I can live with it, however, my methodological remarks are still valid:

(1) the MITO regimen has not shown equal or superior efficacy or non-inferority – it has just shown not to be superior

(2) the QoL analysis was not performed as planned with the first 350 evaluable patients but was performed in 600 patients, this means (a) overrecruited (and p-values depend on numbers), and in a higher selected subpopulation (600 from over 800 – this was not modelled)

Anyhow, I will not stand in the way….