First, let me say thanks to everyone for contributing. I pretty much got what I wanted: some enlightened discourse on an issue that was bugging me.
"THANKS!"
I am reassured. The thread consensus is pretty much what I came up with on my own, but other biofreaks have much better background than I, so I was looking for confirmation. Miljenko's contention seemed to contradict everything I could find in the literature, as well as the implications of the sheer length of the STELLAR 3 trial. But again, Miljenko knows his stuff, has saved me from a bad decision on a cancer drug at least once, etc. . . . I wanted some second opinons.
One possibility that seems pretty unlikely is that the length of the trial is extended because the the comparator drug is working way better than XYOTAX, as well as way better than it historically has (rather than XYOTAX working better). Unless the enrollment criteria were just completely flouted at the majority of sites, I don't see any sensible reason for that, but it's the only way I can see for Miljenko's assertions to hold up. I'm going to assume Miljenko was operating on some combination of old data, flawed memory, and missing notes, and hold on to my remaining shares.
Thanks again, everybody! You, too, Erik, for bringing this one back to our attention at a good time.
Cheers, Tuck |
