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.
(20min delay)