Biotech Values

[Summer2762]

ARQL

I'm still struggling to follow. If MET low covers no MET as well that just bolsters the argument to me that MET matters as we know the consistent OS benefit for MET high patients versus the other sub-groups.

I agree that MET matters and there might be consistent OS benefit for MET high patients versus the other sub-groups. However, see below.

You said before that MET low covers no MET as well so a bit confused here. Are you suggesting something else, such as there would have been a chunk of MET high and MET low patients in this group or is this strictly a no MET group?

The first, i.e., this group will also have MET high and MET low patients.

One apparent reason why certain patients were not evaluable was because the co decided to collect samples to evaluate the MET status later in the trial. So a good portion (1/4? 1/2? all?) of the 600 patients in this group would have no corresponding samples.

Were there other reasons (e.g., certain regions or certain hospitals could not collect samples?) I dont know. Did the tests fail for certain samples/patients? I dont know.

However, (which is my whole point), there might be a reason (other than pure extreme chance) why this last group (patients who were not evaluable for MET status) fared the worst.