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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Treating 'non-clear cell' kidney cancer as a single entity is a major research limitation. Experts argue that distinct histologies like papillary and chromophobe are different diseases. Future progress requires dedicated, international trials for each subtype rather than grouping them due to rarity.

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.

The FDA's current leadership appears to be raising the bar for approvals based on single-arm studies. Especially in slowly progressing diseases with variable endpoints, the agency now requires an effect so dramatic it's akin to a parachute's benefit—unmistakable and not subject to interpretation against historical data.