My suggestion is the SOC is producing an unquantifiable number...

My suggestion is the SOC is producing an unquantifiable number of false positives. It achieved a CLR rate of ~86%, but presumably SOT was done on one (maybe the largest) or two lesions. It probably did not do SOT on all lesions detected. So is probably producing false positives not reflected by the 86%. And if these are not detected by Cu64, how can they quantifiably called a false negative in the Cu64 trial?

The false negatives in the phase 3 SOC trial are even more unquantifiable. So obviously it's hard to say from the trial design using the SOC for comparison if Cu64 false positives are just that. From the few examples shown, most appear on the Cu64 Day 1 scan, for which there is no trial or data for SOC....maybe CU6 should have seen this coming...