Bageo1- yep exactly! Panco a modest size safety study (and yes...

Bageo1- yep exactly! Panco a modest size safety study (and yes met that endpoint, no argument) which is why it’s so problematic making bold statements about efficacy that go beyond what’s reasonable when it’s still plausible that device adds nothing to best chemo and all the “positive” results could be 100% explained by the chemo used in panco. Agree proper controlled randomised trial needed.

i thought their asco poster was so far the best presentation of panco data in detail and credible but actually there’s more interesting material on OSL company website under the events & presentation section, by a “D Croagh” from 2018 (slides). I tried but couldn’t attach link but it’s freely accessible. I showed this to an oncologist contact recently as it’s pretty detailed and in the feedback two things that caught his attention-

1. The statement in concluding slide that lapc diagnosiis was not confirmed by central review and varied by site. This is pretty subtle but was critical to him because of the accepted “grades” of operability in this cancer meaning that without this standardisation, patients with potentially operable PC may have got into trial when only unresectable were supposed to be allowed. This means that the claim that all those apparently “converted” resected patients had initially “Unresectable” PC may not be accurate.
2. His other concern was Slide 11 which shows results of special scan done to detect radioactivity after insertion of device. SRX uses same type of scan. It appears that almost half of patients treated with osl device (19/42) had tracer activity in intestine. How? The USP of this device is supposed to be that unlike normal radiotherapy this device gives targeted radiation to tumour but these scan results seem to suggest stuff is either missing its target or spilling out of tumour straight after implantation?? Fascinating.