The CREST trial showed benefit driven by patients with carcinoma in situ (CIS), while the Potomac trial showed a lack of benefit in the same subgroup. This stark inconsistency demonstrates that subgroup analyses, even for stratified factors, can be unreliable and are a weak basis for regulatory decisions or label restrictions.
Related Insights
The negative ANSA-RAD trial, when contrasted with the positive STAMPEDE trial, demonstrates that patient selection is paramount in adjuvant therapy. The difference in outcomes was driven by risk definition, not the drug. This reinforces that "negative" trials are clinically vital for defining which patient populations do not benefit, preventing widespread overtreatment.
The FDA's critique of both CREST and Potomac trials highlights that while event-free survival (EFS) endpoints were met, the lack of improvement in overall survival or prevention of muscle-invasive disease makes the risk/benefit profile questionable for an early-stage cancer, where treatment-related harm is a primary concern.
Praxis Interactive's essential tremor drug succeeded in Phase 3 despite an earlier data monitoring committee (DMC) recommendation to stop for futility. This rare outcome shows that interim analyses on a small fraction of patients can be misleading due to high variance, and continuing a trial against DMC advice can be a winning strategy.
The FDA is predicted to approve new PARP inhibitors from trials like AMPLITUDE only for BRCA-mutated patients, restricting use to where data is strongest. This contrasts with the EMA's potential for broader approvals or denials. This highlights the diverging regulatory philosophies that create different drug access landscapes in the US and Europe.
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.
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.
The CREST trial's positive primary endpoint, assessed by investigators in an open-label setting, was rendered negative upon review by a blinded independent committee. This highlights the critical risk of confirmation bias and the immense weight regulators place on blinded data to determine a drug's true efficacy, especially when endpoints are subjective.
Three 2025 trials (AMPLITUDE, PSMA-addition, CAPItello) introduced personalized therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. However, significant benefits were confined to narrow subgroups, like BRCA-mutated patients. This suggests future success depends on even more stringent patient selection, not broader application of targeted agents.
The successful KEYNOTE-564 trial intentionally used a pragmatic patient selection model based on universally available pathology data like TNM stage and grade. This approach avoids complex, inconsistently applied nomograms, ensuring broader real-world applicability and potentially smoother trial execution compared to studies relying on more niche scoring systems.
The PSMA edition trial's fixed six-cycle Lutetium regimen, designed nearly a decade ago, is now seen as suboptimal. This illustrates how the long duration of clinical trials means their design may not reflect the latest scientific understanding (e.g., adaptive dosing) by the time results are published and debated.