They didn't satisfy the requirements for an actual study. My undestanding is that they tried to compare results from two existing studies, and the pannel wouldn't accept that.
edit - because I'm bad at explaining things:
" Enrollment issues associated with the pivotal trial for the Ablatherm device forced the sponsor to make use of a post-hoc analysis assembled prior to completion of the trial, but the panelists largely brushed aside what some said was a reasonable safety record in an 8-0 vote that the benefits do not outweigh the risks. "
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
