While platinum chemotherapy is considered the standard treatment after a patient progresses on a first-line ADC-IO combination, experts admit this is a standard "based on nothing." There is no clinical trial data to prove its efficacy in this specific setting; it serves only as a placeholder for new clinical trials.
Related Insights
The investigator-led PLUTO trial found docetaxel chemotherapy provided a better overall survival benefit than lutetium in first-line mCRPC. This result directly confronts the common clinical bias against chemotherapy ("chemophobia"), proving that older treatments can still outperform newer targeted agents and should not be prematurely abandoned.
An expert argues the path to curing metastatic cancer may mirror pediatric ALL's history: combining all highly active drugs upfront. Instead of sequencing treatments after failure, the focus should be on powerful initial regimens that eradicate cancer, even if it means higher initial toxicity.
The panel reviews advanced, second-line ADC trials in China using novel targets and payloads. An expert remarks that these are the drugs and questions the US and Europe may only begin to study in two to three years, signaling a significant shift in the global oncology R&D landscape.
In the absence of direct evidence for adjuvant therapy in high-risk, non-clear cell kidney cancers, clinicians may justify off-label treatment by extrapolating from the drug's known efficacy in the metastatic setting for that specific histology. This highlights the difficult risk-benefit calculations made daily in data-poor clinical scenarios.
With highly active agents yielding 30% complete response rates, the immediate goal should be to cure more patients by exploring potent combinations upfront. While sequencing minimizes toxicity, an ambitious combination strategy, such as ADC doublets, offers the best chance to eradicate disease and should be prioritized in clinical trials.
The common practice of switching from one ARPI to another upon disease progression is now considered ineffective for most patients. With the advent of proven alternatives like chemotherapy and lutetium, using an "ARPI switch" as the sole control arm in clinical trials is no longer ethically or scientifically sound.
The failure of the TROPiCS-04 trial for sacituzumab govitecan may not indicate the TROP2 ADC class is ineffective. Experts suggest problems with dosing and toxicity management (e.g., neutropenia) during the trial could be the real culprit, arguing that the drug class still holds promise.
Rather than moving through distinct lines of therapy, a future strategy could involve an "ADC switch." When a patient progresses on an ADC-IO combination, the IO backbone would remain while the ADC is swapped for one with a different, non-cross-resistant mechanism, adapting the treatment in real-time.
A significant criticism of the pivotal KEYNOTE-564 trial is that only half the patients in the control arm received standard-of-care immunotherapy upon relapse. This lack of subsequent optimal treatment complicates the interpretation of the overall survival benefit, raising questions about its true magnitude.
Experts believe the stark difference in complete response rates (5% vs 30%) between two major ADC trials is likely due to "noise"—variations in patient populations (e.g., more upper tract disease) and stricter central review criteria, rather than a fundamental difference in the therapies' effectiveness.