Why didn't the meta-analysis dissect the trials based on whether it was gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus abraxane?
The inclusion of gemcitabine only trials end up diluting the pool of comparative trials.
According to the poster, there were 10 comparator trials in the meta-analysis with an equal or higher survival benefit and 44 with a lesser effect (I've already shown above that some of these trials included a high proportion of patients with metastatic cancer). Of these 10, a majority are recent and/or use gem+abr or a combination/subset of FOLFIRINOX.
For whatever reason, the meta-analysis also excludes very recent reports cracking the OS barrier of 20 months plus.
"And yeah- the second poster- that's not an update. During capital raise OSL hinted to market they expected survival to be "even longer" than 16m, so why didn't they provide updated results in this poster?"
Long ago, I pointed to the fact that even with updated results, the mOS number will not change... it's basic statistics.
PS. Please don't play Abba on our next holiday
(20min delay)