Every day REGAL doesn't hit 80 events, aren't we literally printing money? 🚀🧠
Alright fellow weaponized bagholders, help me out with my regarded math.
REGAL is event-driven. The trial ends at 80 deaths.
Originally, everyone expected we'd hit 80 events a long time ago.
Instead:
- ~60 events in early 2025
- ~72 events by the end of 2025
- and we're STILL waiting
So here's my smooth-brain question:
How much value do we theoretically gain every day that the trial keeps going?
If BAT was behaving as expected, wouldn't the events keep rolling in?
Instead, every day that passes without event #80 means that someone who was expected to die... didn't (at least not yet).
Now I know there are other explanations:
- better supportive care,
- venetoclax,
- better salvage therapy,
- enrollment effects,
- randomness,
...but the protocol's assumptions already accounted for expected survival when they powered the study.
So unless the statisticians from SELLAS, the investigators, and the FDA all suddenly forgot how AML works, doesn't every additional day shift the odds at least a little toward GPS working?
I'm not saying each day adds 0.1% probability of success or anything stupid like that.
I'm asking whether anyone here (or any biostatisticians lurking) has actually modeled this.
For example:
- If event #80 was expected in Month X but instead arrives 6 months later, how much would that typically change the implied hazard ratio?
- Can you estimate how much "hidden separation" accumulates with every delayed event?
- Or is it impossible to infer anything meaningful from blinded event timing alone?
Genuinely curious. If anyone has experience with event-driven oncology trials or survival analysis, I'd love to hear the math behind it.
(Also yes, I'm aware this is peak copium. I'm just trying to quantify the copium.)