Isn't this a little contradictory?
 

I looked up this for VIVO on her question for one year of herceptin use. Started reading the article and here they say....
Dr. Piccart-Gebhart’s report was one of 2 studies featured in this issue of NEJM highlighting the therapeutic benefit of trastuzumab in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. In the second article, a joint analysis of 2 phase 3 trials conducted by Dr. Edward Romond and colleagues, showed that trastuzumab significantly improved disease-free survival, reduced risk of death by one third, and reduced the rate of recurrence by approximately one half in women with HER2-positive breast cancer.2

Then in another paragraph, same aricle this is stated:
There was no difference in overall survival between women on the trastuzumab arm versus the observation arm (96.0%, [95% CI, 94% to 98%] vs 95.1% [95% CI, 93% to 97%], respectively (hazard ratio 0.76 [95% CI, 0.47-1.23]; P = .26).

I know I must be missing something, but I can't figure out what it is, can someone help me? Thank you.

Probably refers to the outcome of a specific study - possibly not a very recent one. Not so many years ago studies on Herceptin recruited patients with late stage disease. Whilst Herceptin often slowed the progress significantly and extended survival time, it only delayed the final outcome.

Later studies recruited people at progressively earlier and earlier stages when the effect was magnified to the point where its ability to stop recurrence effectively gave a measurable survival benefit - at least over the timescales of the study. Many recent studies like HERA which are reporting data after only a year or two of treatment qualify their results by pointing out that the percentage survival/recurrence benefit after 5 or 10 years may not be the same as is being measured over 2.

Most Onc's with extended experiece of using herceptin don't seem to be expecting this - though the occassional pessimist leaps up in the medical press to remind everyone that only time will tell.