There is a differentiator from your article to what cobra or...

There is a differentiator from your article to what cobra or even propeller is trying to achieve.

with this study they're providing therapy and actually dosing 2 doses wherein they are imaging again after the second dose 4hrs post therapy. So it is inconvenient to image 24hrs after the first scan, because they're already imaging again after the second dose.

so firstly this is therapy, where irrespective of imaging they were going to dose twice, as that is their regiment. What's more important is why didn't the study discuss needing to image 24 hrs after the second dose? If that was the final dose, wouldn't you want to see any relevant tumour burden?

secondly, that may also be redundant, because we know that the therapy works longer than a day in tumours, so it might be more relevant to image when they know the therapy has reached its peak in killing the cancer.

it seems this article was in relation to how well they could determine the cancer free survival by imaging after second and first doses. Determining recurrence of tumour vs imaging immediately post therapy are two completely different scenarios.