Dendreon Corp fka DNDNQ

[gofishmarko]

>>> How much of the shortfall in log rank p-value and HR is attributable to smaller size? <<<

"Very little. Trial size was only a small contributor."

Clark ,

Can you elaborate on this some ?

Say a large trial achieved the same 3-yr. survival figures as 02A , 32% vs 21%. That's a 52% relative improvement in 3-yr. survival. Surely that would yield high statistical significance at some reasonable trial size , at least by landmark-type tests , no ? If so , and log-rank K-M would fail to yield a similar outcome , then there would seem to be some problem in Statisticsland.

My tendency is to look at the last standing data as being most predictive , and that's the 3-yr. survival rates. 01 and 02B numbers seem to reflect a range that's within the variation expected in small trials , and the integrated figure is what I'd place my bet around for the outcome of a large trial ( 33% vs. 15% , or a 120% relative improvement ). The K-M curve has to get to that 3-yr. point in some manner that makes sense in a larger trial , i.e. , the zigs and zags in the curves will smooth out , and the associated stats will have to make sense as well.

TIA for your comments.