Ann: OncoSil AGM CEO Presentation, page-59

Suzuki to address your concerns.

(1) Adverse events:
Panco reported AEs of grade 3 of higher at 82% of treatment population.
LAPACT reported AEs of grade 3 of higher at 85% of treatment population.
In other words no difference given the sample sizes.
Statistically speaking, had Panco recruited one more patient and that patient had an AE of grade 3+ (82% a priori chance) then the above figures would be identical.

Below is table showing all AEs as a percentage of TT for LAPACT (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT02301143?view=results) and Panco (https://www.oncosil.com.au/static/uploads/files/ross-p-2019-asco-abs-4125-wfsuengtkvvu.pdf) poster.

		LAPACT	PANCO
1	Anaemia	46	30
2	Neutropenia	42	46
3	Throbocytopenia	25	26
4	Abdominal pain	18	54
5	Constipation	30	48
6	Diarrhoea	45	60
7	Nausea	44	60
8	Vomiting	28	34
9	Fatigue	50	78
10	Perpheral Oedema	44	50
11	Pyrexia	38	34
12	Weight Loss	11	28
13	Decreased Appetite	43	38
14	Hypokalaemia	13	20
15	Peripheral Neuropathy	28	36
16	Alopecia	54	42
17	Rash	8	26
18
19	AVERAGE	33	42

So I do not agree with your assessment that patients tolerate gem+abr+ oncosil better. In fact, the evidence (if anything - noting that the Panco column includes AEs for oncosil+FOLFIRINOX) is suggesting that patients found gem+abr more tolerable.