Destined to fail, page-36

You're certainly not nuts, cafa!

Having said that, I query the statement I've highlighted above - do you mean clinically significant or statistically significant? From the bible of wikipedia: In statistics, statistical significance (or a statistically significant result) is attained when a p-value is less than the significance level. The p-value is the probability of observing an effect given that the null hypothesis is true whereas the significance or alpha (α) level is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis given that it is true.

So if you have a sample size of 600, 300 of which are the control group, and of the 300 actual patients, only 180 had a different measurable outcome at all, then I don't think you can say with any certainty that it is a statistically significant result for the whole group. It only becomes statistically significant if you can identify a specific subgroup, and say that for this subgroup of 180, 95% (say) had a different result with a mean difference of x over the equivalent control subgroup.

Which I think is exactly what we have with liver-only PFS. We just don't know yet what x is.

btw "Van Heusen" makes shirts, you probably meant "Van Cutsem" This is one of his relevant quotes:
Eric Van Cutsem, a Belgian oncologist whom Sirtex brought to Australia for investor briefings in December, said if the trial significantly improves progression-free survival by some months (about 3) it may be enough to persuade oncologists to consider it worthy as a first-line therapy. If it significantly increases overall survival, which is how long a patient lives and is another measure of the trial, it may be mandated for use by health authorities, Dr Van Cutsem said