"survival" is the wrong word; its terminal. honestly the drugs and chemo and treatments they put pancreatic patients through for possibly a few more (not very nice) weeks is almost criminal. a good doctor will tell you to go make the most of those 3 months post diagnosis. that said its nice to see progress against one of the worst cancers out there and i hope it leads to genuine breakthroughs. but this drug is nothing anybody wants, even if they think they do
The operative term isn't simply "survival" but "survival time", that is, the time, post-diagnosis, a patient cohort may be expected to survive on average. It is a term of art.
It's also meaningful insofar as extended survival time suggests progress against the disease mechanism. This may not mean long-term survival for present sufferers of this particular disease, but may suggest future research which is more promising, or if this route hits a wall on any additional outcomes improvements, limitations to this approach. The advance of knowledge is a benefit, regardless of ultimate patient outcomes.
(Where the trade-off in knowledge gains vs. patient outcomes lies is yet another realm of medical ethics.)
Language-lawyering the term is however specious. If you want to comment on quality of life or other matters, those are separate and meritorious discussions. You're embarking on them in a manner that's not likely to be especially conducive however.
> "survival" is the wrong word; its terminal.
No one actually knows that one way or the other since some patients were still taking it after the study ended according to the article.