What We Can Learn from Fatima 2026 (the most recent Ven/Aza data we have from June) and BAT 3-Yr OS Likelihood Range Deep Dive (13% to 19%)
Hey Everyone, wanted to share a quick post compiling a few discussions I've had regarding BAT 3-Yr OS. In addition, I finally got some time to do a deeper dive into OPTI-AML (the most recent Ven/Aza data we have, from the results published last month, June 2026)
When it comes to OPTI-AML/Fatima 2026, the results of which were shared in June 2026, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2026.44.16_suppl.6525
"HMA plus venetoclax for 7- vs 14- vs 21- vs 28-day cycles in newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia: ELN- and Mayo Genetic Risk–stratified analysis in 540 patients."
It was an n of 540, new-diagnosed (frontline, unfit), 7 vs 14 vs 21 vs 28‑day Ven duration comparison
It directly reinforces the toxicities of Aza/Ven (this is current recent data). It's interesting because this demonstrates/shows that real-world attempts to mitigate Aza/Ven toxicity (like dropping to 14 days) lead to inferior remission rates. The OPTI-AML trial (Frontline patients) they are going over here shows that the efficacy baseline of standard BAT remains restricted by its toxicities. The 28-day schedule is difficult for older patients to sustain sequentially without experiencing severe cytopenias (lower than normal mature blood cells). A 28-day schedule is necessary, but it remains a punishing double-edged sword of toxicity.
Patients cannot stay on continuous 28-day Aza/Ven indefinitely without significant complications, yet dropping the dose risks early relapse.
| Feature | REGAL | QUAZAR (AML‑001) | Aza/Ven R / R across studies | Kurosawa 2010 | VIALE‑M |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design | Ph3 RCT, open‑label | Ph3 RCT, double‑blind | Retrospective (Mayo) | Retrospective (Japan) | Ph3 RCT, double‑blind |
| N | 126 | 472 | N/A | CR2/no‑HCT subgroups (n=14-82) | 112 (of 360, terminated) |
| Disease state | CR2 (remission) | CR1 (remission) | active failure (R/R) | CR2 (remission) | CR1/CRi (remission) |
| Remission line | 2nd | 1st | none (failed frontline) | 2nd | 1st |
| Refractory | 0% (all CR2) | 0% (all CR1) | N/A | 0% (all CR2) | 0% (all CR1) |
| Median age | 67 (57% greater than or equal to 65) | 68 (greater than or equal to 55) | 75 | 53 (16-70), youngest | CR1 maint (65) |
| Cytogenetic mix | depleted of adverse (CR2 selects) | mixed | complex | reported by risk group | mixed |
| TP53 | 5-10% | low-moderate | about 29% | cytogenetic‑era (pre‑TP53) | low-moderate |
| Setting | maintenance | maintenance | salvage (active disease) | observational (no‑HCT) | maintenance |
| Transplant | ineligible (0%) | non‑candidates (0%) | about 3.7% (Gangat 2023 Haematologica is a great resource) | HCT vs no‑HCT subgroups | not to SCT (0%) |
| Primary endpoint | OS | OS | (observational) | (prognostic factors) | RFS |
| Reference arm | BAT (inv. choice) | placebo | (salvage regimens) | no‑HCT, by cytogenetics | oral‑aza (Onureg) |
| Reference mOS | BAT 8-13 True Onset mOS | placebo 14.8, Onureg 24.7 | 4 mo (failure), SCT high (only near-cure/cure for AML) | by cytogenetics | oral‑aza 26.7 design |
| Reference 3‑yr OS | 13-19% approximation | placebo 25%, Onureg 40% | 5% (SCT subset may be 33%, given 2-Yr OS is about 61%) | CBF 64%, intermediate 19%,adverse 35% | 42% design (no readout) |
| Status | pending (78/80) | positive (approved) | real‑world | retrospective (2010) | failed/terminated |
I'll share a lot of what I think are useful insights from looking into each of these. But to start with for Kurosawa, Kurosawa is the closest map to REGAL, same CR2/no‑transplant setting, but younger, so it reads high. Its intermediate‑risk no‑HCT arm (19%, n=82, median age 53) is the single best analog to REGAL's BAT bulk. Age‑adjust it down for REGAL's 67‑year‑old population and you land at 13-16%, which is where the most biologically plausible actual fits land as well.
One thing you'll notice is its favorable‑CBF tail (64-78%) is the durable subgroup, these are the CBF patients.
| group | 3‑yr OS | n |
|---|---|---|
| inv(16) | 78% | 14 |
| t(8,21) | 53% | 18 |
| intermediate | 19% | 82 |
| unfavorable | (35%, n=18 - small‑N outlier) | 18 |
So the n=14 is inv(16) specifically, the single best CBF subtype, not all of CBF. Full core‑binding‑factor = inv(16) (n=14, 78%) + t(8,21) (n=18, 53%) = n=32, blended 64%.
CBF patients are 10 to 15% of patients in AML, but almost half of that (7% of CBF patients) are over the age of 65, and REGAL is not enriched for it. Sharing a link to the in-depth stress-testing/impossible scenario stress-testing I did for CBF patients to the actual fits:
The results of that in-depth stress testing/impossible scenario stress testing, showed it is nothing to worry about at all, the margin of safety is gigantic when it comes to CBF risk.
The median age of REGAL skews higher than Kurosawa, so that lowers the volume of CBF patients and the age has an impact
You can see the median age in REGAL from this link, just open it and search for age:
https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2019-004134-42/FR
REGAL is much older than Kurosawa. Kurosawa's median age was 53 (range 16-70). REGAL, per the EU register shared, is 50 patients 18-64 vs 66 patients greater than or equal to 65, i.e. 57% are greater than or equal to 65, median of about 67. Older AML has fewer favorable‑cytogenetics patients and worse survival within every group. Kurosawa's numbers are therefore an over‑estimate applied to REGAL, and Kurosawa even caps at 70, so it barely includes REGAL's oldest tier.
In addition, this is a really helpful view:
| control arm | setting | 3‑yr OS |
|---|---|---|
| VIALE‑M oral‑aza (design) | CR1, maintenance | 42% (no readout) |
| QUAZAR Onureg | CR1, maintenance | 40% |
| QUAZAR placebo | CR1, no active drug, older | 25%, upper bound for a CR2 arm |
| Kurosawa CR2 intermediate | CR2, younger (53), no‑HCT | 19% |
| REGAL BAT Approximation | CR2, older (67), best‑available | Approximately 13-19% |
| Kurosawa CR2 CBF favorable | CR2, younger, no‑HCT | 19% non-CBF, 64% CBF patients (which make up 15% of AML, and 7% of patients over 65) |
Looking at this, one may be able to conclude from this that the setting, not the drug, drives the durable tail. Deriving each control's 3‑yr OS from its median + cure fraction.
From this, one can conclude that CR1 controls cluster at 25-42%, CR2 controls at 13-19%. A CR2 patient has already relapsed once, the durable cure tail is thinner.
Another really useful comparator is QUAZAR's placebo arm, CR1, older (median 68), transplant‑ineligible, no active maintenance and 25% 3‑Yr OS. REGAL's BAT is the CR2 version of that same kind of patient, a worse prognostic setting. So QUAZAR placebo is essentially an upper bound, REGAL's BAT 3‑yr OS should sit below 25%, which is exactly where the CR2 comparators (Kurosawa intermediate 19%, adjusted down for age) and the fits (13-19%) land
For REGAL's BAT 3‑yr OS to reach 25%, a CR2 arm would have to roughly equal a CR1 arm (QUAZAR placebo), and match it despite being older than Kurosawa's cohort too. Every dataset here says CR2 < CR1 and older < younger. That's why 25%+ is the upper edge, not the center, it requires REGAL's twice‑relapsed, elderly, transplant‑ineligible population to survive like a first‑remission population. The only way there is a large favorable‑CBF fraction, the exact subgroup that's young, fit, and transplant‑eligible, so screened out of REGAL.
In addition, the results for Ven+HMA/Ven+Aza in R / R in a similar age population as to REGAL in R / R, 3-Yr OS is about 5%.
In fact, although R / R is different than CR2 (meaning R / R is worse), in Ven / Aza R / R patients, from previous data, only about 3.7% transitioning to transplant (Gangat 2023 Haematologica is a great resource along with other Ven / Aza R / R studies).
In QUAZAR, the transplant rate for Onureg's arm was 6.3% and for placebo, was 13.7%. QUAZAR's placebo arm sent 13.7% of patients to subsequent transplant, more than double the Onureg arm (6.3%), because placebo patients relapsed more and went on to salvage + SCT. Those transplants inflate the placebo 25% 3‑yr OS. So the "pure, no‑transplant" QUAZAR‑placebo 3‑yr OS is actually below 25%, and REGAL's BAT CR2 and 0% transplant at entry by design, means the 3-Yr OS in BAT likely sits below that. When you strip how the transplant-inflation, it's likely a 20% 3-Yr OS for QUAZAR-placebo, and REGAL's transplant-ineligible at entry CR2 arm is likely lower. Although, I would not read into this too much, since QUAZAR was also not eligible for transplant. The useful view here is why the transplant rate may be equal or less than QUAZAR for REGAL, given what we see above how the setting, not the drug, may drive the durable tail.
The impossible scenrios/worst-case scenarios transplant-tail stress-test provides an enormous margin of safety for a transplant-tail risk, when looking at the actual fits, resharing that here:
So, given 3-Yr OS from R / R is about 5%, and CR1 is 25% based on QUAZAR, in the middle being 13% to 19% may be something one can conclude in terms of biology.
As we just went over, from previous data, only about 3.7% of Ven/Aza R / R make it to transplant (Gangat 2023 Haematologica is a great resource, as well as other studies), and those that do have maybe 3-year OS of 33%, since 2-Yr OS after transplant is 61%, dramatically better than the non-transplanted majority. This reinforces that REGAL's transplant-ineligible population has a hard ceiling on long-term survival. It only becomes a problem if 3-Yr OS in BAT at any IRM is above 31%, or if a combination of a BAT IRM of 18/19 occurs with a 3-Yr OS of 26%+
Of course, in CR2 that number will be higher than 3.7% due to the healthier patients than R / R, but the age range is very similar, so what Dr. Tsirigotis said of a negligible transplant tail is likely the case, and the comparisons we just went through point to about 13%-19% for BAT 3-Yr OS.
Sharing the exact words from Dr. Tsirigotis from the forwarded email on April 30th, a few months ago:
"One think i can say for sure is that the long term survival for patients in CR2 without consolidation with Allo-SCT is negligible. On the other hand a significant percentage of patients in CR2 who proceed in Allo-SCT can enjoy long survival and even cure in many cases (again the range of percentages is wide and depends on many factors). In Greece all patients up to the age of 70-years are considered eligible for Allo-SCT unless they have significant comorbidities or poor performance status. We are very reluctant to proceed in Allo-SCT in patients above the age of 70 and this patient population that actually receive a transplant constitute a highly selected group."
Now, to conclude I wanted to share the actual fits to 60/72/78/and 80th as a constraint as of July 3rd, 2026. Given what we just went over about the biological likelihood 3-Yr OS range, you can see which actual fits align and what the results would be, for GPS alive / BAT alive, HR, 3-Yr OS, etc. for each arm, and at the 80th along with at IA.
When you look at these, you'll see why I mentioned it doesn't really matter what BAT IRM is with BAT 3-Yr OS being 13% to 19%
BAT IRM 11
| k | BAT 3y | GPS 3y | GPS mOS | pool mOS | HR@IA | HR@80 | HRobs | 95% CI | BATa@IA | GPSa@IA | BATa@80 | GPSa@80 | P(win) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.4 | 33% | 49% | 35 | 24.3 | 0.393 | 0.558 | 0.598 | [0.39,0.93] | 25.9 | 40.9 | 19.8 | 26.6 | 61% |
| 0.5 | 29% | 51% | 37 | 23.7 | 0.358 | 0.447 | 0.479 | [0.31,0.74] | 24.5 | 41.9 | 16.9 | 29.9 | 90% |
| 0.6 | 24% | 55% | 42 | 23.7 | 0.318 | 0.362 | 0.387 | [0.25,0.60] | 23.1 | 43.3 | 14.2 | 32.7 | 99% |
| 0.7 | 20% | 59% | 49 | 23.6 | 0.282 | 0.295 | 0.315 | [0.20,0.49] | 21.7 | 44.7 | 11.7 | 35.2 | 100% |
| 0.8 | 17% | 62% | 56 | 23.4 | 0.248 | 0.242 | 0.259 | [0.17,0.40] | 20.4 | 46.1 | 9.4 | 37.6 | 100% |
| 0.9 | 13% | 66% | 64 | 23.2 | 0.218 | 0.201 | 0.215 | [0.14,0.33] | 19.1 | 47.4 | 7.3 | 39.6 | 100% |
| 1 | 10% | 68% | 72 | 23 | 0.192 | 0.17 | 0.182 | [0.12,0.28] | 17.9 | 48.6 | 5.6 | 41.4 | 100% |
| 1.1 | 8% | 71% | 79 | 22.7 | 0.169 | 0.146 | 0.156 | [0.10,0.24] | 16.8 | 49.8 | 4.2 | 42.9 | 100% |
| 1.2 | 6% | 72% | 84 | 22.4 | 0.149 | 0.128 | 0.137 | [0.09,0.21] | 15.8 | 50.8 | 3.1 | 44.1 | 100% |
| 1.3 | 4% | 74% | 88 | 22.1 | 0.132 | 0.115 | 0.123 | [0.08,0.19] | 14.9 | 51.8 | 2.2 | 45.1 | 100% |
BAT IRM 12
| k | BAT 3y | GPS 3y | GPS mOS | pool mOS | HR@IA | HR@80 | HRobs | 95% CI | BATa@IA | GPSa@IA | BATa@80 | GPSa@80 | P(win) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.4 | 34% | 47% | 33 | 24.3 | 0.429 | 0.606 | 0.648 | [0.42,1.01] | 26.7 | 40.1 | 20.6 | 25.9 | 47% |
| 0.5 | 30% | 49% | 35 | 23.7 | 0.402 | 0.496 | 0.531 | [0.34,0.82] | 25.5 | 40.9 | 17.9 | 29 | 79% |
| 0.6 | 26% | 53% | 40 | 23.7 | 0.366 | 0.41 | 0.438 | [0.28,0.68] | 24.3 | 42.2 | 15.3 | 31.5 | 95% |
| 0.7 | 22% | 57% | 46 | 23.6 | 0.331 | 0.339 | 0.363 | [0.23,0.56] | 23.1 | 43.4 | 12.9 | 34 | 99% |
| 0.8 | 19% | 60% | 53 | 23.5 | 0.299 | 0.283 | 0.302 | [0.20,0.47] | 21.9 | 44.6 | 10.6 | 36.3 | 100% |
| 0.9 | 16% | 63% | 61 | 23.3 | 0.27 | 0.238 | 0.254 | [0.16,0.39] | 20.8 | 45.7 | 8.6 | 38.4 | 100% |
| 1 | 13% | 66% | 70 | 23.1 | 0.243 | 0.202 | 0.216 | [0.14,0.34] | 19.7 | 46.8 | 6.8 | 40.2 | 100% |
| 1.1 | 10% | 69% | 79 | 22.8 | 0.219 | 0.175 | 0.187 | [0.12,0.29] | 18.7 | 47.9 | 5.3 | 41.8 | 100% |
| 1.2 | 7% | 71% | 87 | 22.6 | 0.197 | 0.153 | 0.164 | [0.11,0.25] | 17.8 | 48.9 | 4.1 | 43.1 | 100% |
| 1.3 | 6% | 72% | 93 | 22.3 | 0.178 | 0.137 | 0.146 | [0.09,0.23] | 16.9 | 49.8 | 3.1 | 44.2 | 100% |
BAT IRM 13
| k | BAT 3y | GPS 3y | GPS mOS | pool mOS | HR@IA | HR@80 | HRobs | 95% CI | BATa@IA | GPSa@IA | BATa@80 | GPSa@80 | P(win) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.4 | 35% | 46% | 32 | 24.2 | 0.465 | 0.653 | 0.699 | [0.45,1.08] | 27.4 | 39.4 | 21.3 | 25.2 | 34% |
| 0.5 | 32% | 48% | 34 | 23.7 | 0.445 | 0.546 | 0.584 | [0.38,0.91] | 26.4 | 40 | 18.8 | 28.1 | 65% |
| 0.6 | 28% | 52% | 38 | 23.7 | 0.414 | 0.459 | 0.491 | [0.32,0.76] | 25.3 | 41.1 | 16.3 | 30.5 | 88% |
| 0.7 | 24% | 55% | 43 | 23.7 | 0.384 | 0.386 | 0.413 | [0.27,0.64] | 24.3 | 42.1 | 14 | 32.9 | 97% |
| 0.8 | 21% | 58% | 50 | 23.5 | 0.354 | 0.326 | 0.349 | [0.23,0.54] | 23.3 | 43.2 | 11.8 | 35.1 | 100% |
| 0.9 | 18% | 61% | 58 | 23.4 | 0.326 | 0.278 | 0.297 | [0.19,0.46] | 22.3 | 44.2 | 9.8 | 37.1 | 100% |
| 1 | 15% | 64% | 67 | 23.2 | 0.3 | 0.238 | 0.255 | [0.16,0.40] | 21.4 | 45.1 | 8 | 39 | 100% |
| 1.1 | 12% | 66% | 77 | 23 | 0.275 | 0.207 | 0.221 | [0.14,0.34] | 20.5 | 46.1 | 6.5 | 40.6 | 100% |
| 1.2 | 10% | 69% | 88 | 22.7 | 0.253 | 0.182 | 0.195 | [0.13,0.30] | 19.7 | 47 | 5.1 | 42 | 100% |
| 1.3 | 7% | 70% | 98 | 22.5 | 0.233 | 0.162 | 0.173 | [0.11,0.27] | 18.9 | 47.8 | 4 | 43.2 | 100% |
BAT IRM 14
| k | BAT 3y | GPS 3y | GPS mOS | pool mOS | HR@IA | HR@80 | HRobs | 95% CI | BATa@IA | GPSa@IA | BATa@80 | GPSa@80 | P(win) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.4 | 36% | 44% | 31 | 24.2 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.749 | [0.48,1.16] | 28.1 | 38.8 | 22 | 24.5 | 23% |
| 0.5 | 33% | 47% | 32 | 23.7 | 0.489 | 0.596 | 0.638 | [0.41,0.99] | 27.2 | 39.2 | 19.6 | 27.2 | 49% |
| 0.6 | 29% | 50% | 36 | 23.7 | 0.464 | 0.509 | 0.545 | [0.35,0.84] | 26.3 | 40.1 | 17.3 | 29.5 | 76% |
| 0.7 | 26% | 53% | 41 | 23.7 | 0.437 | 0.435 | 0.466 | [0.30,0.72] | 25.5 | 41 | 15.1 | 31.8 | 92% |
| 0.8 | 23% | 56% | 47 | 23.6 | 0.412 | 0.373 | 0.399 | [0.26,0.62] | 24.6 | 41.9 | 13 | 33.9 | 98% |
| 0.9 | 20% | 59% | 54 | 23.5 | 0.386 | 0.321 | 0.344 | [0.22,0.53] | 23.8 | 42.7 | 11 | 35.9 | 100% |
| 1 | 17% | 62% | 63 | 23.3 | 0.361 | 0.278 | 0.298 | [0.19,0.46] | 23 | 43.6 | 9.2 | 37.7 | 100% |
| 1.1 | 14% | 64% | 75 | 23.1 | 0.338 | 0.243 | 0.26 | [0.17,0.40] | 22.2 | 44.4 | 7.6 | 39.4 | 100% |
| 1.2 | 12% | 66% | 88 | 22.9 | 0.316 | 0.215 | 0.23 | [0.15,0.36] | 21.5 | 45.2 | 6.3 | 40.9 | 100% |
| 1.3 | 9% | 68% | 103 | 22.7 | 0.296 | 0.192 | 0.205 | [0.13,0.32] | 20.8 | 45.9 | 5.1 | 42.1 | 100% |
BAT IRM 15
| k | BAT 3y | GPS 3y | GPS mOS | pool mOS | HR@IA | HR@80 | HRobs | 95% CI | BATa@IA | GPSa@IA | BATa@80 | GPSa@80 | P(win) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.4 | 37% | 43% | 30 | 24.2 | 0.534 | 0.746 | 0.798 | [0.51,1.24] | 28.7 | 38.2 | 22.7 | 23.9 | 16% |
| 0.5 | 34% | 45% | 31 | 23.7 | 0.533 | 0.647 | 0.692 | [0.45,1.07] | 28 | 38.4 | 20.4 | 26.4 | 35% |
| 0.6 | 31% | 49% | 34 | 23.8 | 0.514 | 0.561 | 0.6 | [0.39,0.93] | 27.2 | 39.2 | 18.2 | 28.6 | 60% |
| 0.7 | 28% | 52% | 38 | 23.7 | 0.493 | 0.486 | 0.52 | [0.34,0.81] | 26.5 | 39.9 | 16.1 | 30.7 | 82% |
| 0.8 | 25% | 55% | 44 | 23.6 | 0.472 | 0.422 | 0.452 | [0.29,0.70] | 25.8 | 40.6 | 14.1 | 32.8 | 94% |
| 0.9 | 22% | 57% | 50 | 23.5 | 0.45 | 0.368 | 0.394 | [0.25,0.61] | 25.1 | 41.4 | 12.2 | 34.7 | 98% |
| 1 | 19% | 60% | 59 | 23.4 | 0.428 | 0.322 | 0.345 | [0.22,0.53] | 24.4 | 42.1 | 10.4 | 36.5 | 100% |
| 1.1 | 16% | 62% | 71 | 23.2 | 0.407 | 0.284 | 0.304 | [0.20,0.47] | 23.8 | 42.8 | 8.8 | 38.2 | 100% |
| 1.2 | 14% | 64% | 87 | 23 | 0.386 | 0.252 | 0.27 | [0.17,0.42] | 23.1 | 43.5 | 7.4 | 39.7 | 100% |
| 1.3 | 11% | 66% | 106 | 22.8 | 0.367 | 0.226 | 0.242 | [0.16,0.37] | 22.5 | 44.1 | 6.2 | 41 | 100% |
BAT IRM 16
| k | BAT 3y | GPS 3y | GPS mOS | pool mOS | HR@IA | HR@80 | HRobs | 95% CI | BATa@IA | GPSa@IA | BATa@80 | GPSa@80 | P(win) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.4 | 38% | 42% | 29 | 24.1 | 0.568 | 0.791 | 0.847 | [0.55,1.31] | 29.3 | 37.6 | 23.3 | 23.3 | 10% |
| 0.5 | 35% | 44% | 30 | 23.7 | 0.577 | 0.697 | 0.746 | [0.48,1.16] | 28.7 | 37.7 | 21.2 | 25.7 | 24% |
| 0.6 | 32% | 47% | 33 | 23.8 | 0.565 | 0.613 | 0.656 | [0.42,1.02] | 28.1 | 38.3 | 19.1 | 27.7 | 44% |
| 0.7 | 29% | 50% | 36 | 23.7 | 0.551 | 0.539 | 0.577 | [0.37,0.89] | 27.5 | 38.9 | 17.1 | 29.7 | 67% |
| 0.8 | 27% | 53% | 41 | 23.7 | 0.535 | 0.475 | 0.508 | [0.33,0.79] | 26.9 | 39.5 | 15.2 | 31.7 | 84% |
| 0.9 | 24% | 55% | 47 | 23.6 | 0.518 | 0.419 | 0.448 | [0.29,0.69] | 26.4 | 40.1 | 13.3 | 33.5 | 94% |
| 1 | 21% | 58% | 55 | 23.5 | 0.5 | 0.37 | 0.396 | [0.26,0.61] | 25.8 | 40.7 | 11.6 | 35.3 | 98% |
| 1.1 | 18% | 60% | 67 | 23.3 | 0.482 | 0.329 | 0.352 | [0.23,0.55] | 25.3 | 41.3 | 10.1 | 36.9 | 100% |
| 1.2 | 16% | 62% | 83 | 23.2 | 0.464 | 0.294 | 0.315 | [0.20,0.49] | 24.7 | 41.9 | 8.6 | 38.4 | 100% |
| 1.3 | 14% | 64% | 108 | 23 | 0.446 | 0.265 | 0.283 | [0.18,0.44] | 24.2 | 42.4 | 7.3 | 39.8 | 100% |