dcheckers, you are slightly offAll groups receive standard...

dcheckers, you are slightly off

All groups receive standard care.

The non-randomized CVAC group, as the name implies, were not randomly allocated to their intervention group. From a research perspective, that is not considered a valid protocol. This is why they present the results separately.

Proper scientific method requires them to compare those randomly allocated the CVAC treatment, compared to those randomly allocated the control, or in this case, usual standard of care alone. This is why it was presented that way.

They could have provided a PFS stat for the NRCVAC and the CVAC group, that would have been beneficial, because this is still a pilot study, they aren't trying to prove significance, just efficacy. But they are being true to scientific method here in their reporting.

Overall, the results aren't as great as one would hope. in those in the first remission, there doesn't seem to be a great effect. The control group are yet to have enough progressions, while the CVAC group have already reached this endpoint. There seems to be a slightly lower average in time in the trial within the control group, but it doesn't appear that there will be much effect within the first remission group

What is encouraging is the results in the second remission group, which seem rather great. There is already a PFS stat available in the control group, which is very low. While the treatment group has yet to reach this endpoint. when you inspect the numbers, it is likely that this will show a large difference.

Anyway, i think the team need to do some more analysis of their results. They you present them can tell a different story each time, they need to do it in the best way possible.