"survival" is the wrong word; its terminal. honestly the drugs and chemo and treatments they put pancreatic patients through for possibly a few more (not very nice) weeks is almost criminal. a good doctor will tell you to go make the most of those 3 months post diagnosis. that said its nice to see progress against one of the worst cancers out there and i hope it leads to genuine breakthroughs. but this drug is nothing anybody wants, even if they think they do
The operative term isn't simply "survival" but "survival time", that is, the time, post-diagnosis, a patient cohort may be expected to survive on average. It is a term of art.
It's also meaningful insofar as extended survival time suggests progress against the disease mechanism. This may not mean long-term survival for present sufferers of this particular disease, but may suggest future research which is more promising, or if this route hits a wall on any additional outcomes improvements, limitations to this approach. The advance of knowledge is a benefit, regardless of ultimate patient outcomes.
(Where the trade-off in knowledge gains vs. patient outcomes lies is yet another realm of medical ethics.)
Language-lawyering the term is however specious. If you want to comment on quality of life or other matters, those are separate and meritorious discussions. You're embarking on them in a manner that's not likely to be especially conducive however.
> Thus the treatment had provided them a median life extension of about 3/4 years. The lucky ones probably have got more than an extra year.
The 'median' patient in this trial lived ~6.6m longer if they received daraxonrasib. It's worth noting that the performance of the chemotherapy arms was stronger in this trial than previous trials of second-line chemotherapy; whether this reflects better care or a prognostically-superior trial population remains to be seen.
I have quoted exactly the numbers that were written in the abstract of the article yesterday, at the same link that you have used.
What is very weird is that the abstract of the article has been changed, and now it is as you say.
So the numbers from today are worse than those from yesterday.
Perhaps the abstract of yesterday corresponded with a preliminary version of the study report, but meanwhile more patients have died, which has been taken into account in the final version, lowering both the median values for overall survival and for progression-free survival.
No offense intended. I guess someone in the RevMed Scientific Comms team had a more stressful day than they'd envisaged.
> Perhaps the abstract of yesterday corresponded with a preliminary version of the study report, but meanwhile more patients have died, which has been taken into account in the final version, lowering both the median values for overall survival and for progression-free survival.
No. The 'data cut' that these numbers are based on will have been taken (at least) weeks ago. You don't get (anything close to) real-time updates in the manner that you're implying. It was probably just a simple snafu somewhere along the line.
Because the North Vietnamese were not bombing and destroying American home soil schools, apartment blocks, utilities, etc. on a daily basis.
Lacking any real home soil peer citizen engagement the US saw the Vietnam War as a costly pointless loss of money, resources, and life on the far side of the planet.
The difference is, as the other comment points out, the Americans could have (and eventually did) leave South Vietnam any time they wanted with no negative consequences. It was a pure war of choice.
Everyone on the Ukranian side knows that their options are: victory, death, a deeply miserable time in a POW camp, or abandoning their life and becoming a refugee. Regardless of what your rank or social status is.
Different situation. The Americans were killing Vietnamese in Vietnam. There was a near unlimited number of those, including innocent ones.. The Ukrainians are killing Russian soldiers in Ukraine. There's a limited number and if they don't like it they could go back to Russia.
It's rough on the killed soldiers but that's really Putin's fault - I think he was basically the only one who wanted the war. Most Russians looked horrified.
this is one of the great insights of photography and we can all apply it. no one gives a shit about another picture of the leaning tower of pisa in your photo album. its the weird, candid, accidental shots that are most interesting and enduring. but its easy to not grasp that in the moment - the tower is what you're there to see, and its stunning, so of course it's what you photograph. those spaces in between though, like that iphone video, are what secretly transcend
Southwest Airlines got sued by some other company over, IIRC, color schemes. Southwest's CEO (Herb Kelleher) made an offer to the other CEO: They skip the lawyers and settle it with an arm-wrestling contest. The other CEO agreed.
Eventually, they wound up selling tickets to the match, and donated the proceeds to charity.
i can't even get youtube to load with ublock.. theres a years old thread with hundreds of comments on the github -- what are people actually using today to preserve their sanity on youtube?
edit: the issue with ublock is the black screen - sometimes the video loads after 10 or so seconds, sometimes it doesnt. i dont consider hiding the ad while still having to wait around for it to finsish playing behind an overlay the same as "blocking" :|
Using ublock and umatrix both on firefox with full tracking protection enabled. Don't recall ever having any issues with youtube. Sometimes an alert will pop up "see why you're experiencing playback interruptions" and it clicks through to a page about how this is due to my adblocking extension but the joke is on them because I don't recall it ever actually being interrupted. It's just this erroneous alert that occasionally pops up.
image generation kind of reminds me of video games or any cgi in general.. the progress is undeniable, and yet with every milestone it seems the last gap to "photorealism" is infinitely wide
reply