Slide 4: Wrong group of patients- 8.5 months survival is for...

Slide 4: Wrong group of patients- 8.5 months survival is for metastatic PC, not LAPC (non-metastatic) which is the device’s approved indication. 8.5 months inconsistent with the much better current survival rates seen in lapc as a number of other posters have pointed out before.
Slide 5: Six clinical studies completed but no evidence for what these 6 are or when done
Slide 6: doubling survival claim misleading - refer slide 4, again erroneously comparing two different stages of pc , And the 8 month claim referenced to Loerher isn’t accurate either - that study is from almost a decade ago with rather outdated treatment and had results of 9-11 months, not 8. So slide 6 wrong on two counts.
slide 6: “majority still alive” apparently but no evidence provided to substantiate this. It’s their trial database so why not take opportunity to update the 16 months survival from a year ago- unless that’s because it hasn’t changed?
slide 7: survival without surgery of 9 months referenced to Hammel. Erroneous as that trial in lapc showed survivals around 16 months with standard radiation and older chemo.
slide 7: claim to have tripled resection from 7 to 23.8%. Referenced to an abstract in press but inconsistent with much better resection rates seen in recent studies of best chemotherapy.
slide 8: claims to shrink tumour with oncosil but chemo does that (lapact trial of gem + abraxane in lapc published in Lancet) had objective response around 34% which implies over a third had tumour shrinkage at least 30% in diameter (which means significant tumour volume shrinkage too) with the chemo.
slide 8: claims to reduce pain but no evidence provided

other than that, a great deck! GLTAH.