"What we, and CLSN management, are rerferring to is statistics for LARGE tumors. You made the same silly argument Adam F made. You're both dead wrong."
*sigh*
1) So now you are speaking for CSLN mgmt.
2) Is that the royal we? Or who else are you speaking for?
3) My claim wrt management is simply that when they address the placebo patient population that is exactly what they are doing - talking about ALL the placebo patients, globally, in HEAT. So when they say they expect 12 months PFS from this group, they are NOT singling out the patients who will event from local progression. Otherwise every time they said it, every analyst on the calls would immediately ask, "well what do you expect from distant mets?" Contrary to your assertations that distant has been somehow missed, that question has been asked quite a few times.
4) Keep in mind for LARGE tumors (5-7cm) they still have to qualify for RFA being the correct initial treatment. This means a "perfect" patient elsewise - not near veins, probably 0 or 1 other tumors, etc. So a large tumor patient in HEAT probably will not have the terrible prognosis as the typical large-tumor patient in the regular world.
5) Please don't lump me in with AF.
6) I'd love to be wrong if it means you are right. The ONLY way I see you being correct though is if we have an abnormally large number of incomplete second ablations, meaning there's > ~15% of placebo patients who show a PFS = 0. And that will have its own set of problems if we go in front of the FDA with a large set of patients who did not go thru a complete ablation.
Again, I'm calling for about 14v24, with probably a month wrong either side.
Please tell me exactly what you are predicting, then?
