Statistics of the Clinical Trials, page-15

Essentially your on the right track nOObs.

The HR estimate of 0.17 suggests there is considerable benefit in terms of OS from Cvac.

But the very wide 95% confidence interval indicates this is a very unreliable estimate. Somewhere between 0.02 (very positive) and 1.44 (a detrimental effect for Cvac).

The reason the estimate is unreliable is because the sample is so small. 20 (10/10) women. This is small because the analysis is based on a sub-group from the main Can-3 trial that failed when women in both first and second remission were analysed together as originally planned.

The bull case is that if the sample was larger then the result would be statistically significant and PRR are well on their way to proving Cvac works.

And it was on the basis of this "compelling" result that months ago PRR started its Phase 2b proof of concept trial in second remission with OS as the primary outcome.

As long term posters here would know I have been negative about the Cvac OS results for ages and remain so. But I’ll spare people my usual diatribe – and briefly summarise why essentially the results are meaningless (imo).

The sub-group analysis was post-hoc and not statistically significant.

The sample is small and there are likely to be baseline differences between the Cvac and standard of care group. No analysis controlling for covariates has been released.

There were two women lost to follow-up in the Cvac group and an argument needs to be made why we shouldn’t assume the worse for them. This argument hasn’t been made – and potentially this can significantly alter the results.

The OS data is diluted over time and simply now reflects cross-over effects – the benefit of new treatments. PRR collected time to next treatment as a secondary outcome but has never released this data.

Now people can believe all this or not – its complicated stuff and difficult to argue with if your not familiar with interpreting results.

But consider if the OS results were truly “compelling” would PRR abandon the proof of concept study? Where significant costs are incurred getting approval, manufacturing geared up and sites recruiting.

Would PRR have purchased Immutep and would it sell a big chunk of the company at cash converter prices knowing these results. The OS data have been known for ages but this hasn't been reflected in the share price – has market has been comatosed at the wheel for months?

I think an alternative hypothesis makes more sense here. Simply that US hedge funds can manipulate the stock prices of small ASX cap companies on the basis of deceptively simple (but in reality very difficult to understand) oncology trial statistics.

But just as Abdm concluded a couple of days ago ... what the share price will do next is anyones guess. And looking at a few posts ... guessing closing prices looks like more fun than fundamentals.