Despite the ASCENT-07 trial failing its primary progression-free survival (PFS) endpoint, an early overall survival (OS) signal emerged. This divergence suggests the drug may confer a survival advantage not captured by the initial endpoint, complicating the definition of a "negative" trial and warranting further follow-up.
Related Insights
The confirmatory Code Break 200 study for sotorasib demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) over docetaxel. However, it failed to show a similar benefit in overall survival (OS), a critical distinction for oncologists weighing long-term patient outcomes.
In trials like ASCENT-4, where over 80% of the control arm received sacituzumab govitecan upon progression, the true overall survival (OS) benefit is obscured. This makes progression-free survival (PFS) a more reliable endpoint for evaluating the drug's first-line efficacy.
In the ASCENT-07 trial, investigators may have prematurely switched patients from the standard chemotherapy arm to superior, commercially available ADCs at the first hint of progression. This real-world practice can mask an experimental drug's true benefit on progression-free survival.
An overall survival (OS) benefit in an adjuvant trial may not be meaningful for patients in systems (e.g., the U.S.) with guaranteed access to the same effective immunotherapy upon recurrence. The crucial, unanswered question is whether treating micrometastatic disease is inherently superior to treating macroscopic disease later, a distinction current trial data doesn't clarify.
In the CREST trial, the FDA's critique heavily emphasized an overall survival hazard ratio above one. Though statistically insignificant and based on immature data, this single figure created a powerful suggestion of potential harm that overshadowed the positive primary endpoint and likely contributed to the panel's divided vote.
The ASCENT-07 trial, while failing its primary endpoint, revealed a promising efficacy signal for its Trop-2 ADC in IHC0 tumors. This finding from a "negative" study directly spurred a new trial, Tropion-Brest-O6, to investigate another ADC specifically in this refined patient population, demonstrating the iterative nature of clinical research.
Contrary to market convention, a trial delay can be a bullish signal. When an independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) recommends adding more patients, as with Bristol's ADEPT-2 study, it implies they've seen a therapeutic signal worth salvaging, potentially increasing the trial's ultimate chance of success.
The GLORA-IV trial is designed with a dual endpoint, evaluating both patient response rate and overall survival. This structure creates an alternative pathway for regulatory approval based on response rates, which can be assessed faster than survival, strategically de-risking the lengthy and expensive trial process.
Immunotherapies can be effective even without causing significant tumor shrinkage. Immunocore's drug KimTrack had a low 5-7% objective response rate (ORR) but demonstrated a massive overall survival (OS) benefit, challenging the reliance on traditional chemotherapy metrics for evaluating modern cancer treatments.
The speakers highlight that negative trials in kidney cancer, which showed no benefit to immunotherapy re-challenge, were "super helpful." This is because they provided definitive evidence to stop a common clinical practice that was not helping patients and potentially causing harm, underscoring the constructive role of well-designed "failed" studies.