CP <<If we get 15/25% MOS improvement then we have good results>>
Don't agree that 15/25% MOS improvement should be considered good result.
You present compelling case why Bavi should work better in first line having healthier patients etc. Your logical arguments make sense, I am just not sure they are applicable for cancer treatment.
One would expect that any chemo lung cancer treatment should work better as a first line treatment for the same reason - healthier patients. I believe, looking at historical trial data, that case cannot be made. Yes, MOS for the first line is generally longer than for the second one, but separation is not better and in some trials it is actually less. From that fact alone one can draw a conclusion that clinical trial results do not always follow common sense arguments, and that's why we have to run them in the first place. The logical reasoning that works so well in hard science is not always applicable to medical science. All this IMO only, I have no medical knowledge.
Back to your 15/25% MOS improvement - In 2nd line Bavi had 100% improvement that was reduced to 60% because of the Fargo incident. Well, if Bavi only works equally well in 1st line we should get at least 60 to 100%, and if your argument about Bavi working better for healthier patients holds any water we should see 100% plus. Yet, after presenting your case fairly well you settle for a measly 15/25% MOS improvement. Please explain.
