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.
Related Insights
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.
Unicure's experience reveals a significant regulatory risk: the FDA can reverse its position on a pre-agreed Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP). Despite prior alignment on using a natural history control, the agency later told the company this approach was merely 'exploratory,' invalidating their filing strategy and shocking investors.
A blinded central radiology review is not the absolute gold standard for assessing patient progression. Expert clinicians argue their holistic assessment, incorporating the patient's clinical status and other biomarkers alongside scans, provides critical context that a disconnected reviewer lacks.
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.
Despite strong data favoring pre-surgical systemic therapy, a surgeon argues that many patients will continue to undergo surgery first. This is due to real-world factors like surgeons being the point of diagnosis, urgent symptoms requiring rapid intervention, and patient preferences to have the tumor removed immediately.
Despite strong efficacy data, the drug DV-Toripalimab scored lower than a competitor (2.5 vs 3.0). Experts attribute this confidence gap to its Phase 3 trial being conducted only in China, which raises generalizability concerns and reflects a lack of hands-on experience for Western physicians.
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.
Modernizing trials is less about new tools and more about adopting a risk-proportional mindset, as outlined in ICH E6(R3) guidelines. This involves focusing rigorous oversight on critical data and processes while applying lighter, more automated checks elsewhere, breaking the industry's habit of treating all data with the same level of manual scrutiny.
Experts are divided on the optimal strategy for CT-DNA negative patients post-surgery. One side advocates for monitoring to spare patients from unnecessary treatment toxicity, while the other questions if this delay is non-inferior to immediate adjuvant therapy, a critical question not yet answered by trials.
The ultimate validation for a new medical treatment is when physicians themselves start using it. The high rate of GLP-1 drug use among neuroscientists and other doctors, who have the deepest understanding of the risks and benefits, is a powerful signal of the drug's effectiveness.
