well actually that's not true. There is info out there and it ain't good. Clearly they ain't going there to say the trial failed but the dat will be bad and they will spin it/ You heard it here first. The ONLY thing you should look at is PR. SD, tumor response orr disease control rate, QOL are all just happyhorseshit. And PR will be bad. You definitely won't be getting PFS or OS data.
Saw the teabag first family was involved in a drunken brawl. I sure wish she was in the White House the dumm quintet tried to say she wasn't there even though there were 50 witnesses. Priceless
Who was right about the h&n trial. I would have saved oncy longs about 300 million in losses. There ain't hardly enough to worry about now but I'll give it to you anyway oncy will eventually go to zero but brad will have a job for another 10 years befor the lights out. Donkeys just don't ever learn even when given new information
Admit it --you are kenny. ESMO? please spare me. If the stock rallies (which I doubt) it may really give me a decent chance to short it for a quick pop. How did you like toe H&N trial? How did you like the way this mgmy group reported --er did NOT report the data?
I'm sorry but your post made me chuckle out loud. My wife even asked me what was so funny. i told her she wouldn't understand. Thanks speenut!
You are just pulling a number out of your #$%$ But hey it's America. You are free to be schtoopid and guess what? it might actually be 25% but not because they got a "better determination". There is no such thing as a "better determination" clown. Even the best radiologists make the same "
mistake" because they both look identical on the scans.
Yup. Some folks just refuse to hear anything that conflicts with their existing beliefs. The data is titillating but not definitive and the smart folks would temper their enthusiasm until more data rolls in
There are a number of studies on pseudo progression here is yet another. The important fact is this--pseudoprogressors live relatively much longer. There are also a number of studies on what percentage of folks are misdiagnosed as progressors, which range from about 17% to 62%--you would be wise to use 40%. One donkey wrote about how it would be hard to have many pseudoprogressors because of "all the doctors" or some gibberish like that.( I think it was buzzcock) The reason there are so many pseudoprogressors is that is extremely hard, perhaps impossible to distinguish between the two on the imaging. It has nothing to do with the skill or the number of the radiologists viewing the images.
A total of 68 patients were included. The overall median survival was 19.9 months (95% CI 15.1-22.5). Median survival in 24 (35.3%) patients with pseudoprogression was 34.7 months (95% CI 20.3-54.1), significantly longer than the 13.4 months (95% CI 11.1-19.5) in 44 (64.7%) patients without pseudoprogression
I'm not talking about "something else"
Whether you understand the foreging or not is irrelevant. They are just the facts from one study. But in an attempt to help you out a bit, Pseudprogressors are in fact NON progressors as well. Why they live longer is up to you to figure out. I have my own idea.
I love you man. Don't ever change. The median in a time variable data set is not reached when 51% of the events have occurred you donkey. But explaining when it occurs would be wasted n a donkey. Why is it hat the stooppidest posters always seem the most anxious to post? Personally I love it when you post but you would be wise to heed your own advice on yap shutting. You just make yourself look like a clown to your intellectual superiors.
Here ya go ------Pseudoprogression group had a median overall survival of 24 months [CI 95% (11.6, 36.4)], not statistically different from the nonprogressive group (). According to RANO criteria, true progressive disease group had a median overall survival of 9 months [95% CI (3.7, 14.3)] and nonprogressive disease group had a median overall survival of 16 months
You can't even read. Pseudo proggressors have a median os of about 27 months. Make that 4 coffees for the dunce klatsch
Make that three for the dunce coffee klatsch. You trying to explain nohope's post is funny stuff. His is a bit nonsensical and ambiguous in spots (as is yours) so who knows what either of you are trying (without success) to say. Nevertheless, the median OS will not change. I wrote as slowly as I could. I'll try again. The median OS will not change. 1 million years from now it will be the same as it is today. And of course you ignore the bigger issue which is this: How many were pseudo progressors at enrollment and how many of those alive are pseudoprogressors
Actually more than half live longer than 14 months. And newer data suggests half will live about 20 months
If you are relying on stupps data for median OS you are going to be disappointed. Newly diagnosed gbm median OS is now about 20 months. You heard it here first
Funny stuff. 30 percent pseudo progressors still skews the data to the right no matter what methodology you use. They contaminate the entire data set It would be like trying to determine the median size of an apple when 40 (or 20) percent of the objects being measured were watermelons. using interquartile methodology would do nothing to cure the right skew error If the data is contaminated, and in the instant case pseudo progrssors are contaminants, no trick will fix it. The reported OS is meaningless and almost certainly overstated as it pertains to the efficacy of dc vax