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 Rampart study's main contribution wasn't its specific drug data, but that it became the second positive trial in the adjuvant kidney cancer space. This balanced the 'scorecard' against multiple negative trials, reinforcing the general principle that early immune therapy is beneficial.

Despite strong data favoring pre-surgical systemic therapy, a surgeon argues that many patients will continue to undergo surgery first. This is due to real-world factors like surgeons being the point of diagnosis, urgent symptoms requiring rapid intervention, and patient preferences to have the tumor removed immediately.

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.

When a highly effective therapy like EV Pembro was approved for 'cisplatin ineligible' patients, the definition of 'ineligible' became very elastic in practice. This demonstrates that when a new treatment is seen as transformative, clinicians find ways to qualify patients, putting pressure on established guidelines.

In adjuvant bladder cancer trials, ctDNA status is both prognostic and predictive. Patients with positive ctDNA after surgery are at high risk of relapse but benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. Conversely, ctDNA-negative patients have a lower risk and derive no benefit, making ctDNA a critical tool to avoid unnecessary, toxic therapy.

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 AMPLITUDE trial, only 16% of high-risk metastatic prostate cancer patients received docetaxel, despite it being allowed and indicated by disease characteristics. This suggests a real-world "chemophobia" or physician bias towards newer targeted therapies, even within a clinical trial setting.

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.