SARAH v SIRveNIB

Just wondering if anyone can explain the anomaly between SARAH and SIRveNIB.

They seem to be studying the same thing, albeit with a different patient population/ethnicity.

SARAH completes recruitment March 2015, expects to report 1H 2017. SIRveNIB completes recruitment Jun 2016, expects to reports 1H 2017.

If OS is the same in both studies, how come one takes 15 months longer to report? Alternatively how can SIRveNIB report so quickly if SARAH hasn't had enough "events" to collate?

Or can we expect the results of the trials to be vastly different?

Or am I missing something entirely?

6186