RE:RE:RE:RE:72% CR at any point in time.
NotinKansas wrote: CS, I agree that removing the 12 undertreated would provide a clearer picture, and the overall results would indeed improve. But if you recalculate efficacy and duration without those 12, you also have to deduct the CRs and IRs they have yielded (and which now are included in the data presentation), otherwise you end up with too rosy numbers.
If my numbers are correct (will blame my age if they're not), dismissing the first 12 would yield a 23% improvement in our durable response. I can live with that...