it's about the liver, stupid

I was a little surprised some time back to read that the trial enrolled patients with liver or 'liver predominant' metastases.

Obviously, when planning the trials many years ago, some senior people must have considered markets rather than the nature of their intervention, and sought to include a wide patient group and wide disease spectrum. Because that equates to a bigger market. And maybe because the chemo trials probably included this group and these outcomes.

It was a mistake.
Sirspheres are a liver radiation therapy.
They should have restricted its first major trial for liver only MCRC.
Yes, a smaller group, but so what? That's what the treatment targets.
First line for liver only metastasis is very worthwhile.

Why would Sirspheres administered into the liver benefit metastases outside the liver? If you had a small brain, or lung metastasis, why would sirspheres help? Why be judged by that?

The release suggests that cancers outside the liver grew at the same rate regardless of Sirpsheres added to the chemotherapy. But it suggests that metastases within the liver grew more slowly. And that's what Sirspheres targets.

It suggests that the SARAH trial for HCC might be more likely to be positive.

Australian biotech companies are often just too small and inadequate to think this stuff through. And because trials take so long, its hard to revisit. But critical thinking is required.