EX, I meant median, not mean. Thanks for the correction.
I did realize that the events would be dynamic and occurring over time. I didn’t want to unnecessarily complicate the description of the progression of events. I think it would be as follows:
Early in the trial there would be a preponderance of Doce events, more than 2:1. Because Bavi generally provides patients with longer survivals. As the trial progresses I would expect a growing number of Bavi events, but there would still be more Doce events than Bavi events. This, again, is because Bavi allows patients longer survival than Doce does. In, say, 24 and 36 months the ratio would be much closer, but not even. Bavi may also produce some complete responses. Some patients might enjoy some old age and grandchildren.
...as the trial progresses there will (hopefully) be more patients at risk in the bavi arm, thus more deaths there than in the placebo arm.”
Quite the statement!
The point of discussion on Opdivo, anti-PD-1, was that it has scarce targets compared to the anti-PS, Bavituximab. I’m sure you understand that, it’s just not coming across, for some reason, in your posts.
“Opdivo was 17 months O/S in the entire population.”
That’s an interesting spin. How about: in the highly restricted “entire” population?