Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

Instead of basing adjuvant radiation decisions on a patient's initial, pre-treatment tumor stage, clinicians should use the post-neoadjuvant pathological stage (ypTNM). Patients with a major pathologic response (e.g., downstaging from T3 to T1) may be able to safely avoid additional adjuvant radiation therapy.

Related Insights

As neoadjuvant enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EVP) achieves high pathologic complete response rates in MIBC, a critical question emerges: is adjuvant EVP necessary for everyone? Continuing treatment in patients who are already cancer-free post-surgery may offer no extra benefit while increasing toxicity.

The success of immunotherapy in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings has rendered the traditional, sequential referral model (dermatologist to surgeon to oncologist) obsolete. Optimal care now demands an integrated, team-based discussion among all specialists *before* the first treatment decision is made to determine the best sequence and timing.

While neoadjuvant immunotherapy shows astounding success in MSI-high rectal cancer, the primary difficulty for clinicians lies in accurately assessing complete response via endoscopy and MRI, and managing unique complications like mucin pools or stenosis, rather than simply administering the treatment.

Achieving a pathologic complete response (path CR) in the bladder after neoadjuvant therapy is a marker of drug efficacy, not a signal to stop treatment. Because patients die from metastatic, not local, disease, a path CR should be seen as a reason to "double down" on the effective systemic therapy to eradicate micrometastases.

While neoadjuvant-only immunotherapy has a strong rationale, a patient-level cross-trial comparison of CheckMate 816 (neoadjuvant) and 770T (perioperative) suggests the addition of adjuvant therapy improves event-free survival, favoring a full perioperative approach.

With 72% response rates to neoadjuvant immunotherapy, surgeons are shifting from immediate, aggressive surgery to a "wait-and-see" approach. Shrinking the tumor first can turn a morbid, disfiguring operation into a much simpler procedure, fundamentally changing the initial surgical evaluation for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC).

A leading hypothesis for why adding immunotherapy to chemoradiation failed is that radiation, particularly for central tumors, destroys the very lymphocytes immunotherapy aims to activate. This biological mechanism suggests the radiation essentially canceled out the drug's intended effect.

Data from trials like CheckMate 816 shows that achieving a Pathologic Complete Response (PCR) after neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy is a powerful early surrogate endpoint. Patients with PCR demonstrate markedly improved overall and event-free survival.

In a neoadjuvant cemiplimab trial, only 6% of patients had a complete response based on radiographic imaging (RECIST criteria), yet 50% achieved a pathologic complete response. This major discrepancy shows clinicians should not rely solely on scans to assess treatment benefit before surgery.

Dr. Radvanyi advocates for a paradigm shift: treating almost all cancers with neoadjuvant immunotherapy immediately after diagnosis. This "kickstarts" an immune response before standard treatments like surgery and chemotherapy, which are known to be immunosuppressive, can weaken the patient's natural defenses against the tumor.