But the Overall Survival was not better - what does that say about PSA progression in terms of OS
Gus
But the Overall Survival was not better - what does that say about PSA progression in terms of OS
Gus
Gus,
I don't know the answer to your question but I suspect that it would be necessary to read the full article to get the full story. It's possible, for example, that one or more of the trials did not last long enough for a statistically significant number of participants to have died. If so, then PSA progression might have been a better measure to use in comparing the trial outcomes. I would think that in that case, instead of reporting "no significant difference in OS", they would have reported something like "insufficient data to report OS comparisons", but maybe they didn't do that.
Another possibility could be that one of the treatments suppresses PSA more than another, but doesn't kill any more prostate cells or retard growth any more.
Still another possibility is that, because patients were not randomized to the four treatments that were compared, the studies were not really as comparable as the authors hoped they would be.
I believe that these kinds of studies are better than nothing and are vastly cheaper to perform and easier for a professor to produce, but they are a lot less valuable than real clinical trials that directly compare treatments.
Alan
Does that leave gator blood as the best option?