The consensus for "event-free survival" (EFS) in bladder-sparing trials is now highly inclusive, counting even high-grade superficial (non-muscle invasive) relapses as events. This is a deliberately conservative choice to maximize patient safety and preempt the risk of these relapses leading to metastasis.

Experts caution that the new consensus definition of cCR, combining imaging and cystoscopy, is for clinical trials only. Applying it prematurely in routine practice could harm patients, as its correlation with true pathologic response is still being validated with modern therapies.

The trial's 57.1% pathologic complete response (pCR) rate is deceptively conservative. It categorized patients who responded well but declined surgery as non-responders, suggesting the treatment's true biological efficacy is even higher than the already impressive reported figure.

Major trials in prostate (PEACE-2), bladder (Keynote B15), and kidney cancer (LITESPARK-022) showcase a common strategy: moving potent systemic therapies into earlier, curative-intent settings. This approach of using the best drugs sooner aims to improve long-term outcomes, though it also raises questions about toxicity and 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.

Despite strong efficacy data, the drug DV-Toripalimab scored lower than a competitor (2.5 vs 3.0). Experts attribute this confidence gap to its Phase 3 trial being conducted only in China, which raises generalizability concerns and reflects a lack of hands-on experience for Western physicians.

The BREAKAWAY trial's OS data is from a small, crossover-allowed study, making it hard to interpret alone. However, its findings are believable because they align with and reinforce a "building body of evidence" from larger trials like PROPEL and TALA PRO 2, which also show a survival benefit for PARP inhibitor combinations.

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.

An expert oncologist identified a pathological complete response (pCR) rate over 50% as the benchmark that would fundamentally alter treatment. The EV Pembro trial's 57% pCR rate crossed this threshold, forcing a shift from a surgery-centric model toward bladder preservation strategies and systemic therapy.