The information they are investigating is vital. To know what is the difference between someone who gets PFS and someone who doesn’t. This might facilitate ‘answers about what causes PFS and how it may be treated or avoided.’ My emphasis.
Obviously there is the usual safe use of language in their statement. They say ‘may’ and ‘might’ instead of ‘will’ and ‘definitely’. This is the nature of research. They don’t know what the outcome is until it has happened. They take a line of enquiry and then explore it. That is what is happening here.
As stated in your post, this research ‘might lead to answers’.
This is more than worth backing, it is critical.