One of the posters here directed us to look at the blog of a IMUC ICT -107 patient. I went to this gentleman's site and looked at his posted MRI's, starting with the original one showing the tumor. Then I looked at the most recent one with the clinical description" "Brain: At the site of prior resection in the left frontal lobe for glioblastoma, there is benign linear surface enhancement of the dura, scattered T2 signal abnormalities, and diffuse dural thickening. These findings are compatible with surgical/treatment changes. No enhancing lesions to suggest residual or recurrent disease. No evidence of acute abnormality. No mass effect, hemorrhage, or hydrocephalus. Grossly normal flow-related signal in the major intracranial arteries and dural sinuses.
Stable posttreatment changes without evidence of residual or recurrent tumor."
My sister died of Glioblastoma and I know the Docs routinely monitor patients' MRI. What happens if more and more physicians observe the terrific outcome this patient is experiencing? If I were an affluent Neurosurgeon and my patients showed remarkable, never-observed-before tumor regression or disappearance, I know I'd be buying some IMUC stock. Maybe a lot of it. If we observe some sudden updrafts in the stock -- like a couple of days ago -- maybe that's a Doc taking his position? Hmmm.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Did you check, the other chad, google word press. He is the other survivor and he claims that he is getting better. His blog is insightful, there is a age correlation with survival and immune system strength.
I was on the cancer compass website looking for other patients that might be on ICT-107. A girl named Heather told me that her mother was in the trial, diagnosed in July 2011. U of Penn screwed something up and she only got 4 shots. They thought she had a recurrence last year but they were mistaken. She said he mother is doing fine now, 24 months post-diagnosis and is not receiving any treatments at this time. The dr was under the impression that she had gotten the active doses because she had flu-like symptoms after receiving the shots.
It is not uncommon for patients on trial to fall short of receiving full dosage or completing the dosing schedule. This happens for a vast variety of reasons including adverse events, non-compliance, progression, etc. Of course the object is to complete the full dosing regimen and phish is correct that the FDA would be interested in why discontinuation occurred, especially if this was a dose limitation issue. However, tons of cancer treatments have dose limiting issues and this has not precluded their use or approval. In this case, (and this is a huge assumption), the patient may have had severe symptoms, a perceived progression, or another immediate matter that was complicating treatment/quality of life and the physician either thought it best to halt treatment or the patient requested it. Regardless, these symptoms could be a classic immune response and the patient appears to be, at the very least, stable a minimum of 24 months from diagnosis...a great result and just the opposite of a "huge problem", but a successful outcome thus far. It would be interesting to note when treatment with 107 started for this patient and any history if it was posted. Thanks for sharing this patient's story!
Game - a few weeks/months ago I did some deep Internet searching and found a few statements like what you mentioned about the treatments being messed up and I posted a comment about it... I believe this is why the company changed providers part of the way through the trial which concerns me greatly (questions in my mind related to impact on final results and the fda's opinion about this change in regards to a potential P3 - this will make things an up hill battle...)
Doctors are blind to the study And 14-18% survive with no recurrence (5yrs) w/SOC. I doubt all 120+ subjects have blogs. This renders everything incidental, not too much unlike PI results - "compelling" but not statistically so.
The only person with GBM that I know is C-free after 3+ years. He was in a study @ Duke. I believe they used a drug approved only for childhood brain cancer.
I agree with both points (EV and jlwbigd). EV where are you finding the 18% number....0-14% pending age, performance status, treatment, etc are what I am familiar with. I do believe there was a phase II trial with alternative dosing of Temozolamide that may have hit this number, but cannot recall.