assume 48% of patients enrolled are treated up to the maximum of 123. Then, calculate the total number of control deaths each month and the number of total deaths if ICT-107 worked no differently then the control. The numbers are at the end of each month:

      Month Number of Deceased Control Total Deceased if ICT-107 worked no differently than control
      05/11 0.0336 0.1008
      06/11 0.0816 0.2448
      07/11 0.144 0.432
      08/11 0.2208 0.6624
      09/11 0.312 0.936
      10/11 0.44 1.32
      11/11 0.592 1.776
      12/11 0.8384 2.5152
      01/12 1.2256 3.6768
      02/12 1.4576 4.3728
      03/12 2.2416 6.7248
      04/12 2.8864 8.6592
      05/12 3.7168 11.1504
      06/12 4.3792 13.1376
      07/12 5.7088 17.1264
      08/12 6.9024 20.7072
      09/12 8.3504 25.0512
      10/12 9.9472 29.8416
      11/12 11.6592 34.9776
      12/12 13.4832 40.4496
      01/13 15.2496 45.7488
      02/13 17.0144 51.0432
      03/13 18.7744 56.3232
      04/13 20.5472 61.6416
      05/13 22.3344 67.0032

      According to the numbers posted on my spreadsheet, if the control patients in this trial had the standard mortality rates, and ICT-107 functioned no differently, we would have had 32 deaths 3-4 days ago. Each month that we don't get 32 deaths, about 2 more control patients should die, meaning 2 less ICT-107 patients have died. You can simply subtract the number of diseased control to find the number the number of deceased ICT-107 patients if interim results were posted at that time. By the end of this month, if ICT-107 functioned no differently and the control patients had standard mortality rates, we would have 34.9776 deceased at the end of this month, 40.4496 at the end of the new year, etc. etc.

      I thought this might be helpful.

    • but there is no reason to think it is working any better for the test group than the control group.

      • 2 Replies to al2o3
      • actually there are reasons in my view. GBM has unfortunately a very fast fatal impact on those unfortunate to be afflicted with it. this is not a vague or slow acting cancer. it is highly likely that the control group is experiencing normal sad events at the normal rate. therefore, the longer we go where there are not enough deaths to complete the trial, then the higher the likelihood that IMUC's brew of antigens is helping again as their brew helped an unusually good percentage of the first 16 patients who got it originally.

      • I'm not so sure about that. To say that, you are basically saying that if every single one of these patients was a control patient, that 32 of them wouldn't be dead by today. That's a tough call. From looking at the enrollment graph, I'm thinking that there is a good chance that you would have had 32 dead patients by now.

    • Weren't you on the stsi/cigx MB? Yeah apparently, this sends terminal patients to the recovery room. I just bought some at 1.83

      • 1 Reply to gmeabrk
      • No, I never had those stocks and never posted there unless someone hacked my account without my knowledge. But yeah, the point is, it either works or it doesn't. One third of the patients are control patients so we definitely have some dead patients. I mean if you have this disease, you have to die. But we still don't have 32 dead patients and it would seem unlikely that a whole bunch of patients with one of the most deadly cancers all the sudden don't die unless the patients are being given something to prolong their lives. The enrollment graph is available for viewing on the company webpage, under investors, under presentations, on the October pitchbook.

 
IMUC
0.41+0.01(+2.50%)Aug 28 4:01 PMEDT