While neoadjuvant pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-689) is now standard of care for resectable head and neck cancer, it carries a critical risk. During the pre-surgical treatment window, some patients may experience disease progression or toxicity that makes them ineligible for their planned curative surgery.

The discontinuation rate for pembrolizumab due to side effects was lower in the LITESPARK 022 trial compared to the earlier Keynote 564 trial (20%). This trend suggests that as clinicians gain more experience with immune checkpoint inhibitors, they are becoming more adept at managing immune-related adverse events, allowing more patients to complete their therapy.

The lack of a placebo arm in some adjuvant trials is not necessarily a fatal flaw. One expert view is that it mirrors real-world practice where treatments are known. This perspective places trust in the investigators' ability to assess disease progression accurately without blinding.

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.

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.

Even when trials like LITESPARK 022 and Keynote 564 use identical eligibility criteria, outdated staging systems result in patient populations with different underlying risks. This makes direct comparison of outcomes between trials, even for the same drug, an unfair and statistically flawed analysis that ignores the function of a control arm.

While KEYNOTE-905 showed dramatic survival benefits with neoadjuvant plus adjuvant EV-pembrolizumab, its design makes it impossible to isolate the benefit of each phase. The high (57%) pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant therapy alone suggests many patients may be overtreated with adjuvant cycles, risking unnecessary long-term toxicity like neuropathy.

Designing a randomized trial to compare surgery versus systemic therapy alone is nearly impossible. A previous attempt, the SPARE study, failed to recruit because clinicians and patients already had strong pre-existing opinions on the best course of action, a bias that persists today.