Theoretically you a correct Andreas that this was a superiority trial and that ni superiority in PFS was shown. On the other hand the clinical interpretation of the MITO7/ENGOT-ov10 study showed cleary that weekly paclitaxel at 60 mg/m² and carbo weekly AUC2 was at least as good in terms of PFS (18.3 versus 17.3 months  for weekly and 3-weekly respectively, HR: 0.96) and in QOL than the classical 3-weekly paclitaxel carbo regimen. The primary endpoint was originally only QOL and it was shown that FACT-O/TOI scores differed significantly between the two schedules (treatment-by-time interaction p<0·0001); with treatment every 3 weeks, FACT-O/TOI scores worsened at every cycle (weeks 1, 4, and 7), whereas for the weekly schedule, after transient worsening at week 1, FACT-O/TOI scores remained stable. Fewer patients assigned to the weekly group than those allocated treatment every 3 weeks had grade 3-4 neutropenia (167 [42%] of 399 patients vs 200 [50%] of 400 patients), febrile neutropenia (two [0·5%] vs 11 [3%]), grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (four [1%] vs 27 [7%]), and grade 2 or worse neuropathy (24 [6%] vs 68 [17%]).

Do we really need to continue advocating e.g. complete alopecia in all our patients with paclitaxel-carboplatin 3-weekly as the only possible standard arm (something that can be avoided in most patients with the MITO7 weekly regimen with cold-cap), knowing that the efficacy and QOL of the weekly regimen is not inferior to three-weekly???