InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

meirluc

01/05/19 9:17 PM

#206814 RE: Lykiri #206798

Thanks Lykiri, I missed that one and I will have to review Dr. Bosch's presentation later. However that makes things more complicated. The fact that at 3/17, the 2 year survival was 46.2% and at 10/18 it was slightly higher at 46.4% means that the second contingent of the last 108 (probably around 54 patients) who at 3/17 were on trial 18-24 months only had at best a 2 year survival rate of about 48%.

In contrast if the first 223 had a 2 year survival rate of about 40%, the estimated 54 patients who at 3/17 were 24-30 months on trial must have had a phenomenal 2 year survival rate.

If at 3/17 the 2 year survival rate of the first 223 patients is 40% and for 277 or an additional 54 patients it is 46%, the 2 year survival of the 54 patients who at 3/17 were 24-30 months on trial would be a phenomenal 71%.

277 patients X 46% = 12742%
223 patients X 40% =8920%
12742% -8920% =3822%
3822% /54 = 70.8%

of the roughly 54 patients who at 3/17 were 24-30 months on trial only 22 were found alive at 3/17. Therefore the 2 year survival rate of 71% for that group of around 54 is unrealistic. I guess we will have to continue to struggle with the percentages.