Yeah it really sticks in their craw that I told them what was going to happen using facts and reasonable assumptions. Ah well fools and their money are soon parted.
As I pointed out to the cheerleaders on this board, there is no such thing as "indeterminate" in the real world. You are either psPD or true rapid progressor (at least in this cohort). I'm guessing that almost all of the patients had more than 2 scans, and a third scan of the indeterminate group would settle the matter. Which begs the question, why didn't they just look at a third scan and provide complete data? and also do they have more complete data which they haven't reported. Once again it's an info arm so they can disclose pretty much what they want, when they want, if they want.
Additionally, the mere fact of an indeterminate cohort tell you something. It speaks to the difficulty of making a proper clinical determination based on MRI's in GBM patients. After all they had two and sometimes 3 radiologists look at the scans and still could not determine whether they we psPD or rapid.
BTW I have seen median OS for rapid as long as 12 months and psPD of 37 (posted elsewhere) so the results are hardly spectacular.
The sign of a dimwit is to reject anything that does not comport with his preconceived notions. Mindless cheerleaders do more damage to you that informed skeptics. Good luck.
Nwbo could have determined whether the indeterminates were rapid or pseudo. One more scan would have done it At that point all patients would be definiitively diagnosed. Not faulting them, after all it is just an info arm. Still you have to wonder. Btw Linda was taking liberties with her " sickest of the sick" comment. Pseudo progressor median is higher than it is for those who are SD or PR at first scan.
We can leave it at that. I think 3 is the better number but if you want it to be 5 to bolster your argument - fine. But 38 months is another egregious error. There are only 2 people in the entire study that, to date, have lived longer than 38 months. How you think this could be a median is beyond me? Maybe you meant 28, which would close. Never said 26 was hard and fast. Either way if you buy into the study that says pseudo median OS is 3t months the results look very bad and if you like the study that has it at 24 the results are - meh which is all I have been saying all along.
"There is simply no valid way to reclassify after the fact like you are trying to do."
Well of course there is. And I concede it is not definitive but it is certainly valid --that's why we have a word called "estimate" And we estimate every day. It helps if you use sound assumptions, (unlike most on this board) drawn from real life data (as I did) An argument can be made that the reported results are invalid because they don't include known mortality data from 5 trial participants. The fact that NWBO didn't classify doesn't mean you can't estimate what the effect of the known data would be if they were placed in each cohort. And it is sound to assume that the lower mortality are rapid because there is at least a 14 MONTH difference in OS between the 2 groups. Is it possible that they were pseudo ? Yes but that's not the way to bet (or model) it. Measuring the effect of those 5 on the median OS results based on sound estimates is more than valid. - it is essential if you are trying to truly understand the data.
And if you want to just lump everything together and look at the median OS for pseudo and rapid-- 18.3 months is not particularly exciting. In fact its right on the screws if you use 10 months OS for rapid and 24 for pseudo (indeterminate)
Your calks are off. there is only 1 survivor in the unclaasifieds If you cherry pick the two longest you get n-27 and the pseudo makes 28. There are only 11 living patients The median has been reached. Even if you take out my estimate of 3-5 of the pseudos as rapid, the median is still reached and becomes about 26 months as I stated earlier. Only if assume away more than 5 indeterminate do you get a an N that hasn't reached the median. Thats a fact.
huuuuuh? Yes you could have a new lesion in which case your "double" is nominally correct As long as you're imagining things why stop at one? Could be a quadruple. But of course it's all in your imagination since you have no breakdown of how many were second lesion vs 25% growth. But is it s a fact that 25% growth twice - is not a double. Depending on how the 25% growth was calculated It's either 50%.or 56.25% of the baseline scan.
And for a second time for the short bus crowd, you cannot determine, from the way NWBO wrote the poster whether the 25% increase on the second scan is measured from the baseline or the first post op scan. I know you don't understand the ambiguity but it is there.
should read OR the scan after the baseline (the first scan)
duuuuude Made me laugh out loud doubling down on schtoopid. How many mistake can you make where there is no number larger than 2? There is an ambiguity in NWBO's language0 you won't spot iy. It's not clear whether the second additional increase is compared to the baseline of the first scan each is equally plausible. If its compounded by referencing the first scan you make 2 mistake if compared to baseline scan you only make one that a fith grader would not make 25% and 25% i snot a double jesssssus man its 50% If its compounded that math is still simple
1x 1.25= 1,25 Ya with me so far?
1.25 x 1.25= 1.5625 or about a 56% increase either way donk its not a double.
I read your post and the mediana patient has been reached if you take out as many #$%$ from the from the indeterminate group an dive them to rapid. My estimate of remaining g rapid in the indeterminate cohort is 3-5 tops for all the (sound) reasons set forth elsewhere. How'd you like the study showing pseudo median OS is 37 months?
Once again keeping your perfect record of bad logic and erroneous statements. There is ZERO evidence that L is responsible for any increase or decrease in longevity. But you won't understand that. If they are responding better at all, they might be responding better to Temozolmide or radiation. It's a common mistake. The ONLY way to determine the effect of L is via double blinded trial of sufficient power
That is funny stuff. If you knew anything about the percentage of pseudo vs rapid you would'n look so much like a fool by believe that there is only 1 pseudo patient. OH and BTW 2, 25% pct increases is not a double. Now I know why some folks vote GOP--they just can't think.
Well sport the second group is "indeterminate" -- I suggest you look up the meaning. Under your "logic" the indeterminate group is 100% pseudo. Fine. Run with that. It's almost certainly not true. But so what? Whatever gets you through the night.
Didn't change the data. As a matter of empirical fact, it is NWBO who altered the data by excluding people from their results. Don't bother telling me that they couldn't include them, but that is the point. You CAN include them and make reasoned estimates about them. Well not you, but some folks.
Did it occur to you that you are trying to make a point by proposing inaccurate and irrelevant data? Magical screening methods . That's new one.
Sorry. It isn't sound to assume the REMAINING cohort is distributed along historical lines. The original N is 55. The indeterminate group has been culled, which has the effect of "enriching the pseudos in the remaining cohort. It is no longer a group you would find in a random sample. This fact seems to elude you. But feel free to estimate however you want.
As far as longevity, you make an argument that may be true but is very unlikely ( I could flip a coin 100 times and all come up heads!!!) given the known differences in median OS . So once again, feel free to make bad estimates.