One thing I really miss from attending live conferences – aside from catching up with people in person – is “the living like a local” experience. Last time I was in Madrid, for example, there was this fishmonger (pescaderia) just a block down from the rented apartment. They were only open in the mornings, so you could dash down the hill, quickly nab some fresh produce, refrigerate it and have something nice to look forward to for dinner with a glass of wine at the end of a tiring day while writing up the highlights…
The image also offers another analogy – do some data presented at a meeting end up, well, a bit fishy on closer examination or reflection despite much of the hype enthused or extolled by others?
At the ESMO20 virtual Congress, we covered a tremendous amount of details from the data during both the daily highlights as well as the previews exploring what to watch out in the run-up to the event. You can find all those reviews here.
There are always some surprises in store, however, both good and bad. There’s also layers of obfuscation going on to consider in the form of cheerleading from companies, investigators, or stock holders, which may add positive spin on what is essentially so-so data, cases where great data goes largely ignored for whatever reason, or important lessons to be learned from failure.
In this wrap-up post, we take a sharp look at the ESMO20 winners, losers, and risers from a contrarian’s perspective…
To learn more from our oncology analysis and get a heads up on the latest insights and commentary pertaining to ESMO20 virtual congress, subscribers can log-in or you can click to gain access to BSB Premium Content.
This content is restricted to subscribers
In the 
