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.

Unlike rectal cancer where MRI aids response assessment, MSI-high colon cancer lacks a reliable imaging modality to confirm a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant immunotherapy. This makes a "watch and wait" approach far more challenging and not currently recommended outside of a clinical trial.

The practice-changing DYNAMIC trial showed that a ctDNA-guided strategy for stage II colorectal cancer reduces adjuvant chemotherapy use by 50%. Despite this significant de-escalation of treatment, patient outcomes and survival rates were identical to the standard-of-care approach.

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.

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.

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.

In a phase 2 trial, the combination of zanidatumab and FOLFOX achieved a remarkable 95% response rate after two key modifications were made: adding prophylactic loperamide and dropping the 5-FU bolus. This suggests the bolus adds toxicity without clear benefit in this specific, potent combination.

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.

Observational data from the BESPOKE study showed that the survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy was only seen in patients who tested positive for ctDNA post-surgery. In contrast, ctDNA-negative patients had overlapping survival curves whether they received chemotherapy or not, questioning its utility for that group.