Destined to fail, page-24

OK, I'll try again. And I'm looking for some educated responses that may add value to the Q.

A) If the 60% of liver only mCRC had a PFS of 6 months more than the standard care arm, then that would have put the whole population at at least 3 months PFS, as a mean (?) and probably achieved the Overall PFS result we had hoped for.

B) I assume that a 3 months overall PFS would have been statistically significant ?

C) If assertions A & B are correct then this would suggest that the liver only sub group had a PFS of less than say 5 months more than standard care.

D) I assume that the PFS result for the liver only sub group was over 3 months, as per the ANN.

E) So my logic, warped as it may be, is that the liver only sub group achieved somewhere between 3 months and 5 months advantage over standard of care.

F) the Overall PFS may have been anything from zero to just under 3 months.

G) the closer it is to 3 months then the easier it becomes to market for 1st line use as a general treatment for 1st line.

H) even if the result is closer zero for overall PFS advantage then the secondary result opens up the use for 1st line treatment for an addition 40,000 cases a year in the US alone (my best educated guess).

I'd like any views that can support, OR blow any of the above out of the water as I really am trying to get my head around all of this. If A is an incorrect assertion then probably the rest is very iffy.

I'd particularly like to hear from any stats dudes reading this tread that could give us some export view?

If it's all fairy dust, then so be it but I'd like to know why.

Thanks in advance.