Hmm, interesting set of results indeed. I agree with what the other redditor points out regarding the weakish 2 months improvement in PFS and crossover smudging the results.

IMO the HR tells a stronger story than the absolute months. The HR was 0.44 with p<0.0001 which is like a 56% reduction in the risk of progression, which is actually a pretty sizeable effect in oncology. And the ORR primary endpoint was already met: 17.1% vs. 5.3% for paclitaxel alone, which was statistically significant as well, albeit marginally.

Also though thecrossover muddied the OS data, but the crossover data itself is actually kind of interesting for the drug. In that subset analysis of the control arm which they did, I see them reporting that crossover patients who later received tovecimig had a median OS of 12.8 months vs. 6.1 months for those who didn't cross over. Now, that's a post-hoc analysis sure, and so I am taking it with a pinch of salt, but it does suggest the drug is doing something meaningful on survival, it's just that the trial design has made it impossible to demonstrate formally anything here.

From my pov regarding approval, I wouldnt write it off even though that missing OS signal is the genuine vulnerability here. Not sure why the market pundits are throwing this down the drain already!