“The overall survival hazard ratio for the 252 adenocarcinoma patients is 0.82, which translates into an 18 percent reduction in the risk of death. Median overall survival for ganetespib/docetaxel was 9.8 months compared to 7.4 months for docetaxel….The result was not statistically significant…”
NOTE: the writer concludes this segment of the results was NOT statistically significant, True.
“ [From the subset of 176 "normal progressors]…The latest overall survival hazard ratio is 0.61, or a 39 percent reduction in the risk of death. At the median, ganetespib/docetaxale increased overall survival by 4.3 months over docetaxel alone (10.7 months versus 6.4 months.)…”
NOTE the writer fails to mention that this segment of results was VERY, repeat VERY statistically significant..See the end of the chart in SNTA’s press release:
Adjusted “P” values (measure of how statistically significant and the lower the number the better.) using SNTA’s drug in this segment of the results were: p=0.0075.
Anything below P = 0.0500 is statistically significant.
P = 0.0075 is a HOME RUN
The market is reflecting the acceptance of this mendacity. Unrefuted by SNTA as fact.
Hard to believe that a less than significant writer and bio "expert" could have such a negative impact on seemingly very good data. The boys better hit it out of the park during their presentation and conference call or even Bruce might be a tad less than happy.
How could this nonsense happen all over again, after seemingly positive headlines and supporting data?