[adrian_b]

My numbers were not at all off.

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.

[mft_]

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.