Instead of a traditional chemotherapy comparison, Divarasib's registrational study is a head-to-head trial against approved KRAS G12C inhibitors. This trial design reflects a strategic shift towards proving superiority within a new drug class, not just efficacy against older standards of care.

A key hypothesis for why docetaxel showed better overall survival than lutetium in the PLUTO trial is that patients treated with lutetium upfront may become unfit for subsequent chemotherapy. This highlights a critical factor in trial design: the planned therapeutic sequence and a patient's ability to receive later-line treatments significantly impact survival 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.

The Right Choice trial shows CDK4/6 inhibitors are safer and better at delaying cancer progression than chemotherapy for patients with visceral metastases. However, this advantage doesn't translate to longer overall survival, suggesting the key benefit is improved quality of life and a less complex treatment regimen rather than longevity.

For antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) to make a meaningful impact in prostate cancer, the clinical development bar is exceptionally high. Merely showing activity in late-line settings is insufficient; the true measure of success is demonstrating superiority over the established chemotherapy standard, docetaxel.

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.

The PR21 trial showed better overall survival for docetaxel followed by Lutetium, despite similar progression-free survival. The likely reason is not drug superiority but patient behavior: a higher percentage of patients complete the second therapy when starting with chemo, highlighting how treatment fatigue significantly impacts 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.