Hi Michele,
I've been anxiously scrolling through all these numbers (while also caring for my 8 year old who's got a nasty chest cold) this week and the first thing I'll say is that I don't know why I'm doing this! Rachel got her year of herceptin off-label and all I really wanted to know is that we were right to push for it. And this is clearly true. But I still have tried to make sense of the numbers and this is not easy for someone who stopped taking math as soon as it was allowed in high school (actually, earlier: I got a special waiver to take an extra lit class!)
Anyway...I can't exactly follow which numbers you are tracking (because I haven't listened to Perez's talk yet) but it seems possible to me that you are comparing apples and oranges, which in this case is the difference between "absolute risk" and "relative risk." Absolute risk is simple: if the control group had a recurrence rate of 33% and the ac-th group had a recurrence rate at interim analysis of about 15% (is that right?) than the difference in absolute risk is 18%. But the reduction in "relative" risk is more like 52 or 53% right? Does that make sense? I'm not sure if anything I've just said is even applicable..but if it is you can apply this to all the comparative questions.
As for the HERA data, that's gonna be a mess to make sense out becuase if you watch Piccart's presentation you'll see there is a huge number of variations in chemo and hormonal treatment that were at play...But it's clearly all positive news for people who got herceptin.
Best,
Jeff
|