I find a lot of the poster vague and a bit confusing really. Richard points out that the poster states '41 (18%) patients had died within 24 months' which should logically lead us to assume that 82% had not died within that time. This does not tie in with the graph.
I also find the statement 'To detect an increase in 2 year survival from 20 to 32%' confusing. I wonder where this evidence comes from - I have never read anywhere that 2 year survival of resected patients having no adjuvant therapy is 20%. It sounds more like the current 5 year survival for resected patients?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I do not think the 2 year survival is as significant as 'relapse free survival'. Richard is right, it would be interesting to compare the data but it cannot be considered significant at this point. It is important to remember that all patients have undergone a macroscopically complete resection - so we would really hope that a good proportion of these are still alive within 2 years - if they are cancer free is a very different question.
I suppose what Percy is saying is true of all cancer 'there is no CURE' - just more and more effective ways of removing it and minimising the likelihood of it returning. My personal attitude would have been to encourage my dad to take or do everything possible to stop it coming back. We were never offered radiation and the doctor said 'what would we radiate? There's nothing there'. Certainly the evidence Percy found would suggest the efficacy with margin positive patients.
Marion, thanks for that info about UK v US - I've sometimes wondered how different things would be if we could effectively just ask a doctor to prescribe something we wanted rather than being at the mercy of the NHS, but I just find it so difficult to imagine the accompanying financial/travel considerations that so many US patients encounter.