Thank you for finding this. Good read. 1. Regarding dead/alive % the company should be asked for an up to date Kaplan Meier survival curve. That’ll inform immediately how many implanted have died during the study follow up. For those unsure how to read it , every downstep on the curve is an “event” i.e. a death.
2. How was the conclusion of twice as good survival made? Easy. Compare 16 to the 8.5 months obtained with gem + abr. But here’s the catch - they’ve compared two completely different stages /populations that have very different prognoses & survival characteristics anyway and so is not appropriate - LAPC in PanCO and metastatic pc in gem abraxane MPACT (from about 2013/14). It’s known metastatic does worst of all PC stages. Proof? Well exactly the same chemo alone got >18 month survival in LAPC study recently published. This is misleading comparison IMO and like trying to compare across different stages of lung, breast or bowel cancer. There own literature analysis in LAPC they presented to bsi showed if I recall about 13 month survival. Twice as good should have got them 26 months, not 16. I note I’m not the first person on this forum to raise this and other similar issues of data representation. there is nothing wrong with the PanCO study, but misrepresenting results like this is disappointing to see IMHO.
OSL Price at posting:
11.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)