Not in the way you or HyGro state. There was no cherry picking to statistically create an advantage and it was not post hoc. In fact a third-party, blind to this trial other than the procedures and how it was run and the epidemiology of the disease chose other trials that have similar statistics including for residual disease and partial resection. Total resection is a goal, basically very difficult ti ultimately achieve for this disease.
My answer explained it, you’re just reviving a tired argument by restating it as if you’re saying something new. You’re not.
Thanks for posting your concern with the trial design but the regulatory authorities disagree as they approved a pediatric trial using the same design in addition to 70+ experts in the field disagreeing with the nonsense narrative that is pushed in this post.
Was every patient from the trials used to develop the ECAs included? Want to take a guess as to why or why not? Multiple factors were used to match patients right? Maybe that’s why what you are talking about is not an issue apart from the fact that the ECAs had greater multiples of actual patients being compared and still had no long term patients in almost all categories vs those receiving treatment with L. Beating hearts matter and the JAMA peer review confirmed this rather obvious fact ; ). Best wishes.