Membership Drive Update: In the first 48 hours we've hit almost 20% of our goal. An encouraging start to be sure, but we can't stop now. We need to pull enough subscription revenue forward to counter severe cash flow deficits resulting from a dramatic slow-down in ad spend thanks to the global pandemic which shows no signs of letting up in the near-term. We're doing everything in our power to keep our heads above some very choppy water, but we can't do it alone. We need your help. So if you've ever thought about giving our premium service a try, there's no better time to do it than right now by taking advantage of one of our discounted multi-year plans. Thanks in advance for your continued loyalty & support!
Limited Premium Membership Offer Choose a Plan, Save Money & Help Us Survive the Pandemic
Re: To Any Expert with knowledge of Clinical Trial Analysis
".... but it seems like an OS endpoint will take far too long compared to a PFS endpoint and for a company whose cash runway is measured in months this will matter."
The conventional wisdom is that because OS events take longer to occur, OS analyses require a longer trial. I will point out that in the analyses for the F1 subgroup, the OS analysis had a lower p value than the PFS analysis and I assume they were done concurrently based on a single data lock. Even though the OS had fewer events, the better hazard ratio .62 vs .69 resulted in a lower p value. So perhaps the conventional wisdom is skewed in this case because of the differing responses of patients to MS vs chemo treatment. IMGN will have to look at the underlying data from F1 and decide on which endpoint or combination of endpoints best meets their needs. Longer follow up of F1 patients to see if that survival comparison keeps improving with time may help.
