An advisory panel split 50/50 on a two-year immunotherapy regimen but voted 7-to-1 for a one-year drug with similar efficacy. This reveals that for adjuvant therapies in non-metastatic cancer, halving the treatment duration and toxicity exposure can decisively shift the risk/benefit calculation in favor of approval.

The failure of an adjuvant trial for the TKI pazopanib was likely caused by a protocol change that reduced the dose to manage transaminitis. While well-intentioned to improve tolerability and adherence, the lower dose was sub-therapeutic. This serves as a critical lesson that managing side effects by compromising dose can nullify a drug's potential efficacy.

Even in healthcare systems with universal free access, like the UK's NHS, the actual uptake of immunotherapy for metastatic kidney cancer is only about 60%. This real-world gap strengthens the argument for adjuvant therapy, as it ensures high-risk patients receive potentially life-saving treatment they might otherwise miss upon relapse.

Radioligand therapy has a unique toxicity profile, described as 'the gift that keeps on giving,' where side effects can worsen even after the treatment course is complete. This contrasts with chemotherapy like docetaxel, where a patient's quality of life often rebounds and improves once the drug is stopped.

A critical distinction exists between a clinical adverse event (AE) and its impact on a patient's quality of life (QOL). For example, a drop in platelet count is a reportable AE, but the patient may be asymptomatic and feel fine. This highlights the need to look beyond toxicity tables to understand the true patient experience.

Despite exciting early efficacy data for in vivo CAR-T therapies, the modality's future hinges on the critical unanswered question of durability. How long the therapeutic effects last, for which there is little data, will ultimately determine its clinical viability and applications in cancer versus autoimmune diseases.

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.

A sophisticated concern regarding the HIF-2 inhibitor belzutifan is its potential to diminish kidney cancer's antigenicity by reducing human endogenous retrovirus expression. While providing an early benefit, this could theoretically make tumors less responsive to subsequent immunotherapies, negatively impacting long-term outcomes—a critical consideration for sequencing.