I certainly believe that the article fits NWBO like a glove, and it's true that Padzur was one of the authors. While Annuls would certainly be a great place to have our publication printed in, I don't believe it's right to ignore NEJM or Lancet unless it's known that this is the one.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that someone indicated that Annuls would permit a substantially larger presentation than the others, if that's true, it may very well be the reason that it's what they're shooting for.
This was a very complex trial to explain, the fewer words you're permitted the tougher it makes the task. It probably would be no problem to explain the trial if you only had to explain how it faired relative to the new SAP, but I doubt if a Journal would be satisfied with that. I think a Journal would want an explanation of why the halt, how the control group was eliminated for the last patients entering the trial after the halt, why the SAP modification was needed. In short, it won't be short, it will be complicated. Perhaps this is why it's taking so long, and why Annuls is the right Journal to publish it in.
Gary
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
