IMO, SIRT will get OS benefit in all 3 trials. The question is will the benefit be large enough? If 4 months extra OS is required to be significant enough for 'win', and the result comes in at 3.8 months then said trial would be a 'fail'.
Then it would come down to is SIRT safer (less AEs), more cost effective ($ oer additional month of OS), is it better toleraated (one hospital visit, compared to ongoing medication) etc etc.
Secondly there is sub group data. With these larger trials the medical folks aare learning more and more and various sub groups will potentially offer very good results. PVT, large main tumor, etc etc.
So, for each trial we have aa binary outcome for the primary result, annd also a number of opportunities even if the top level result is a 'fail'.
Example - In the SARAH trial the OS comes in just under the OS required for a 'win', but for a significant number of pts it may give a very good OS.
The point is, even iff any given trial if a 'fail' there could still be substancial uptick in dose sales due to the other considerations. Clearly an outright 'win' for each of the trials is tyhe preferred outcome as the marketing would be a lot easier than having to 'sell' the benefits based on secondary 'wins'.
IMO, if the resection rate post SIRT is as high as teechnically possible then the top line result should be a no brainer. Unfortunatly oncologists (a good %) have historically been reluctant to resect post SIRT. A shame as one would like to think that highly educated Drs would be able to undersatnd the risk, which is close to zero after a couple of months post SIRT.
SRX Price at posting:
$16.48 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
