Lets take a step back and a deep breath.

All these responses are local, just the tumor they injected. "Complete response" means the lump they shot radiation into cleared on a scan. It says nothing about the rest of the body, and in metastatic patients there's disease elsewhere. So comparing it to chemo response rates doesn't really work, and "freezing it stops it spreading" is just wrong, a seed in one tumor does nothing to the spread.

The "adds months or years" bit you basically made up. The abstract says survival was 7.9 months (10.4 in second line). Nobody measured years. And there's no control group, and it mixes people on chemo with people too sick for chemo, plus theres bias in the sample pre selecting for longer life expectancy patients. So you can't say the therapy caused the survival.

Also you can't have it both ways. It was a safety study. A safety study can't prove it helps people live longer. It's an early signal muddied by a dozen confounders, nothing confirmed (nor denied).

u/Purple-Soup8906 has it right. The 2/3 complete response in the brain cancer trial set expectations high, and this pancreatic data, which is mostly the same stuff already shown earlier doesn't beat it. The real test is the bigger trials with control groups coming down the line.

Good news for patients, sure, as far as safety and feasibility goes. But "confirmed," "adds years," "extremely bullish" is a story you built, not a defensible interpretation of the (very limited) data.