The results showed that 16 of 21 (76%) patients showed a statistically significant decrease in the rate of rise of PSA (PSA slope) post-treatment compared with the remaining five patients (p<0.001).
Very peculiar sentence. Are they saying that the 16 of 21 are differentiated from the other 5 of 21 only by their changing PSA slope? Heads I win, tails you lose? (i.e. you just have to test PSA slope twice, know that some patients will have declining PSA slopes, others increasing slopes, divide them in two by that criteria and then look at the difference of the means to get a stat sig trial. COOL!!!)
Normally I'd assume that that was just an error - no one would say something that silly. But no place else in the PR does it explain other differentiating factors.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
