I think it is fair to assume two things: 1) The authors would not want to present negative results at the biggest meeting of the year, and 2) the meeting organizers would not add on a presentation of negative results well after the agenda has been set. Beyond that, all assumptions are speculative. We know the study passed through its futility checkpoints. The results lie on the spectrum somewhere between "non-futile" and "very good," but beyond that, we will have to wait until May 4-10. As I said before, they love to make news at these conferences, and newsworthy results are always embargoed prior to the presentation, so I would not be looking for any abstracts or leaks before the date.