The AscentO3 trial lacked an overall survival benefit for its primary endpoint because its design ethically allowed patients on the chemotherapy arm to receive sacituzumab govitecan upon progression. This 'crossover' improves care for the control group but makes it statistically difficult to demonstrate a first-line survival advantage.
Related Insights
Despite the ASCENT-07 trial failing its primary progression-free survival (PFS) endpoint, an early overall survival (OS) signal emerged. This divergence suggests the drug may confer a survival advantage not captured by the initial endpoint, complicating the definition of a "negative" trial and warranting further follow-up.
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 control arm in the EMBARK study was blinded to PSA results, preventing physicians from intervening with standard-of-care AR antagonists at PSA progression. This design likely delayed subsequent effective therapies, making the control arm underperform and potentially exaggerating the overall survival benefit of the experimental arms.
In the ASCENT-07 trial, investigators may have prematurely switched patients from the standard chemotherapy arm to superior, commercially available ADCs at the first hint of progression. This real-world practice can mask an experimental drug's true benefit on progression-free survival.
Developers often test novel agents in late-line settings because the control arm is weaker, increasing the statistical chance of success. However, this strategy may doom effective immunotherapies by testing them in biologically hostile, resistant tumors, masking their true potential.
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.
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.
Clinical trial data shows that despite specific toxicities, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) can be better tolerated overall than standard chemotherapy. For example, trials for both sacituzumab govitecan and dato-DXd reported fewer patients discontinuing treatment in the ADC arm compared to the chemotherapy arm.