BDAZ - Keeping in mind that I am not a scientist or statistician, below is my take on your question of "how Zenith arrived at their standard of care and target lines on slide 14 of the Bio Europe presentation".

The SOC on pg 14 of the Bio Europe presentation looks to be between 16 - 18 wks or 4 to 4.5 mons and 30 to 32 wks or 7 to 8 mons. In the de Bono JS et al article enzalutamide treatment was 5.7 mons for the overall pa population with the masses in the 3 to 9 mo range. Interestingly the median time to PSA progression in the overall population was 5.7 mons, the same as the median duration of the enzalutamide treatment. This looks to be the same SOC range that was used on pg 14 that Zenith used.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding the ZEN-3694 trial as my understanding is that the patients in our trial did not enroll in our trial until they were no longer responding to either enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate in combination with prednisone. I did not see anything in the de Bono JS et al article that said the patients that were switched to enzalutamide were no longer responding to abiratarone, only that they were switched to enzalutamide after at least 24 wks on abiratarone

As far as your question of whether Zenith has really shown yet whether the combo with 3694 exceeds expectations of enzalutamide alone is an interesting one. At the time of the Bio Europe presentation the rock stars in the 2nd cohort of the Zenith trial were at 46 wks, today they would be just over a year if they are all still rocking along. In the de Bono JS et al article the median duration on enzalutamide and median time to PSA progression was 5.7 months or about 24/25 weeks. Also it looks like the PSA number dropped on average just 27% in the de Bono JS et al article versus going below 1 and staying there in the Zenith trial.

It looks very encouraging to me but like I said, I'm not a scientist.

tada