"Disagree with you on point 4, I don't see any rationale as to why a prolonged liver PFS would have a negative impact at other sites."
Wild1, that was definitely not my contention... I perhaps wasn't clear. The liver PFS is simply a measure of the time it takes for a liver tumour to reach a progressive state and in itself wouldn't impact PFS measures at other sites.
We know every patient that was enrolled in the SIRFLOX study had a liver tumour, and 40% of that population had at least an additional extra-hepatic tumour. If the treatment group had a significant increase in liver only PFS compared to the control group, ie 20.5 vs 12.6, you then have a problem of explaining why the oPFS, ie 10.7 vs 10.2, were the same?
In the scenario that no new tumours are forming during the study period:
~88% of the treatment group (who had an extra tumour) would have had an oPFS reading below 10.7 (based on presentation slides 17+18)
vs
~72% of the control group (who had an extra tumour) would have had an overall PFS reading below 10.2 (as above)
the obvious conclusion is that, if we exclude new tumour formation, then extra-hepatic tumours are progressing at a much faster rate in the SIRT treatment group compared to the control group. Anyway food for thought... It'd be nice if they didn't cherry pick the data.
SRX Price at posting:
$29.20 Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Not Held
